LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Matthew Culbert wrote: “[LBird wrote:] Neither follows Marx, who argued that ‘humanity’ is the active subject.
Rubbish.”
I’m afraid it’s true, Matthew.
Who do you think labours in any mode of production? The fairies?
If Marx didn’t think humanity was the active subject, who (or what) did he think was?
robbo203 wrote: “All I have pointed out is the fact that something is a “social product” does not in itself make it a suitable candidate for being subject to a democratic vote.” [my bold]
Did this ‘in itself’ tell you that, or are you keeping quiet about where you got the concept of ‘in-itself’ from?
Try looking at Kant, robbo.
robbo203 wrote: “Whatever the case…”
But it’s your ‘case’ that I’m trying to get you to state, so you can’t avoid the reasonable question, as you have agreed it is, of whose ‘case’ it is, and how they/you/it produced it, by stating ‘whatever’.
You apparently want Marxists and democrats to simply and uncritically accept your ‘case’ as a ‘fact’, which just happens to be there, and doesn’t have any social producer.
Matthew Culbert wrote: “It is certainly a good article and reply.
It’s an interesting historical article, only marred by the conclusion.
One party, Archie McArthur, is an idealist, who argues that the ‘divine’ is the active subject.
The other party, GILMAC, is a materialist, who argues that the ‘material’ is the active subject.
Neither follows Marx, who argued that ‘humanity’ is the active subject.
ALB wrote:
“By coincidence in the course of scanning articles from the Socialist Standards of the 1920s I have just done one from August 1925 in which an opponent makes this criticism:“Fifty years ago — which was an age of triumphant Science — it was widely believed that in matter and motion there had at last been placed in man’s hands the key to the interpretation of the universe and all its contents, including man himself. Fifty years ago that was ; but time in the interval has wrought many changes. Science, now wiser and less confident, recognises its limitations and confines itself to a description of things as they appear to us, being silent about them as in their ultimate nature they are. Materialism is no longer regarded as a truth of science.
Neither is materialism an established truth of philosophy. It amounts to no more than a philosophic speculation; and it is endorsed to-day by few thinkers of repute. The main reason for this, briefly expressed, is that the theory cannot reach its starting-point. Thought itself bars the way. You can never get to a position beyond thought where you are face to face with matter per se — where you have matter pure and simple — and then show thought evolving from it. Matter in its primordial form — the atom with its electrons — is always matter with an element of thought already present in it. Anyone who grasps the significance of this statement will at once see how precarious a basis materialism is for Socialism.””
It seems, ALB, that the Socialist Standard chose its ‘opponents’ well. ‘Materialism’ is a basis for Leninism, not Socialism.
robbo203 wrote: “…LBird, Who socially produces scientific theories has ZERO RELEVANCE …”
Neither I nor Marx share that political opinion, robbo.
The ‘social producer’ is the most fundamental of Marx’s concepts, and so is found in all his notions of ‘mode of production’, ‘forces of production’, ‘relations of production’, ‘associated producers’, ‘exploitation’, ‘classes’.
It’s the starting point for discussing Marx.
robbo203 wrote (yet again): “It is perfectly OK in itself to ask ‘who’ socially produces scientific theories and ‘how’ do they do so …”
So (yet again), “‘who’ socially produces scientific theories and ‘how’ do they do so?“.
Once we have the answer to this ‘perfectly OK’ question (the ‘who’ and the ‘how’), discussion about the ‘why’ (and the ‘whether’ and ‘should’) will progress rapidly.
In fact, the ‘who and how’ answer will determine the ‘why/whether/should’ answer.
robbo203 wrote: “It is perfectly OK in itself to ask ‘who’ socially produces scientific theories and ‘how’ do they do so…”
I agree, robbo, perfectly OK.
So, ” ‘who’ socially produces scientific theories and ‘how’ do they do so?“
robbo203 wrote: “It is not acceptable to give as answer the fact that he considered (as do I) scientific theories to be “social products”, for reasons that have been explained ad nauseum.”
“It is not acceptable” is a political opinion, robbo, that I do not share.
I think ‘it is entirely acceptable’, and since we agree that ‘scientific theories’ are ‘social products’, to ask ‘who’ socially produces, and ‘how’ do they do so.
And then further, once we have an answer to ‘who’ and ‘how’, to discuss the ‘social practice’ arising from these answers. This follows Marx’s method of ‘theory and practice’ – the ‘theory’ consciously determines the ‘practice’, and for a Marxist and democratic socialist they can’t be separated, as you wish to do.
You’ve never answered this political question once, never mind ‘ad nauseum’.
robbo203 wrote: “We should engage with you, according to you,but do you ever reciprocate by engaging with us??? For example, by answering a simple straightforward question which has been asked of you over and over again such as how in practical terms… ”
This is why you’re refusing to engage, robbo.
I’m trying to discuss Marx’s politics and philosophy, about our social production… whereas you want to ask ‘simple, straightforward questions’ which will supposedly require ‘simple, straightforward’ answers.
Whilst I’ve tried as much as I can to use analogies, examples, and references for you to explore which deal in more depth with my simplifications, we’re trying to discuss politics and philosophy, especially Marx’s, which are far beyond the ‘simple and straightforward’.
It’s like trying to discuss Marx’s ideas about the Labour Theory of Value, and its implications for Capitalist social relations, and exploitation, and classes, with someone who insists on ‘simple and straightforward’ answers to their questions based upon their individual opinion about ‘what is valuable’.
It can’t be done, robbo. Whilst the questioner wants to ask their own questions without questioning the basis of their questions, then they’ll continue to get their own answers, to their own satisfaction. Which is all fine for them, but they’ll never get to understand the socio-historical, politico-philosophical context of the Theory of Value.
Individualism contains its own answers, mate. As does Marx’s democratic social productionism.
If you’re happy with the ‘simple and straightforward’, many workers are not. I think you’re confusing ‘plain-speaking’ with ‘ignorance’.
robbo203 wrote: “Unlike you I am not a Marx fetishist, I don’t hero worship the man. He wrote a lot of good stuff but he also wrote some crap too”
You really don’t read what I write, robbo, mate!
I’m always criticising Marx – he’s a hopeless writer, who never uses one word where a hundred will do, and is very unclear about what he means, which is why we now have to discuss his works.
If only you and the others would engage with what I write, rather than your own illusions, and hidden ideology.
Perhaps one day…
Matthew Culbert wrote: “Scientific proofs, are not the same as philosophical ‘absolute truths’.”
No-one has ever argued that they are, Matthew.
You’re a great disappointment, as I really thought that you’d got to grips with Marx’s democratic social productionism.
The ‘absolute’ refers to ‘god’, not humans.
Still, the materialists’ straw-manning will continue, because Marx’s words are a threat to them.
Matthew Culbert wrote: “The workers themselves,(no longer workers as a class as classes will not exist) will decide which functions will be recallable delegatory, local, regional,global.
Permanently in the hands of the immense majority, always with recourse to overall decisions about resources and theoretical informational decision making apparatus, being allocated to permanently prevent the formation of bureaucratic, technocratic or scientific potential usurpation of control over resources.”
So, you seem to agree with Marx and me, Matthew.
Within democratic socialism, truth will be elected.
Otherwise, you’d have to explain where ‘truth’ (and nature, reality, etc., etc.) comes from, and since you agree that ‘the immense majority’ will be politically controlling the ‘theoretical informational decision making apparatus’, which will ‘prevent the formation of bureaucratic, technocratic or scientific potential usurpation of control’, then the only source of ‘truth’ will be humanity – all of us, democratically socially producing our truth.
If you mean this, Matthew, it’s a massive political, philosophical, theoretical and ideological breakthrough in these discussions.
It means no more talk of ‘specialists’ telling the rest of us what ‘material’ means (as the Leninists claim to do, with their ‘special’ consciousness). It means that we determine ‘the material’, and that ‘the material’ doesn’t determine us.
No more talk of ‘material conditions’ bringing democratic socialism. We are the active, conscious, social producers, and only we can create our world (natural and social – there is no separation).
alanjjohnstone wrote: “That is a very mealy-mouthed clarification and an extremely low bar you have put forward in your defence having declared that the official stance of the SPGB was to oppose democracy.”
But it’s true, alan, even you agree – the official stance of the SPGB is to oppose democracy in: nature, reality, truth, physics, matter, maths, logic, necessity… I’m sure there are others that have been mentioned, and I have forgotten.
You seem to have a problem with electing the ‘material’.
Matthew Culbert wrote: “Obsfucutory Complete and utter nonsense. A troll like travesty of everything any member has said on here.”
Well, let’s see then, eh, Matthew.
Matthew, is it a ‘travesty’ to say that Matthew Culbert won’t have ‘democracy’ in the creation of our reality?
Here you go, Matthew, your own chance to refute the accusations of a ‘troll’, that ‘you won’t have democratic science’.
