LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
twc wrote:2. “Natural laws cannot be abolished.”Try comments 2, 5 and 8.
Let's keep it simple.So-called 'Natural laws' are products of the society that creates them.So, being our products, we can 'abolish' them, and replace them with 'natural laws' suited to our needs, interests and purposes, as we create them through our social theory and practice.Simple Marxism, twc. 'Nature', as we know it, is currently a class construct. 'Nature', as we don't know it, is, as Marx said, 'nothing for us'.
Your argument, twc, comes down to: by 'new materialism', Marx really meant 'materialism'.My argument comes down to: by 'new materialism', Marx really meant 'idealism-materialism'.Comrades will have to read Marx's works for themselves, to try to settle this debate.The problem for twc is, if Marx was a 'materialist', then he rejected his own unification of parts of both 'idealism' and 'materialism', which forms the basis of 'theory and practice', 'conscious activity', 'social production' – these all need both the 'active side' of 'idealism', and the 'human suffering' of 'materialism'.Neither the idealists, who were worshippers of 'the divine', of 'god', nor the materialists, who were worshippers of 'inert matter', of 'clockwork determinism', could answer the question posed by Marx: how do we social producers change our world?The answer to this question, from both idealists and materialists, is that we don't. Their answers, respectively, are: 'we don't, god does' and 'we don't, matter changes itself'.Any interested comrade reading, ask Vin, Tim, YMS, robbo, twc, how we change the sun? They say, 'we don't'. Just like the bourgeoisie says, too.For Marx, 'objects', like 'the sun', were our social products, and so we can change them. Thus, our scientific knowledge is 'socially objective', and not 'objective', as bourgeois materialism claims.
robbo203 wrote:Human beings obviously did not create the sun, it is the idea of the sun that is socially created or culturallly conditioned. …For clarification, I suggest in future the word interpret be used instead of create …You'll have to tell us how you know the sun, robbo, outside of our social 'idea of the sun that is socially created'.Marx uses the word 'create', because we 'create' any 'sun' that we 'know'. So, to switch to 'interpret' is a political and ideological step away from Marx.You clearly think that your knowledge of the 'sun' is not socially created, but your individual knowledge from your biological senses. You should be open to us and yourself, that your method is a non-social method, and also a non-historical method, because you claim to know the 'sun' as it 'is', outside of our historical creation of 'our-sun'.
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:Thus, 'The Sun' is a social product. We can tell this because different societies through history have had different accounts of what 'The Sun' supposedly 'really is'.The Sun has not changed only our interpretation of it .
So, if you 'know' what the Sun 'is', outside of 'our interpretation of it', you should be able to tell us all how you got to know what this unchanged, ahistorical, non-social, Sun 'is'.You separate a 'thing' from 'our knowledge of the thing'. You should be able to tell us how you do this, because it means you have access to the thing 'as is it'. And if you do so, you have rendered history un-needed, because 'as it is' doesn't need history.Unfortunately, Vin, your claims are nothing to do with Marx, and everything to do with bourgeois brainwashing, that, at last, they, the bourgeoisie, have overcome history, and have unmediated, non-socio-historic, access to 'reality', and so the world 'as it is' hasn't been created by them, but just 'is'.Perhaps you can't see the conservative formulation of this approach, but surely others here can.On the contrary, though, Marx stresses social production, history and change, not 'reality' as it supposedly 'is', and is thus fixed forever, and can't be changed by humans.'The Sun has not changed' is the statement of a conservative, not of a revolutionary.
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:Marx argues that we create our reality.out of material conditions we find at hand
Yes, Vin, and the 'material conditions' are those created by previous generations of humans employing social theory and practice.Marx is talking about the history of social production, not the one-off, ahistorical, uncovering of 'matter', that 'materialists' allege that they are doing.Thus, 'The Sun' is a social product. We can tell this because different societies through history have had different accounts of what 'The Sun' supposedly 'really is'. And so, any account of 'The Sun', including your account, has to be situated within the society that produces that account. Science has a social history. Knowledge has a social history.No doubt, 'your own' account of 'The Sun' will involve your individual biological senses, especially from 'your own' eyes. And we can see that you got this belief in 'individual biology', not from Marx (who argues that our senses are socially created, and thus refracted through our social perception, our ideas, our consciousness), but from the bourgeoisie, who you unquestioningly follow. " 'Individual senses' as the source of social knowledge" is a ruling class idea, and you have uncritically accepted this, all your life. That's why ruling class ideas are powerful, and have to be challenged.By 'material', Marx means 'human', as opposed to 'ideal', meaning 'divine'.So when Marx writes 'material', he means 'social', not 'matter'.So, by 'material conditions' he means 'socially produced conditions', not 'hard stuff' we can touch (like 'technology' or a 'factory').Engels didn't understand this, and you follow Engels, Vin, not Marx.
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:so you can't make up (again and again), what Marx and I supposedly say.That is really pathetic.Anyway to stick to the point. Do you believe that there is an objective reality that exists independent of society? Or do you still believe that the moon only came into existence when it was socially produced?
You'll have to read Marx, Vin. You're not going to take my word for it, so it's pointless me continuing to explain Marx to you.Marx argues that we create our reality. You don't agree with Marx, and so you won't agree with me.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Vin wrote:LBird wrote:Marx didn't say 'the world only exists in our minds', Vin, so, no, you're wrong.No Marx didn't! You did! So there is a reality outside of our brains? If you now accept this then you are making progress. What about the proletariate ruling in communism to prevent 'elite' groups from taking control? And the worldwide vote on the truth? Still sticking to those?Oh and the organised social violence??
Now where getting to the awkward bit for him, expect abuse followed by silence
There's nothing 'awkward' about Marx's ideas about 'social production' and democracy, Tim. And you and Vin (et al) are the ones who turn to 'abuse', because you can't understand, never mind argue about, Marx's views about democratic social production. The 'silence' is because I get fed up saying the same things to you and Vin, and being abused for it. I'm only doing this again in the hope that there is a new audience for Marx's ideas about social production, history and change, and our part in it.Keep listening to what 'matter' tells you, Tim, if that suits you. But I'm compelled to tell workers that rocks do not talk to Tim, Vin, or any other 'materialist'.
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:Marx didn't say 'the world only exists in our minds', Vin, so, no, you're wrong.No Marx didn't! You did!
No, I didn't, Vin. You're making that up. Neither Marx nor I said that.Engels said that if one wasn't a 'materialist', that they must be an 'idealist', because for Engels there were only two options. That's where you're getting your ideology from. You should read Engels' Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy, pp. 17-19, to discover why you say what you do.
Vin wrote:So there is a reality outside of our brains? If you now accept this then you are making progress.Let's take this slowly, so you can't make up (again and again), what Marx and I supposedly say.'Reality' is a human creation. 'Reality' is socially produced, and so has a history. And since we create 'reality', by our social theory and practice, we can change it. And those changes should be democratically decided upon.This is all Marx: social production, history, social theory and practice, change by us, democracy.You should read Marx some time, Vin. You might be suprised, and actually learn something.So, to directly answer your question in your terms, 'the reality outside of our brains' is our product, 'reality-for-us'.
Vin wrote:Let me help you get started – the world only exists in our minds – right?Marx didn't say 'the world only exists in our minds', Vin, so, no, you're wrong.You're the one who needs 'help to get started' in understanding Marx's ideas about 'social production' and the necessity for that production to be democratic.But, as usual, you'd rather abuse Marxists, as being 'idealists'. It's an old 'materialist' accusation, Vin. For the materialists, like you, the world is divided into two: 'good/bad', 'right/wrong', 'true/false'… oh, and from Engels, 'idealism/materialism'.You won't be surprised to find that Lenin liked that accusation, too.
twc wrote:LBird expresses hostility to materialism.In his need to drive a wedge between Marx and Engels, he blames Engels for distorting Marx with materialistic accounts…..I wonder if LBird might amuse us by clearly explaining for our delight:what’s wrong with this account?whether Marx would ever have described it this way, or written anything remotely like this?We've had a long debate on this in the past, twc, but, like the rest here, instead of it being a comradely one, you descend into abuse – in fact, just like Tim has just said, youse go 'straight to insult', now.Anyway, and I've said this before, but here goes, once again, for any newbies who haven't read it before.Yes, I'm 'hostile to materialism', as was Marx.The 'wedge between Marx and Engels' was established by Engels, who thought that Marx was talking about 'matter', when Marx used the term 'material'. Marx, in his debates during the 1840s, was contrasting the 'divine production' of the Idealists with 'human passive suffering' of the Materialists. Marx effected a unity of Idealism-Materialism, taking something from both, and rejecting something from both. He realised that the Idealists were correct about 'activity', and thus united the 'active' with 'the human', but rejected the 'divine' and the 'passive'. Thus, he argued for an active humanity, or 'social production'. That is, humans create their world. They are their own gods of creation.Engels didn't understand this, and reverted to the earlier 'materialism', and its concerns with 'matter' and a 'determinism' external to human causation.The blame for this, IMO, lies at least partly with Marx, because his writings are very unclear, contradictory, and so, often, wrong by his own standards. Plus, Engels lack of understanding of the subtleties of epistemology, added to the confusion. Both are to blame, but it's Engels version, the passive political consequences of which that, at the end, he tried to avoid, in his letters, that has come down to us as 'Marxism'.The role for Democratic Communists in the 21st century is to sort out this mess, and to give a much clearer account of Marx's ideas, and so provide a political, philosophical and ideological basis for his core belief: that the social producers, since they are the producers, can change their world.Finally, over the last 4 years, I've given textual references to Marx, Engels, and dozens of other thinkers and commentators, from the 19th century to this, so if you want evidence, twc, you're going to have to re-read what I've written many times.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:LBird wrote:Hi Sympo, above is yet another example from a follower of Engels' 'materialism', who are unable to argue with Marxists, and so are forced to make false statements about Marxists.Apparently, 'water' and 'wine' talk to Tim, and so he doesn't need to explain to you how he knows 'water' or 'wine'.If you ask him, he won't mention the socio-historical production of knowledge, but will simply say 'he knows', as an 'individual', using his 'biological senses'. He won't mention Marx, society, workers or democracy – or, indeed, scientific method.And he seems to think that ignorance of these issues within his party will impress workers enough to join.The fruits of 'materialism'.Hi Sympo, sorry, that shoud have read the insane, narcissistic, love child of Mother Theresa and Paul Daniels. You'll like him, but not a lot.
Hi Tim, still unable to engage in a philosophical debate, eh?Still, whilst your god 'matter' gets on with building for socialism, you can lie back and continue to denigrate Marxists, who insist upon workers' democracy, and wait for 'material conditions' to do what you should be doing.The fruits of 'materialism', personified. Well done, Tim!
gnome wrote:ALB wrote:Sooner or later humanity will come to work this out. I make no prediction as to when (or, to be truthful, how), though, only that it will happen.Providing of course that humanity doesn't destroy itself in the meantime…
That's the good thing about 'materialism', gnome – one doesn't have to talk about humanity!One can simply let 'matter' get on with 'determining' humanity's actions.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:LBird wrote:ALB wrote:The proposition of the materialist conception of history …is that in the end economic/productive relations, both technological and social, are more decisive than politics. …. This is not a theory of economic determinism and what actually happens in history depends on what people do, especially how political power is exercised.[my bold]ALB's statement reflects Engels' views (and not Marx's), and is just as confused as are the letters that Engels wrote on the subject.Marx's view is that social theory and practice determines 'history'.Or, the social theory and practice of production determines the social theory and practice of politics.In other words, humans can change both social production and politics. Humans, using both ideas and practice, can override both technology and 'the material/economic'.
Hi Sympo, I don't know how familiar you are with L Bird, he believes that we can turn water into wine, as long as we vote for it. If you can imagine the insane love child of Mother Theresa and Paul Daniels, your just about there.
Hi Sympo, above is yet another example from a follower of Engels' 'materialism', who are unable to argue with Marxists, and so are forced to make false statements about Marxists.Apparently, 'water' and 'wine' talk to Tim, and so he doesn't need to explain to you how he knows 'water' or 'wine'.If you ask him, he won't mention the socio-historical production of knowledge, but will simply say 'he knows', as an 'individual', using his 'biological senses'. He won't mention Marx, society, workers or democracy – or, indeed, scientific method.And he seems to think that ignorance of these issues within his party will impress workers enough to join.The fruits of 'materialism'.
ALB wrote:The proposition of the materialist conception of history …is that in the end economic/productive relations, both technological and social, are more decisive than politics. …. This is not a theory of economic determinism and what actually happens in history depends on what people do, especially how political power is exercised.[my bold]ALB's statement reflects Engels' views (and not Marx's), and is just as confused as are the letters that Engels wrote on the subject.Marx's view is that social theory and practice determines 'history'.Or, the social theory and practice of production determines the social theory and practice of politics.In other words, humans can change both social production and politics. Humans, using both ideas and practice, can override both technology and 'the material/economic'.
Sympo, first you're going to have to define 'Historical Materialism'.Since the 19th century, many people have thought that HM is something to do with Marx, but a sizeable minority regard HM as a product of Engels' views.It's no surprise that you've linked to a letter by Engels (as many see his work as the starting point of any discussion about HM), but at least you now know that some would regard your assumption as illegitimate.
