Question about historical materialism

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

The bottom line, robbo, is how one chooses to understand what Marx's whole body of work was about.For you, because you are an individualist, you argue that Marx was talking about 'individuals'.For me, because I'm a Democratic Communist interested in 'social production' and its history, I argue that Marx was talking about, not 'individuals', but 'social individuals', their socio-historic production, and their attempts to build for Democratic Communism.This is a choice for workers to make. They can either choose your political interpretation of Marx, or my political interpretation of Marx.You have an ideology; I have an ideology. Workers, now, have an ideology. It's up to them to decide which ideology is best suited to their needs, interests and purposes.One clear difference between us, though, that all workers should take note of: I'm open about my ideological beliefs, whereas you try to hide yours. If workers choose to 'remain non-ideological', then they'll probably stick with what they have now.

 I dont think you are open about you ideological beliefs at all.  Lets face it LBird you are fundamentally a Leninist at heart  – no surprise there since I understand you were once a member of the SWP and, boy, does it show!  Like a good Leninist you enthusiastically endorse the concept of democratic centralism in the belief that this somehow makes you a democratic communist.  It doesn't  In your frankly totalitarian view of "communism" , there  will only be one descisiomaking  body permitted  – ostensibly the whole of global society – and no other.  Since this is clearly preposterous as 7 billion people cannot possibly be  involved in the millions upon millions of decisions that need to be taken every day, what you are actually advocating, though you lack the honesty to admit it, is that these decisions should be made on their behalf by a tiny elite – your Leninist vanguard Whats worse still ,you will not permit any kind of countervailing power to exist that might temper the extreme concentration of power in the hands of your elite .  For instance, you will not permit  any form of local  democracy to exist since this conflicts with your fervant  belief in total centralised planning.  Local communities  will not be allowed to make decisions  that affect them.  All decisions  will have to be taken at the World Planning Centre and handed down to local communities for implementation.  Similarly, scientists and others will not be permitted to promote their ideas or theories that conflict with the offically designated Truth. Since hardly anyone is going to bother about voting on some arcane scientifc theory  (and there are tens of thousands of these)  in effect what you label the officially designated the Truth as  a determined by a vote will inevitably be merely be the opinion of an infinitesemally small  fraction of the population  What really would be the point of the exercise? This is not democracy, LBird,  This is Orwell's 1984 ,  What you are calling for in de facto terms – though you apparently lack the wit to see  this – is a totalitarian fascist state in its purest form

[Young Master Smeet]

Sympo wrote:

"Class consciousness has developed"Has it though? In what way?

Sympo wrote:

In many countries, people identify themselves as workers, and, importantly, vote as such.  What has not developed is socialist consciousness, being content with using state regulation to cure the problems of the market system: at least that is thinking in the right direction, though.

Sympo wrote:

"For example, worker's unions drove forward the existence of the wage relation, using market forces to destroy the restrictive feudal practices of bonded labour"What do you mean with "wage relation"?

A elationship between an employee and an oehrwise propertylessemployee from who they buy labour power.

Sympo wrote:

"(…)when political power is frustrated, we will have to overturn the system."What happens if we don't?

Barbarism, fall in wages and living standards.  Until the next time.

Sympo wrote:

"There's nothing special or partcularly progressive about capitalism, except the working class itself."I think a system that gives us the chance of establishing socialism is kind of progressive (not saying capitalism is a good system).

BUt it is the working class that makes it progressive, never the capitalists.

Sympo wrote:

"(…)compared to 1914, the world is a very different place, the raw stuff of capitalism remains, that's true, but there is widespread cronyism and corruption added to that now.  The state has become more and more essential to capitalism, etc."Do you mean to suggest that the longer capitalism remains, the more corrupt and cronyist it becomes?This view would contrast with a common view that, in the beginning of the industrial revolution, things were worse for most people than it is now. Things like healthcare, wages, living conditions etc are alledgedly much better than they were back then. But perhaps this view ignores that a large part of the world have conditions that are much worse than in the USA and Western Europe (for example, India)?I apologize for asking so many questions, but it's an interesting topic

Living standards have risen, largely ebcause of the fall in the cost of the means of living (production is more efficient), i.e. our share of the wealth has hardly improved.  But it's not just that cronyism rises (that happens with every boom since the dawn of time), it is that wealth has become even more conentrated (which icnreases the volume of hangers on), and has changed into les personal, in some aspects, forms of capitalism.   We always need to go back to the real society as it is before us, and how it changes, rather than relying on the abstract model.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

We always need to go back to the real society as it is before us, and how it changes, rather than relying on the abstract model.

[my bold]This is the political problem with your method, YMS.You have a concept of 'the real society as it is', but you pretend that 'the real society as it is' is telling you personally 'what it really is', without you first having a concept of it.Marx's method is 'theory and practice', and if you choose to use his method, we first have to find out where the 'concept' of your 'real society as it is' came from.Because of that initial Marxist step, if we are not happy with our practice which, together with the concept, produces any society that we know 'as it is', we can then return to the 'theory', change it, and then with our social practice, change 'the real society' into 'society as we really want it'.Now, if you want to choose an individualist method (which is bourgeois, and is also used within 'economics', and claims that 'individuals' know 'value' by their personal estimation), and say that it is obvious to you what 'the real society as it is' actually 'is', then we can show that your 'theory and practice' is not the Marxist theory and practice.In fact, you're claiming that your individualist method is 'practice' upon a 'reality' which then yields a 'theory'; this is the reverse of Marx's social method

[Young Master Smeet]

Engels wrote:

Of course the method of presentation must differ in form from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyse its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described. If this is done successfully, if the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a mere a priori construction.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Engels wrote:

Of course the method of presentation must differ in form from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyse its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described. If this is done successfully, if the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a mere a priori construction.

[my added bold]

Yes, this is correct, and this describes Marx's method of 'theory and practice'.To 'appropriate', 'analyse' and 'trace out', is to apply a 'theory' to 'the material' ('material', here, meaning 'our selected object of study', not 'matter').If one 'appropriates, analyses and traces out' with contrasting 'theories', one will get differing 'inquiry', 'presentation' and 'description'.If you read this quote to mean 'matter talks to you as an individual', YMS, you won't understand Marx's method of 'social theory and practice'.

[Young Master Smeet]

European Messenger of St. Petersburg wrote:

“The one thing which is of moment to Marx, is to find the law of the phenomena with whose investigation he is concerned; and not only is that law of moment to him, which governs these phenomena, in so far as they have a definite form and mutual connexion within a given historical period. Of still greater moment to him is the law of their variation, of their development, i.e., of their transition from one form into another, from one series of connexions into a different one. This law once discovered, he investigates in detail the effects in which it manifests itself in social life. Consequently, Marx only troubles himself about one thing: to show, by rigid scientific investigation, the necessity of successive determinate orders of social conditions, and to establish, as impartially as possible, the facts that serve him for fundamental starting-points. For this it is quite enough, if he proves, at the same time, both the necessity of the present order of things, and the necessity of another order into which the first must inevitably pass over; and this all the same, whether men believe or do not believe it, whether they are conscious or unconscious of it. Marx treats the social movement as a process of natural history, governed by laws not only independent of human will, consciousness and intelligence, but rather, on the contrary, determining that will, consciousness and intelligence. …

Marx described that as a "striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous" depiction of his method, in one of hios few public discussions of his investigative methodology.

Lbird wrote:

To 'appropriate', 'analyse' and 'trace out', is to apply a 'theory' to 'the material' ('material', here, meaning 'our selected object of study', not 'matter').

For your reading to stand, we need to look at the meaning of "appropriate",

OED wrote:

 To take possession of for one's own, to take to oneself.

So, whilst we remain active, it is to bring the material under consideration, into ourselves, not to apply a theory outwards.  It is taking it on board, bringing it in, absorbing it.  I know that, Humpty-like, Marx's words, for you mean whatever you want them to mean, but for those of us practied in close reading, "appropriate" seems a very appropriate barrier to your reading.

[LBird]

All you are saying now, YMS, is that one's ideology determines how one understands Marx.I've been saying this for years, and have argued that the only way forward is to examine the content of our differing ideologies.'Appropriation' is an act of selection, and selection requires a prior theory which provides the parameters of selection for that act.Your ideological reading regards 'appropriation' as an act of the thing appropriated, in which the appropriator remains passive.It's nothing to do with Marx, YMS, but with pretty standard bourgeois individualism, which pretends that 'matter is active and talks to passive humans'.

[Anonymous]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

You're either telling lies now, Vin, or your memory is failing you. I'll accept that it's the latter.

Niether. Just ONE reference where Marx explicitly supports your Idealist-Materialist tosh, just ONE. and I don't mean your 'democratic communist' Idealist interpretation. While I am on, why don't you answer Robbos questions instead of repeating the same old rubbish 

Just as I thought,  not ONE reference in which Marx supports your 'idealist-materialis'.  Waffle on as much as you want. That's all it is – unsupported waffle. 

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

All you are saying now, YMS, is that one's ideology determines how one understands Marx.I've been saying this for years, and have argued that the only way forward is to examine the content of our differing ideologies.'Appropriation' is an act of selection, and selection requires a prior theory which provides the parameters of selection for that act.Your ideological reading regards 'appropriation' as an act of the thing appropriated, in which the appropriator remains passive.It's nothing to do with Marx, YMS, but with pretty standard bourgeois individualism, which pretends that 'matter is active and talks to passive humans'.

Well, I've presented my reading of Marx, supplemented with evidence of the meaning of "appropriate".  Fair minded readers will note that Lbird is substituting "appropriate" with "selection" without supporting evidence that the latter is a synonym.  I stated that the appropriator is active, the thing apro[priated remains itself, but we appropriate it into ourselves, as it is.  When I appropriate a house, I am not making selections, I take it tout court.Lbird is, of course free to present his argument as his own, but at present has not presented any substantive evidence to support his claim that Marx's statement support his, his argument of 'selection', above, has just falled at the first simple hurdle.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

When I appropriate a house, I am not making selections, I take it tout court.

Well, that's the need for estate agents removed, because according to your method, the house selects its occupants!You can't argue otherwise, because then you'd need to agree that you didn't select which property you live in, but that the bricks and mortar actively drew you, the passive occupier, into the house.Mind you, that's exactly what the 'materialists' argue – that 'matter' is 'the active side'.Marx disagreed with your method, YMS. I suspect that many do, unless the entire SPGB is claiming that it is living in accommodation, that chose them!

[Young Master Smeet]

You don't select the rooms, you don't select the chimney, you appopriate the whole house.  If you appropriate a street, you are not making slections, you're taking the whole street.  Selection is not a synonym, nor a metonym, of appropriation, nor can appropriation be read as selection.  Selection may occur prior to appropriation, butr you cannot read appropriation as a form of selection.Words can have ideological connotations and meanings within them, but these are derived historically through use: if you cannot provide an account of why your reading of Marx' passage differs from the common language understanding, then the fair minded reader will be left to judge which account more readily explains and interprets the text.The appropriator is active, as I think I've noted three times now, but the appropriator takes the appropriated as is.

[twc]

LBird wrote:

To 'appropriate', 'analyse' and 'trace out', is to apply a 'theory' to 'the material' ('material', here, meaning 'our selected object of study', not 'matter').If one 'appropriates, analyses and traces out' with contrasting 'theories', one will get differing 'inquiry', 'presentation' and 'description'.

Marx Disowns LBirdConsider what Marx actually saysThe method of inquiry has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyze its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connexionOnly after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described.If this is done successfully, if the life [process] of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as in a mirror,then [the presentation of the scientific theory] may appear as if we had before us a mere a priori construction.Marx is defending Capital against the attack that it is merely his personal subjective, a priori, construction.Notice that LBird is championing, in his quote 2 (above), the same charge of a priorism that Marx is expressly repudiating in his quote 4 (above).Strike One!I discussed Marx’s scientific method in post https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx‘s-scientific-method.Marx’s quote 1 summarises scientific analysis.  Capital’s early chapters are his scientific analysis of the concrete phenomena, or sensual appearance, of capitalist society.Scientific analysis corresponds to Marx’s “descent from the concrete to the abstract”, or “essence out of appearance”, (roughly) Thomas Kuhn’s “revolutionary science”.Marx’s quote 2 summarises the abstract foundation, or essence, upon which a science is based.  The theory of surplus value is the abstract foundation, or essence, of Capital Volumes 1, 2 and 3.Marx’s quote 3 summarises scientific synthesis.  The aim of Capital is to progressively reveal essence in appearance, or the abstract in the concrete, by unifying capitalist phenomena as instances of the law of surplus value.Scientific synthesis corresponds to Marx’s “ascent from the abstract to the concrete”, or “appearance out of essence”, (roughly) Thomas Kuhn’s “normal science”.(For the philosophers…  Hegel’s Logic, by the upside-down method characteristic of Idealism, synthesises concrete Nature out of pure abstraction by progressive thought determinations.  That, of course, is Marx’s famous critique of Hegel’s Idealism.)For Marx, the aim of science isto reduce sensuous appearance to essence by scientific analysis.to derive sensuous appearance from essence by scientific synthesis.Consequently essence and appearance don’t correspond, except through the life process of a theory.Thus, LBird is quite wrong.  To ‘appropriate’, ‘analyse’ and ‘trace out’, is not to apply a 'theory' to ‘the material’.  It is not synthetic at all.  The whole point is to avoid prior synthesis by bracketing it out [in Husserl’s sense].  That’s the point of abstraction.Marx is here describing the act of abstraction that generates the foundation of a theory, upon which to synthesise a coherent description of apparently incoherent phenomena.Strike Two!Marx makes it clear that a scientific theory is a dynamic abstraction founded on laws of motion that mirrors the apparently incoherent development of concrete processes by deriving them coherently from their abstracted essences. LBird denies this.Strike Three!

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

…you appopriate the whole house.  If you appropriate a street, you are not making slections, you're taking the whole street.  

[my bold]'Whole house' or 'whole street' is a selection between two 'wholes', YMS.'If' is the clue. Your 'appropriation' is a conscious choice by you, a part of what Marx calls 'the active side'.One could also note that you've chosen not to appropriate 'whole estates', 'whole towns', 'whole urban sprawls', and several other 'concepts' that we could take account of.

[Bijou Drains]

L BirdThis is a serious question. As you clearly do not agree with or have any sympathy with the views of the SPGB, why on earth do you spend so much of your life on this site?You clearly think we are not a party putting forward a Socialist Programme, you clearly think whatever we do we cannot develop beyond the limited influence we have on the working class and you clearly think we are all as thick as mince.Your actions remind me of a teenage boy who keeps calling at a teenage girl's house just to tell her that he's not in love with her, he doesn't really fancy her, he doesn't want to go out with her, etc, etc. but who then asks if he can come around tomorrow just to say the same things again.I can only think that you're secretly in love with us and can't bring yourself to pop the question.

[Anonymous]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

L BirdThis is a serious question. As you clearly do not agree with or have any sympathy with the views of the SPGB, why on earth do you spend so much of your life on this site?You clearly think we are not a party putting forward a Socialist Programme, you clearly think whatever we do we cannot develop beyond the limited influence we have on the working class and you clearly think we are all as thick as mince.Your actions remind me of a teenage boy who keeps calling at a teenage girl's house just to tell her that he's not in love with her, he doesn't really fancy her, he doesn't want to go out with her, etc, etc. but who then asks if he can come around tomorrow just to say the same things again.I can only think that you're secretly in love with us and can't bring yourself to pop the question.

That is a question that I have asked him. He has a love-hate relationship with the Socialist Party, or proably is the only place where he can express his ideas freely without being blocked, and still he says that we are anti-democratic

[Author]

Posts