[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

.Marx starts from the assumption of both, unified, as so doesn't talk about either 'mind' alone or 'matter' alone. This issue of 'which is over the other' is a non-problem for MarxistsAs I've said, it was Engels who split Marx's ideas back into a battle between 'idealism' versus 'materialism', in which struggle one must take a side. As you're a 'materialist', you accuse me of 'idealism'. In this, you're also continuing the views of the SPGB, which also subscribes to Engels' 'materialism'.

Frederich Engels:"And, in fact, with every day that passes we are acquiring a better understanding of these laws and getting to perceive both the more immediate and the more remote consequences of our interference with the traditional course of nature. In particular, after the mighty advances made by the natural sciences in the present century, we are more than ever in a position to realise, and hence to control, also the more remote natural consequences of at least our day-to-day production activities. But the more this progresses the more will men not only feel but also know their oneness with nature, and the more impossible will become the senseless and unnatural idea of a contrast between mind and matter, man and nature, soul and body, such as arose after the decline of classical antiquity in Europe and obtained its highest elaboration in Christianity."https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1876/part-played-labour/index.htm

Thanks for that, robbo.Now, you have to accept that there is no 'matter-in-itself', only Marx's 'mind-matter', 'idealism-materialism'.

[LBird]

Marx, Letter to Annenkov, 1846, wrote:

…those who produce social relations in conformity with their material productivity also produce the ideas, categories, i.e. the ideal abstract expressions of those same social relations. Indeed, the categories are no more eternal than the relations they express. They are historical and transitory products. To Mr Proudhon, on the contrary, the prime cause consists in abstractions and categories. According to him it is these and not men which make history. The abstraction, the category regarded as such, i.e. as distinct from man and his material activity, is, of course, immortal, immutable, impassive.

http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1846/letters/46_12_28.html'Matter' is such a 'category'. Not 'eternal', but 'historical and transitory'. Not 'immortal, immutable, impassive', awaiting our 'discovery'.Those who think that 'the prime cause' is a 'category', like matter, which is 'distinct from [hu]man[ity]', rather than human activity, are not Marxists. They are the idealists. 'Materialists' are idealists. Engels didn't understand that, and neither do the 'materialists' who mistakenly follow Engels.Humans socially produce 'matter', and so can change it. 'Matter' is a social product.Even the bourgeoisie have changed from this 'category' to others. Thus, even the bourgeoisie are more advanced than 'materialists', who continue to live in the intellectual world of the 18th century, prior to Marx.

[LBird]

Alan Kerr wrote:

@LBirdSo in Marx and in fact we get matter-over-mind.It is not, as you claim, mind-over-matter. 

Unfortunately, Marx didn't revert to 'mind-over-matter', which is always the accusation of 'materialists' (like you?), who follow Engels, who inadvertantly resurrected this debate, and argued in favour of 'matter-over-mind', as you do.Marx unified 'mind-matter' into conscious activity, and therefore solved the Gordian Knot of your problem with one stroke.Marx starts from the assumption of both, unified, as so doesn't talk about either 'mind' alone or 'matter' alone. This issue of 'which is over the other' is a non-problem for Marxists.As I've said, it was Engels who split Marx's ideas back into a battle between 'idealism' versus 'materialism', in which struggle one must take a side. As you're a 'materialist', you accuse me of 'idealism'. In this, you're also continuing the views of the SPGB, which also subscribes to Engels' 'materialism'.Democratic socialism will require 'conscious activity', social production, democratic politics – not a reversion to the ancient 'mind versus matter' debate. Marx's method is 'social theory and practice', which requires both 'mind' and 'matter', unified.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

I suspect that when you admit that "you are not sure how the situation itself will obviate the need for conscious human activity" you are not being entirely honest and simply trolling. Because this admitance is in all honesty simply saying you don't understand the situation.   Pull the other one!Indeed by understanding the situation you would be fully aware that the outcome is a conscious human activity where the voluntary associated producers have decided that given all the relevant factors involved they have to determine what is appropriate and acceptable to arrive at a given outcome.The 'we' that do 'decide' is everything and everybody involved in drying the boards.  And that involves the facts of the situation which includes how the boards are dried and the urgency on drying the boards.  Indeed all they will be doing is applying the basic principles of Project Management (look it up). Which may or may not require a vote to be taken for it depends on the "situation".Anything else you are not sure about?

[my bold]Yeah, I'm not sure why you can't read what you write."the situation itself" is not "understanding the situation".'itself' excludes 'understanding', whereas 'understanding' includes 'understanding'.Anything else you are not sure about, including you own thoughts?And I note that your chosen political method is the well-known (and despised) bourgeois "basic principles of Project Management", which conspicuously don't include 'democracy' as a 'basic principle'.Isn't there anyone in your party prepared to defend the 'basic principles of Democratic Socialism', rather than serve as cheerleaders for bourgeois ideology, like PM? (look it up, as ideology)

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

The decision reached will be based on …  There will be no need for a vote when the situation itself will determine the outcome. 

[my bold]I'm not sure how 'the situation itself' will obviate the need for conscious human activity, Brian.

Brian wrote:

In short, we will decide when and if its appropriate and acceptable to use technology in a given situation.

[my bold]Ahhh… so, it's not 'the situation itself', then?So, 'who' is the 'we' that do 'decide'?And, 'how' does this 'we' make a decision, if not by democratic means ("no need for a vote")?

[LBird]

twc wrote:

LBird, yes.Yes, when Engels is investigating society — from pre-historical primitive communist modes of production (of which he is a pioneer), through pre-capitalist social-class modes of production, the capitalist mode of production (of which he is a pioneer, before Marx) and a future socialist mode of production (of which he saw clearly before anyone else) — he is talking about the implications of ‘social production’. Always without exception.Yes.  Engels’s celebrated account, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, of the materialist conception of history, which is effectively his popularization for workers of Marx’s Preface to the Critique (which I excerpted for you, in continuous sequence, above) is social.Yes. I have affirmed this, and have always affirmed it, and have no need to re-affirm what I’ve never denied.I stand by my word.

[my bold]So, as you clearly affirm, and have always affirmed, and quite reasonably see no need to re-affirm yet again, when the term 'materialist' is used by both Marx and Engels, it always means 'social production'.That's what I've always affirmed, too. That 'material production' is synonymous with 'social production'.Now, we can stand by our word, twc.And move this discussion forward. Let's hope no-one reverts to claiming that Marx was talking about 'matter', something that 'exists' outside of our 'social production'.Since we 'socially produce' what the bourgeoisie call 'matter', we can change the concept, as Marx argued, to 'inorganic nature'.And discuss how humans, being consciously active, labour upon 'inorganic nature' to socially produce 'organic nature'.Although, it's odd that Engels seemed to think, at times, that 'inorganic nature' meant 'matter'. But we've put that all aside now, haven't we? And realised that Engels was really talking, just as Marx was, about 'social production'.We could even start a new thread (which no doubt would please the ever-forbearing mods) about who, when and why humans socially produced 'matter'.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

Ahhh… now we get to the nub of the political issue – you've already decided that 'we can have TOO MUCH democracy'.

LOL the irony of ironies –  LBird accusing others of having "already decided" that we can have too much democracy when LBird himself has "already decided"  without so much as a single  working class voice in support of his daft idea that in communism the workers throughout the world will be voting on tens of thousands  of scientific theories every year? Whats the matter LBird?  Dont you like the idea of us mere workers voicing an opinion on what we want democracy for and where we dont see it as being necessary.  Why are we not allowed to say this proposal of yours is utterly harebrained, completely pointless and totally impractical?  Are we meant to defer to your superior wisdom  on the nature and extent of democrcy in a communist society?

That's right, robbo – I've already decide that 'democratic socialism' can only mean 'democratic socialism', and not alan's 'NOT TOO DEMOCRATIC socialism'. I'm a worker that's had experience of a form of 'democracy' a bit like alan's (ie. 'democratic centralism').I'm quite willing to put this to a vote of workers – do they want 'democratic socialism' (within which they decide) or do they want 'NOT TOO DEMOCRATIC socialism' (within which it's been pre-decided by an elite, that somethings cannot be decided by the workers themselves).I already know that this issue is of no interest to you – at least alan wants some sort of 'democratic socialism', whereas you just want 'robbo individualism'.So, we can expect, during the struggle to build socialism by workers, for those workers to be confronted by this question. Perhaps they'll vote for the SPGB's and alan's 'NOT TOO DEMOCRATIC socialism', perhaps for 'democratic socialism'… perhaps even for 'robbo individualism'.I'm prepared for their decision. Unlike you or alan, apparently.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

LBird, you are the only person to state here that Engels thought the materialist conception of history was about matter.Read (above) what Engels wrote about the materialist conception of history in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. It’s clear enough.So far you have decided on matter,  Nobody else has.  Surely that’s clear enough.

So, for the third time, will you confirm what you wrote earlier, that Marx and Engels were talking about 'social production', and not 'matter'?What's the problem with simply confirming what you wrote earlier?

[LBird]

MBellemare wrote:

Is LBird, serious about this global population "Vote" on all scientific theories? am I reading this correctly! A Universal "Vote" on what constitutes scientific "verity"? What does this have to do with Socialism and Change? That a socialist society would "Vote" en mass, what is truth and falsehood, for the society at large??? 

Given that you've not followed a very long political, ideological and philosophical discussion here, over years, you don't know the context of this debate.But, having said that, perhaps you can answer a question that the SPGB seems incapable of doing.If you are a 'democratic socialist' (and I'm assuming that you are, for now, but you can correct me later), who or what would determine 'truth' within a democratic socialist society?To make you aware of the central issue (and so more careful of your answer), this is a question about political power and who wields it.I'm simply asking, if not society employing democratic methods, which elite is going to make decisions about 'truth'?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

LBird. i'm not going to enter into any long exchange since i'm off the grid right now and sitting in a Starfucks at 2 quid a cup of tea.But i think Tim answered for me and you really shouldn't read into messages what you want to read. I think its called confirmation bias.

I still think my assumption was correct – you discussed "workers' democracy" in the context of the Soviet Union. Why would you discuss "workers' democracy" and supposed potential problems surrounding it, by reference to the political practices of the Stalinists, if you weren't making some link between them? Surely, if someone were to discuss 'socialism' by reference to 'National Socialism', you'd assume that that person saw some link between 'socialism' and 'Nazism', which we'd both be quick to reject. In the same way, I reject any political link between "workers' democracy" and the non-democratic SU. I wanted to know why you brought up the comparison – if not to damn "workers' democracy" by linking it in some way to the SU.

ajj wrote:

Lee Harvey Oswald quickly learned that the Soviet Union was not socialism and that there existed an elite in control that used the pretence of workers' democracy as a cover. We see it in our own trade unions…The accusations against the Trots of making union meeting so fucking boring no-one attends and therefore they get what they want passed is well documented.

I agree entirely, alan. But, "the pretence of workers' democracy" clearly isn't "workers' democracy" (as you know), so why link my arguments for "workers' democracy" with a non-democratic, elitist, Leninist political regime? I had to assume that you're savvy enough to have realised what you were doing, within the context of a political discussion about 'democracy'.

ajj wrote:

I think we can have TOO MUCH democracy and anyone who has been a member of the SPGB for any length of time will recognise what i mean.We implement decisions with the speed of a glacier. 

Ahhh… now we get to the nub of the political issue – you've already decided that 'we can have TOO MUCH democracy'.Well, that's a good start, when trying to attract interested, curious, workers to 'democratic socialism' – tell them that the 'democratic' part is problematic, and you are part of the elite that has pre-decided that, even before workers themselves get a chance to employ their own 'social theory and practice', to see if they themselves can make 'democracy-for-them' work or not.For you, membership and experience of the theory and practice of the SPGB has shown that the theory of 'full democracy' doesn't work, and produces 'glacier-like' practice.Have you never considered that the 'theory' of the SPGB is not actually 'democratic'? That the SPGB, when challenged by me to talk about its 'democratic theory' in social production, either can't answer, resorts to 'elite experts', resorts to 'individuals', or resorts to personal abuse?Given that the SPGB's version of 'democratic theory' is so questionable, it would come as no surprise to find that the 'democratic practice' based upon that flawed 'theory', doesn't actually work.Couln't that account for your experience of 'democracy'? That your experience is much the same as workers in the SU? That both sets of workers have met a load of elitist bluffers, who use 'democracy' as a 'cover' for their own elite theory and practice?Even when I ask you 'who in socialism would produce 'truth', if not the social producers by democratic methods?', you can't (or won't) answer.I suppose it's easier to blame Democratic Communists and Marxists for arguing for 'TOO MUCH democracy', and to tell workers now that, in effect, the SPGB 'knows better' than the world proletariat. Isn't this much the same approach, as that of the Leninists towards the workers in the SU?

[LBird]

twc wrote:

LBird wrote:

Once we've clarified … that Marx and Engels were talking about 'social production' (and not 'matter')…

If the passages (which you mocked) from Socialism: Utopian and Scientific can’t change your opinion about whether Engels was saying the “same thing” as Marx’s Preface to the Contribution, then my opinion can’t.Since, in your idealist–materialist [sic] view, thought can never break free from opinion, the onus falls squarely on you to explain, in your opinion:Why your idealism–materialism [sic] misled you to your former opinion — that Engels was not saying the “same thing” as Marx’s Preface to the Contribution?Why, in idealist–materialist [sic] terms, you have now changed your mind?

I'm a bit confused now, twc.All I asked is for you to confirm what you wrote – that Marx and Engels were talking about 'social production', and not 'matter'.I can only try again – twc, do you agree that Marx and Engels were talking about 'social production', and not 'matter'?Once we've clarified that political issue, we can move on to a discussion about to what extent Marx and Engels, as writers, built upon that understanding, and to what extent, either or both of them, confused the issue for future generations of democratic socialists (by allowing the myth to grow that they were talking about 'matter', and not 'social production').There's a chance for a real political discussion here – why not take it?

[LBird]

twc wrote:

LBird wrote:

Engels said something different to Marx.Marx was talking about 'social production', not 'matter'.

Engels is saying the same thing as Marx’s Preface to the Contribution.So is Engels.

[my bold]This is a promising development, twc – your opinion.Right, now we're getting somewhere!So, twc, in your opinion, is this 'same thing', that you argue that Marx is talking about and Engels agrees, either:a) 'social production'; or,b) 'matter'?Once we've clarified that you agree that Marx and Engels were talking about 'social production' (and not 'matter'), which you seem to be doing above, then there's great scope for further discussion. A development about which I'm very pleased.

[LBird]

Tim, I only got to Question 1, and since I've answered this time and time and time again (to you, Vin, robbo, YMS, etc.), it appears that you either can't read or won't read what I write.When you've gone back and read what I wrote in answer to this question the last few times, I'll then take your request seriously. Until then, I can't treat your post as a serious attempt at political discussion.So, post a quote of mine, answering that question the last time it was asked, and we might start to make progress. From Question 2.

[LBird]

But all you've showed, twc, is that I (along with many other Marxists) am correct.1. Engels said something different to Marx.2. Marx was talking about 'social production', not 'matter'.I've shown this time and again, but you won't discuss it. Posting long passages, stripped from political context, and without our critical historical appreciation of their meaning, is not a discussion.All you're doing, is following the religious method of priests, and quoting uncritically from your interpretation of an allegedly infallible scripture.Unfortunately for the medieval priests, once the Bible was published in English (and other languages readable by the vast majority), their interpretation of 'The Holy Word' was shown to be debatable.Thus, we have revolutions.It's not enough to imperiously present 'The Holy Word' before us, as if that elite act is enough.Hitting workers over the head with Capital, to prove its 'Truth', will prove 'the truth of its materiality' through their headaches, but not necessarily 'the truth of its conscious content'.Discussion and persuasion are vital, if we are to build a democratic socialism, twc.

[LBird]

Alan Kerr wrote:

@LBirdMaybe the problem is you need to bring a short quotation from Engels.

Yeah, this, though, is a 'problem' that I'll be prevented from addressing on this thread, since I've addressed this 'problem' over several years, over probably a hundred other threads, where I've provided in great scholarly detail all the 'proof, sources and references'. So, although, on this thread, my remarks might appear as mere 'assertions', I have copiously quoted Marx, Engels, Dietzgen, Kautsky, Labriola, Brzozowski, Bogdanov, Lenin, Lukacs, Gramsci, Korsch, Pannekoek, a list which only takes us up to the 1930s. There are even more sources from since the 1930s, but I think that you'll have got the gist of what I'm saying.If you're interested, you could have a look at some of those threads; if not, and you're already satisfied with Engels' 'materialism', that's fine by me, and I'll let you continue to discuss these issues in the way that you see fit.As for me, I'll stop before the mod feels compelled to intervene.

[Author]

Posts