Z A Jordan and Marx’s epistemology
December 2024 › Forums › General discussion › Z A Jordan and Marx’s epistemology
- This topic has 223 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by moderator1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 4, 2017 at 6:07 pm #123970robbo203Participantmcolome1 wrote:This is really funny. We have about 2,697 views and 208 reply on this topics, and we have 179 view and 7 reply on socialism and democracy, and a few respond to others topics that really are related to the interest of the working class, which means that , we are more interested on intellectual discussions than on the real issues of the working class
Hear! Hear!. And I note that LBird did not respond at all to the thread on Socialism and Democracy despite forever going on about being a "democratic communist". I wonder why? Im a bit miffed really having started the thread with him in mind. Perhaps, an academic elitist obsession with "epistemology" – how many of my fellow workers in the pub (or tapas bar in my case) are earnestly discussing whether Marx was an idealist-materialist? – counts a lot more in his eyes than the practicalities of how to organise a democratic communist society
January 4, 2017 at 11:03 pm #123971AnonymousInactivemcolome1 wrote:This is really funny. We have about 2,697 views and 208 reply on this topics, and we have 179 view and 7 reply on socialism and democracy, and a few respond to others topics that really are related to the interest of the working class, which means that , we are more interested on intellectual discussions than on the real issues of the working classJanuary 4, 2017 at 11:17 pm #123972rodmanlewisParticipantVin wrote:mcolome1 wrote:This is really funny. We have about 2,697 views and 208 reply on this topics, and we have 179 view and 7 reply on socialism and democracy, and a few respond to others topics that really are related to the interest of the working class, which means that , we are more interested on intellectual discussions than on the real issues of the working classI agree. We should consider not responding so readily to those who only seem to be interested in the sound of their own keystrokes.
January 4, 2017 at 11:20 pm #123973AnonymousInactiverodmanlewis wrote:Vin wrote:mcolome1 wrote:This is really funny. We have about 2,697 views and 208 reply on this topics, and we have 179 view and 7 reply on socialism and democracy, and a few respond to others topics that really are related to the interest of the working class, which means that , we are more interested on intellectual discussions than on the real issues of the working classI agree. We should consider not responding so readily to those who only seem to be interested in the sound of their own keystrokes.
Unless it is about democracy and socialism.
January 5, 2017 at 8:25 am #123974LBirdParticipantmcolome1 wrote:This is really funny. We have about 2,697 views and 208 reply on this topics…There's a good reason for that, mcolome1.The threads that I participate in are actually thought-provoking, whereas those by just SPGB members/followers just spout the usual, old, outdated, 19th century nonsense that even the bourgeoisie have got past. Even the religious thinkers in science are more advanced than the SPGB.Which is ironic, given the obsession by Religious Materialists with other religions.It mightn't be too serious, if there was some evidence of anyone in the SPGB taking a serious interest in these issues, but it seems that the SPGB is like a cult, dedicated to matter, practicalities, individuals, anti-intellectualism……the only debate which stimulates thought based upon Marx's ideas is in the threads I generate. Which doesn't give me any satisfaction whatsoever, because I'm trying to develop my own thinking at the same time as other Democratic Communists.Mind you, that's probably the problem… none of youse are Democrats or Communists/Socialists, but 'specialists'.
January 5, 2017 at 9:27 am #123975Young Master SmeetModeratorMarx wrote:In place of disinterested inquirers, there were hired prize fighters; in place of genuine scientific research, the bad conscience and the evil intent of apologetic.Square with you Lbird? "as objects independent of him". — Marx
January 5, 2017 at 9:41 am #123976rodmanlewisParticipantLBird wrote:mcolome1 wrote:This is really funny. We have about 2,697 views and 208 reply on this topics…There's a good reason for that, mcolome1.The threads that I participate in are actually thought-provoking, whereas those by just SPGB members/followers just spout the usual, old, outdated, 19th century nonsense that even the bourgeoisie have got past. Even the religious thinkers in science are more advanced than the SPGB.Which is ironic, given the obsession by Religious Materialists with other religions.It mightn't be too serious, if there was some evidence of anyone in the SPGB taking a serious interest in these issues, but it seems that the SPGB is like a cult, dedicated to matter, practicalities, individuals, anti-intellectualism……the only debate which stimulates thought based upon Marx's ideas is in the threads I generate. Which doesn't give me any satisfaction whatsoever, because I'm trying to develop my own thinking at the same time as other Democratic Communists.Mind you, that's probably the problem… none of youse are Democrats or Communists/Socialists, but 'specialists'.
What is the purpose of your participation in this forum, other than to show the SPGB to be wrong? Either socialist theory as expounded by us is defective, or socialism isn't possible anyway. What is your solution to the major problems that beset our world today?
January 5, 2017 at 10:07 am #123977LBirdParticipantrodmanlewis wrote:What is the purpose of your participation in this forum, other than to show the SPGB to be wrong?My purpose is to develop the social theory and practice of the democratic, revolutionary proletariat, not 'to show the SPGB to be wrong'. That is a mere by-product of my purpose, that has emerged during our discussions.
rml wrote:Either socialist theory as expounded by us is defective, or socialism isn't possible anyway.Yes, I agree, either/or.Since I think that 'socialism is possible', then the 'socialist [sic] theory expounded by you is defective'.
rml wrote:What is your solution to the major problems that beset our world today?The same solution as Marx and Engels, and millions of workers since – the democratic control of production by the producers themselves: that is, socialism.Having said that, you'd think that there would be mostly agreement between me and the SPGB.But, having tried to discuss 'socialism' with the SPGB, I find no mention of workers, proletariat, bourgeoisie, Marx, democracy, power – all the issues that I would presupppose that any 'socialist' would be keen on discussing, so as to build a 'theory' which can then be put into 'practice'.So, I'm compelled to 'show the SPGB to be wrong' – but the SPGB (or even individual members, initially) can change its Religious Materialist ideas. Religious Materialism leads to elite power – that's why the Leninists (and the rest of the 2nd International) espoused 'materialism'. Neither the 2nd International nor Lenin had any intention whatsoever in 'allowing' workers to decide for themselves about the creation of their world. It was to be left to 'specialists'. Marx warned about this connection between 'materialism' and 'elitism' in his Theses on Feuerbach.
January 5, 2017 at 12:41 pm #123978Young Master SmeetModeratorSmeet wrote:This is on top of straight forward 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.January 5, 2017 at 3:11 pm #123979rodmanlewisParticipantLBird wrote:rodmanlewis wrote:What is the purpose of your participation in this forum, other than to show the SPGB to be wrong?My purpose is to develop the social theory and practice of the democratic, revolutionary proletariat, not 'to show the SPGB to be wrong'. That is a mere by-product of my purpose, that has emerged during our discussions.
rml wrote:Either socialist theory as expounded by us is defective, or socialism isn't possible anyway.Yes, I agree, either/or.Since I think that 'socialism is possible', then the 'socialist [sic] theory expounded by you is defective'.
rml wrote:What is your solution to the major problems that beset our world today?The same solution as Marx and Engels, and millions of workers since – the democratic control of production by the producers themselves: that is, socialism.Having said that, you'd think that there would be mostly agreement between me and the SPGB.But, having tried to discuss 'socialism' with the SPGB, I find no mention of workers, proletariat, bourgeoisie, Marx, democracy, power – all the issues that I would presupppose that any 'socialist' would be keen on discussing, so as to build a 'theory' which can then be put into 'practice'.So, I'm compelled to 'show the SPGB to be wrong' – but the SPGB (or even individual members, initially) can change its Religious Materialist ideas. Religious Materialism leads to elite power – that's why the Leninists (and the rest of the 2nd International) espoused 'materialism'. Neither the 2nd International nor Lenin had any intention whatsoever in 'allowing' workers to decide for themselves about the creation of their world. It was to be left to 'specialists'. Marx warned about this connection between 'materialism' and 'elitism' in his Theses on Feuerbach.
First off, what is the difference between "workers" and "proletariat"? Secondly, why are you lumping us together with the 2nd International and Lenin? If you have read our literature you would know that we have always opposed so-called "socialists" and "communists", whether self-styled or described as such by others.We have "built a theory", but it's not one with which you appear to agree. If you mean "Religious Materialism" as meaning repeating a mantra (which may or may not be correct) unthinkingly and leading to stultification, please show us where we're going wrong.
January 5, 2017 at 3:24 pm #123980LBirdParticipantrodmanlewis wrote:…please show us where we're going wrong.I refer you to the SPGB in 1932, on the other thread![edit]ie. 'Is capitalism collapsing?'
January 5, 2017 at 4:41 pm #123981moderator1ParticipantLBird wrote:mcolome1 wrote:This is really funny. We have about 2,697 views and 208 reply on this topics…There's a good reason for that, mcolome1.The threads that I participate in are actually thought-provoking, whereas those by just SPGB members/followers just spout the usual, old, outdated, 19th century nonsense that even the bourgeoisie have got past. Even the religious thinkers in science are more advanced than the SPGB.Which is ironic, given the obsession by Religious Materialists with other religions.It mightn't be too serious, if there was some evidence of anyone in the SPGB taking a serious interest in these issues, but it seems that the SPGB is like a cult, dedicated to matter, practicalities, individuals, anti-intellectualism……the only debate which stimulates thought based upon Marx's ideas is in the threads I generate. Which doesn't give me any satisfaction whatsoever, because I'm trying to develop my own thinking at the same time as other Democratic Communists.Mind you, that's probably the problem… none of youse are Democrats or Communists/Socialists, but 'specialists'.
1st warning: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).
January 5, 2017 at 10:05 pm #123982LBirdParticipantWarning for me?Why not tell the dickheads to stop asking the same bloody questions when they've been given answers!
January 6, 2017 at 12:14 am #123983moderator1ParticipantLBird wrote:Warning for me?Why not tell the dickheads to stop asking the same bloody questions when they've been given answers!2nd warning: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.