Materialism, aspects and history.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

 I agree with Alison Assister , an ex SPGBer, that " Marx’s materialism should not be seen as philosophical materialism’ (Alison Assiter "Philosophical Materialism or the Materialist Conception of History", Radical Philosophy, 23 (Winter 1979). 

I've read Alison's article (it was provided to me by a comrade from here), and I think that she is too influenced by Engels, and fails to see the differences between them.She still refers to 'Marx's materialism' (p. 20), and so clearly doesn't understand that Marx was an 'idealist-materialist'. She then refers to 'his materialist conception of history'. This is Engels' term, not Marx's. Marx merely referred to 'our conception'. I've given all the relevent quotes, previously.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

I've read Alison's article (it was provided to me by a comrade from here), and I think that she is too influenced by Engels, and fails to see the differences between them.She still refers to 'Marx's materialism' (p. 20), and so clearly doesn't understand that Marx was an 'idealist-materialist'. She then refers to 'his materialist conception of history'. This is Engels' term, not Marx's. Marx merely referred to 'our conception'. I've given all the relevent quotes, previously.

 I think you are too hung up on the fomality of labels.  In no way does a materialist conception of history preclude a role for ideas as I explained.  You say you have given all the relevant quotes concerning Engels previously but where? At least till me what thread your are talking about

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

I think you are too hung up on the fomality of labels.  In no way does a materialist conception of history preclude a role for ideas as I explained.

So, if it involves 'ideas', why not call it the 'idealist-materialist conception of history'? Why do you continue, against the drift of your posts on this very thread, which, I agree, continuously stress the role of ideas and consciousness, to use the term 'materialist'?Aren't you the 'formal' one?I'll quite happily ditch 'materialist conception', 'idealist conception' and 'idealist-materialist conception', if we can get away from the Engelsian myth that Marx was a 'materialist'.But, whilst the Religious Materialists continue to insist, following Engels, that Marx was a 'materialist', we're compelled to argue about these 'labels'.The sooner we get to 'theory and practice', and away from 'materialism', the better for all concerned.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 So, if it involves 'ideas', why not call it the 'idealist-materialist conception of history'? Why do you continue, against the drift of your posts on this very thread, which, I agree, continuously stress the role of ideas and consciousness, to use the term 'materialist'? 

 I didint invent the term.  I am just  saying what the expression "materialist conception of history " signifies and it does not signify what you think its does.  Its does not preclude consciousness and a role for ideas

LBird wrote:

I'll quite happily ditch 'materialist conception', 'idealist conception' and 'idealist-materialist conception', if we can get away from the Engelsian myth that Marx was a 'materialist'.But, whilst the Religious Materialists continue to insist, following Engels, that Marx was a 'materialist', we're compelled to argue about these 'labels'.

 Again, I ask the simple question – where is your evidence for this? Point me to the evidence where Engels expressed a crude reductionist standpoint.  How difficult is that? You say you produced lots of evidence earlier on this forum.  Where? On what thread? Can you be specific?

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

So, if it involves 'ideas', why not call it the 'idealist-materialist conception of history'? Why do you continue, against the drift of your posts on this very thread, which, I agree, continuously stress the role of ideas and consciousness, to use the term 'materialist'?

I didint invent the term.  I am just  saying what the expression "materialist conception of history " signifies and it does not signify what you think its does.  Its does not preclude consciousness and a role for ideas

[my bold]So, WHY call it the 'materialist'?I agree that, not only does Marx's 'conception' of history 'not preclude consciousness and a role for ideas', but argue also that 'consciousness and ideas' play a central role in 'theory and practice'.If the 'term' doesn't have any significance, why not call it the 'chocolate conception of history'?No, most workers seeing, for the first time, the word 'material' attached to Marx's concept, naturally think that it's something basically to do with 'material' things.Then, when they meet the Religious Materialists, who tell them that 'idealism' is an evil best avoided, the die is cast.For over 100 years, workers have been brainwashed into believing that 'ideas' are 'material', and that 'material conditions' determine 'ideas'.Lambs to the Leninist slaughter. The 'ideas' are then kept safely away from workers, and an elite provide the 'consciousness'.Let's face it, there are even 'socialists' on this very site who won't have workers electing 'truth'. So much for the democratic control of production.

[Dave B]

Marx-Engels Correspondence 1890Engels to J. BlochIn Königsberg  According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure — political forms of the class struggle and its results, to wit: constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc., juridical forms, and even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the participants, political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas — also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form. There is an interaction of all these elements in which, amid all the endless host of accidents (that is, of things and events whose inner interconnection is so remote or so impossible of proof that we can regard it as non-existent, as negligible), the economic movement finally asserts itself as necessary. Otherwise the application of the theory to any period of history would be easier than the solution of a simple equation of the first degree. We make our history ourselves, but, in the first place, under very definite assumptions and conditions. Among these the economic ones are ultimately decisive. But the political ones, etc., and indeed even the traditions which haunt human minds also play a part, although not the decisive one. The Prussian state also arose and developed from historical, ultimately economic, causes. But it could scarcely be maintained without pedantry that among the many small states of North Germany, Brandenburg was specifically determined by economic necessity to become the great power embodying the economic, linguistic and, after the Reformation, also the religious difference between North and South, and not by other elements as well (above all by its entanglement with Poland, owing to the possession of Prussia, and hence with international political relations — which were indeed also decisive in the formation of the Austrian dynastic power). Without making oneself ridiculous it would be a difficult thing to explain in terms of economics the existence of every small state in Germany, past and present, or the origin of the High German consonant permutations, which widened the geographic partition wall formed by the mountains from the Sudetic range to the Taunus to form a regular fissure across all Germany. In the second place, however, history is made in such a way that the final result always arises from conflicts between many individual wills, of which each in turn has been made what it is by a host of particular conditions of life. Thus there are innumerable intersecting forces, an infinite series of parallelograms of forces which give rise to one resultant — the historical event. This may again itself be viewed as the product of a power which works as a whole unconsciously and without volition. For what each individual wills is obstructed by everyone else, and what emerges is something that no one willed. Thus history has proceeded hitherto in the manner of a natural process and is essentially subject to the same laws of motion. But from the fact that the wills of individuals — each of whom desires what he is impelled to by his physical constitution and external, in the last resort economic, circumstances (either his own personal circumstances or those of society in general) — do not attain what they want, but are merged into an aggregate mean, a common resultant, it must not be concluded that they are equal to zero. On the contrary, each contributes to the resultant and is to this extent included in it. I would furthermore ask you to study this theory from its original sources and not at second-hand; it is really much easier. Marx hardly wrote anything in which it did not play a part. But especially The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparteis a most excellent example of its application. There are also many allusions to it in Capital. Then may I also direct you to my writings: Herr Eugen Dühring's Revolution in Scienceand Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, in which I have given the most detailed account of historical materialism which, as far as I know, exists. [The German Ideologywas not published in Marx or Engels lifetime]  Marx and I are ourselves partly to blame for the fact that the younger people sometimes lay more stress on the economic side than is due to it. We had to emphasise the main principle vis-à-vis our adversaries, who denied it, and we had not always the time, the place or the opportunity to give their due to the other elements involved in the interaction. But when it came to presenting a section of history, that is, to making a practical application, it was a different matter and there no error was permissible. Unfortunately, however, it happens only too often that people think they have fully understood a new theory and can apply it without more ado from the moment they have assimilated its main principles, and even those not always correctly. And I cannot exempt many of the more recent "Marxists" from this reproach, for the most amazing rubbish has been produced in this quarter, too…. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_09_21.htm

[LBird]

Dave, I think that robbo has already quoted the Bloch letter.Engels did his best to remedy the 'materialist' rubbish that he'd inadvertently instigated, without the awareness at that time of where it would politically lead, and tried to redress.Did he do enough? In my opinion, no.He still hangs onto phrases like 'finally' and 'as necessary', 'ultimately decisive', 'last resort', and so completely undermines the rest of his argument in the letter.Unless we accept Marx's 'idealism-materialism', and argue that both ideas and the 'economic' are 'ultimate', 'final', 'last resort', etc., we'll still be here in another hundred years, patiently waiting for the 'necessary'.Whilst any mention of 'ideas' is condemned as 'idealism', we'll be led by those who claim to 'talk to the rocks'.Like most workers who join those parties that argue that, and soon leave when they realise that 'democracy' is a myth to the party, I'll still say 'no thanks'.I want a world in which workers' conscious production is the 'final' arbiter, not the fuckin' rocks.

[Anonymous]

None of this has anything to do with the assertion that ideas are not part of our material existence. Both base and superstructure are 'ideas'. We enter into relations independent of our will.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

None of this has anything to do with the assertion that ideas are not part of our material existence. 

Since no-one, to my recollection, has made that 'assertion', Vin, I'm not sure why you feel the need to argue against it.

Vin wrote:

Both base and superstructure are 'ideas'. We enter into relations independent of our will.

Yes,"Both base and superstructure are 'ideas' "."We enter into relations independent of our will."The relations into which we enter are 'base and superstructure' ie, as you say, 'ideas'.Thus, 'ideas' determine our 'will'. Not the 'material'.Simple. As Marx argued, social production determines our ideas. Social production is both ideal and material, because 'theory and practice', being social and producing things, requires both ideas and material. The world is both being and consciousness, both ideal and material.Why the hell Engels kept on about 'matter', perhaps we'll never know.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

So, WHY call it the 'materialist'?I agree that, not only does Marx's 'conception' of history 'not preclude consciousness and a role for ideas', but argue also that 'consciousness and ideas' play a central role in 'theory and practice'.If the 'term' doesn't have any significance, why not call it the 'chocolate conception of history'?

For the reason hinted at, I think, in the Bloch letter – it was called the materialist conception of history to redress the balance somewhat in the light of the predominately idealist conceptions of history making the rounds at the time.  Whether or not "materialist conception of history" is the right phrase or an inappropriate description –  I am sympathetic to the latter conclusion – the main point is that at least in the hands of Marx (and Engels despite what you say) it does not  preclude consciousness and  the role of ideas in history at all.[quote-LBird]No, most workers seeing, for the first time, the word 'material' attached to Marx's concept, naturally think that it's something basically to do with 'material' things.Then, when they meet the Religious Materialists, who tell them that 'idealism' is an evil best avoided, the die is cast.[/quote] I think you are engaging in a bit of caricature here. Opposing "idealism" is not the same as saying ideas dont count.  Rather it is oppposing the idea that ideas alone count. Material circumstances likewise count.  Of course it is quite true that material circumstances are never presented to us unmediated by ideas but that is not what an idealist theory is saying. It is saying something rather more than that, is it not?  The main reason why I dont like your clumsy formulation- the idealist-materialist conception of history – though I understand the point you are trying to make is that, taken literally, its a contradiction in terms  

LBird wrote:

Let's face it, there are even 'socialists' on this very site who won't have workers electing 'truth'. So much for the democratic control of production.

 Groan.  Not this daft idea again!  It is not a question of anyone trying to stop anyone from saying what is the truth in their view.  Its just a simple fact that none of us however talented or gifted can ever acquire more than the tiniest fraction of the  sum total of human knowlege  and therefore the idea that any of us, let alone all of us , can competently pronounce on the "truth" of everything is just plain ludicrous.  Democratic control of production is a relative thing or are you seriously trying to tell us that the total global workforce (7 billion people) is going to have a say in what goes on in Factory no.156 in William Morris Avenue,  Surbiton, Surrey in the new global communist world order?  Pull another one, LBird! It does not follow from the fact that production is a socialised process that the totality of society has to be involved in literally every single decision made in the global economy.  If this is what you are saying that makes you an advocate of crackpot central planning and an opponent of any kind of decentralised or localised decisionmaking whatsoever. Ironically that would make your perspective more of a Leninist one than you perhaps care to admit

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

For the reason hinted at, I think, in the Bloch letter – it was called the materialist conception of history to redress the balance somewhat in the light of the predominately idealist conceptions of history making the rounds at the time.

Yes, that was the reason: to redress the balance of simple idealist history.But, as Engels belatedly admitted, it was a huge political mistake to redress by emphasising their view as simple materialist history.For one, that wasn't true: as I've shown on this thread with a quote from Marx in the EPM, Marx was actually engaged in idealist-materialist history. And secondly, Engels' failure to recognise the philosophical difference, later led to political problems of the sort that led Marx to declare 'All I know is that I'm not a Marxist!', when confronted with so-called 'materialist' accounts.

robbo203 wrote:

Whether or not "materialist conception of history" is the right phrase or an inappropriate description –  I am sympathetic to the latter conclusion – the main point is that at least in the hands of Marx (and Engels despite what you say) it does not  preclude consciousness and  the role of ideas in history at all.

I'm happy that you can see that it is an 'inappropriate description' (I'd rather say 'complete nonsense', but I'll leave it be, for now).But, once again, you're not reading what I write about Engels. I keep saying that both Marx and Engels stress the centrality of ideas in history – the problem is, Engels also says the complete opposite (which Marx doesn't), that 'material' (or, even worse, 'matter') is the 'final' determinant. Engels could never see the difference, as the Bloch letter shows, even when he was trying to make amends!Either one subscribes to being/consciousness, subject/object, ideal/material, theory/practice, as both being equally necessary to produce knowledge, or one subscribes to one being the 'basis' of the other.Those two positions are completely opposed, and the latter leads either to 'materialism' (where 'being' is stressed as the basis) or to 'idealism' (where 'consciousness' is stressed as the basis).Marx, coming from the German Idealist tradition of Kant and Hegel, was clear that the 'active side' of human knowledge production had been stressed by the idealists, and took great care to preserve their insight (of course, also incorporating French and British Materialism, too, as the 'practice' counterpart to 'theory').

[LBird]

Since this thread seems to have gone quite comradely, and seems to have generated more light than heat, for a pleasant change, I though that I’d spell out why Engels contradicts himself, as an aid especially to robbo’s request.

Engels, Bloch letter, wrote:

…the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase….the various elements of the superstructure — political forms of the class struggle and its results, to wit: constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc., juridical forms, and even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the participants, political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas — also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form….Marx and I are ourselves partly to blame for the fact that the younger people sometimes lay more stress on the economic side than is due to it.

[my bold]Here we have the Engels who echoes Marx. The ‘ultimate determining element’ is ‘production’. It’s obvious to all that human ‘production’, being social, involves both ideas and materiality, in equal measure. He admits that ‘more stress’ is laid ‘on the economic side than is due to it’.Fine. Engels argues for Marx’s idealism-materialism.But… wait…Engels then goes on to throw away, once again, Marx’s notion of human ‘production’ (theory and practice, plans and product, human social and historical creativity), and reverts to the ‘economic’ as ‘ultimately decisive’, and specifically says that ‘human minds’ do not play ‘the decisive one’.

Engels, Bloch letter, wrote:

We make our history ourselves, but, in the first place, under very definite assumptions and conditions. Among these the economic ones are ultimately decisive. But the political ones, etc., and indeed even the traditions which haunt human minds also play a part, although not the decisive one.

[my bold]Engels seems to assume that ‘matter’, ‘material’, ‘economic’ and ‘production’ are all entirely equivalent terms.He can’t see that ‘matter/material’ is ‘material’, but that ‘economic/production’ is ‘ideal-material’.His use of ‘economic’ excludes ‘mind’, and so he thinks that the term is equivalent to ‘material’, something to do with ‘matter’, to the exclusion of ‘mind’.I know that this quote from the Bloch letter is often quoted by Marxists to prove that Engels agreed with Marx about ‘ideas’, and I think that this was how robbo (and Dave?) intended it to be taken.But, in fact, any critical reading of it, shows that Engels reverts to ‘materialism’ and the finality of the ‘economic’. This is not taken from Marx, but is an invention all of Fred’s own.The ‘ultimate determining’ factor is human production (idealism-materialism), not the ‘economic’ (materialism).Engels was himself confused, and has proceeded to confuse Communists since.It's time to put this right, comrades, and arm the proletariat with a theory that actually puts the proletariat in democratic control, and forget about 'the rocks of material conditions' telling us what to do, and stop baffling future generations of workers with the nonsense of Engels' so-called 'materialism'.

[Anonymous]

 I'm afraid there is a little confusion here. Are you suggesting that 'ideas' have nothing to do with the 'production and reproduction of life'? That it is 'material' as opposed to 'ideal'? Ideas we have relating to 'the production and reproduction of life' will affect our ideas of art, violence, competition etc as you can see all around you. A determinist veiw of history does not preclude consciousness but is about consciousness. For example it explains why we believe in capitalism because that is how we 'produce and reproduce life itself'. Marx is correcting the mistake of assuming that we cannot recognise this and change how we 'produce and reproduce life itself'But until then  the economic base ultimately asserts itself. As can be seen in greece. Greece is a vindication of Marx and Engels. Engels was right.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

… the economic base ultimately asserts itself. …a vindication of Marx and Engels.

No, I've shown, Vin, that the notion of 'ultimate economic base' is Engels' own formulation, and not Marx's.Marx never talks about 'ultimate' causes. He talks about human 'production' – this is always ideal-material, because humans are both being and conscious.The belief that there is something outside of humans that 'ultimately asserts itself' (like, for example, 'material conditions') can't be found in Marx's work.

Vin wrote:

Engels was right.

That's an opinion that I don't share, Vin.It can be shown that Engels differs from Marx on the issues of 'matter' and 'material' 'final causes', and Engels' views contradict Marx's, and so one can think Engels 'wrong', but still think Marx 'right'.The two were independent thinkers, not the mythical unity 'Marx-Engels', of Leninist and Maoist imagination.

[Anonymous]

I would be grateful if you would reread my post and address the questions I asked. 

[Author]

Posts