Z A Jordan and Marx’s epistemology

[jondwhite]

The German Ideology wrote:

Once upon a time a valiant fellow had the idea that men were drowned in water only because they were possessed with the idea of gravity. If they were to knock this notion out of their heads, say by stating it to be a superstition, a religious concept, they would be sublimely proof against any danger from water. His whole life long he fought against the illusion of gravity, of whose harmful results all statistics brought him new and manifold evidence. This valiant fellow was the type of the new revolutionary philosophers in Germany.

Sorry if this is nothing to do with it but this is from Marx which I thought was relevant.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

The German Ideology wrote:

Once upon a time a valiant fellow had the idea that men were drowned in water only because they were possessed with the idea of gravity. If they were to knock this notion out of their heads, say by stating it to be a superstition, a religious concept, they would be sublimely proof against any danger from water. His whole life long he fought against the illusion of gravity, of whose harmful results all statistics brought him new and manifold evidence. This valiant fellow was the type of the new revolutionary philosophers in Germany.

Sorry if this is nothing to do with it but this is from Marx which I thought was relevant.

Yes, Marx was as critical of the idealists as he was of the materialists, jdw.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

By 'material', Marx means 'human', as opposed to 'ideal' meaning 'divine'.So, by 'material production', Marx means 'social production'.

You're going to have to provcide textual proof of those claims: you've made them before, but if, humpty style, Marx says what you want him to say, thios conversation is pointless.Further, can I ask: what wopuld it take to dirsprove Marx?  What would demonstrate that he was wrong on that subject?

I've provided evidence many times, YMS, but the Religious Materialists, like you, won't read it.Marx was wrong in what he wrote many times – that's clear from his texts that appear to support the Religious Materialists. In effect, he contradicted himself.Workers who look to Democratic Communism have to decide for themselves what parts of Marx's works are in the interests and for the purposes of the revolutionary proletariat in the 21st century, taking into account the developments in physics since Einstein.Marx's works can provide the basis for a revolutionary science.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Marx was wrong in what he wrote many times – that's clear from his texts that appear to support the Religious Materialists. In effect, he contradicted himself.

So does that make him an materialist and 'Engelist'   

[Anonymous]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

In addition, if Marx meant "Social Production", when he used the phrase "Material Production", why did he not just use the phrase "Social Production" in the first place?

He would have, if LBird had been around to correct him.Just like the rest of us fools, Marx was confused.

[Anonymous]

Vin wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

In addition, if Marx meant "Social Production", when he used the phrase "Material Production", why did he not just use the phrase "Social Production" in the first place?

He would have, if LBird had been around to correct him.Just like the rest of us fools, Marx was confused.

There is an ironic passage in the life of Marx and Engels. The thing is that, Engels was first the economists and the mathematician before Marx, and then Karl Marx  had to study Mathematics and Political EconomyWhen the 1844 Manuscripts were written (  also known as the Paris Notebook ) at that moment Philosophy was the main source of analysis, and that motivated Marx to go deeper into the field of Economic, and his friend Engels was the one that motivated him to do that.We have to understand that  many  concepts  written  by Marx and Engels were developed thru the march of the development of capitalism, as we can see on several of their preface, they also modified  and corrected  some of their ideas.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

Marx was wrong in what he wrote many times – that's clear from his texts that appear to support the Religious Materialists. In effect, he contradicted himself.

So does that make him an materialist and 'Engelist'   

Taken in the sole context of those views, yes, it does.But taken in the wider context of what Marx also wrote, and more often, it doesn't.That's what you have to form a view about, Vin.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

There is an ironic passage in the life of Marx and Engels. The thing is that, Engels was first the economists and the mathematician before Marx, and then Karl Marx  had to study Mathematics and Political EconomyWhen the 1844 Manuscripts were written (  also known as the Paris Notebook ) at that moment Philosophy was the main source of analysis, and that motivated Marx to go deeper into the field of Economic, and his friend Engels was the one that motivated him to do that.We have to understand that  many  concepts  written  by Marx and Engels were developed thru the march of the development of capitalism, as we can see on several of their preface, they also modified  and corrected  some of their ideas.

I couldn't agree more with what you've written here, mcolome1.Your historical account of their relationship is a good one, and your desire to understand the development, modification and correction of their ideas, is spot on.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

YMS wrote:

Lbird wrote:

By 'material', Marx means 'human', as opposed to 'ideal' meaning 'divine'.So, by 'material production', Marx means 'social production'.

You're going to have to provide textual proof of those claims: you've made them before, but if, humpty style, Marx says what you want him to say, thios conversation is pointless.

I've provided evidence many times, YMS, but the Religious Materialists, like you, won't read it.

You've never provided evidence that where Marx wrote 'Material' he meant human.And you see, I make out that Marx was a pretty clear writer, you say he was obstruse, and when he says something clear that you don't like, you maintain, humpty-dumpty style, that he meant something else.  Workers looking at how to use Marx' works would be wise to take that into consideration when weighing your argument.  You could also help them weigh their argument if you could suggest to them what would help invalidate Marx' theories on science and epistemology.  If I saw rising wages and a rising share of the social product going to capital, I'd know that Marx' theory of exploitation had been invalidated, and would say so: would you?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

YMS wrote:

Lbird wrote:

By 'material', Marx means 'human', as opposed to 'ideal' meaning 'divine'.So, by 'material production', Marx means 'social production'.

You're going to have to provide textual proof of those claims: you've made them before, but if, humpty style, Marx says what you want him to say, thios conversation is pointless.

I've provided evidence many times, YMS, but the Religious Materialists, like you, won't read it.

You've never provided evidence that where Marx wrote 'Material' he meant human.

I've constantly provided evidence from Marx's works, which are entirely about social production, not matter.To your ideology, this evidence is meaningless, because you're a Religious Materialist, who is interested in 'matter' and 'individuals', and who is not interested in Marx's concerns about democratic control of social production by the producers.You're going to have to accept that this is my answer to you, YMS, because I've tried many times before and failed due to your ideological assumptions. If you want to know more, read Jordan or Marx (or the old thread, where we discussed these issues, concerning Marx and 'material'). I'm not going over it all again with you.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

I've constantly provided evidence from Marx's works, which are entirely about social production, not matter.

But you've never presented evidence that where he said 'matter' he meant human: which is why when I post quotes from Marx that suggest he did believe in the existence of matter, you seem to discount them (because they would seem to rebut your reading).  Now, if Marx did mean 'human' when he wrote 'matter' there would have to be some textual evidence of this, otherwise you're just reading sideways to justify your reading.You see, whenever I read Marx, and find evidence contrary to your views, you retreat into the sealed circle that only people who agree with you already can understand you.  Anyone who doesn't understand you doesn't agree with you, and it's their ideology, not your argumentetive methods (or your readings) that are at fault.To be clear: you have never proven, nor even attempted to prove, that where Marx wrote material, he meant human.  A simple account of why Marx might use words in a different meaning (for instance, if I was discussing Georges Bataille, I wold explain what homogenous and hetrogenous mean in his works, because he does use, erm, heterodox connotations for those words, and I would be able to back up that reading with textual evidence).

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

To be clear: you have never proven, nor even attempted to prove, that where Marx wrote material, he meant human.

I've not only proven, but proven beyond doubt, Marx's views about social production and the democratic control of that production.The problem is, Marx's arguments can never be proven to those who disagree with Marx's views (based on his beliefs, assumptions, politics and epistemology).And as I've said time and again, the reason for this is that you don't share Marx's views, so you can't agree with (or even understand) his arguments.The only way for you (and other Religious Materialists) to understand is to examine your own ideological beliefs.But… your ideology tells you that it's not an ideology, and so you continue to argue that Marx not talking about 'humanity' (read Jordan, again), but 'matter', because that is the central concern of your ideology.For workers seeking a social revolution, only Marx's arguments about the creation of their reality by themselves makes any sense, because that means that they can change their reality.For Religious Materialists, who insist they 'know matter' outside of any socially creative activity by the producers, Marx must be made to say that 'matter' is his concern. Then, the RM-ers can separate society into two, the 'specialists' and the 'generalists', as the SPGB argues, and go on to deny democracy to the producers and simply place a 'knowing elite' in political authority.These concerns about political power play no part in the considerations of the RM-ers, because they argue that 'matter' is outside of politics. In effect, 'matter' in science plays the role of 'property' in politics. Once there is a concept that is of no concern for the masses, according to an elite, then that elite can concern themselves alone about the employment of that concept.Just keep your faith in matter, YMS, and ignore the democratic wishes of the producers, because that is the very purpose of that faith, and it's one that you've argued for, time and again. You openly say that you won't have democracy in truth production. You're an elitist, who wishes to keep workers' control out of production, who wishes to mangle Marx's revolutionary ideas, and who wishes to preserve individualism.

[Young Master Smeet]

No, no, no.  I'm not asking you to prove what Marx' views were, I'm specifically asking about Marx meaning 'human' when he writes 'material'  that is a very specific claimk you have made, and one you should be able to prove.I strongly suspect:

Quote:

Lbird]The problem is, Marx's arguments can never be proven to those who disagree with Marx's views (based on his beliefs, assumptions, politics and epistemology).

Marx would disagree heartily with such a statement, else why would he bother writing at all, if people who disagree will never agree nor have statements proven.  That is the path to hermetically sealed cultishness.Lets not forget that you too want to separate society into two parts, the majority elite who decide what reality is and the minority who are removed from controlling reality at all, your elitist ideas are contrary to social production and control.  Yours is the path to domination.But, again, I ask, where did Marx suggest that when he wrote 'material' he meant 'human', or, lets relax the demand a little, can you provide a pssage from which that is a reasonable extrapolation, or are you Humpty-Lbird, and Marx means whatever you believe him to mean?  Wouldn't it just be easier to abandon Marx, and say, 'This is what I think' or to state, as I do, 'this is just my reading of Marx?'  You know, have a sense of responsibility?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

No, no, no.  

Yes, yes, yes.

[Young Master Smeet]

See, here's the problem.  Unlike Lbird, I assume other people are lookinmg on: it's not just about persuading your interlocutor (although, obviously, that is part of the goal), but about persuading people reading the debate, as well as honing and improving my own arguments to test them and make them more effective.Lbird demonstrates a number of argumentetive fallacies, I shall enumerate:Ad hominem: Lbird frequently uses accusations against their opponents, and turns the discussion into a debate about what others think, rather than defending their propositions.Straw man: often the accusations against others are straw man/aunt sally arguments, that Lbird can easily demolish: they make out, ad hominem, that their oppponents hold ridiculous views (even when that opponent has not expressed those views), and then go on to argue against that.No true Scotsman: a common one, usually in the actual form of No True Communist, but it extends out to Marx when, given evidence from Marx' texts that contradict Lbird's reading, Lbird maintain they don't mean what they say.Circular reasoning: often based on the ad hominems, Lbird will maintain that unless you already agree with their propositions, then you will not be able to understand and agree with them.Tu quoque: , Lbird is unable top provide any basis for evaluating their propositions: indeed, the claim that

Lbird wrote:

Workers who look to Democratic Communism have to decide for themselves what parts of Marx's works are in the interests and for the purposes of the revolutionary proletariat in the 21st century, taking into account the developments in physics since Einstein.

Suggests Lbird is not interested in any logical proof or structure, but is entirely motivated by belief, workers shhould want to believe.This sheds light on Lbird's continual charge of 'Religious Materialists', I've often thought that's the sound of an experienced debater getting their retaliation in first: how often has Lbird been accused of cultish and religious belief because they cannot, will not evidence their propositions?  This is on top of straight fporward refusing to answer the question, avoiding questions and returning like a stopped clock some while later to put propositions again as if they have never been challenged. The main issue is, does Lbird even understand the propositionsthey are putting forward.  They seem unaware of what Materialism is, or even idealism.  It's like someone has picked up a few stray ideas and attached themselves to them.I think any fair minded worker, especially any democratic communist worker, who seriously went through any thread we have ever had with Lbird, and dismiss them utterly for being any sort of useful advisor; any sort of authority on what Marx wrote or might have meant; any sort of resource for useful ideas for organising to achieve communism; as a useful interlocutor on which to test ideas; as any sort of pedagog; or any sort of assest to the intellectual armory of the workers movement.Lbird doesn't debate, declines to defend their propositions, to explain their propositions or to even try and help their fellow nworekers understand what they are trying to say.

[Author]

Posts