Z A Jordan and Marx’s epistemology

[Anonymous]

jondwhite wrote:

As repetitive as this point being made by you on materialism gets, Happy New Year nonetheless! Perhaps its time for the SPGB to address this point other than on the forum?

The SPGB is older than many of us, it is around 100 years, and it has been dealing with this problem for more than 100 years. We are not amateurs. There are many publications dealing with this problem, and we already had a long discussion in this forum about dialectic and materialism. Sometimes fixation, and obsession .  is a pathological problem. The article written by Robbo covers our long history of struggle and education: Socialism and democracy

[Anonymous]

mcolome1 wrote:

The SPGB is older than many of us, it is around 100 years, and it has been dealing with this problem for more than 100 years. We are not amateurs. There are many publications dealing with this problem, and we already had a long discussion in this forum about dialectic and materialism. Sometimes fixation, and obsession .  is a pathological problem. The article written by Robbo covers our long history of struggle and education: Socialism and democracy

Good to have you aboard, comrade. We need to address working class problems and how we propose to solve them. The forum is full of irrelevancies and this needs to change  

[Young Master Smeet]

Bit short of time, gonna have to quoite and run:The Dialectical Materialism of LeninZ. A. JordanSlavic ReviewVol. 25, No. 2 (Jun., 1966), pp. 259-286

Jordan wrote:

'The term "materialism" may have different senses, and it has actually been understood in many different ways, of which two are important in the present context. It may mean (1) that matter is the ultimate constituent of the universe and that there is nothing else in the world or (2) that mind originates from matter. I call materialism in the first sense "absolute materialism" and in the second sense "genetic materialism." Both kinds of ma- terialism can be found in Engels, who does not seem to have been fully aware of the differ- ence between them. It is clear that absolute materialism involves genetic materialism as its special thesis, but one can support genetic materialism without endorsing absolute material- ism. Genetic materialism should be distinguished from epiphenomenalism (bodily events are the sole cause of mental events) and other forms of materialism which reduce mental processes to physical processes.

Jordan wrote:

Consequently, materialism seems to favor epistemological monism, that is, the assertion that there are no intermediaries in cognition, that whatever we know we apprehend directly, and that the content or data of perception consist of the same elements of which the external world is composed. Epistemological monism, and not epistemological dualism, seems to imply and to be implied by materialism.

Jordan wrote:

The important point to be noted in Lenin's definition of materialism is his epistemological concept of matter, to be sharply distinguished from Engels' metaphysical conception. Lenin did not ignore the fact that matter exists in time and space, that it is ever changing and in motion in conformity with the laws of nature; occasionally he referred explicitly to these properties of matter.42 But Lenin did not make any use of these physical characteristics and defined matter in terms of the relation of sensation to its physical cause, of the cognizing subject to the cognized object, of consciousness to the external world. Matter, Lenin argued, is known to us only as that which produces, or is capable of producing, cer- tain impressions on our senses. All that we know about matter for certain is its power to produce these effects.

Jordan wrote:

At the turn of the century the electromagnetic theory of matter and, more recently, the revolutions in theoretical physics, the relativity and quantum theories, persuaded a considerable number of eminent scientists and philosophers that modern science invalidated the materialism based upon classical physics and supported an idealistic and spiritualistic conception of nature.

Jordan wrote:

Lenin's socio-cosmic interpretation of the laws of dialectics was reinforced not only by his repudiation of the theory of the relativity of knowledge but also by his instrumentalist conception of philosophy and science…. In his endeavor to answer the questions "What is materialism?" and "What is matter?" Lenin was not guided by the philosopher's or scientist's interest in truth. His tactics, which he himself stated explicitly, were intended to produce a definition of matter and materialism that would be secure from change and never become dated. Lenin regarded this security as desirable and necessary, if any political and social objectives were to be achieved.

Jordan wrote:

It can be said of Engels that he was genuinely interested in natural science and widely read in the scientific literature of his time. He was, however, always ready to recognize that at best he could claim to be no more than a dilettante or semi-initiate in matters concerning astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, or geology. He qualified this statement by say- ing that despite his incompetence in matters of fact he was just as entitled as a scientist to voice his own views concerning the general assumptions of natural science, for even the professional natural scientist became a semi-initiate when he passed beyond his own specialty.

[LBird]

Thanks for the extracts, YMS.The question is, though, whether Marx shared either Engels' or Lenin's views on 'materialism'.I think that I've shown, over many threads, over many years, that Marx didn't share with either.If one reads the context of Marx's works, he clearly means by 'material' an opposition to 'ideal'. This is nothing whatsoever to do with 'material equals matter'. Marx is contrasting the 'human' with the 'divine'.That's why in almost any passage in Marx's works, where he writes 'material', it can be replaced by 'social'.When Marx writes 'material production', he's contrasting 'human production' from the 'divine production' of the Idealists. But Marx accepts that the Idealists are correct to stress the importance of 'creativity', of 'activity', of 'production', and he criticises the Materialists for being passive.Marx takes from, and discards from, both Idealism and Materialism, to produce a human-centred view of creativity.That's why I categorise Marx as an Idealist-Materialist.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Thanks for the extracts, YMS.The question is, though, whether Marx shared either Engels' or Lenin's views on 'materialism'.I think that I've shown, over many threads, over many years, that Marx didn't share with either.If one reads the context of Marx's works, he clearly means by 'material' an opposition to 'ideal'. This is nothing whatsoever to do with 'material equals matter'. Marx is contrasting the 'human' with the 'divine'.That's why in almost any passage in Marx's works, where he writes 'material', it can be replaced by 'social'.When Marx writes 'material production', he's contrasting 'human production' from the 'divine production' of the Idealists. But Marx accepts that the Idealists are correct to stress the importance of 'creativity', of 'activity', of 'production', and he criticises the Materialists for being passive.Marx takes from, and discards from, both Idealism and Materialism, to produce a human-centred view of creativity.That's why I categorise Marx as an Idealist-Materialist.

 Even if Karl Marx or Federick Engels would have never been born. The Socialist Party would have been a socialist party. We have taken the most essential ideas and analysis, of  Marx and Engels, but we have also developed our own ideas and analysis. We dont worship Marx or Engels like a god

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

We have taken the most essential ideas and analysis, of  Marx and Engels, but we have also developed our own ideas and analysis. We dont worship Marx or Engels like a god

No, you've taken the most essential idea of Engels', his 'materialism', and upon that have developed his idea and analysis. Thus, you do 'worship matter like a god'.That's the whole point of the discussion, mcolome1. Why would you and the SPGB continue to argue for a concept that the producers cannot change? It's a concept that Lenin also argued that only 'specialists' can 'know'.On the contrary, Marx argued that the producers can change their product – that's why the anti-worker Leninists must argue that there is 'something' that workers do not produce and so cannot change. Of course, this inability to change 'something' is a lie, and so the Leninists then claim that only they can change this 'something'.You've said many times that you're anti-Lenin, mcolome1, and I believe you. But I'm baffled as to why you'd then follow Lenin, in his anti-worker, anti-democratic epistemology.Put simply, once anyone argues that there is a 'substance' which cannot be changed, then they are rejecting both Marx and workers' democracy, and putting in place the philosophical building blocks for party rule based on 'special consciousness'.The fact that the SPGB has started arguing for a 'specialist/generalist' separation of society shows that this tendency is well-advanced within the party. This will be the basis of further anti-democratic developments. And it's not just me making this warning – Marx makes exactly the same point in his Theses on Feuerbach.We all have faith and worship, mcolome1. It's a choice between 'producers' and 'matter'. Those who choose 'producers' will be democrats and will argue for a united society, whereas those who choose 'matter' will be elitists and will argue for separation in society.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

The question is, though, whether Marx shared either Engels' or Lenin's views on 'materialism'.

The German Ideology?  Co-authored?

Lbird wrote:

If one reads the context of Marx's works, he clearly means by 'material' an opposition to 'ideal'. This is nothing whatsoever to do with 'material equals matter'. Marx is contrasting the 'human' with the 'divine'.

This would require substantiation with a quote.  As it is, it doesn't make much sense, it's difficult to read phrases like "man is a corporeal, living, real, sensuous, objective being full of natural vigour" without taking some soprt of physicalist  connotation (I'd also add, humans are material, as an aside).

LBird wrote:

That's why in almost any passage in Marx's works, where he writes 'material', it can be replaced by 'social'.

Love the passive voice: so you're saying now not tahat marx intended such a reading, but that it is a reasonable eading, based on the above premise?Problem is, on a quick search of the Marxist archive, I couldn't find any uses of the word divine that seemed to fit your analysis.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Problem is, on a quick search of the Marxist archive, I couldn't find any uses of the word divine that seemed to fit your analysis.

No, you won't find this, YMS.I've already told you why.

[Young Master Smeet]

Lets put that to one side: people are material, and the social is material, therefore, isn't it?  And, if everything that exists is matter, then ideas are material, and we have direct access to our ideas, don't we?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

… if everything that exists is matter, then ideas are material…

[my bold]I've told you a thousand times, YMS, that 'if' clause is an ideological choice, which determines the 'then' statement.I don't share your ideological choice, and neither did Marx.What 'exists' for those who look to Marx is 'social production'.I wish that you'd read my words, and accept that we disagree about what 'Marx meant'. 'Meaning' is related to politics and ideology, and my ideology, Democratic Communism, (that 'socialism' is the democratic control of social production by the producers), can see that Engels' focus on 'matter' was a move away from Marx's focus on 'social production'.If one chooses an ideology that is not concerned with 'social production', then one can't understand Marx, in terms of what Marx meant.If you believe that Marx meant 'matter', then that's your choice. But your choice is of no use to the revolutionary democratic proletariat, in its attempt to build for socialism.Since you're not interested in these politics, your choice is fine for you.

[Young Master Smeet]

Ah, you share Lenin's idea that philosophical investigation is subordiniate to partisan needs.Democratic communism is not an ideology, its is a set of ideas.The 'If' can be subject to reasoned debate, not simply 'choice'.I think the important thing is stuff monism: either everything is ideas, or everything is matter, dualism is, I think the bigger mistake.What matters is that ideas are not a special category, immune from investigation, but subject to the same tools that can be applied to any phenomena: they do not just fall from the sky, but emerge from transformation and translation of the universal existence: nothing is created or destroyed, merely transformed, and that applies to ideas as much as to widgets.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I think the important thing is stuff monism: either everything is ideas, or everything is matter, …

I know that you think this, YMS, and have done for years.I've also pointed out years ago just where you got this 'either/or' notion from, too.You got it from Engels, and I've given the passage, where he divides all philosophy into Materialism and Idealism.This is nothing whatsoever to do with Marx's views about 'social production'.You stick to 'stuff monism'; I'll stick to 'social production'.It's up to workers, coming to revolutionary consciousness and wanting to build for socialism using democratic methods, which they'll 'stick' with.

[Young Master Smeet]

Actually, the divide between idealism and materialism pre-dates Engels by a long way.But the social is something: society is made of something isn't it?  So what do we call the stuff that is producing?Are ideas subject to causitive analysis?   You stick to Lenin's idea of subordinating philosophy to the needs of the movemnt…

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

But the social is something: society is made of something isn't it?  So what do we call the stuff that is producing?

The 'social' is 'something social'; 'society' is made of 'something social'; the 'stuff that is producing' is 'society'.Marx argues that we are self-creators.Why not read Jordan, and read in detail where he explains all this?

[Young Master Smeet]

You know, I should be more expansive in my quotes:

Marx wrote:

Here we see how consistent naturalism or humanism is distinct from both idealism and materialism, and constitutes at the same time the unifying truth of both. We see also how only naturalism is capable of comprehending the action of world history.<Man is directly a natural being. As a natural being and as a living natural being he is on the one hand endowed with natural powers, vital powers – he is an active natural being. These forces exist in him as tendencies and abilities – as instincts. On the other hand, as a natural, corporeal, sensuous objective being he is a suffering, conditioned and limited creature, like animals and plants. That is to say, the objects of his instincts exist outside him, as objects independent of him; yet these objects are objects that he needs – essential objects, indispensable to the manifestation and confirmation of his essential powers. To say that man is a corporeal, living, real, sensuous, objective being full of natural vigour is to say that he has real, sensuous objects as the object of his being or of his life, or that he can only express his life in real, sensuous objects. To be objective, natural and sensuous, and at the same time to have object, nature and sense outside oneself, or oneself to be object, nature and sense for a third party, is one and the same thing.>

To repeat "as objects independent of him".https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/hegel.htmCan you guess how often I'm going to quote this at you, Lbird?

[Author]

Posts