The Socialist Revolution
- This topic has 32 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
MutualAid wrote “L. Bird, I am a materialist, but don’t expect everyone else to be.”
No problem, MA. There are lots of people who claim to be a ‘materialist’, including most (if not all) who post here.
The point I’m making is that Marx wasn’t a ‘materialist’, but an ‘idealist-materialist’.
The difference between ‘idealist’, ‘materialist’ and ‘idealist-materialist’ is as follows:
- An ‘idealist’ believes that ‘consciousness’ precedes ‘matter’. The active agent is the divine. Humanity is passive, and cannot change ‘god’.
- A ‘materialist’ believes that ‘matter’ precedes ‘consciousness’. The active agent is ‘matter’. Humanity is passive, and cannot change ‘matter’.
- An ‘idealist-materialist’ (following Marx) believes that both ‘consciousness and matter’ must exist together. The active agent is humanity, which creates both ‘matter’ and ‘consciousness’, and can change both.
- Democracy in all social production can only exist in the latter. Neither idealists nor materialists will allow the democratic control of the production of truth, and claim that ‘truth’ is related to ‘god’ (idealism) or ‘matter’ (materialism). They both claim that an elite is responsible for ‘truth production’, and thus won’t allow a vote by the mass.
Matthew Culbert wrote: “LBird is still being absurd, when he indicates specialists will be constitued as ‘elites’ in an advanced, commonly owned , democratic, production for use free access society. They will be no more so, than plumbers, infotech coders, or anyone else whose expertise is drawn upon.”
Well, I’ve asked you, and any other SPGB member, to say who, within your notion of democratic socialism, will determine ‘truth’.
Whenever I’ve asked this, I’ve either been ignored, or had the answer ‘Specialists’.
‘Drawing upon expertise’ suggests to me that political control of that ‘advice’ will lie with the majority, not the expert.
Thus, the ‘expertise’ can be rejected.
The SPGB has always suggested that the ‘specialists’ will control their ‘specialisms’.
Perhaps you can give me a political answer, rather than calling the demand for ‘democracy’ as ‘absurd’.
Well, I’ve asked you, and any other SPGB member, to say who, within your notion of democratic socialism, will determine ‘truth’.
A daft question. Truth is relative. Scientific truth likely to be so. with no right or wrong ‘truth’ answers. The choice of which particular answer to various scientific enquiry, will be most likely varied land a range of options will most likely be available, to be decided upon at any time, by whichever criteria people at the time deem appropriate.
Raya Dunayevskaya wrote on Marxism and Freedom that Marx was the most idealist of the materialist philosophers and the most materialist of the idealist philosopher, and that is idealism/materialism, or vice versa and that is the basis of the current known as Marxism humanism
Matthew Culbert wrote: “A daft question. Truth is relative. Scientific truth likely to be so. with no right or wrong ‘truth’ answers. The choice of which particular answer to various scientific enquiry, will be most likely varied land a range of options will most likely be available, to be decided upon at any time, by whichever criteria people at the time deem appropriate.”
Well, it might be ‘a daft question’ for your political position, Matt, but it’s of the utmost importance to democratic socialists and Marxists.
Once more, ‘who’ deems, and ‘how’?
The simple answers for democratic socialists is ‘the social producers’ and ‘by democratic methods’.
To be clear, the ‘social producers’ are the mass of humanity, not an ‘elite’, and by ‘democracy’ is meant ‘voting’.
Thus, ‘truth’ is relative to the democratic decisions of humanity. Thus, ‘truth’ will be ‘elected’.
marcos wrote: “Raya Dunayevskaya wrote on Marxism and Freedom that Marx was the most idealist of the materialist philosophers and the most materialist of the idealist philosopher, and that is idealism/materialism, or vice versa and that is the basis of the current known as Marxism humanism”
Yes, I’ve read Dunayevskaya (amongst many others), and on this point, about Marx being an ‘idealist-materialist’, I agree with her. After all, as she says, it’s what Marx himself wrote.
It seems clear that any notion of Marx’s method of ‘social theory and practice’ being the basis of our social production, requires that both consciousness and activity are required. ‘Matter’ is a social product of our activity, not of god, and we are not a passive product of matter’s activity.
Even Engels recognised that ‘matter’ was a social product. As to why he seemed to also think that ‘nature’ pre-existed us, we can’t be sure. He seems to have been confused by philosophical issues, and it shows in his work, which is contradictory.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1958/dunayevskaya.htm
This is what Paul Mattick wrote about Dunayevskaya
Looks like today’s working class can barely achieve Trades Union consciousness never mind class self-awareness. But I think it will come about in some flash. Some viral thing as was mentioned earlier.
Interesting to read Peter Joseph’s comments on Twitter of late. The guy is totally disillusioned. He’s promoting the idea of Universal Basic Income now. (Maybe he always did?) Also the latest word in his lexicon is “Structuralism” whatever that means. He thinks UBI is a short cut to Resource Based Economy. Without any need for class conscious revolution.
Just a shame Zeitgeist seemed to atrophy. I thought it was really going somewhere a decade ago. But they are neither democratically or politically organised.
Genuine question, L Bird (congratulations on the Championship by the way), when you say “Even Engels recognised that ‘matter’ was a social product.”, do you mean that Engles recognised the concept and cognitive understandings of matter were a social product and an interplay between the idealist (idea of matter) and the materialist (whatever it was that gave rise to the idea)
Bijou Drains wrote: “Genuine question, L Bird… , when you say “Even Engels recognised that ‘matter’ was a social product.”, do you mean that Engles recognised the concept and cognitive understandings of matter were a social product...”
No, that’s not what Engels ‘recognised’, BD. That is, not ‘the concept and cognitive understandings’ (to use your phraseology), but ‘matter’ itself (to give a name to what you, as a materialist, seem to believe in – no insult meant here, just trying to clarify our differences, as I’m not a materialist, I follow Marx’s social productionism).
“N.B. Matter as such is a pure creation of thought and an abstraction.” (Engels, Collected Works, Volume 25, p. 533) [my bold]
Engels words seem to be a reference to ‘matter-in-itself’, as opposed to ‘matter-for-us’. These, of course, are the Kantian categories, that all German Idealists, including Marx, wrestled with. So, as with Marx, Engels here seems to recognise that any ‘matter’ (whether termed ‘-in-itself’ or ‘-for-us’) is a social product, which we can thus change (which was Marx’s key political and philosophical point – human activity, labour, production).
Bijou Drains wrote: “…an interplay between the idealist (idea of matter) and the materialist (whatever it was that gave rise to the idea)“.
Once again, BD, you conceptually separate ‘ideas’ and ‘it’, and assume that ‘ideas’ reflect ‘it’. This is a political ideology that Marx rejected. Any ‘it’ does not give rise to ‘ideas’ (that is a materialist ideology, of ‘ideas’ being a ‘reflection’ of ‘reality’, of a ‘correspondence theory of truth’). What gives ‘rise to the idea’ is humanity – specifically, human conscious activity, social production. The alternative is an ideology that insists that humans are passive in the face of ‘it’, ‘reality’, ‘truth’, whatever ‘it’ is termed. But if that is correct, then we can’t change ‘it’ (‘it’ not being our product).
Marx held that ‘consciousness-being’, ‘subject-object’, ‘ideas-reality’, ‘ideal-material’, etc. can’t be separated, and that activity is the link. Marx achieved the aim of German Idealism, which was to reconcile ‘idealism’ and ‘materialism’. Idealism focused on ‘activity’ (and so defeated passive materialism), but the ‘activity’ that it fastened upon was ‘divine activity’ (god’s production). Marx corrected that finding of German Idealism, by making the ‘activity’ a ‘profane’ one – ie. Human activity.
Marx reconciled ‘idealism’ and ‘materialism’, in a politics and philosophy of human activity, our labour, social production.
PS. thanks for the congrats. 🙂
Either you believe that the class struggle is the dynamic element driving social change or you don’t. If you do it would be absurd to not mention Marx as one who developed this theory – why would you want to? It would be as ridiculous as discussing physics without mentioning Einstein or Biology without reference to Darwin. If you do not regard the class struggle to be of primary importance in cultural development then you are not a socialist.
We have been dealing with this thing about idealism/materialism, or materialism/idealism for years, and most of the time the thread is taking out of context
Wez wrote: “Either you believe that the class struggle is the dynamic element driving social change or you don’t. ”
I couldn’t agree more, Wez. But it’s the materialists who don’t believe that ‘social change’ in physics, mathematics, logic, etc. is driven by class struggle. ‘Materialists’ regard ‘science’ as an ahistorical, asocial, politically-neutral activity, which is best left to an elite. Of course, this is an ideological belief introduced by the bourgeoisie, with their class struggle victory during the 17th century, especially in England – for example, the setting up of the Royal Society with the restoration in 1660, after the defeat of the radicals during the class struggle in science, where the radical scientists argued for a democratic science. The key step in the counterrevolutionaries’ victory was the separation of ‘science’ and ‘society’ (or, ‘matter’ and ‘ideas’, or ‘being’ and ‘consciousness’, or ‘science’ and ‘art’, or ‘material’ and ‘ideal’, or ‘fact’ and ‘opinion’, etc.) – this ideological belief is still ‘the ruling class idea’ which dominates contemporary ‘science’. The ‘materialists’ abet this ruling class idea.
Wez wrote: “If you do it would be absurd to not mention Marx as one who developed this theory – why would you want to? It would be as ridiculous as discussing physics without mentioning Einstein or Biology without reference to Darwin.”
Yes, as ‘ridiculous as discussing physics…or biology without mentioning’ Marx. But the ‘materialists’ constantly do just this. They are ‘absurd’.
Wez wrote: “If you do not regard the class struggle to be of primary importance in cultural development then you are not a socialist.” [my bold]
The word is ‘scientific’, Wez, not simply ‘cultural’.
You are separating ‘science’ from ‘culture’, just as the bourgeois ruling ideas insist that you do.
As any Marxist, any democratic socialist, will tell you: “If you do not regard the class struggle to be of primary importance in scientific development then you are not a socialist.”
If you’re waiting for matter’s victory in the class struggle, Wez, you’re going to have a long wait.
You’d be better putting your faith in your fellow workers – which brings us back to MutualAid’s lack of this faith. MutualAid, just like all ‘materialists’ has faith in ‘matter’, not active conscious humanity, and their social production.
Marx re-unified where the bourgeoisie had separated. Why argue for the separation of ‘science’ and ‘society’, and against democratic physics?
Marx argued for a revolutionary science, not the mere acceptance of what ruling class scientists say.
marcos wrote: “We have been dealing with this thing about idealism/materialism, or materialism/idealism for years, and most of the time the thread is taking out of context”
Perhaps some socio-historical ‘context’ can be provided, marcos. I’ve recommended this before, as reading for democratic socialists who are interested in the origins of ‘science’:
Connor, C. D. (2005) A People’s History of Science
Especially chapter 6, ‘Who were the winners in the scientific revolution?‘, pp. 349-421.
The book’s concerns, and your obsession, with elitist exclusivism, is a product of class society, which will not apply in the advanced, commonly owned , production for use, free access society, which is run by us all locally, regionally, globally using democratic methods and delegation with instant recall as determined and required at the time.
There will be no ‘elites’ having ‘power’ put into their hands.
We will require specialisms. But considerations about decisions about which applications of those will prevail, will reside within an informed society.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.