What is lbirdism?

101 posts / 0 new
Last post
Link
What is lbirdism?
Printer-friendly version

Lbird

 

I have made this suggestion once before and I really think its time that you considered it.   Stop writing these  short, continuous and very ‘repetitive’  interventions in discussions for a while and write something more ‘substantial’ that puts together and explains your ideas more clearly and in ‘more detail’.

 

I would honestly be interesting to read something that actually articulated in greater depth what you are trying to say but all these repeated ASSERTIONS that Marx was an idealist materialist and that Engels was something or other totally different are ‘thoroughly unconvincing’  and in my opinion ‘absurd’.  

 

So you don’t accept the idea  of decadence. Fair enough,  I dont think that’s a problem in the sense that views of what capitalism is, class society, role of  the state, the Labour Party, the TUs are more significant to find common ground on. 

 

I do think that your views on historical materialism, idealism and class consciousness though are more central to the differences you have with left communism.  It’s a discussion that you me and MH had before but you refused to follow the logic of the discussion and simply returned to your original premise when the going got hard.   

 

You seem to believe that just because Marx came up with these wonderful,  original ideas (miraculously  unrelated to material conditions) then someday somehow all workers will eventually understand.   Presumably after you have repeated the same phrases ad nauseum whilst refusing to change your own ideas.

 

I see no evidence at all of anyone accepting ‘your’ idea that Marx is an ‘idealist-materialist’ or even, what is worse,  of anyone understanding what you mean

 

So, please stop throwing rocks at others and explain what YOU think is the real meaning of what Marx and Engels had to say.  Analyse and explain what Marx said about how history and social development works; how you believe the working class comes to class consciousness; what Engels got wrong; why Marx isn’t a historical materialist; where did Marx & Einstein get their ideas from. 

LBird
Marx's idealism-materialism

Link, I've tried very hard, on several sites, to have the discussion that you have requested. It's become ever clearer to me, at least, that what passes as 'materialism' is in fact a 'faith-based', almost religious, reverence for 'matter'. I say this because, no matter how many quotes I give from Marx, Engels, Pannekoek, Lukacs, Korsch, Dietzgen, etc., or from later philosophical thinkers, or from other disciplines like physics or mathematics, I find that, rather than counter-argument based upon similar evidence, that I am just attacked on a personal level.

I continue to argue my points because think 'materialism' is an elitist ideology which prevents workers from developing class consciousness. It is premised on the power of an elite to have access to a knowledge, which is not available to us as a class. It's like the bible being written in Latin: peasants couldn't read Latin, so couldn't read the bible. Today, science is not taught in workers' language, for the same reasons, and with the same results: to keep social knowledge in the hands of an elite. It is a bourgeois method.

However, I have a particular technical problem on this site, which has existed for probably a year. Typing this constantly misses letters which have to be re-typed, I can't cut and paste text, or provide links. This all makes posting ten times more difficult and time-consuming.

However, prior to this technical glitch, I was able to participate in numerous threads, some with you in which I outlined my views in some depth, with detailed evidence. If you, or anyone interested, wishes to re-read those threads, and then ask questions or for clarification, I would be only too happy to discuss further.

Just please bear in mind my present obstacles, comrades.

Link
You have not tried to do as i

You have not tried to do as i suggest at all. You have not even tried to understand what i have said  

I have in the past read through your posts to try to get a clearer idea of what you believe.  I wont do it again because i think you are just plain wrong about historical materialism.  You dont understand Marx or Engels and you primarily use your absurd arguments in short snippets  to pretend that you do.   You complain about others being personal about you, you take whatever anybody else says as personal criticism rather than political criticism, but you continuously apply incorrect and highly critical epithets to others 

I say again, YOU HAVE NOT EXPLAINED IN ANY CLARITY WHAT  IDEALIST-MATERIALISM IS NOR HAVE YOU PROVED THAT MARX WAS AN IDEALIST MATERIALISM NOR HAVE YOU PROVED THAT ENGELS DISTORTED MARX. 

Redirecting others to what you have already written is no use whatsoever

 

LBird
Manners

If we're going to have a comradely conversation, Link, you're going to have to be a bit more, well, comradely.

And you're going to have to actually read Marx, not Engels.

If you simply want your current faith in 'materialism' re-inforcing, then I'm wasting my time, and you yours.

The ball's in your court.

Manners, curiosity and reading is all that is required.

lem_
it is my impression that

it is my impression that LBird bases their theory on the idea that theory isn't created from struggle but only tested by it.

but they make no testable claims, so everything they say is true - with the result that anytime they disagree with anyone else LBird cannot be wrong.

i.e. their ideas are always sucesful because they succeed at "proving" everyone else wrong.

there may be more to it going on, but i hope to have captured the most salient points

Alf
Link' s idea is a good one,

Link' s idea is a good one, and points to some of the limitations of forum discussions, which is why we have started a 'heading' called Readers' Contributions for those who want to develop their ideas in more depth. If LBird wants to lay out, as elaborately as necessary, his whole theory of consciousness, idealism, materialism and all the rest, then that might be a way of doing it. 

lem_
ohh that sounds fun! hah. i'd

ohh that sounds fun! hah. i'd definitely want to add something based loosely on poetry technological futurism and economic differences in the working class... it wouldn't be exactly groundbreaking haha, but i like pulling stuff together like that, ideally into one substantive idea.

btw LBird i don't mean that your idea has no content, or that you can't show anyone else is wrong about anything. what i mean is that by limiting your theory in that way [to its test] you also limit its applicability etc..

i also dislike you calling everything bourgeois but one gets used to it !!

 

LBird
Readers' wastebin?

Alf wrote:

Link' s idea is a good one, and points to some of the limitations of forum discussions, which is why we have started a 'heading' called Readers' Contributions for those who want to develop their ideas in more depth. If LBird wants to lay out, as elaborately as necessary, his whole theory of consciousness, idealism, materialism and all the rest, then that might be a way of doing it. 

Given the technological problems that I'm currently experiencing in using the text editor (see earlier post), this would be extremely difficult, now.

Plus, I've done a lot of this work on many previous threads, but my evidence has been ignored, by those fixated upon Engels' 'materialism', so I'm not convinced that that time would be well-used.

If you have any questions, though, I'd be pleased to answer them. 

LBird
Method incorrect

lem_ wrote:

it is my impression that LBird bases their theory on the idea that theory isn't created from struggle but only tested by it.

You're using the method of 'practice and theory', lem_.

Marx's method was 'theory and practice'.

LBird
A quote as evidence

Here's a quote from Marx's Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, about how he sees the relation of his ideas to 'idealism' and 'materialism':

Marx, Collected Works Vol. 3, p. 336, 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.
[my bold]

Thus, in the terms employed in this 19th century debate, Marx was an 'idealist-materialist'.

It could be argued he was neither, or either a materialist or an idealist, interchangeably; that is, calling him an 'idealist' would be as justifiable as calling him a 'materialist'.

I think 'idealist-materialist' captures his stance, the best.

Especially, taken in concert with his Theses on Feuerbach.

lem_
I'm sorry I don't understand

I'm sorry I don't understand that in any way at all.

You seem to have completely proven my point at the very same time as denying everything I could ever say about you or anything: really bad argument.

 

lem_
This proves exactly

This proves exactly nothing.

Suppose there's some sea water in a glass, and Marx comes along and pours a bit more salt in. A spoon or two, it doesn't matter.

I say: this water is saltier than it was.

Then LBird interjects to loudly claim: no that's not water it's salt water.

Then calls everyone bourgeois !

 

lem_
Quote:I've always recognised

Quote:
I've always recognised Marx's view of 'material': he means 'social production', not 'matter'.
I've always said the same thing: material social conditions.

if theory is absolutely pure theory and independent of engagement with "matter", then doesn't it tell us nothing about matter at all? it's just 3.141 in the sky, and not only do you make no testable claims, you can't.

... UNLESS, I suppose, we can learn from a social reality which does not include class struggle. Which seems a little bourgeois is you ask me.

I'm not sure of the status of a priori judgments about empirical things, tbh. But more generally: you've completely inoculated yourself against any criticism because you can just fall back on your own criteria of truth.

Fred
Thank you very much lem for

Thank you very much lem for your three helpful posts above. You make me wish I was a little smarter and not so lazy. 

Link
Lbird your capacity to distort reality is amazing.

""""I appreciate your acknowledgement, KT, of 'the validity or importance' of what I wrote.

But, the reason it has taken '130 posts' etc. and we keep 'going round in circles' is that whenever I quote Marx, he is simply ignored. So, I'm compelled to continue on this carousel.

The 'What is LBirdism?' thread is a case in point: a comrade asks for some clarification, I provide Marx's words, and his views (not simply "LBird's") are ignored, and the respondents continue with Engels' 'materialism'. Even after Marx writing that he unified both idealism and materialism, a claim which fits perfectly with his Theses on Feuerbach, and Capital.""""

 

Lbird your capacity to distort reality is amazing.  Frankly a different expression for 'carousel' would be 'going round in circles' which expresses what you are doing far better.   Its a waste of your time. You have made nothing clear other than a failure to understand what Marx was saying.  

I suggest again that you take time out from going in circles to write your explanations in depth and to try to make them more convincing.

LBird
There is no 'convincing' the already convinced

Link wrote:

Lbird your capacity to distort reality is amazing.  Frankly a different expression for 'carousel' would be 'going round in circles' which expresses what you are doing far better.   Its a waste of your time. You have made nothing clear other than a failure to understand what Marx was saying.  

I suggest again that you take time out from going in circles to write your explanations in depth and to try to make them more convincing.

I don't have to be 'more convincing', Link, if you won't read what Marx writes.

You can't be convinced by even Marx's words, because you are in the grip of the Faith of Materialism, Engels' ideology.

If you attempt to make us 'understand what Marx was saying', you'll be forced to quote Engels, not Marx. The failure is Engels', and yours, not mine.

It's the 'materialists' who 'distort reality', as I've shown, with the only quote from Marx on this thread, who 'unifies both idealism and materialism'.

This is 'theory and practice' ('matter' doesn't think critically), the 'unity of science' that Marx sought (not the separation of physics from politics, consciousness from reality, mind from matter, property from society).

I know already that this post will have no effect whatsoever on the Religious Materialists, like you, who follow Engels and bourgeois science, but perhaps some comrades who wish to read and understand Marx will benefit.

Either workers change their world, or the 'material' speaks to us and tells us 'what it is', already, outside of our intervention.

I, like most workers, know that I've never been spoken to by a rock.

The 'materialists' haven't either, but pretend that they have. Leninism does this, but workers are no longer being taken in by it.

Back to Marx!

lem_
ah yeah you are kinda

ah yeah you are kinda selective in what you reply to. it just seems like a game of proving yourself right rather than an attempt to discuss things. which brings us back to:

Quote:
Marx's method was 'theory and practice'.
marx did not inoculate himself from criticism, and if he was right about almost everything it was due to a profound capacity to develop his ideas.

so yeah.

as to being polite yeah you are annoying people but they are being no more dismissive than you, and at least they don't have "which is bourgeois" in their stock response.

lem_
Quote:It's the 'materialists'

Quote:
It's the 'materialists' who 'distort reality', as I've shown, with the only quote from Marx on this thread, who 'unifies both idealism and materialism'.
the issue is that you seem completely unable to even explain what are taking from the quote and why, why e.g. it proves anyone else wrong.

so you think that the quote on synthesising idealism proves that theory always preceeds practice? yeah i don't even know what you think that means given that it's a theory about practice. i take it you mean that the theory is about what practice should be rather than what it is? is that not utopianism???

as to you disproving the entire left communist milieu with one quote from the theses on feurbach

Quote:
The establishment of true materialism and of real science

is also a quote that uses the term "materalism". why suppose that "true materialism"  isn't materialism, and that the "unifying truth" of materialism and idealism isn't either?

no-one here is denying that marxism develops idealist tenets, else he wouldn't have bothered reading hegel. i.e. you can call it "material-idealism" or "materialist-ideal" you can even call it "the ideal of ducks and matter". it means precisely nothing at all what you call it. so post up some evidence that in marxism theory always preceeds practice, or elaborate what you say, or just stop posting about it!

if theory is never about existing struggle, yet struggle does exist, then your theory is utopian: it erases the working class or at least that part of the working class that is or can struggle, while paying lip service to the working class not struggling!

Quote:
The undeveloped state of the class struggle, as well as their own surroundings, causes Socialists of this kind to consider themselves far superior to all class antagonisms
Fred
the word made flesh

"If you have any questions, though, I'd be pleased to answer them," says the ever open and generous- with-his-time professor in post 8 above, knowing full well in his self-content and uncritical self belief having read a few things, that he alone understands Marx and that any questions posed will be nonsense anyway emanating from materialists as they always do; and  to which a short and largely incomprehensible quote from the unchallengeable Marx, taken out of context by the wily old bird of a professor, will sweep away dismissively and bring the tutorial to an end.

It's like the academic in "Middlemarch" Dr.Casaubon who having discovered the "key to all mythology" doesn't really know what to do with it or what the point of it is other than to refer to it whenever the chance arises and hope that'll shut everyone up, impress everyone with his learning and thus render him immune to all critique. 

 It seems never to have struck LBird that in addition to rocks not talking the dead and the unborn like rocks don't think. For in order to think (theorise) you have first to be alive (practice). No amount of quoting Marx can change this state of affairs. Even Marx, who was a remarkable thinker, had to be alive  to do it;  and was thus able to accumulate experience, knowledge and practice in the process of being alive on the critical basis of which -  plus  the vital fact that an exploited class the proletariat was also alive (practice)  in whose class struggles he became interested - he was able to develop his thoughts (theory). 

LBird says this is a bourgeois way of understanding human life and thought processes and therefore it's wrong. It must inevitably follow then  that Marx in fact was a disembodied spirit who never actually materially  existed but was more of a nebulous movement of ideas which somehow generated a body of political and economic writings which the all too human Engels, living a vulgar physical and bodily human life, which can sometimes be an advantage, somehow managed to endow with a corporeal presence. Something like that. Anyway the point is that Engels was just a vulgar uncritical materialistic  human being of little assistance to Marx who was both the idea and the word made flesh like Jesus. Hallelujah! 

LBird
Who is this 'Marx' guy, anyway?

Fred wrote:

 No amount of quoting Marx can change this state of affairs. 

Unfortunately, you're entirely right with this observation, Fred.

The 'state of affairs' is Religious Materialism.

It's all well beyond Marx's views now, just like US Fundamentalism or Political Islam are hardly related to their originators.

The 'texts' are merely a cover for another agenda, and are ignored if they clash with the 'Truth' that the priests propound today.

Link
The Word made Flesh indeed

Nice one Fred. Like your style and 'word made flesh' is very appropriate.  I did look thro some of lbird's old contributions, despite what i said,  because somewhere in the SPGB website where he said something about Marx and Einstein being 2 minds that changed the world quite miraculously of course because it was all unrelated to the then prevailing material conditions.    Unfortunately i couldnt find it which is a shame cos i think you might have liked it.   

lem_
I'm just gonna repeat myself

I'm just gonna repeat myself because you seem to have tuned me out LBird?

Quote:
if theory is never about existing struggle, yet struggle does exist, then your theory is utopian: it erases the working class or at least that part of the working class that is or can struggle, while paying lip service to the working class not struggling!
LBird
Tune in, turn on...

lem_ wrote:

I'm just gonna repeat myself because you seem to have tuned me out LBird?

I haven't 'tuned you out', lem_.

I've always tried to give you reasoned answers, to encourage you to try to understand the differences between Marx and Engels, regarding 'materialism', but, like Fred, you are not really interested in discussing these issues, but have already decided that you know the answer.

So, you both throw abuse, and then expect me to spend considerable time answering the abuse.

All you (or Fred, or Link, etc.) have to do is show willing to have a think.

If not, you're 'tuning yourself out' - it's self-inflicted, lem_.

lem_
It's not abuse man in any

It's not abuse man in any way. How is it abuse?

And you didn't reply.

 

Sorry but yeah

lem_
I know it can be frightening

I know it can be frightening to have lots of people annoyed with you and disagreeing with you when you totally believe what you're saying.

But no-one I think is calling you names or acting in an oppressive way. You are calling people bourgeois and IMO not discussing your ideas in an entirely reasonable way. I cannot guess what your intentions are, but for the sake of the argument of course I accept you

LBird
Rocks are the really 'frightening' thing

lem_ wrote:

I know it can be frightening to have lots of people annoyed with you and disagreeing with you when you totally believe what you're saying.

It's not 'frightening' to be 'disagreed' with lem_, it's 'frustrating' to not be 'argued' with.

I don't 'totally believe what I'm saying', I'm trying to have a discussion about Marx, Engels, materialism, and workers' democracy.

But I must say, in the last two years, having read dozens of books on this subject, and in response having read no considered counter-arguments based upon Marx, I'm clearly becoming ever-more convinced that I'm on the right track.  

lem_ wrote:

But no-one I think is calling you names or acting in an oppressive way. You are calling people bourgeois and IMO not discussing your ideas in an entirely reasonable way. I cannot guess what your intentions are, but for the sake of the argument of course I accept you

You need to look at the tone of the replies to my posts, just on this thread.

And I'm not calling 'people' bourgeois, I'm calling their arguments bourgeois.

So, the method of 'practice and theory' (the bourgeois ideological belief that 'individual experience' or 'material conditions' tell the observer 'what it is') is a bourgeois method, created in the same historical period as the growing power of the bourgeoisie.

For England, this can be seen with the setting up of the Royal Society, which separated being from consciousness, and furthered the pretence that the new ruling class had an 'objective' method which told them 'The Truth' about 'reality'. That is, a 'Truth' that was not social or historical, or a product of a particular class.

It doesn't take much imagination to see that this view of 'science' would be at odds with Marx's views, of 'socio-historical production' which changes over time with differing modes of production.

A concept of 'fixed truths' which are 'discovered' (and once 'discovered' are thus 'eternally true') prevents, at philosophical source, any notion that societies create their own truths. This is disastrous for the revolutionary proletariat, because Communism is precisely that: workers building their own world.

We have to tell ourselves what 'rocks' are. The ideology of the bourgeoisie does not tell us this.

Knowledge of 'rocks' is socially created. Neither you nor I, have access to an eternal truth of 'rocks'.

Now, lem_, if you want to discuss Marx and rocks, fine. Let's discuss.

However, if you know what a rock is already, we've nothing to discuss. Just thank the bourgeoisie for their kindness in educating you. You already know.

 

jaycee
Do you think there is such a


Do you think there is such a thing as 'reality' though LBird? Your view to me seems a bit relativist.

I agree with you to an extent in that Marx aimed to create a form materialism that could adequately deal with the question of consciousness which he saw had untill then only been dealt with in a serious way by 'idealist' philosophies.

His view was dialectical and aimed at a synthesis of the best aspects of all 'worldviews'/philosophies within the framework of 'historical-materalism'.

Th extent to which the term 'idealist-mateialist' is useful or accurate is debatable though; I think overall it obscures more than i helps undestanding.

What evidnce do you have for the claim hat Engels and Marx wer fundamentally oppossed on this question?

 

LBird
The relative mode of creating 'truth'

jaycee wrote:

Do you think there is such a thing as 'reality' though LBird? Your view to me seems a bit relativist.

I'm with Marx on this one, jaycee. His term for 'reality' was 'inorganic nature'.

Also, Marx was a relativist: otherwise, how could there be 'modes of production'? The 'social production' of any 'mode' was relative to that mode, of course.

Furthermore, the formulation 'idealist-materialist' reflects 19th century terminology, and we could adopt more modern terms, but that would involve dumping both 'idealism' and 'materialism' as terms for Marx's views. But whilst those influenced, like Engels, by 19th century bourgeois science, insist on using 'materialism', it must be counter-weighted by 'idealism'.

Marx's method was social theory and practice, which is thus historical.

It is not individual experience or mindless practice producing 'ideas', that is, empiricism or induction. The latter are 'ruling class ideas' within science.

lem_
you aren't arguing LBird! you

you aren't arguing LBird! you just pick and choose which post to reply to so you can repeat yourself the loudest !

Quote:
if theory is never about existing struggle, yet struggle does exist, then your theory is utopian: it erases the working class or at least that part of the working class that is or can struggle, while paying lip service to the working class not struggling!

please do respond to this.

i don't find your relativism offensive, and i won't bother disagreeing whether all knowledge is a social construction and we have no knowledge of mind independent reality. i completely disagree, but you pretty much acceopt it as an article of faith.

i do want to talk about utopianism tho: it is relevant.

lem_
who has said abusive things

who has said abusive things to you ?

it's not surprising that even self described communists can have completely false understanding, and argue it so badly.

i mean look at stalinists.

i'm not saying you're barbarous, just entrenched in being wrong, though on an individual level i feel you have succumbed to a kind of barbarity - in spirit i guess.

lem_
Quote:It is not individual

Quote:
It is not individual experience or mindless practice producing 'ideas', that is, empiricism or induction. The latter are 'ruling class ideas' within science.
what? you think induction is bourgeois?

IMHO it is acting on an "a priori" idea (of course in reality just whatever you like) independent of anything else (even what is true) which is mechanical, instrumental, bourgeois, and antithetical to working class struggle. it is the "logic" of capitalism, that reduces people to abstract quantities. and it leads to ruthless, deluded behaviour, not some sort of principled social group or whatever you think you belong to.

to claim that nothing can be learnt from experience is also unbelievable, just a game to justify whatever you like. 

also if this extreme rationalism is proletarian why is it mostly associated with capitalist libertarians?

lem_
i don't even know what we're

yes theory can preceed practice.

but perhaps it's wrong to claim that someone is incorrect just because of how they formed their idea, rather than its content.

and the fact you do so because it's learnt from empirical reality rather than sitting around pondering the nature of X or Y, makes it bourgeois imo.

if you really do think that learning from experience is a bourgeois practice, then i imagine you will starve to death quite soon anyway ;-)

EDIT it's not an improbable idea, it's just absurd. it looks like an extreme form of relativism i.e. not true because it's best for you or a group (i.e. grounded in experience and what will happen), but true because you want it to be.

you are the leading theorist of absurd self gratifying belief haha

Fred
Is there a difference between

Is there a difference between theorising and fantasising? 

jaycee
could you provide a quote of

could you provide a quote of Marx using 'inorganic nature' in the sense that you are using it here LBird?

 

 

LBird
Marx's concept of 'inorganic nature'

jaycee wrote:

could you provide a quote of Marx using 'inorganic nature' in the sense that you are using it here LBird?

Sure. Two examples:

Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, CW3, p. 276, wrote:
Nature is man's inorganic body.... In creating a world of objects by his practical activity, in his work upon inorganic nature...
[his italics]
lem_
ah i know i was laying it on

ah i know i was laying it on a bit thick but you just completely ignored me

lem_
you have the view of a

you have the view of a bourgeois fantasist.

is that abusive ?

lem_
[quote] this can be seen with

Quote:
this can be seen with the setting up of the Royal Society, which separatedbeing from consciousness, and furthered the pretence that the new ruling class had an 'objective' method which told them 'The Truth' about 'reality'. That is, a 'Truth' that was notsocial or historical, or a product of a particular class.

so you then decide that because all knowledge hithertofore is a social construction, only a prioi judgments can be justified.

while there is a limited appeal to this - the idea of tracing back a problem (lack of truth) to a consciousness completely isolated form the empirical world (theory before practice, the a priori) where those facts rule, it is not strictly logical. 

unless you can deduce that this solves the problem of how there can be truth, without any assumptions, then your method also partakes in what you call the bourgeois (induction). moreover, a bourgeois that has completely isolated itself from the empirical world.

likewise you would have to do the same to show that there can be a priori judgments which lead to practice. it's all sounding very kantian now, which is fine, but kant was bourgeois wasn't he?

i honestly wish you luck despite your inability to explain and argue in a way which helps others or your own understanding! though the boast you have read a dozen books about science is quite dismaying

lem_
Kant and Fichte soar to

Kant and Fichte soar to heavens blue
Seeking for some distant land,
I but seek to grasp profound and true
That which—in the street I find.

Quote:
Now, lem_, if you want to discuss Marx and rocks, fine. Let's discuss

no we don't "tell ourselves" what we think of rocks, we bloody well work out what rocks are.

LBird
Nothing to do with Democratic Communism

lem_, I'm going to have to leave you to argue with your own ghosts, because you're not arguing with anything that either I'm saying or that Marx said.

lem_
that's not true, you said

that's not true, you said theory always preceeds practice and i am showing you what's wrong with that.

do i have to wait for you to say what's wrong with it lol

lem_
i have a list of quite clear

i have a list of quite clear complaints, based on:

A. your explicit claim that induction is bourgeois and

B. your implicit claim we cannot learn from experience (what else do you mean by theory before practice? that we need class consciousness to really struggle?).

note this has nothing to do with your constructivism (I'm not saying we can learn timeless truths) just those two root ideas.

COMPLAINTS:

1. it us unbelievable that you don't use induction day to day

2. your theory is inductive because it's not deductive

3. how can theory always come before struggle if workers have already been struggling? even if you say that theory only comes before your own practice, then you still can't learn anything from previous struggle and so how can you know how or when it has existed?

4. it is a theory of a fantasist

5. it is kantian and bourgeois

6. marx is theorising on what he finds: i.e. his is not a prori which is another word for theory independent of experience

7. even if you could uncover seemingly true a priori judgments they would not be empirically testable without a posteriori knowledge.

8. it is really reactionary to say that what is learnt through struggle doesn't count.

etc.

 

lem_
Quote:I'm going to have to

Quote:
I'm going to have to leave you to argue with your own ghosts, because you're not arguing with anything that either I'm saying or that Marx said.

assuming you understand what i am saying, you are being cowardly by ignoring it.

it is not comradely debate, it is dishonest and self serving. IMHO this is no more "abusive" than saying that what someone says is bourgeois.

that's a huge problem with internet "debate" you can just ignore what the other person is saying and plough on. it's fine for people who are really following the discussion, but for the light reader it means that an isolated voice is never shown to be wrong.

i.e. the biggest idiot wins.

LBird
Ploughman's lunch?

lem_ wrote:

that's a huge problem with internet "debate" you can just ignore what the other person is saying and plough on.

lem_, you really should reflect on what you've said here, and question just who is 'ignoring what the other person is saying and ploughing on'.

lem_
Trollish. You are ignoring my

Trollish. You are ignoring my argument, and then say I'm ignoring yours. I am not ignoring your argument what do you think I'm posting about how much I like your football banter?

Have you heard of this btw :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_capability

lem_
This is gonna sound pompous

This is gonna sound pompous and maybe even self contradictory, but the Truth ?

is that you worry me. I feel that your ideas at present are fine and dandy even, but that if they were to be elaborated into a system it would be counter marx, anti marxism, and dangerous to the working class - but then whatever I guess.

lem_
LBird how am I ignoring you,

LBird how am I ignoring you, please ? i think you are arguing for a utopian revisionism, if you claim to be a communist rather than inspired by marx.

i have a list of quite clear complaints, based on:

A. your explicit claim that induction is bourgeois and

B. your implicit claim we cannot learn from experience (what else do you mean by theory before practice? that we need class consciousness to really struggle?).

note this has nothing to do with your constructivism (I'm not saying we can learn timeless truths) just those two root ideas.

COMPLAINTS:

1. it is unbelievable that you don't use induction day to day

2. your theory is inductive because it's not deductive

3. how can theory always come before struggle if workers have already been struggling? even if you say that theory only comes before your own practice, then you still can't learn what others have from previous struggle (else the theory came before your own practice) and so unless everyone before you is wrong you cannot learn anything from the past, perhaps even whether a practice is proletarian!

4. it is a theory of a fantasist

5. it is kantian and bourgeois

6. marx is theorising on what he finds: i.e. his is not a prori which is another word for theory independent of experience

7. even if you could uncover seemingly true a priori judgments they would not be empirically testable without a posteriori knowledge.

8. it is really reactionary to say that what is learnt through struggle doesn't count.

etc.

please note that if you do just mean that we learn nothing from struggle without class consciousness then that puts an entirely different spin on what i think of "LBirdism"

LBird
More from Marx

lem_ wrote:

...what else do you mean by theory before practice?...

Since I can't 'cut and paste', could some comrade please copy this quote in full from Capital, chapter 7, 'The Labour Process and the Valorization Process', pp. 283-4 (Penguin edition).

Marx wrote:
Labour is, first of all.... At the end of every labour process, a result emerges which had already been conceived by the worker at the beginning, hence already existed ideally.

lem_ will ignore Marx's words, as will all the other Religious Materialists who follow Engels, but I can't help them to either read or reason.

Perhaps other, more open-minded comrades, will pursue the issue with further reading of Marx's own works.

lem_
So you only mean that the

So you only mean that the products of labour are deliberate.

You don't mean that we can't learn from experience.

Right?

If not then you're still completely ignoring me...

LBird will ignore what I say because he is a utopian, but I encourage every conscientious reader to consider whether LBird has proven his claims before ignoring everyone else haha.

lem_
LBird how am I ignoring you,

LBird how am I ignoring you, please ? i think you are arguing for a utopian revisionism, if you claim to be a communist rather than inspired by marx.

i have a list of quite clear complaints, based on:

A. your explicit claim that induction is bourgeois and

B. your implicit claim we cannot learn from experience (what else do you mean by theory before practice? that we need class consciousness to really struggle?).

note this has nothing to do with your constructivism (I'm not saying we can learn timeless truths) just those two root ideas.

COMPLAINTS:

1. it is unbelievable that you don't use induction day to day

2. your theory is inductive because it's not deductive

3. how can theory always come before struggle if workers have already been struggling? even if you say that theory only comes before your own practice, then you still can't learn what others have from previous struggle (else the theory came before your own practice) and so unless everyone before you is wrong you cannot learn anything from the past, perhaps even whether a practice is proletarian!

4. it is a theory of a fantasist

5. it is kantian and bourgeois

6. marx is theorising on what he finds: i.e. his is not a prori which is another word for theory independent of experience

7. even if you could uncover seemingly true a priori judgments they would not be empirically testable without a posteriori knowledge.

8. it is really reactionary to say that what is learnt through struggle doesn't count.

etc.

please note that if you do just mean that we learn nothing from struggle without class consciousness then that puts an entirely different spin on what i think of "LBirdism"

LBird
'Experience' in a bourgeois society is bourgeois

lem_ wrote:

So you only mean that the products of labour are deliberate.

Yes, 'knowledge' is a product of social labour, and is 'deliberate'. The bourgeoisie 'deliberately' produce their physics, and so the proletariat must 'deliberately' produce their physics.

lem_ wrote:
 

You don't mean that we can't learn from experience.

Right?

No, wrong, lem_. Humans 'learn from' theory and practice. They actively build their knowledge. Read Marx.

'Learning from experience' is a bourgeois myth, tied into 'individualism' and 'private property'. The bourgeoisie introduced their physics to pretend that 'what exists' is the basis of a person's own experience, and, like 'private property', their 'nature' is supposedly not socially produced and therefore is not open to democratic control (by workers).

'What exists' can't be changed, if 'what exists' is static and already 'known'.

lem_ wrote:

If not then you're still completely ignoring me...

I'm doing this in the hope that some other comrades are having their critical thinking, about Marx, nature, knowledge and physics, stimulated.

It seems, from your posts, lem_, that you're not benefitting at all, and I'm frankly wasting my time, and should ignore you.

lem_
Would you please stop

Would you please stop complaining about having to talk to me, thanks!

Quote:
Humans 'learn from' theory and practice.

I thought you meant that we could learn without practice. I agree that there's no way to learn anything without theory broadly thought: just that it has to be modified in light of what we learn and it isn't created out of thin air but a gradual process of adapting to and developing etc. ideas through experience.

Thanks for finally getting round to replying to me.

LBird
Had enough

lem_ wrote:

LBird and Marx wrote:
Humans 'learn from' theory and practice.

I thought you meant that we could learn without practice.

Are you serious, lem_?

How many times have I written 'theory and practice'?

Now I know that you're taking the piss.

That's me done with you.

lem_
no offence but this is why

no offence but this is why you shouldn't go around using terms like materialist-idealist-religious-engelist, it totally obfuscates what you are saying so that it sounds like you are disagreeing with everyone because of what they've said rather than whatever reason it is you need to loudly proclaim everyone else is wrong - despite not knowing where they disagree etc.

Quote:
Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.
The tradition of all dead generations weighs like an nightmare on the brains of the living.

i'm glad i finally understand you.

lem_
what is done ?

LBird wrote:
That's me done with you.

yeah whatever - how many times have people asked you to explain, and how many times did i have to post that reubuttal of 'theory without practice'.

three times btw you only have to scroll up.

LBird
Scrolling up, what do we find?

LBird, post #9, wrote:

lem_ wrote:

it is my impression that LBird bases their theory on the idea that theory isn't created from struggle but only tested by it.

You're using the method of 'practice and theory', lem_.

Marx's method was 'theory and practice'.

lem_
Quote:You're using the method

Quote:
You're using the method of 'practice and theory', lem_.

Marx's method was 'theory and practice'.

was our first exchange on this thread.

the whole over rhetorical thing is absurd unless you mean that theory can exist without practice [which i have argued against at length and presumably you ignore this cos it's not your view]... do you like apples and oranges, no i like oranges and apples haha.

lem_
glitch

LBird wrote:

LBird, post #9, wrote:

lem_ wrote:

it is my impression that LBird bases their theory on the idea that theory isn't created from struggle but only tested by it.

You're using the method of 'practice and theory', lem_.

Marx's method was 'theory and practice'.

ah i still don't know what you mean by it.
lem_
1. You don't claim that there
  • You don't claim that a theory cannot be created from practice.

only that

  • there is no practice without some theory (no accidental struggle) or other and vice versa (no theory which isn't informed by struggle).

The phrase in italics is all I meant by my "practice and theory" (your term, not mine).

I think we agree tbh. Correct me if I'm still misunderstanding you though...

lem_
Correct me if I'm still

Correct me if I'm still misunderstanding you

???

lem_
or not... i don't consider

or not... i don't consider you an enemy LBird and my posting reflects that.

best wishes and don't let the door hit you on way OUT ;-))

lem_
i don't mean to sound like

i don't mean to sound like it's personal, you are terrible at "debate" and explanation hah IT SEEMS i mean maybe you'll turn up sometime soon and actually explain something rather than call everyone by some bizarre neologism and then wave your hands around haha

LBird
Elite method

lem_ wrote:

i don't mean to sound like it's personal, you are terrible at "debate" and explanation hah IT SEEMS i mean maybe you'll turn up sometime soon and actually explain something rather than call everyone by some bizarre neologism and then wave your hands around haha

I can't keep saying that Marx said 'theory and practice'...

... and keep reading you replying 'yes, practice and theory'.

Words actually a mean something - it's not some 'bizarre neologism' that you're having problems with, lem_, but Marx's notion of 'theory and practice'.

I suspect that you have an unrecognised (and thus unacknowledged) background in 'Engelsism', that is, 'materialism', which places 'matter' as the origin of thought (rather than critical consciousness as the origin of 'theory'), and thus sees the relationship between 'matter' and 'thinking' as 'mindless practice and resulting theory: that is 'practice and theory'.

Marx argued for criticism of 'what exists' and then the application of the result of this critical thought upon 'what exists', to change 'it'.

If you hold the belief that 'mindless practice' prior to critical thought (what you call 'struggle') itself produces 'ideas', then you do not hold the same beliefs as Marx did.

Otherwise, why did he spend decades producing a book titled Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, as a basis for future workers' practice?

He'd have saved himself the trouble, and instead would have said 'Just Do It!'

'Practice and theory' is the method of bourgeois thought, 19th century positivism, Engels, and Leninism, and hides the thinking of an elite minority behind the slogan 'practice and theory', the better to pretend that no prior thought has taken place, from workers.

Of course, Marx is correct: humans use 'theory and practice', and the pretence otherwise is designed to mislead the proletariat.

'Practice and theory' is actually 'Hidden elite theory and unconscious majority practice, leading to the confirmation of the elite's theory'.

Workers must be conscious and critical prior to their practice.

Please read this, lem_, please.

  

lem_
[quote[If you hold the belief

Quote:
If you hold the belief that 'mindless practice' prior to critical thought (what you call 'struggle') itself produces 'ideas', then you do not hold the same beliefs as Marx did.

Still unclear.

No I am not saying that (critical) theory can be created from "mindless struggle" but that we learn and improve our ideas from practice.

Do you disagree? If so then please answer these objections:

i have a list of quite clear complaints, based on:

A. your explicit claim that induction is bourgeois and

B. your implicit claim we cannot learn from experience (what else do you mean by theory before practice? that we need class consciousness to really struggle?).

note this has nothing to do with your constructivism (I'm not saying we can learn timeless truths) just those two root ideas.

COMPLAINTS:

1. it is unbelievable that you don't use induction day to day

2. your theory is inductive because it's not deductive

3. how can theory always come before struggle if workers have already been struggling? even if you say that theory only comes before your own practice, then you still can't learn what others have from previous struggle (else the theory came before your own practice) and so unless everyone before you is wrong you cannot learn anything from the past, perhaps even whether a practice is proletarian!

4. it is a theory of a fantasist

5. it is kantian and bourgeois

6. marx is theorising on what he finds: i.e. his is not a prori which is another word for theory independent of experience

7. even if you could uncover seemingly true a priori judgments they would not be empirically testable without a posteriori knowledge.

8. it is really reactionary to say that what is learnt through struggle doesn't count.

lem_
you debate in a bizarre way.

you debate in a bizarre way. A and B is the exact same as B and A, whether A and B are theory and pratice or apples and oranges!

You mean "struggle doesn't change theory", when the word "and" just doesn't mean "doesn't change".

Critical theory like any theory can be about / learnt from / changed due to practice. Just because a theory isn't Communist doesn't make the worker literally some sort of mindless zombie, it just means that they have more to learn or just figure out.

It is you

LBird
Realisation

If you say so, lem_. Have a nice evening, I'm no use to you.

lem_
Fab

I'm trying if you can't explain to me maybe I'm just a "mindless zombie".

lem_
i have asked and explicitly

i have asked and explicitly states this over five times now, can you at least confirm or deny it's what you're saying even if arguing with me is beneath you

Quote:
i have a list of quite clear complaints, based on:

A. your explicit claim that induction is bourgeois and

B. your implicit claim we cannot (critically) learn from experience

LBird
Anti-induction Albert

lem_ wrote:

i have asked and explicitly states this over five times now, can you at least confirm or deny it's what you're saying even if arguing with me is beneath you

Quote:
i have a list of quite clear complaints, based on:

A. your explicit claim that induction is bourgeois and

B. your implicit claim we cannot (critically) learn from experience

I know that I'll regret resurrecting this thread, but I couldn't help thinking of your rage at my condemnation of 'induction', when I read this, lem_:

Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, p. 301, wrote:
We now realise, with special clarity, how much in error are those theorists who believe that theory comes inductively from experience. Even the great Newton could not free himself from this error.

I might have my differences with Einstein (he wasn't a Democratic Communist), but he was spot on, with his critical estimation of induction (ie., 'practice and theory').

lem_
i somehow doubt that einstein

i somehow doubt that einstein is saying never use induction. what he seems to be saying is great advances in science are not inductive - but a less mechanical way of thinking about experience

Quote:
while the researcher always starts out from facts, [4l whose mutual connections are his aim, he does not find his system of ideas in a methodical, inductive way
LBird
Faithful to the 'material conditions' of Engels and Lenin

Doesn't anybody else find it hilarious that the actual words of neither Marx nor Einstein make any impression upon the faith of the Religious Materialists?

Oh well, at least I've tried...

Pages