Question about historical materialism
- This topic has 181 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
gnome wrote:ALB wrote:Sooner or later humanity will come to work this out. I make no prediction as to when (or, to be truthful, how), though, only that it will happen.
Providing of course that humanity doesn't destroy itself in the meantime…
That's the good thing about 'materialism', gnome – one doesn't have to talk about humanity!One can simply let 'matter' get on with 'determining' humanity's actions.
LBird wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:LBird wrote:ALB wrote:The proposition of the materialist conception of history …is that in the end economic/productive relations, both technological and social, are more decisive than politics. …. This is not a theory of economic determinism and what actually happens in history depends on what people do, especially how political power is exercised.[my bold]ALB's statement reflects Engels' views (and not Marx's), and is just as confused as are the letters that Engels wrote on the subject.Marx's view is that social theory and practice determines 'history'.Or, the social theory and practice of production determines the social theory and practice of politics.In other words, humans can change both social production and politics. Humans, using both ideas and practice, can override both technology and 'the material/economic'.
Hi Sympo, I don't know how familiar you are with L Bird, he believes that we can turn water into wine, as long as we vote for it. If you can imagine the insane love child of Mother Theresa and Paul Daniels, your just about there.
Hi Sympo, above is yet another example from a follower of Engels' 'materialism', who are unable to argue with Marxists, and so are forced to make false statements about Marxists.Apparently, 'water' and 'wine' talk to Tim, and so he doesn't need to explain to you how he knows 'water' or 'wine'.If you ask him, he won't mention the socio-historical production of knowledge, but will simply say 'he knows', as an 'individual', using his 'biological senses'. He won't mention Marx, society, workers or democracy – or, indeed, scientific method.And he seems to think that ignorance of these issues within his party will impress workers enough to join.The fruits of 'materialism'.
Hi Sympo, sorry, that shoud have read the insane, narcissistic, love child of Mother Theresa and Paul Daniels. You'll like him, but not a lot.
gnome wrote:ALB wrote:Sooner or later humanity will come to work this out. I make no prediction as to when (or, to be truthful, how), though, only that it will happen.Providing of course that humanity doesn't destroy itself in the meantime…
I doubt humanity will destroy itself. If some strong (and unstable) ruler presses the nuclear button there'll still be some survivors, and after that socialism will (hopefully) be seen as the only way out.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:LBird wrote:Hi Sympo, above is yet another example from a follower of Engels' 'materialism', who are unable to argue with Marxists, and so are forced to make false statements about Marxists.Apparently, 'water' and 'wine' talk to Tim, and so he doesn't need to explain to you how he knows 'water' or 'wine'.If you ask him, he won't mention the socio-historical production of knowledge, but will simply say 'he knows', as an 'individual', using his 'biological senses'. He won't mention Marx, society, workers or democracy – or, indeed, scientific method.And he seems to think that ignorance of these issues within his party will impress workers enough to join.The fruits of 'materialism'.Hi Sympo, sorry, that shoud have read the insane, narcissistic, love child of Mother Theresa and Paul Daniels. You'll like him, but not a lot.
Hi Tim, still unable to engage in a philosophical debate, eh?Still, whilst your god 'matter' gets on with building for socialism, you can lie back and continue to denigrate Marxists, who insist upon workers' democracy, and wait for 'material conditions' to do what you should be doing.The fruits of 'materialism', personified. Well done, Tim!
On the question of whether socialism is inevitable or not. I don’t personally think it is – though I would like to imagine it was! There’s more to this than just the (remote) possibility that humanity might destroy itself first and thereby remove the prospect of socialism altogether. Adam makes the point that humans are problem solving animals and that, sooner or later, they will solve the problem that is capitalism by replacing it with socialism. Maybe. But there is a difference between individuals and humanity as a whole in this generalised sense. Socialism depends on increasing numbers of individual workers becoming socialists themselves – it’s not going to happen in one go – but one of the greatest obstacles in the way of this happening, if not the greatest, is that the very smallness of the socialist movement acts as a deterrent to people joining. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy that keeps the socialist movement small, unfortunately In other words, it is not that people are not problem solvers that is the problem – Adam is right, human beings are indeed problem solvers – but rather the problem we face as socialists is one of human irrationality, including our own. Human beings are irrational as well as rational, creatures. That is to say we are Janus-faced. It is our tendency to conform, to follow the herd – in a way an expression of our social nature – that ironically makes the assertion that “socialism is inevitable”, problematic. It is not inevitable as long as people conform to the mores and values of capitalism. There is no necessary reason why they should not continue to do so indefinitely (unfortunately) because the problem, as I say, is not really an intellectual one of rationality and “problem solving”. The problem is one values and working class self-belief, even self recognition, in the face of relentless capitalist propaganda Max Adler , an early Marxist once wrote of workers being “finally driven by formal-teleological causality” to establish socialism. This is what was meant by socialism being inevitable (“telos” being the Greek word for purpose or goal). Society was moving slowly but surely towards a preordained end. This sense of “inevitabilism” was rife among socialists in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Kautsky's contribution to the SDP’s Erfurt Programme of 1891, for example, openly talked of socialism as being not only desirable but "something inevitable". Marx and Engels likewise spoke in the language of inevitabilism on various occasions, In the Communist Manifesto, for example, they confidently claimed that the “development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable” https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm. Similarly in the Preface to Capital vol 1 we find these words: Intrinsically, it is not a question of the higher or lower degree of development of the social antagonisms that result from the natural laws of capitalist production. It is a question of these laws themselves, of these tendencies working with iron necessity towards inevitable results. The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future. (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p1.htm) However, I think theweight of evidence suggests that they did not, on the whole, endorse a teleological view of history. Teleological-type statements issuing from them asserting the inevitable victory of the proletariat and the like might be better seen as propagandistic exercises in morale boosting and wishful thinking, than considered theoretical positions. For instance, Marx welcomed Darwin's Origin of the Species precisely because "it deals a death blow to teleology in the natural sciences" (Marx's letter to Engels , January 16, 1861 Selected Correspondence Moscow 1975). In The German Ideology the notion that "later history is…the goal of earlier history" was dismissed as a "speculative distortion" (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm). This was a decisive rejection of Hegel's idealist teleology which posited the goal of history as the mind becoming completely aware of itself. Further evidence can be seen in the apparent willingness on their part to consider departures from the strict linear or progressivist model of social evolution usually associated with them long before this model came under sustained attack by the cultural relativists like Franz Boas in the early 20th century. At any rate it does seem to me that to an extent Marx and Engels did embrace an anti-teleological perspective and that to that extent you could argue that they did not envisage socialism as being inevitable. Meaning human creativity and human unpredictability also play a role in the way history turns out
LBird expresses hostility to materialism.In his need to drive a wedge between Marx and Engels, he blames Engels for distorting Marx with materialistic accounts.The following materialistic account about how Marx arrived at the law of value was written in 1868, only one year after Marx published Capital Vol. 1.“Every child knows that a nation that ceased to work … even for a few weeks would perish.“Every child also knows that the quantities of social products, satisfying social needs, require definite proportions of the total social labor.“The necessity for society to distribute its social labor in these definite proportions cannot possibly be done away with by a particular form of social production — only the mode of its appearance can change.“Natural laws cannot be abolished.“What can change, under historically different circumstances, is only the form in which these laws assert themselves.“And the form in which the law of the proportional distribution of labor asserts itself, in the state of society where the interconnection of social labor is manifested in the exchange of the individual products of labor, is precisely the exchange value of these products.“Science consists precisely in demonstrating how this law of value asserts itself.“So that if one wanted at the very beginning to “explain” all the phenomena that seemingly contradict the law, one would have to present the science before the science.“It is precisely Ricardo’s mistake that (in his first chapter on value) he takes as given all possible, and still to be developed, categories in order to prove their conformity to the law of value.“On the other hand, the history of the theory of value shows that the concept of the value relation has always been the same — i.e. more or less clearly understood, though hedged more or less with illusions or, scientifically, as a more or less definite concept.“Since the process of human thought itself grows out of conditions — is itself a natural process — thinking that really comprehends must always be the same, and can vary only gradually, over time, according to the maturity of the development of the conditions, including the maturity of the development of the thinker.“Everything else is drivel.“The vulgar economist has not the faintest idea that the actual everyday exchange relations cannot be directly identical with the magnitudes of value.“The essence of bourgeois society consists precisely in this, that a priori there is no conscious social regulation of production.“The rational and natural necessity asserts itself only as a blindly working average.“And then the vulgar economist thinks he has made a great discovery when, as against the revelation of the inner interconnection, he proudly claims that in appearance things look different.“In fact, the vulgar economist boasts that he holds fast to appearance, and takes it for the ultimate.”I wonder if LBird might amuse us by clearly explaining for our delight:what’s wrong with this account?whether Marx would ever have described it this way, or written anything remotely like this?
twc wrote:I can see how the actions of the Bolsheviks were limited because of the material and social conditions (Russia was semi-feudal and badly developed, most people weren't socialists, it was not an international revolution etc). They could not establish Socialism because of these reasons.But didn't they have a choice when they decided to make Russia state capitalist?Would it not have been possible for them to embrace a more "traditional" model of capitalism?
LBird wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:LBird wrote:Hi Sympo, above is yet another example from a follower of Engels' 'materialism', who are unable to argue with Marxists, and so are forced to make false statements about Marxists.Apparently, 'water' and 'wine' talk to Tim, and so he doesn't need to explain to you how he knows 'water' or 'wine'.If you ask him, he won't mention the socio-historical production of knowledge, but will simply say 'he knows', as an 'individual', using his 'biological senses'. He won't mention Marx, society, workers or democracy – or, indeed, scientific method.And he seems to think that ignorance of these issues within his party will impress workers enough to join.The fruits of 'materialism'.Hi Sympo, sorry, that shoud have read the insane, narcissistic, love child of Mother Theresa and Paul Daniels. You'll like him, but not a lot.
Hi Tim, still unable to engage in a philosophical debate, eh?Still, whilst your god 'matter' gets on with building for socialism, you can lie back and continue to denigrate Marxists, who insist upon workers' democracy, and wait for 'material conditions' to do what you should be doing.The fruits of 'materialism', personified. Well done, Tim!
I'd happily engage in debate, but debate is a two way thing and unfortunately, as readers to this forum will know all too well, you never answer any questions about your contributions and then when you get forced into a corner, which you inevitably do because of your elitist and at times just plain daft ideas, you resort to insults which is then followed by prolonged silence.All I'm doing is saving a bit of time by cutting straight to the bit where you insult people and then hopefully your prolonged silence will come about much more quickly.
ALB wrote:"the whole of the past evolution of human society points in this direction. Why would it stop now, at capitalism?"I guess that's a fair point. Capitalism appears to suffer from class antagonisms that become visible when economic recession comes along. But why should we assume socialism is the next step in the stairs of history? The material basis for socialism exists, but how do we know that the material basis for another type of society doesn't exist at the same time?I can easily see how non-socialists would see Marx view that socialism is gonna happen sooner or later as a form of wishful thinking. Marx was, after all, a socialist. And wasn't he a socialist prior to "discovering" this societal evolution that would lead to socialism?"Ah yes, the old one about is socialism inevitable, i.e. is it inevitable that humanity will come to want socialism? Personally, I think it is."Is that a personal view or is the idea of inevitability integral to marxist though?
We find it easy to explain how and why unemployment, poverty, crime and war are all inevitable consequences of the capitalist mode of production, yet we are reluctant to explain how and why socialism is also the inevitable consequence of the same. mmm I wonder why?I'm in the 'inevitable' camp. I chose to join the coming revolution but it was a Hobson's Choice. That damn materialismUp the Revolution!
Vin wrote:We find it easy to explain how and why unemployment, poverty, crime and war are all inevitable consequences of the capitalist mode of production, yet we are reluctant to explain how and why socialism is also the inevitable consequence of the same. mmm I wonder why?I'm in the 'inevitable' camp. I chose to join the coming revolution but it was a Hobson's Choice. That damn materialismUp the Revolution!I dont think it follows that because poverty, unemployment, crime etc is inevitable under capitalism that socialism is inevitable for the same reason. These are two quite different things you are trying to account for. The Great Depression in the 1930s generated poverty and unemployment on a mass scale but no discernable movement towards socialism. On the contrary, in Germany, for instance it gave rise to the Nazi regime. To say socialism is inevitable is to make a teleological statement as I mentioned earlier (post 20) – namely that history is moving towards a pre-ordained goal. Marx I think by and large rejected teleological explanations despite making statements that have a teleological ring to them. I have yet to come across a convincing reason why socialism is inevitable. I am fully with you, Vin, in declaring "Up the Revolution!" But that is not a teleological statement but rather a statement of revolutionary intent. Revolution is something we socialists choose to work towards….
robbo203 wrote:The Great Depression in the 1930s generated poverty and unemployment on a mass scale but no discernable movement towards socialism. On the contrary, in Germany, for instance it gave rise to the Nazi regime.I didn't say that poverty and depression is what makes socialism inevitable. The human mind is naturally inquisitive and seeks order and answers. As Marx wrote "Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution"Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844
twc wrote:LBird expresses hostility to materialism.In his need to drive a wedge between Marx and Engels, he blames Engels for distorting Marx with materialistic accounts…..I wonder if LBird might amuse us by clearly explaining for our delight:what’s wrong with this account?whether Marx would ever have described it this way, or written anything remotely like this?We've had a long debate on this in the past, twc, but, like the rest here, instead of it being a comradely one, you descend into abuse – in fact, just like Tim has just said, youse go 'straight to insult', now.Anyway, and I've said this before, but here goes, once again, for any newbies who haven't read it before.Yes, I'm 'hostile to materialism', as was Marx.The 'wedge between Marx and Engels' was established by Engels, who thought that Marx was talking about 'matter', when Marx used the term 'material'. Marx, in his debates during the 1840s, was contrasting the 'divine production' of the Idealists with 'human passive suffering' of the Materialists. Marx effected a unity of Idealism-Materialism, taking something from both, and rejecting something from both. He realised that the Idealists were correct about 'activity', and thus united the 'active' with 'the human', but rejected the 'divine' and the 'passive'. Thus, he argued for an active humanity, or 'social production'. That is, humans create their world. They are their own gods of creation.Engels didn't understand this, and reverted to the earlier 'materialism', and its concerns with 'matter' and a 'determinism' external to human causation.The blame for this, IMO, lies at least partly with Marx, because his writings are very unclear, contradictory, and so, often, wrong by his own standards. Plus, Engels lack of understanding of the subtleties of epistemology, added to the confusion. Both are to blame, but it's Engels version, the passive political consequences of which that, at the end, he tried to avoid, in his letters, that has come down to us as 'Marxism'.The role for Democratic Communists in the 21st century is to sort out this mess, and to give a much clearer account of Marx's ideas, and so provide a political, philosophical and ideological basis for his core belief: that the social producers, since they are the producers, can change their world.Finally, over the last 4 years, I've given textual references to Marx, Engels, and dozens of other thinkers and commentators, from the 19th century to this, so if you want evidence, twc, you're going to have to re-read what I've written many times.
LBird wrote:We've had a long debate on this in the past, twc, but, like the rest here, instead of it being a comradely one, you descend into abuse – in fact, just like Tim has just said, youse go 'straight to insult', now.We certainly have had a long debate during which your ridiculous ideas and distortions of the SPGB and Marx were revealed and debunked for all to see but you flitted from thread to thread to start yet again.And now here you go again………….Let me help you get started – the world only exists in our minds – right? The earth, sun, stars etc were created by 'social production' When humans are extinct, the Sun, earth and stars will not exist and all animals and plant life wil disappear.Oh and 'truth' will be decided by a vote of the entire world population and when decided upon will be imposed on all individuals and communities by a socially organised violent group.And don't forget that the proletariate will rule in communism to ensure protection from elite groups. Tell me which bit I have wrong, it will save us a lot of time
Vin wrote:Let me help you get started – the world only exists in our minds – right?Marx didn't say 'the world only exists in our minds', Vin, so, no, you're wrong.You're the one who needs 'help to get started' in understanding Marx's ideas about 'social production' and the necessity for that production to be democratic.But, as usual, you'd rather abuse Marxists, as being 'idealists'. It's an old 'materialist' accusation, Vin. For the materialists, like you, the world is divided into two: 'good/bad', 'right/wrong', 'true/false'… oh, and from Engels, 'idealism/materialism'.You won't be surprised to find that Lenin liked that accusation, too.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.