Z A Jordan and Marx’s epistemology
- This topic has 223 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Well, now you've got that off your chest, YMS, why not leave the thread to those who:1. are Democratic Communists (ie. those who wish to see a socialist society, where the producers democratically decide their production);2. who wish to discuss how Jordan explains Marx's ideas, and whether we can correct and improve on those explanations?You're not a democrat, nor interested in workers' power, nor Marx's views on how that can come about through social production. You're an individualist whose concern is 'matter'.
But I have been discussing precisely those things (thanks for the demonstration of what I have just said, though, ad hominem, straw man, oh, and a side helping of moving the goal posts).You seem to remain unable to explain how Marx meant 'human' when he wrote 'Material', when I have cited Jordan, with quotations, that suggest his reading of Marx does not support yours, you declined to engage.
You haven't been discussing these things from a Marxist perspective, YMS.I've patiently explained this in great detail, often, and in small words, but you won't read what I write.If you wish to remain a proponent of Religious Materialism, I don't care, but you won't learn about Marx whilst you adhere to that ideology.How much clearer can I make this?
Post #150 is an accurate representation of LBird's contributions. I came to similar conclusions a long time ago. Instead of 'resetting' or 'rebooting' to the same old insults, why does he not address the questions raised in post #150
Vin wrote:Post #150 is an accurate representation of LBird's contributions. I came to similar conclusions a long time ago.Instead of 'resetting' or 'rebooting' to the same old insults, why does he not address the questions raised in post #150Because questions can only be answered from a perspective, Vin.While YMS (and you) insist on pretending that you're not Religious Materialists, it's not possible for you to understand the replies made by a Democratic Communist (see, I don't hide my political and ideological perspective).I've patiently explained this to you, too, numerous times, but apparently RM affects your ability to read, amongst its other drawbacks (like 'faith in matter', which denies workers' democracy).
Karl Marx. Capital Volume One Chapter Seven THE LABOUR-PROCESS OR THE PRODUCTION OF USE-VALUES ….in which the material for labour is provided immediately by Nature.. ……….spontaneously provided by Nature. Such are fish which we catch and take from their element, water, timber which we fell in the virgin forest, and ores which we extract from their veins……….. ……..so even now we still employ in the process many means of production, provided directly by Nature, that do not represent any combination of natural substances with human labour……….. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htm
Yes, Dave, we all know.Everyone agrees that the material for labour is provided by nature.That's the point.Now, try and work out from this thread what that point is, because I'm not saying it again.
Oh, yeah, too, Dave.I know that this will come as an astounding shock, but…… capital is a social product.And the chapter title includes…… 'labour process' and 'production'.
It is to the credit of comrades that they continue to indulge Mr. Bird. However when he rises from his keyboard and feeds his body, looks both ways before crossing the road and puts on an extra layer for the frosty mornings he becomes, miraculously, a materialist. Even his/ or is it her imagination would be unavailable without the help of some grey material called a brain.
Wez wrote:It is to the credit of comrades that they continue to indulge Mr. Bird. However when he rises from his keyboard and feeds his body, looks both ways before crossing the road and puts on an extra layer for the frosty mornings he becomes, miraculously, a materialist. Even his/ or is it her imagination would be unavailable without the help of some grey material called a brain.Have you bothered to read anything that Jordan wrote?No?What a surprise – another Religious Materialist displays just what the lack of 'imaginative grey material' leads to.Ignorance.
LBird wrote:Yes, Dave, we all know.Everyone agrees that the material for labour is provided by nature.That's the point.Now, try and work out from this thread what that point is, because I'm not saying it again.Oh L Bird, you really are a teasy weasy little Trotskyist, aren't you!
You said in post 145; I've constantly provided evidence from Marx's works, which are entirely about social production, not matter. Are you saying then that stuff that is spontaneously provided by Nature and that does not represent any combination of natural substances with human labour. Such as fish the virgin forests, and ores. Is not matter? Or inorganic nature? Or material? And/ or?Material for labour that is provided immediately by Nature is not material?
I found Bertell Ollman's book 'Dance of the Dialectic' particularly helpful with aspects of Marx's epistemology.
Wez wrote:I found Bertell Ollman's book 'Dance of the Dialectic' particularly helpful with aspects of Marx's epistemology.We had a long discussion about dialectic in this forum, named: Do we need dialectic ? Personally, I do not think Marx was a philosopher, or a dialectician. He was an Anthropologist, his main concern was man, mankind, society and nature
Wez wrote:I found Bertell Ollman's book 'Dance of the Dialectic' particularly helpful with aspects of Marx's epistemology.But not 'particularly helpful' with others?
Ollman, DotD, p. 4, wrote:And when I sought to construct my own definitions from the way Marx used his key concepts in his writings, I was shocked to discover that their apparent meanings varied with the context, often considerably. I was not the first, of course, to note or to be bothered by the elastic quality of Marx’s meanings. Vilfredo Pareto, the Italian sociologist, provide the classic statement of this problem long ago when he said, “Marx’s words are like bats. One can see in them both birds and mice” (1902).This 'problem' is most severe in relation to Marx's use of the concept 'material'.Engels' material bat was a bird of 'matter'.Others' material bat was a mouse of 'social production'.As to which bat is most useful for the interests and purposes of the proletariat, democratically building for the 'social production' of socialism…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.