LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
robbo203 wrote: “Yes, but since you reject Marx’s “new materialism” in a favour of straightforward idealism…”
This is a figment of your own imagination, robbo, and doesn’t reflect anything that I’ve written here.
‘Idealism’ is the ideological belief that ‘God’ is the active consciousness, not ‘humanity’.
It’s very similar to ‘materialism’, which is the ideological belief that ‘Matter’ is the active consciousness, not ‘humanity’.
On the contrary, Marx’s ‘new’ made ‘humanity’ the active consciousness, which is why he argued for ‘theory and practice’.
Here’s a quote from the Socialist Standard of September 1973:
“German idealist philosophy made ideas the driving forces of history. Marx and Engels did not deny that the real men who made history were conscious beings who had ideas about what they were doing; their point was that these ideas did not come from nowhere and were not arbitrary. Ideas, they said, arose from material social conditions so that men’s ideas reflect their material conditions of life, their activity in society. Consciousness in the abstract did not exist: “Consciousness can never be anything else than conscious existence, and the existence of men is their actual life process” and “life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life”.
The theory advanced here is not a theory of the physiology of perception and thinking (which Marx and Engels knew they were not qualified to formulate) so that talk of ideas “reflecting” social processes must not be misunderstood as a theory that the brain is a kind of camera photographing the world. It is a theory of the social origin of ideas.” [my bold]
You should read and follow the Socialist Standard, robbo.
robbo203 wrote: “…there was stuff that Marx wrote that was clearly wrong and that I am quite happy to ditch.”
I agree, robbo, there’s the basis for a very interesting discussion, on the view that we could update Marx for the 21st century.
For example, if only Marx had made clear that his ‘new materialism’ wasn’t just ‘materialism’ with a meaningless prefix, like ‘chocolate materialism’, but that the content of his ‘new’ was revolutionary.
Perhaps we should have been able to suppose that revolutionaries would assume that ‘new’ meant ‘revolutionary’, but unfortunately Engels reverted in his texts to ‘materialism’ (ie. ‘old materialism’).
Still, your impulse is correct. Critical thinking has to be the basis of our self-emancipation.
Wez wrote: “How was the English Revolution defeated?”
Read any textbook, Wez, but Hill’s The World Turned Upside Down is as good a place to start as any.
Chapter 14, ‘Mechanic Preachers and the Mechanical Philosophy‘, pp.287-305, is especially pertinent to your question.
ALB, your quote from the SS Sept ’73 is spot on.
It consistently emphasises the ‘social’ (or its synonym, ‘material’) and production, as did Marx.
The key statement is:
“Human beings are born with brains, but not minds. Men only acquire minds in and through society, the content of their minds reflecting their social life and experience. A man outside society, could he exist, would have a brain, but no mind. Which is why physical theories of the mind are inadequate.”
‘Minds’ are socially produced, not ‘physical’.
The routine identification of ‘brain’ with ‘mind’ by the materialists is ‘inadequate’.
‘Minds’ are socially produced, and don’t pre-exist their maker.
For materialists, ‘mind’ always equals ‘brain’.
Bourgeois individualism, since 1650.
The defeat of the English Revolution, for those not interested in history, society, philosophy… politics.
Matthew Culbert wrote: “As someone who thinks that humans create the objective world not wonder you object to the word!”
That’s Marx’s view, Matt.
As for the rest of your post, you’re just showing your ignorance of the ideological meaning of ‘objective’.
Here’s the bourgeois definition:
“Objective is defined as someone or something that is real or not imagined.
A thing or group of things existing independent of the mind.
Being, or regarded as being, independent of the mind; real; actual.
Of or having to do with a known or perceived object as distinguished from something existing only in the mind of the subject, or person thinking.
Anything external to or independent of the mind; something objective; reality.”
I’ll bet that you’ve even thought where ‘your definition’ comes from, have you, Matt?
Believe me, mate, this philosophical conversation is passing over your head.
alanjjohnstone wrote “Geniuses like Da Vinci and Michaelangelo and Dickens and Shakespeare need fear nothing from being levelled down to mediocrity by us ignoramuses of the art and literature.”
The whole point of democratic socialism, surely, alan, is to ‘level UP‘ the associated producers, so that we socially produce more geniuses of art and literature?
Perhaps materialists really do have a low opinion of workers? Hence, the absolute hatred of any mention of democracy, where ‘geniuses’ are supposedly concerned.
Unlike you, alan, I think ‘genius’ is a socially-produced category, and I think that the ‘geniuses’ to fill that category are socially-produced, too. I’d imagine we’d expand the category to include anyone who excels at their social production, whether artist, scientist, teacher, nurse, carpenter, etc., etc.
Of course, a ‘genius’ would be elected by their peers, and also removed from that honour, if the ‘genius’ proved to be a ‘prick’. I can name a few.
Anyway, I’m sure that all the materialists here will be gossiping about ‘The Idealist LBird wants mediocrity forced upon Shakespeare, and genius allocated to all the ignoramuses‘. Really, it’s pitiful, the standard of political and philosophical responses on this site.
After eight years, alan, I think we’re getting very close to The Heart Of Darkness of your materialist version of ‘democratic socialism’: it’s a society for the elite geniuses of Science and Art, who tower inescapably above ‘us ignoramuses’.
All I can say is, ‘Speak for yourself, alan!’
Self-emancipation of the proletariat!
Matthew Culbert wrote “…objective…”.
But humans socially produce their ‘objects’, Matt.
Haven’t you read Marx?
Or are you, like robbo and now alan, now going to ditch Marx?
alanjjohnstone wrote: “What i will do, however, is use my own learned experience to try and create the environment for that elite to operate freely within, without the constraints of capitalism being imposed upon them. That is what i consider to be my function as a class-conscious socialist.
That does not put me at the mercy of any intellectual elite but both of us operating with reciprocity. I want to free the scientist so that they can begin to free me.” [my bold]
I must congratulate you on your political and philosophical openness here, alan. At least we’re getting somewhere, “after eight years of my OCD” (LOL – nothing to do with your taking eight years to give a straight answer!).
But… anyway, we’re here now!
So, democratic socialism for you, is… an elite that operates freely!
But… even funnier, though they’ll operate freely, you won’t be at their mercy!
Whatever happened to Marx, democracy, and the self-emanicipation of the proletariat? Oh, sorry, you don’t do ‘philosophy’ – so it must be nonsense, eh? Yeah, let’s leave it to an elite to openly tell us what to think and do. And, by christ, you, as an individual, will do as they say. It’s called ‘politics’, mate, and it relates to ‘power’.
Why would they ‘free you’? Your naivete is, frankly, unbelievable. Why not just put your faith in priests, alan, and have done with it?
Anyway, it’s taken you eight years to be honest, so let’s hope your political confession spreads to the other ‘materialists’ here.
Happy Easter!
alanjjohnstone wrote: “I note, LBird, that my Pannekoek reference goes without comment that your seeming fixation with quoting Marx’s philosophical understanding is unnecessary for workers to make the socialist revolution, which was an earlier observation of mine that despite his contributions, the workers doesn’t require Marx or the turgid interpretations of his acolytes such as yourself to know what is in their interest and how to make a revolution by the intellectual intervention of any elite.”
My apologies, alan, but moving this conversation onto what parts of Marx, Engels, Dietzgen, Pannekoek, etc., that we think are wrong/improvable/correct is pointless until we get to some point where we understand each others’ ideological perspective, as a basis of our differing assessments of wrong/improvable/correct. This is proving difficult because the materialists can’t recognise their own ideology, so they will have immense difficulties understanding any other, and comparing them.
Suffice to say, I have differences with Marx, Engels, Dietzgen, Pannekoek, etc., as I’ve said before, so your dig about ‘seeming fixation’ just shows that you are still not reading what I write, but are siding with the ideology of ‘materialism’, but also pretending that you are too thick to question it. Your words, not mine, comrade.
But, on this particular point of yours, yes, I do think that “philosophical understanding is necessary for workers to make the socialist revolution”. This can be done quite easily, by making philosophy understandable.
Your view (and it seems Pannekoek’s) would leave the ‘theory’ part of ‘theory and practice’ in the hands of a ‘philosophical elite’, and so that elite would drive ‘theory and practice’, not the associated producers by democratic means.
You might be happy with your ignorance of philosophy, alan, but I think that you’re going to have to address the issue eventually. I’ve offered to help, but it’s your ‘materialist’ ideology which prevents you accepting both the need to learn and my help.
So, yes, mass understanding and criticism of Marx is required for a socialist revolution.
ALB quote “Robbo, now he is saying that we don’t think that “men make history” but that tools and machines do !”
Well, ALB, if ‘men make history’, you have to admit that they are conscious and make.
So, the active side is humans, not ‘ideas’, not ‘matter’, not ‘the ideal’, not ‘the material’.
I’m so glad that you’ve finally accepted Marx’s ideas.
So, ‘who‘ consciously makes ‘science’, ALB, and ‘how‘?
Or are you going to revert to ‘matter makes science’ or ‘scientists make science’, and argue against democracy within science?
Why do you disagree with Marx’s democratic politics, ALB? Why do you want ‘the material’ to dictate to humanity? How do you know this ‘material’ if the rest of us don’t? If we all know it, why can’t we vote on it?
You haven’t a clue about Marx’s views, have you, ALB? Your 1975 article on Dietzgen shows that then, and you haven’t developed in nearly half a century, so I won’t hold my breath that Marx’s social productionism will finally have any effect on you.
Democratic Socialism, not ‘matter’, not an elite’.
robbo203 wrote: “Yes, and you reject completely the influence of the material side of this configuration. For you, material factors don’t exist. That makes your standpoint an idealist one...”
I predicted that you’d make this false allegation earlier!
You’re never one to disappoint those who know your materialist ideology, and its ideological belief that there are only two basic philosophies.
It’s been well proved by quotes on this thread from Marx, Dietzgen and Pannekoek, that human conscious activity, social production, requires a unity of theory and practice.
robbo203 wrote: “…You make no allowance for the influence of material factors. They don’t even exist from your standpoint…”
That’s because, according to Marx’s standpoint, there are only ‘ideal-material factors’.
Human activity unifies the ‘ideal and ‘material’, so that it is illegitimate to separate the unity back into isolated factors.
You might disagree with Marx, robbo, and that’s fine as a political and philosophical stance to adopt, if you decide you want to do so.
But… it’s not Marx’s, nor Dietzgen’s, nor Pannekoek’s, nor mine.
You need to query the origins of your ideas, because they haven’t originated in Marx’s views.
ALB, your quote from Pannekoek still supports Marx’s social productionism, social theory and practice, conscious activity, as the source of the change in society.
It doesn’t support the materialist theory that ‘material’ (tools, matter, stuff) produces consciousness.
ALB’s quote from Pannekoek wrote: “…the tools with which people work…tools, of these technical aids which men direct…the people are ever trying to improve these tools…Thus the Marxian theory disclosed the propelling force and the mechanism of social development.” [my bold]
The ‘propelling force’ is not ‘matter’, but social production, which requires both consciousness and being.
Being doesn’t come before consciousness (materialism); nor does consciousness come before being (idealism).
Conscious activity, social production, active humanity changes ‘matter’ and ‘consciousness’.
So, Pannekoek agrees with Marx, as do I.
You don’t.
I should mention that it’s very interesting that given a choice between ‘materialism’ and democracy, materialists choose materialism; given a choice between ‘materialist science’ and democracy, choose materialist science; given a choice between ‘materialism’ and Marx, it seems, will choose ‘materialism’, if I read alanjjohnstone correctly.
Why the commitment to ‘matter’? It’s like a religious devotion, and any questioning of it is condemned as ‘evil’ idealism.
What’s worse, is that it’s very clear that many materialists have never even read any philosophy of science, never mind philosophy, and yet feel the need to defend the honour of ‘matter’, even though they haven’t a clue what the discussion is really about, which is why, like Lenin, they soon turn from discussion to abuse.
Well, whilst ‘matter’ wins, democratic socialism won’t.
