LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote: “The other argument is over as it has been admitted that Marx did describe himself as a materialist. Marx did not regard it as a dirty word as had been claimed.”
You’re sliding back into Lenin’s method, ALB – he built straw men of his political enemies supposed ‘admissions’, and altered the meaning of what they did actually say, and proclaimed his ‘final victory’ without actually engaging with his critics, like Bogdanov.
I’m not sure what your political intention is, but we know from history where these tactics lead – pretending an elite knows what the masses can’t, pretending that supporters of workers’ own democratic activity, like Bogdanov, are anti-Marx, pretending that their party is arguing for ‘democratic socialism’, but hiding the fact that they plan to remove democratic controls from the associated producers when ‘socialism’ is achieved.
To put the debate straight, no-one has ever claimed that Marx didn’t describe himself as a materialist. This is an accusation of your own making, and its purpose is to close down the debate, in case your opponents’ arguments start to have some effect.
The key problem is what Marx meant by ‘materialist’. All the evidence shows that it as nothing to do with ‘matter’ (or, ‘materiality’, ‘material conditions’ meaning ‘external impulse on humans’. Marx, as you have said, made claims for a ‘new materialism’, which, as you’ve said, was not the old 18th century ‘passive humanity/active matter’ belief, which required ‘clockwork’ humans. Marx insisted, always, that self-conscious humanity would change its world, and never argued for passively waiting for some unspecified ‘material conditions’ to work their ‘magic’, as Wez put it.
In effect, what Marx meant by ‘material’ was human (as opposed to ‘ideal’, meaning ‘divine’). And his fundamental concept was ‘production’, active, conscious, creation by humanity. This mean that, for workers to understand, now, its easier to tell them that when Marx talked of ‘material conditions’, he was talking about ‘social production’. Thus, where Marx writes ‘material’, we can understand ‘social’. This is nothing to do with ‘stuff an individual can touch’.
This is what the political and philosophical debate is about: ‘What did Marx mean by ‘material’?’.
I’d recommend that any interested should read, for example, George Kline (1988) The Myth of Marx’ Materialism Philosophical Sovietology, Volume 50. This covers the multiple meanings that Marx employed within his writings regarding ‘material’.
ALB wrote: “materialistic-critical“.
The clue’s in the word, ALB.
Not ‘materialistic’ (one strand), not ‘critical’ (the other strand), but a unity, a reconciliation, of the two strands.
‘materialistic-critical’ is simply another way of saying ‘materialistic-idealistic’.
Marx’s ‘materialism’ (‘new’ materialism) requires consciousness. It’s not about ‘matter’, but the criticism of what is, and its replacement by what we determine will be.
Marx was always discussing ‘consciously active humanity’ – not ‘the conscious divine’, not ‘consciousless matter’.
Well, pgb, if you’re going to argue that Marx was not a democrat (in the sense of social production), and that socialism won’t be a democratic society, then that’s a good, open, political position, to espouse and broadcast. I admire your frankness, which escapes the Trots!
But, not surprisingly, I disagree with you. I think that everything Marx wrote reflected his political experience, of his times, of its near contemporary history, especially the French Revolution. Without democratic politics, Marx’s works are meaningless.
On your views, to me they seem ‘anarchistic’, focussing more on ‘individuals’ and their ‘freedoms’, rather than on Marx’s political concerns, social production by the associated producers.
You claim: “a socialist society holds economic resources in common (no-one owns) under democratic control” – but this is contradictory, because ‘in common’ means ‘in common’, not ‘no-one’. That is, the community, the commonwealth, humanity as a whole determines the production and distribution of our collective resources. And if there’s ‘democratic control’, there’s politics – debate, disagreement, argument, voting, and decisions incumbent on all to respect.
In common with all ‘materialists’ (if I’m mischaracterising you, I apologise, but experience here has taught me something about the SPGB’s political ideology, so I’m assuming you share it), you appeal to Engels, rather than Marx, because Engels was an inheritor of a different politics to Marx. This is why Engels (not Marx) talks about ‘the administration of things’ (as if politics will disappear from humanity!). Engels is fruitful source of a ‘Marxism’ which is very different to Marx’s democratic social productionism. Anarchism, individual freedom and ‘the end of politics’ are far removed from democracy, collective social production and the ‘zoon politikon’ of Marx.
Nevertheless, thanks again for being so open. If the SPGB would be so open in its political publications about this future aversion to ‘democracy’, I think you’d attract people more in tune to your political views, and repel Marxists like me, from the start!
This reconciliation, this ‘unity’, is what Marx meant by the ‘new’ in ‘new materialism’.
Those who are already convinced by bourgeois ‘materialism’, simply ignore the prefix ‘new’, and console themselves with the thought that “it’s simply a materialism”.
‘Materialism’ is a ruling class idea, which has a hold on humanity that’s yet to be broken by Marxists.
Unless we socialists have ‘democracy’ as the basis of all our active social production – politics, philosophy, ontology, epistemology, science, logic, physics, maths, etc. – then there will be a social elite, in short, a ruling class.
ALB wrote: “They were keen to refute the religious view that the mind was something special created by god rather than a natural product and function, and endorsed the view that “the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile”. Ths might have scored a point, in fact did, against the religious view of mind (accepted by most other “natural scientists” of the time and who didn’t claim to be materialists; far from it) but was clearly inadequate as it offered no explanation of the content of thoughts or how these arose.”
1. idealism/religion – god creates mind;
2. materialism/bourgeois science – brain creates mind;
3. idealism-materialism/Marx’s revolutionary science – humans create mind.The key point, ALB, is that there are not simply two options, as Engels argued, battling against each other, in an eternal war – idealism versus materialism, good v. evil, white v. black, cowboys v. indians, etc.
Marx introduced a reconciliation of the two, and created social productionism, within which both the ‘ideal’ and the ‘material’ are represented, in which human conscious activity, social production, is the ontological basis – not active mind, nor passive matter, but ‘creative humanity’. And, since we are the creators, we can change our creation. Any ‘nature’ we are confronted with, is our creation. Any ‘nature’ outside of our conscious activity is, to quote Marx, ‘a nothing for us’.
ALB wrote: “Even in the unpublished notes of 1845 that Engels published after Marx’s death as the “Theses on Feuerbach” Marx called himself a materialist (Thesis 10).
Of course there are materialists and materialists and Marx distinguished his materialism from those of the 18th materialists (as in his early writings), from the “contemplative materialism” of Feuerbach, and from the 19th century “abstract mterialism of natural science”.”
So, if you’re a ‘materialist’ of Marx’s kind, why do you contemplate ‘matter’ (rather than create/change/destroy it, as Marx argued) and why do you consistently defend ‘natural science’ as opposed to Marx’s ‘human science’?
It seems that whenever you’re questioned about your views, ALB, you return to the type of ‘materialism’ that Marx criticised.
By ‘material’, Marx meant ‘human’, as opposed to ‘ideal’, meaning ‘divine’. Marx was never talking about ‘matter’, as he made clear in Capital Volume 1 (and I know that you know the quote). Marx was a democrat, focussed on human production, and its ability to change its products (like ‘matter’, which has a history, and even within capitalism, physicists change, to suit their purposes – matter…mass…energy…?).
ALB wrote: “With his serial lying on this point and unfounded accusation that we are materialists in one of the senses that Marx criticised, our feathered friend has long since become a pain in the arse.”
The usual inability, as I’ve always argued, of a ‘materialist’ being unable to engage with the political and philosophical debate, and turning instead to personal abuse, just like Lenin did. You never fail to confirm my opinions, ALB. But I know that you can abuse freely, as the moderators only ban me, for replying in kind. So I can’t, and don’t, abuse you.
However, in opposition to your claims, I’d like to post a quote from Marx, which confirms what I’ve argued:
Marx wrote: “Every history of religion, even, that fails to take account of this material basis, is uncritical. It is, in reality, much easier to discover by analysis the earthly core of the misty creations of religion, than, conversely, it is, to develop from the actual relations of life the corresponding celestialised forms of those relations. The latter method is the only materialistic, and therefore the only scientific one. The weak points in the abstract materialism of natural science, a materialism that excludes history and its process, are at once evident from the abstract and ideological conceptions of its spokesmen, whenever they venture beyond the bounds of their own speciality.”
It’s all there: criticism of ‘idealism’ (religion); the material basis (social production, the ‘actual relations of life’); that the only ‘science’ is social production; the criticism of ‘materialism’ (abstract natural science, which excludes human history), and, finally:
“the abstract and ideological conceptions of its spokesmen, whenever they venture beyond the bounds of their own speciality” – the most abstract and ideological conception being their own speciality, ‘matter’. The uncritical, abstract, ahistoric, asocial, non-human ‘stuff’, which ‘materialists’ worship like a god, and thus exclude Marx’s social productionism.
Wez, if you, or anyone else, is minded to read what Marx actually wrote (as opposed to what materialists claim), but can’t afford the Collected Works, Volume 3, then his texts can also be found in:
Karl Marx: Early Writings (1992) Penguin Classics
Fromm, E. Marx’s Concept of Man (2004) Continuum
Wez wrote: “If it turns out that this implies that we can or should vote on the veracity of scientific truth then, as I say, I believe he was mistaken.”
No problem, Wez.
What is a problem, is that this is a difficult political and philosophical issue, going back to Ancient Greece. If you’re prepared to only ‘have a moment’, I think that you’ll struggle to make sense of the issue.
That’s why, since I’m a comrade to anyone who wants to understand Marx’s views about our world, I’m trying to shorten, simplify and modernise these political and philosophical issues, for all 21st century workers.
The key pol. & phil. problem is: “Who are the social producers, and how should they produce?”
In my opinion, Marx’s answers were: ‘humanity by democracy’.
Of course, there are many other possible answers (an elite by oligarchy, an individual by solipsism, a party by dictatorship, etc.), but I think that Marx’s is the best one for humanity in the 21st century.
I’m very wary of those politicians, like Lenin, who argue that an elite has a consciousness that the masses don’t/can’t have. Those who support bourgeois science share Lenin’s views. They won’t have democratic control of physics (for example), and pretend that the discipline is too difficult for the masses to understand.
I’m inclined to argue that they make it difficult, purposely, and the solution lies in a democratic socialist education system, which has a reason to explain to all.
Still, if you can’t envision a world where all production is democratically controlled, then that’s fair enough, but I think that that separates you from Marx and his arguments for democratic production.
Again, it’s best to be clear where ‘democratic socialism’ will lead, rather than pretend that it’s about ‘individual freedom’ (which is a (powerful) bourgeois myth). We’re all in it together on this planet – or, we will be, when democracy reigns.
Wez wrote: “LBird – One last time then, give me a quote, sentence or paragraph from Marx’s work that supports your interpretation.”
Perhaps you are a bit forgetful, Wez, or never bothered to read it, the several times that I’ve already quoted it here.
So for the umpteenth time:
1. 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” (Collected Works, Volume 3, p. 336).
2. The entirety of the Theses on Feuerbach, which cover the same ground regarding the partial inputs of both idealism and materialism into his works:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm3. There are also passages in The Holy Family covering this area: Chapter VI d ‘Critical battle against French Materialism’.
4. Marx’s publication the Deutsch–Französische Jahrbücher eponymously embodied his views of the unity of German Idealism and French Materialism (ie. ‘Deutsch–Französische’).
So, one last time, Wez, can anyone from the SPGB engage with what Marx wrote?
ALB wrote “A new book on Marx’s materialism has just been published. Sounds interesting. Ridiculous price.
https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9783030529499″
It should be noted the the book subtitle begins “New Materialism..” [my italics]
The discussion of the meaning of this ‘New’ is precisely what I’ve been trying to get the SPGB to discuss for about five years now.
Marx’s ‘New Materialism’ is not simply ‘Materialism’, although that’s exactly what ‘materialists’ assume.
I’ve often argued, and most late 20th century/ 21st century scholarship seems to back me up, that this ‘New Materialism’ was ‘Idealism-Materialism’. Marx believed that he had reconciled the two, in a new ‘Social Productionism’, which required both subject and object. This ‘reconciliation’ had been a key aim of the Post-Kantian German Idealists, the context from which Marx emerged.
Engels, at least at the end of his life, seems to have returned to outdated 18th century ‘Materialism’, ie. ‘Old Materialism’, and so undid Marx’s achievement. That’s why ‘materialists’ quote Engels, and not Marx.
Wez wrote: “Marx was rather unclear … hence my uncertainty.”
I think everyone who reads Marx shares your uncertainty! That’s the reason workers in the 21st century must discuss and determine just what Marx meant.
Wez wrote: “…if he thought either what you interpret his meaning to be about science or my interpretation I believe both to be mistaken.”
Of course, this is the reason to discuss Marx, to clarify whether he was mistaken or not.
Wez wrote: “Of course we’ve been here before and you have been asked to produce quotes or passages supporting your interpretation from Marx’s text and you have always failed to do so.”
This is another myth, Wez. I’ve been quoting Marx, here, for years, but they were always constantly ignored. Try looking at any of the older discussions. On the contrary, it’s the materialists who fail to quote Marx, and just use insults, just as Lenin did in Materialism and Empiriocriticism. It seems to be part of their ‘method’ – ignore Marx, quote Engels, insult political opponents.
Wez wrote “…Marx’s apparent belief…I believe Marx thought…“.
My best advice, Wez, is to read what Marx actually wrote.
I’ve often tried to stimulate discussions here, based upon what Marx wrote, and his democratic politics, but these debates usually descend into name-calling, by people who clearly haven’t read Marx, but just assume what he must have said – or, rely on (parts of) Engels instead.For example, Marx never argued for ‘the praxis of Scientific Socialism’ for either ‘replacing philosophy’ or anything else, especially not for building a socialist society. Marx never thought that ‘philosophy’ (in itself) ‘created an elite’. Marx never thought that ‘science’ (in itself) was ‘democratic’. For Marx, all human production was socio-historic, so any ‘philosophy’ or ‘science’ would have to be specified by class and period, to determine for who and when it was ‘elite’ or ‘democratic’.
Wez wrote “LBird – perhaps it would be more correct to say that material conditions have created consciousness…”
No, Wez, Marx never argued that ‘material conditions create consciousness’. If you think that ‘more correct’ than Marx’s argument that humanity creates its own consciousness, and thus can change it, then I disagree with you.
Waiting for ‘material conditions’ to do anything whatsoever is total alien to Marx’s activist philosophy. Marx regarded ‘materialism’ as passivity, and an ideology which took ‘change’ out of the hands of humanity. Indeed, he argued that ‘materialism’ placed this power to ‘change’ into the hands of an elite. As we all know, Marx was proved correct, by the career of Lenin. Lenin was a materialist because it was anti-democratic, and placed power into the hands of a ‘conscious’ elite. His ‘party’, of course.
Or, “material conditions” equal “some magical ‘praxis’ “, as you put “the concept” so well.
The ‘magical praxis’, which is outside of democratic control, of course, is the praxis of an elite (‘conscious’, of course, outside of ‘material conditions’ – because otherwise their elite ‘magic’ would also be subject to ‘material conditions’, as Marx pointed out).
