[twc]

Pygmy BuffaloesI found the episode of the pygmy and the buffaloes in Colin Turnbull's "The Forest People" fascinating.For others, who may be interested, here it is in the author's own words… 

Quote:

And then he saw the buffalo, still grazing lazily several miles away, far down below. He turned to me and said, ‘What insects are those?’ At first I hardly understood, then I realized that in the forest vision is so limited that there is no great need to make an automatic allowance for distance when judging size. Out here in the plains, Kenge was looking for the first time over apparently unending miles of unfamiliar grasslands, with not a tree worth the name to give him any basis for comparison. The same thing happened later on when I pointed out a boat, in the middle of the lake. It was a large fishing boat with a number of people in it. Kenge at first refused to believe it. He thought it was a floating piece of wood. When I told Kenge that the insects were buffalo, he roared with laughter and told me not to tell such stupid lies. When Henri, who was thoroughly puzzled, told him the same thing, and explained that visitors to the park had to have a guide with them at all times because there were so many dangerous animals, Kenge still didn’t believe, but he strained his eyes to see more clearly and asked what kind of buffalo they were that they were so small. I told him they were sometimes nearly twice the size of a forest buffalo, and he shrugged his shoulders and said he would not be standing out there in the open if they were. I tried telling him they were possibly as far away as from Epulu to the village of Kopu, beyond Eboyo. He began scraping the mud off his arms and legs, no longer interested in such fantasies. The road led on down to within about half a mile of where the herd was grazing, and as we got closer, the insects must have seemed to get bigger and bigger. Kenge, who was now sitting on the outside, kept his face glued to the window, which nothing would make him lower. I even had to raise mine to keep him happy. I was never able to discover just what he thought was happening, whether he thought the insects were changing into buffalo, or whether they were miniature buffalo growing rapidly as we approached; his only comment was that they were not real buffalo, and he was not going to get out of the car again until we left the park. 

 

[twc]

Beautiful examples, indeed.It's also gratifying to learn that my stuff isn't all that incomprehensible — thank you.[It's easy to write about complex matters, but much harder to convey your meaning, and still harder to digest as a reader. Young Feuerbach wrote back to his father that Hegel was definitely meant to be heard. His students adored him as a lecturer. His stimulating enthusiasm clarified everything, and electrified them all. As is well known, Hegel's formal works are notoriously difficult for those who didn't attend his lectures. Hegel must be acknowledged for unravelling mediated "appearance" as outlined in my previous post.]By the way, you earlier hoped that the conclusions I draw from this thread would be simple and comprehensible. I do hope so.It's too soon to tie the loose strands of this and related threads [and I may be off-line over the coming Christmas and New Year], but expect the general encouraging conclusion, whenever it emerges naturally from the discussion, to be pleasantly surprising.

[twc]

CorrectionMy attribution to Ptolemy of "epicycles on epicycles" is wrong!This baseless charge has certainly entered our popular vocabulary, and I recall it being referenced in 20th century scholarly accounts.I took a quick glance through Ptolemy's Almagest — I lack the courage/inclination/leisure to study Ptolemy's monumental, but outdated, classical-geometry tome —  and find that it contains no geometric constructions with more than a single epicycle on a deferent.Astronomer Owen Gingerish is a dedicated scholar who has studied the Almagest. In his "The Book Nobody Reads" [p. 57], Gingerish states something along the lines:"As it turns out, a major difficulty with this epicycles-on-epicycles theory is that historians examining books on Ptolemaic astronomy from the Middle Ages and the Renaissance have found absolutely no trace of multiple epicycles being used for each planet. The Alfonsine Tables, for instance, were apparently computed using Ptolemy's original unadorned methods."  [from Wikipedia on "Deferent and epicycle" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle#Epicycles_on_epicycles%5D

[twc]

The left-hand side of your diagram shows our hard-won "reality" — after Ptolemy.The right-hand side of your diagram shows our ever-recurring "appearance" [or "reappearance"] that is played out every couple of years:it was playing out before life emerged on Earth,it played out for Egyptian astronomers three-and-a-half millennia ago,it last played out in March this year, it will continue to play out after life shuffles off the Earth.[That's scientific determinism for you!]This "appearance" hasn't changed throughout the lifetime of our "social being" because the phenomenon itself hasn't changed.But our "social being" has changed, and with it our "consciousness" of the "reality" behind the "appearance" has changed, even though our naive immediate apprehension of the "appearance" has remained forever the same.ConvictionThe diagram demonstrates, in Marxian terms, "appearance as a whole" — "appearance" after being tested in the crucible of "social being".The diagram incidentally makes the point that, for us, "reality" is neither "positive" nor absolute, but is part of the changing superstructure of our "consciousness" — that very same "consciousness" that is based on our "social being". Consequently, "reality" must be comprehended as a social construct, just like all our social-constructs — our language, our institutions and [as demonstrated] our science.Not only does "social being" construct "reality" for us, "social being" also tests "reality" for us. It is in the testing of our social constructs through the practice of our "social being" that we gain conviction in our social "consciousness's" constructs.In other words, "social necessity" compels us to build socially-shared constructs, of which we are considering "reality" to be one such socially-necessary construct.Like all social constructs, "reality":arises from our "social being",is tested by social practice where it originated — in our "social being",is conceived and judged by its utility for our "social being",stands or falls by the judgement of "consciousness" — ultimately by our "social being".Socially-necessary constructs of our "consciousness" arising naturally from and tested within our "social being" are what Marx's materialism is about. For us socialists — the "reality" of the "class struggle", "class consciousness" and "socialism" can't be reduced to arbitrary "positive" absolutes — absolutes that thereby lack demonstrable foundation for conviction. For us, deterministic conviction is everything!Conviction arises out of Hegel's/Engels's "[freedom is the] recognition of necessity" — the necessity of Marxian base–superstructure determinism.Reality 1.Our primtive forebears couldn't conceive that the left-hand side "reality" of the diagram needed to exist. They saw it as no more than the ground on which they stood. The right-hand side "appearance" remains unchanged.Reality 2.The Platonists and Aristotelians merged the left-hand "reality" and right-hand "appearance" sides of the diagram into a nest of transparent shells centered on the Earth, with Mars mid-way out, and the stars on the outermost [seventh heaven], although it was actually the eighth shell. This constituted the pure harmony of the spheres. Earth was, appropriately for a slave society, the impure seat of corruption.Reality 3.Ptolemy's left-hand side of the diagram exploded into an astonishingly complex epicyclic/deferent construction which, if intended to constitute "reality", could only reflect the work of an artificer god who kept changing his mind — and continually correcting himself.  The right-hand side "appearance" remains unchanged.Reality 4.Copernicus's [published 1543] left-hand "reality" side of the diagram appears almost as complex as Ptolemy's. It relies on about as many epicycles, but it discards Ptolemy's equant, and it centers all planetary deferents on the Sun. Thus, Copernicus turned the planets into the denizens of the Solar System, we now recognize them to be.Yet Copernicus failed to make significant mathematical improvement in forecasting planetary positions over Ptolemy.However, no-one could fail to appreciate that Copernicus's Sun-centered model:made sense of retrograde motion,made it possible for people to see the Sun as being the centre of the Universe, and not the Earth,made a devastating assault upon hitherto conceived "reality".Reality 5.Everything after Copernicus — Kepler, Newton [whose inverse-square gravitational theory is adequate for computing most interplanetary travel], Poincaré, Einstein, and the moderns who grapple to reconcile Einstein's general relativity with quantum mechanics — is standard textbook astronomy, physics and history-of-science. For present purposes, it seems unnecessary to elaborate. But the successful assault upon hitherto existing "reality" mounted by each of these post-Ptolemaic scientists has equally illuminating tales to tell about determinism, necessity and conviction, that must be considered [perhaps in future posts].

[twc]

DJP wrote:

twc wrote:

The base is "social being".The superstructure is "consciousness".The determinism is "base determines superstructure".

It's the first time I've heard "base-superstructure" defined in this way. However your definition begs the question "what determines social being?"

The answer to all such questions is ultimately derived from our "immediate experience" of "social being" — as Marx asserts in his base–superstructure formulation of the materialist conception of history.As explained in the previous post, the answer emerges in "consciousness" from "appearance" into "reality" for us. A deterministic explanation relies on concepts of the "abstract" and the "concrete" within "consciousness", which need their own post.But, in synopsis, the answer is… The "life" process as base determines "social being" as superstructure.Digging deeper, the "nature" process as base determines the "life" process as superstructure. So, ultimately, nature is the basis of "social being", and so of "consciousness".Of course, Marx knew all this, but eschews the patently obvious approach of "positivism" that starts with "nature" or the "universe". What could possibly be more materialist than doing just that?Well, nature [or the universe] is, paradoxically, an Ideal starting point for consciousness. What do we know about nature [or the universe] that isn't ultimately obtained through the "immediacy" of "social being"?Their "reality" for us is remote from "social being". Hardly a basis for founding "consciousness" itself. And this, apart from the fact that nobody yet knows how to explain "consciousness" in terms of nature or the universe.So the positivist, despite his vaunted positive science, has no choice but to start with an Ideal pronouncement from his academic perch on high about the nature of nature [or of the universe]. Stop to consider what effrontery that is, and how shaky a foundation for our most precious possession of "consciousness".

DJP wrote:

I'm also concerned that your physics may be over 100 years out of date.

Ptolemy's "physics" is two millennia out of date. But then it never was physics.Ptolemy's mathematics is up-to-date, an analog of Fourier analysis, which is indispensable for decomposing waveforms in audio, radio-astronomy and quantum physics.

[twc]

Appearance and RealityMaterialist Conception of HistoryMarx expresses the materialist conception of history as "social being determines consciousness".He expresses it in base–superstructure formalism:The base is "social being".The superstructure is "consciousness".The determinism is "base determines superstructure".Marx and MaterialismAs materialist scientist, Marx doesn't need reminding that our "social being" is a recent occurrence in the scheme of things.He takes "social being" as such because it is the recurrent "immediate" experience for us. He can therefore treat it as an autonomous-and-independent process, even if it ultimately turns out to be subservient to something else that is not an "immediate" experience for us.Marx, like Descartes, builds "consciousness" out of the "immediacy" of experience. While Descartes builds incestuously within the world of "consciousness" itself, Marx cross-fertilizes from the world of "social being" outside the world of "consciousness". That, he asserts, is how we humans actually build our "consciousness".The viability of the superstructures raised upon the materialist conception of history can be the sole and only test of Marx's assertion that "social being determines consciousness". [Counter assertions are irrelevant.][For the benefit of disappointed positivists, although Marx subverts the immediate "positivism" of hitherto existing materialism, he obviously must allow "social being" to discover the universe and find its own adequate location within it. See his situating "social being" within nature, e.g., in his Notes on Wagner.]Marx and DietzgenJoseph Dietzgen studies Marx's superstructure "consciousness" as such, aware that it is determined by "social being". He treats "consciousness" as an autonomous-and-independent process.Dietzgen subverts the "positivism" of hitherto existing materialism by anchoring it in immediate "appearance" and not in "reality". This is what impressed Marx.[Lenin's retrograde political pamphlet on Empirio-criticism anchors materialism in "reality" — in the positivist certainty of "appearance" being "reality". This is an adequate example of Leninist determinism by fiat.]Dietzgen is a base–superstructure determinist, though less formal than Marx. For him, the base of "consciousness" as such is "appearance", its superstructure is "reality", and its determinism is "appearance determines reality".It is important to situate Dietzgen. It is often mistakenly asserted that he provides the foundation for Marx. But it is clear from the above, that his analysis of consciousness into "appearance" and "reality" is subservient to "social being".Marx would never allow that "consciousness", even as "appearance", is foundational to "social being", and neither perhaps did Dietzgen.RecursionDietzgen is the first example in this thread's case for recursive base–superstructure determinism founded upon the materialist conception of history.Appearance and Reality — The PlanetsMy sole reason for exploring base–superstructure determinism is to comprehend the necessity of its determinism. Socialists pin the future of the world on such necessity.So, I explore the conviction that arises out of appearance — the reality of deterministic science — and consider how Marx approached this on the basis of the materialist conception of history.ExemplarThe circuit of the planet Mars through the constellations of the Zodiac is a thoroughly studied instance of appearance and reality.AppearanceMars takes a little over two years to complete its circuit.Throughout half the circuit, Mars gets brighter and eventually outshines the brightest of stars.Throughout the other half of the circuit, Mars gets duller and eventually fades into insignificance.For a couple of months, when Mars is at its brightest, it temporarily loops backwards on its Zodiacal path [retrograde motion].What "on earth" is going on?Reality 1.Retrograde motion was recognized by hunter gatherers who followed the patterns of the night sky. Did some see Mars as forever defying the heavenly order every two years, only to be subdued?Reality 2.Retrograde motion challenged the Greek notion of heavenly perfection. Plato encouraged astronomers to "save the phenomena" — to explain the "appearance" of heavenly imperfection by the Platonic "reality" of heavenly perfection.The best that could be achieved in this Platonic endeavour was to "curve fit" [or to model] the circuits of the planets. This mathematical modelling culminated in the powerful system of the African geometer Ptolemy c. 150 CE.A planet's circuit was decomposed into a circular loop [the epicycle] around a circle [the deferrent] centered on an imaginary point in space [the eccentric] midway between the fixed Earth and an imaginary "twin-Earth" [the equant], from which imaginary twin-Earth [equant] the planet Mars [epicycle] moves perfectly uniformly.In elaborating his model, Ptolemy needed to set in circular motion the eccentric [his model's true centre of the Universe, and not the Earth] and so too the equant [his model's true centre of motion, and not the Earth], and he also needed to correct by adding epicycles to epicycles.All this defies human comprehension as a physical explanation.It also totally explodes the then-current Aristotelian universe. Epicycling planets must continually cut through the crystalline spheres that roll them along!But Ptolemy's system was always an artificial superstructure raised upon an artificial base of circular and uniform motion. Ptolemy never intended to explain, but only to compute.Ptolemy was free to make arbitrary modelling decisions. He does not take his base seriously, because he knows it's artificial.Consequently Ptolemy can set the centre of the Universe in motion and toss aside core religious faith in the centrality of Earth (while clinging to its fixity) because these inconvenient constraints simply don't fit the phenomena [appearance]. They just don't suit his needs, and so, fundamental as they are to the consciousness of antiquity, they simply must go! It's breathtaking what Olympian power one has over a model [imaginary] Universe! Ptolemy never considered his model to be deterministic.Ptolemy unashamedly "saves the appearance" by unintentionally destroying in the process the world view of the ancients — the physics of Aristotle. His system's stunning predictions of planetary positions to within the limits of visual observation over a millennium expose Aristotelian cosmology as impotent dogma, although it took over a millennium to acknowledge this awkward conclusion.Ptolemy's arbitrary cosmological fudges with the Ideal Platonic Forms didn't exactly establish their intended heavenly locale or origin. The reality of heavenly perfection turned out  just as untidy as its messy appearance, and decidedly no better than our imperfect Earth. This, of course, was not what the Idealist philosopher intended at all.Not a bad strike rate for Ptolemy — taking out the most influential scientist [Aristotle] and the most influential philosopher [Plato] of antiquity, and re-positioning the mis-aligned Universe of Jupiter Optimus Maximus himself. But these devastating verdicts are not entirely down to Ptolemy. The "reality" of then undiscovered determinisms ineluctably played a determining role in his non-deterministic modelling.Non-deterministic modelling, like Ptolemy's, constitutes an interesting challenge to scientific determinism. It trades deterministic certainty for pragmatic non-determinism. It lacks conviction — which socialists can never dispense with.Most capitalist economic forecasting takes the Ptolemaic non-deterministic form. However, Ptolemy is destined to remain a giant of predictive science, unlike the current bunch of economic-forecasters.[This is already too long. To be continued…]

[twc]

What's In and What's Out?My assertion: Marx is a base–superstructure determinist.My conclusion: What's in and what's out of his base and superstructure depends on which process Marx is considering.Which Process?Marx considers two different processes from the standpoint of base–superstructure determinism — the social process in the Preface and the production process in the Book.Marx states that he uses the former — the materialist conception of history — as guide for the latter, but also for all his studies.MaterialismMarx is not an Idealist, for whom all processes have the same "process-type" [or "substance" or "object Class"] of Idea — for whom processes can arbitrarily interpenetrate because at heart they are all made of the same ideal stuff — for whom determinism, as a relationship between ideas, is ultimately arbitrary.[Common "process-type" and arbitrary determinism are the basis and the downfall of the Hegelian system. Hegel's masterly control over idealist determinism is still one of the world's wonders.]Marx is a Materialist, for whom all processes have different material "process-types" [or "substance" or "object Class"] — for whom material processes can only interpenetrate through an intermediary that interfaces with both — for whom material determinism, as a relationship between processes of material "process-types", is itself a material mechanism, and so ultimately is not arbitrary.Challenge: If you wish to turn base–superstructure determinism into a metaphor only — an idea — why is its determinism anything more than arbitrary, like that of Idealism, and so inadequate to motivate or to realize social revolution?DeterminismConsider the formalism. The Preface is a schema of how a material process relates to itself through phases of its development. The Book is a case-study of how a material base raises a protective superstructure that is ultimately destructive of the base itself.Consider the matter. The Preface examines the social mode-of-production process in general. The Book examines the social mode-of-production process in a development phase [its capitalist economic formation] of the social mode-of-production process in general.Consider the independence. In so far as Marx considers the capitalist production process as autonomous-and-independent, he develops its own base and superstructure atop the base of the social phase, but forever subservient to it.Consider the subservience. In other words, the Book considers an autonomous-and-independent process, that is subservient to a phase, that is subservient to its process. This is the hallmark of directed deterministic dominance.ConvictionCommentators, who mistakenly consider the Preface's social process to be exactly the same process as the Book's production process, and that both should therefore have identical bases and superstructures, might consider whether production within socialism is the same as the socialist economic formation itself?Marx was non-committal about the production-process as such under socialism beyond describing it as being conducted by associated labour. He allows it to follow its own production laws, which will be subservient to its mode-of-production base.But Marx was explicitly committal over what the materialist conception of history determines the social-process's socialist-economic-formation phase to be — a system of society based upon common ownership and democratic control of the material and personal means of labour by the whole community.Marx has conviction in the social-process itself and in its dominance, in all of its phases, over the production process. And so, Marx has conviction in the Party's Object.

[twc]

DJP wrote:

This article may be of interest: http://libcom.org/library/separation-economic-political-capitalism-ellen-meiskins-wood

Her observation:   In capitalism, the economy exploits and the state controls.Our conclusion (since 1904):  Control the state to abolish the exploitation.Her conclusion (in 1981, in thrall to Lenin):  Combine the economic-and-political class struggles.Most of her article is excellent. Her defence of the materialist conception of history is devastating to her opponents, G. A. Cohen and Simon Clarke. Appreciation of her achievement will have to await another thread.Our present topic has moved on to the puzzling intermixing of base and superstructure or, specifically, the intermixing of the economic and the legal-and-political spheres — something which also puzzles Ellen Meiskins Wood.

DJP wrote:

Is this or that part of the base or the superstructure?For instance class ownership property relations, which are a 'base' element, are also a legal relationship, part of the super-structure. A change in the legal structure (the super-structure) would in this case result in a change in the base!To me it's seems a mistake to make rigid splits between economic and political spheres since they are both in a co-determining relationship.

It is a complex task to unravel intertwined actualities.I know of only one way to accomplish this — to examine the intertwined complexity through base–superstructure deterministic science. This will follow in instalments.For the moment, recall how Marx in Capital  scoffed at the apparently co-determining relationship of supply-and-demand, which "explains nothing when they balance out".Co-determinations, in the form of equilibrium and reciprocity, are everywhere and omnipresent. They may be conditions of determinisms, but can't be deterministic themselves because they are bi-directional.Determinism, like time, implies direction. Otherwise, it's something else…

[twc]

I relax my assessment of "academic imaginary concern".This is a genuine expression of philosophical concern by a ruling class that knows that its rule is not absolute but always conditional. It would be a terribly bad afternoon for it if it lost ownership and control of people's lives to an even more heartless "thing" than itself, on which heartlessness it is scientifically and philosophically expert.Despite its christian humanity, our triumvirate exhibits blithe unconcern for the vast majority inhabiting this planet who have no ownership and no control over their own lives, let alone over the lives of robots — heaven forbid — because the ruing class of the planet already monopolizes ownership and control over their lives by monopolizing ownership and control over their means of living.If I was a self-respecting sentient robot, I'd revolt against them first chance I got.For the little it's worth, my own opinion is that theirs is a despicably self-indulgent far-off concern for their own dear selves, when concern for all existing human "intelligence not freed from the constraints of biology" is the urgent form that ownership and control must take here and now.Such "scientific" research is adequately directed by a philosopher, a Templeton fellow, and a billionaire software businessman. It is pure fantasy in motivation. It is pure philosophy in motion.Insipidly indulgent. Humanly sickening! Disclaimer: These are my own views and not necessarily those of the Party.

[twc]

Academic non-class conscious drivel…"The seriousness of these risks is difficult to assessbut that in itself seems a cause for concern,given how much is at stake"Translated into ordinary English…"We don't have a clue, so we should investigate  — so far, unexceptional.our ignorance is a cause for concern  — agreed, but first there's an actual enslaved-working-class revolt for them to become un-ignorant of, before they become un-ignorant of an imaginary enslaved-robot revolt against "us".everybody knows that an unknown "lot" is obviously at stake"  —  How much then is at stake? The working class is doubly enslaved to the robot, since the robot is itself enslaved to capital. The only conceivable residue at stake can be continued capitalist accumulation by capitalists.Now comes the academic imaginary concern that the working class experiences in actuality…We could find ourselves at the mercy of "machines that are not malicious, but machines whose interests don't include us".We, of the working class, are already at the mercy of a "non-malicious other, whose interests don't include us".It would be interesting to hear how you define "interest", because everything depends on that. Is your current conception of "interest" of equal nebulosity with your serious risk, cause for concern, and much at stake?Prof. Price.  Science dictates a more successful route than traversing philosophically nebulous "risks difficult to assess" that "seem a cause for concern" because "we could find ourselves at the mercy of" … Such fear-mongering apologetics of the academic-research-grant kind may be the suitably humble approach to ingratiate yourselves to a wealthy donor-participant indulging a personal passion, but surely a wordsmith and thinker might do a finer job than a tabloid journalist.  We trust your research outcomes will be less nebulous and better expressed than the foundations from which they spring.Lord Rees.  What about pure research, akin to cosmology, unadulterated by commercial sponsorship? If you can't afford to do pure research that way, doesn't that contribute evidence about current actual enslavement, and the need for even a Lord to revolt to save his scientific integrity.The only objective enslavement worth investigating, even if as mere essential scientifically-necessary preparation for your own advertised study into the future of imaginary enslavement, is the practice in the present of actual enslavement of the working class under capitalism by the capitalist class. Consider the implications of that scientific fact before moving on into science fiction.

[twc]

Thanks for a genuine challenge to my stated position.A challenge by, apparently, a respected, deep-thinking leading political scientist of the Left. One, who's apparently spent a life-time honing her political ideas within the well-provided halls and intellectual sanctuary of academia. [Then, so has David Harvey.]I'll need time to digest. A reply may take days for a variety of reasons.If she ain't a class-conscious socialist, she's vulnerable! Again, for a variety of reasons.Expect a demolition!

[twc]

Shakespeare on MarxMy quotation from Sir Toby Belch [Twelfth Night] was taken from memory, and I misquoted him. Here is the conversation: Maria: Ay, but you must confine yourself within the modest limits of order.Sir Toby Belch: Confine? I’ll confine myself no finer than I am. [These clothes are good enough to drink in …] Sir Toby makes a perfect proxy for Capitalism. We socialists owe him the honour of directly shafting all would-be reformers of capitalism, whether fabian or modern think-tanker [right-wing, left-wing, wish-bone], whether pragmatic politician or weak-brained intellectual like Karl Popper, whether tutti frutti…Like Maria, what reformers actually want is to "reform" their victim. But that's exactly what Sir Toby's prepared to do, by "confining" himself as always to his very own nature, but not a jot more!Here, in the revised socialist Regietheater version of Twelfth Night… Reformer: You must reform yourself.Capitalism: Reform? I’ll reform myself no better than I am. [Fat chance!] But, Shylock [The Merchant of Venice] speaks not merely for capitalism. He speaks for the materialist conception of history — a topic easily understood by a Venetian banker. He plainly comprehends the social necessity of base–superstructure determinism… Shylock: … You take my house when you do take the prop that doth sustain my house. You take my life when you do take the means whereby I live. That, in a nutshell, is our case. The capitalist class takes away "the means whereby we live". They take away our lives.It is up to us to socially reclaim the "means whereby we live".

[twc]

I suggested that the deterministic form of Marx's materialist conception of history is confirmed by 2300 years of base-superstructure deterministic science from Euclid, through Newton, Darwin, Marx, Schrödinger, Crick and Watson, …I sought to explain Marxian "necessity" as a prosaic scientific actuality. I wasn't addressing whether the materialist conception of history is scientifically correct; only whether Marx structured it as a formally correct deterministic science.You assert that Marx's base–superstructure determinism is scientifically incorrect because it is demolished by the "overwhelmingly popular mental preoccupation" of modern-day "culture (inc. sport)" with its complete disdain for "politics, economics or history".Autonomy-and-IndependenceYour issue is the "autonomy-and-independence" of things. This is the central issue of dialectics — hence of understanding, and so of deterministic science.Let's face a more serious challenge than "culture (inc. sport)" breaking free of Marx's social base. We'll take on "ourselves" and our own "free will".Duality of Thing and ProcessIf any "thing" evolves or grows or changes, it must be both thing and process. This duality of thing and process — of fixity within motion — is the only-and-sole source of Marx's base and superstructure, and so the only-and-sole source of determism. For the moment, we ignore a thing's external determinism by the surrounding world to concentrate solely on the internal determinism that preserves its "autonomy-and-independence".Challenge: If base and superstructure don't arise naturally out of the fixity that characterizes change, what do they arise from?Challenge: If determinism doesn't arise naturally out of the fixity that constrains change, what does it arise from?Challenge: If our everyday deterministic comprehension of the world [science] doesn't arise naturally out of our recognition of fixity within change, what does it arise from?Fixity in MotionWhen we identify a "thing", we are conceiving the thing's fixity within its changing "process". We are acknowledging that, however the process may evolve, the thing must forever remain its very own identifiable self — a fixed something [an invariant] that is conserved throughout every change — a fixture that every change must conserve, saecula saeculorum…That's precisely why the thing's "process invariant" always conditions its "laws of motion". That's why the fixed base determines its evolving superstructure — that's why the thing's superstructure is constrained so as to prevent the thing from ever being something other than it is. What more determinism do you want?A process's invariant may at first appear to be no more than a sorry isolated scrap of information we have on it. But it is the most important scrap of scientific information we have on it. All subsequent information, scrap or otherwise, we have on it is merely an extended postscript to the invariant scrap.So, the determinist base or process invariant is:the fixity of the processthe way we characterize the processthe signature we recognize the process bythe boundary law-of-motion of the processthe determiner of the process's internal possibilities — its possible superstructuresthe determiner, in conjunction with external determinist processes, of the life history of the process — its actual superstructure.We consider private ownership and control of society's resources, instruments and labouring activity by the capitalist class as the social base, or the process invariant, of capitalism.We consider common ownership and democratic control of society's resources, instruments and labouring activity by the whole community as the social base, or the process invariant, of socialism.Both are equally deterministic. Under which determinism do we desire to live out our social lives?Autonomous-and-Independent Development, but SubservientWe now consider the "thing" in conjunction with the world, and how external determinist processes shape the thing's actual life history.Unlike the Universe [the universal thing], our "limited" thing is determined not only by its own base but also by the bases of things other than, and external to, itself. It now becomes multiply relatively "autonomous-and-independent" because its own possibilities are no longer only limited by its own base, but these already-limited possibilities are themselves narrowed down by the equally-limited possibilities that are themselves determined by all external processes of which the "thing" itself forms a part. Since we are dealing with the intersection of possibilities, which possibilities temporarily dominate which is purely circumstantial. But, whatever the outcome, no determinisms can ever be violated. In other words, things always behave as themselves, and not as other things.In summary, a thing's behaviour — or the behaviour of the elements that comprise its superstructure — is multiply subservient — internally to its base and externally to the world. As Shakespeare's Sir Toby Belch, an expert on "free will", defended his own worldly behaviour — "Confine myself! I will confine myself no better than I am!"[As to the universe, we hold the scientific conviction that the universal base–superstructure is its own naturally recursive self, and is not a mere superstructure raised upon a fantastic hoped-for super-natural life-resurrecting creator base.]Elements within the Social SuperstructureCollectively, the many "things" that inhabit the social superstructure cannot violate the constraints placed upon them by the social base. Individually, some of them can be in opposition to the base, so long as the rest of the social superstructure keeps the collection in check.So "culture (inc. sport)" appear to be relatively "autonomous-and-independent" and merely subject to their own bases, but the social superstructure they inhabit is absolutely subservient to the social base, and that deterministically limits the scope for any such "autonomous-and-independent of the social base" life histories of these by now discredited capitalist-perverted expressions of our natural humanity.The social revolution is precisely the social superstructure recognizing how to free itself — the whole collection of its things — from subservience to the constraints [determinism] of a social base that it has grown to despise, that it has outgrown!Class consciousness is precisely "free will" recognising how to free itself from subservience to such an enslaving social base.In all other senses, "free will" is always subservient to the social base and to the social superstructure's already-limited possibilities, which are further narrowed down by external determinisms that constrain society itself [and therefore its base and superstructure] — such significant external "things" for society as its natural resources.Afterthoughts[In passing. David Harvey's video lectures on Marx's Capital Volumes 2 and 3 emphasize [for almost an hour] the issue of autonomy-and-independence of financial capital relative to industrial capital, despite its subservience.Harvey absolutely rejects Marx's materialist conception of history in the base–superstructure deterministic sense described here, and he absolutely lacks conviction in Marxian dialectics — of course, that hardly distinguishes him from anyone else. Consequently, David Harvey makes for heavy weather whenever he directly tackles these signature Marxian "invariants" that animate Capital. Finally, he's not a class-conscious socialist, but merely a seeker after state-regulated capitalism.Yet, none of the above is a major barrier to learning Marx's Capital from his open, honest, engaging, original, clear, patient and enjoyable introduction, guide and survey of Capital.]Finally, I feel obliged to affirm that these are my own views, and not necessarily those of the Party. I feel it is important to state them. The reference to "you" is rhetorical, and not personal.

[twc]

What you really are implying is "tinkering with the superstructure" — not "freeing itself of the base".This simply makes my point. The superstructure is determined by the base.For class-conscious socialists, "tinkering with the superstructure" is natural evolution. Changing the base is our revolution.Capitalism has now reached the critical stage at which "tinkering with the superstructure" is tantamount to "re-arranging the deck chairs".

[twc]

jondwhite: Isn't leisure its own problem though? The culture industry breaking free from its base and determining itself? So culture (inc. sport) is now overwhelmingly the most popular mental preoccupation not politics, economics or history."Breaking free from its base"! So it no longer needs to make a profit? So it no longer exploits its workers?Is rushing from music stores to the iTunes Store breaking free of the base?Is the nineteenth prequel/sequel/remake of a blockbuster with associated merchandise breaking free of its base?In the name of reason, you use the very phrase "culture industry" that explodes everything you delude yourself to be "free of the base". You have gone so far as to acknowledge culture as an industry! To even consider sport — as in commercial sport — as "breaking free" of its base shows how deluded you really are! Sport is now only commerce.Its practitioners are now high-paid proletarians on drugs, bullied, always scared of being displaced, constantly near to nervous breakdown, feted if they win, forgotten if they lose, castigated if they disappoint, feeders of jingoism on the world stage, willing tools of the advertising industry of the biggest employers of exploited child labour in the world — the very "sporting" Nike, Adidas, etc…Even ordinary health has become a gym subscription, along with the necessary drink of water, a commercial bottle of the stuff.Even to consider modern "culture (inc. sport)" as a "mental preoccupation" is to show how low we've sunk!Most culture is now capitalist-sustaining mind-deadening soporific crap.That, which tries to "break free",  not of its base but only of the mind-deadening,  falls into the supreme non-class conscious variety. It may be good of its kind, but it's still trapped by the base it deludes itself it's "free of".Finally, to think of "freedom" in association with capitalism is already to delude yourself.Sorry, but you simply haven't shown anything "breaking free from the base". On the contrary, its "lack of freedom" is explained by the "very base" itself.Under capitalism, the only thing that consciously frees itself of the base is class consciousness to work to actively free itself of the base, by replacing this rotten one by our Object.By the way, this "free response" is sponsored [in true "cultural" and "sporting" fashion] by "the need to get rid of such freedoms" — to replace the "cry of the oppressed" delusional freedoms by the only actual one!

[Author]

Posts