Why the rabid anti-existentialism from Marxists?

[A.R.Amistad]

I'm not just trying to repeat Sartre here, but i really have been inspired by the ideas of a Marxist Existentialism. But it seems like we Marxist Existentialists are in a hated minority here. Everyone from Novak to Lucaks decries existentialism as a "bourgeois-philosophy." This is something I have a hard time understanding myself. How could a philosophy that isn't blatantly political or economically driven be labeled as "bourgeois." One could call Marxism a "petty-bourgeois" philosophy because of the class that Marx and Engels came from, but I am a believer that Marxism is a proletarian political and economic theory. How could anyone really label philosophy with a class when people of various persuasions of the class struggle adhere to it. Proletarian Existentialist like Sartre, Camus and de Bouviour versus bourgeois ones like Hiedegger. So Hiedegger ruins it all? Also, everyone seems to say that existentialism is opposed to dialectical materialism. Again, why? I see existentialism as probably the most consisently matrialistic philosophy: anything that is not material is absurd. And dialectics is more of a form of logic than a philosophy. Dialectics doesn't give meaning to thing any more than the theory of evolution does: it simply explains how things happened. I might be going on a limb when I say that Marx's departure from both Hegel and Feurbach was an existential move. He rejected the meaning-giving style of dialectic of Hegel, yet rejected the strictly rational materialism of Feurbach. Smell existentialism anyone? And could't one draw correlations between the idea of Marx's Theory of Alienation and Sartres idea of Nausea? I don't understand why some Marxists are so opposed to the idea that Dialectical Materialism and Existentialism are compatible with each other. Why aren't we supporting existentialism and combating the obviously bourgeois idea of determinism and "human nature," which so many try to use to discredit the idea of moving towards a classless society?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, since both 'theories' are non-sensical, they can neither be compatible nor non-compatible.

[A.R.Amistad]

Well, since both 'theories' are non-sensical, they can neither be compatible nor non-compatible.

Okay, that makes some sense to me, but that would be the argument only from the existentialist point of view. No existentialist that i have come across, not even the anti or non-Marxist ones, have tried to say that one couldn't be a Marxist and an Existentialist. But there are many Marxists out there who try to say that Dialectical Materialism is the only philosophy compatible with Marxism, when I think that they make Dialectical Materialism out to be more rigid than it is.

[Buffalo Souljah]

Don't get Rosa started on the evils of Dialectical Materialism. That'll be a mistake you'll soon regret.:laugh:

On a more related note: existentialism is a belief that human beings are ultimately irrational creatures and that there is no box or 'science' by means of which you could 'explain away' every possible facet of what being human 'means', if that means anything. In my view, it has both a 'positive' and a 'negative' side: rejection of industrial society's definitions of man (and along with it, behaviorism, sociology & other bourgeousie attempts to reify the human species), as well as an embracing of all aspects of subjective experience--for its own sake.

Since there is no Summum Bonum (ultimate good) in existenialism, it is inherently at odds with Marxian world-views, which stipulates the struggle between conflicting material and social forces as an absolute. There is your first example of irremediable contradictions between the two schools: one attempts to do away with all meanings and ambrace only that which represents the individual, the other sees a mutual interrelation between all events, which ultimately is introduced in history through human agency.

You can try to reconcile the two views, as Merleu-Ponty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Merleau-Ponty), Marcuse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse) (and to a lesser extent others in the Frankfurt School, cf. Adorno, and elsewhere on the continent [cf. him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucien_Goldmann), him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre) & him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Benjamin)]) did, but it is speculative as to whether what you end up with can be called 'philosophy'.

[¿Que?]

Can we sense the obvious connection to postmodernism. Existentialism is in the end a stepping stone to postmodernism. This renders existentialism meaningless within a context in which pomo exists, that is, pretty much all of modern society.

[A.R.Amistad]

Don't get Rosa started on the evils of Dialectical Materialism. That'll be a mistake you'll soon regret.http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/lol.gif

First, I need to get a good handle on dialectics before i can say whether or not I am against them :laugh:


existentialism is a belief that human beings are ultimately irrational creatures and that there is no box or 'science' by means of which you could 'explain away' every possible facet of what being human 'means', if that means anything. In my view, it has both a 'positive' and a 'negative' side: rejection of industrial society's definitions of man (and along with it, behaviorism, sociology & other bourgeousie attempts to reify the human species), as well as an embracing of all aspects of subjective experience--for its own sake.


I have seen the existential critique of science, and I think that if one thinks that the other is in contradiction, they would be mistaken. Existentialism doesn't reject science or the scientific method of explaining things, even in the realm of social sciences such as sociology, anthropology, etc. Existentialism only rejects ideas that try to give meaning to how things are. For example, when Marx explains how human society was transformed from feudal society to bourgeois society, he doesn't give it any sort of higher meaning. He doesn't say that it represents some inherent force in the universe that made people do such a thing. He simply explains how it happened, and in the case of socialism, he gives a concrete analysis of what can be done to transform bourgeois society into proletarian and then classless society, given the current reality of bourgeois society. I think specifically, the scientific method, which Marx used, is specifically not supposed to give meaning. All in all, a scientist can explain how something is, or how something happens, but its up to everyone else to give it the meaning that they will (even if it is the one who created the analysis in the first place). But the creator of a theory should not try to impose a universal truth about the essence of life to support the theory. That will lead to disappointment.


Since there is no Summum Bonum (ultimate good) in existenialism, it is inherently at odds with Marxian world-views, which stipulates the struggle between conflicting material and social forces as an absolute. There is your first example of irremediable contradictions between the two schools: one attempts to do away with all meanings and ambrace only that which represents the individual, the other sees a mutual interrelation between all events, which ultimately is introduced in history through human agency.


Existentialism is far from trying to take meaning out of the equation. quite the contrary, existentialism is a philosophy that is supposed to help guide life through a meaningless universe. I have heard it said that "existentialism is what makes life possible in this absurd world." Existentialism would not have to "do away" with meaning in life because that has already been done by cold, hard reality. Existentialists want people to make something of themselves, to create an essence that is far higher than just there natural breathing habits. Even Nietzsche's believed that morality was important to human life, hence his highly misunderstood idea of Ubermenchen (sp?) The existentialists are in common agreement when they say that the 'best' thing for mankind to do is to overcome themselves. Also, I have never really come across an existentialist, Marxist or not, who didn't think that society reflects the individual, and vice versa.

You can try to reconcile the two views, as Merleu-Ponty (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Merleau-Ponty), Marcuse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse) (and to a lesser extent others in the Frankfurt School, cf. Adorno, and elsewhere on the continent [cf. him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucien_Goldmann), him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre) & him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Benjamin)]) did, but it is speculative as to whether what you end up with can be called 'philosophy'. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1709768)

I'll look into it, comrade. I've always been wary about the Frankfurt school but Ill give it a shot, much thanks. :thumbup1:

[Buffalo Souljah]

For example, when Marx explains how human society was transformed from feudal society to bourgeois society, he doesn't give it any sort of higher meaning. He doesn't say that it represents some inherent force in the universe that made people do such a thing. He simply explains how it happened, and in the case of socialism, he gives a concrete analysis of what can be done to transform bourgeois society into proletarian and then classless society, given the current reality of bourgeois society. I think specifically, the scientific method, which Marx used, is specifically not supposed to give meaning. All in all, a scientist can explain how something is, or how something happens, but its up to everyone else to give it the meaning that they will (even if it is the one who created the analysis in the first place). But the creator of a theory should not try to impose a universal truth about the essence of life to support the theory. That will lead to disappointment.
You are mistaken here. Actually, by and large, Marx rejects 'scientific Marxism' as a vulgarization, by means of which class analysis becomes reduced to a collection of unrelated facts that have no (explicit) connection with each other. This is exactly the type of thinking Marx was trying to put where it belonged, in the ground.



...in the class consciousness of the proletariat theory and practice coincide...When the vulgar Marxists destroy this unity they cut the nervethat binds proletarian theory to proletarian action. They reduce theory to the 'scientific' treatment of symptoms of social change as for practice they are themselves reduced to being buffeted about aimlessly and uncontrollably by the various elements of the process they had hoped to master. (History & Class Consciousness, 69)What you see in reading Marx is very much a distinction in 'what is' and 'what ought to be'. Mind you, it is difficult, nay, impossible, to come to this determination without resorting to some 'hermeneutical' device, ie. 'critique'. What Marx is doing is laying the theoretical groundwork for an eventual overthrow of the existing capitalist system of production, which he believes to be based upon the "irremediable contradictions" inheret in labor, wages and profit.



The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for those conditions, by which they are fettered...The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself. (Communist Manifesto, 20)

And also, it all depends on what you mean by 'meaning'.

[which doctor]

I'll look into it, comrade. I've always been wary about the Frankfurt school but Ill give it a shot, much thanks. :thumbup1:
What makes you weary about the Frankfurt School?

[A.R.Amistad]

What makes you weary about the Frankfurt School?

I confused them with the "Praxis" school, sorry.

[black magick hustla]

What makes you weary about the Frankfurt School?

they are pretty bad imo

[A.R.Amistad]

@ comrade georgebush I still don't see any contradictions between Marxism and Existentialism. Marx may or may not have rejected "scientific socialism" but I have never come across Marx asserting any sort of universal truth, or that essence precedes existence. Marx did believe in a human nature, which would contradict existentialism but Marx's view on "human nature" vs human condition doesn't seem to be central to his thaught, and I agree that Marx was more of a scientific materialist than a 'philosopher.'

[Buffalo Souljah]

@ comrade georgebush I still don't see any contradictions between Marxism and Existentialism. Marx may or may not have rejected "scientific socialism" but I have never come across Marx asserting any sort of universal truth, or that essence precedes existence. Marx did believe in a human nature, which would contradict existentialism but Marx's view on "human nature" vs human condition doesn't seem to be central to his thaught, and I agree that Marx was more of a scientific materialist than a 'philosopher.'

Though I don't necessarily disagree with you (I've simply pointed out what others have said about the same issues), I do believe there are some issues that surface when the 'organic' development of proletarian class consciousness is synthesized with the rabid individualism of most existentialist thinking: Marxism is, in a way, a 'world-view' or a dogma imposed from the '"top down" (not literally), and this doesn't wash with the fundamental arguments of most existentialist thinkers, eg. Camus, Sartre, Kierkegaard; who are all, by and large, concerned with the role of the individual in society. I just think of Ferapont in Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov: how could someone like him or the Man from Underground participate with a proletarian revolution?! I think this is a valid question.

They are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but there are some contradictions (small 'c') that must be "smoothed over".

[which doctor]

I don't really understand the appeal of existentialism. I think it's because I expect philosophy to give me some sort of social and historical framework, which existentialism never offered, but maybe I just haven't read the right books. And I've never found existentialist aesthetics to be very satisfying.


they are pretty bad imo
Anything more substantial?

[black magick hustla]

I don't really understand the appeal of existentialism. I think it's because I expect philosophy to give me some sort of social and historical framework, which existentialism never offered, but maybe I just haven't read the right books. And I've never found existentialist aesthetics to be very satisfying.


Anything more substantial?

idk, i get the feeling a lot of the stuff being put forward by these so called "frankfurt" schoolers is more about the style than the substance. i have only read marcuse so perhaps i am being judgemental, but it seems to frankfurt school was just a product of the counterrevolution - the idea that the working class was integrated to capital like marcuse said. i think the frankfurt school is the reason why a lot of marxists are really fuzzy about their concepts because of the whole hegelian and continental deadweight that makes it impossible for these people to speak like normal human beings.

what do you feel is worthwhile about them?

[Buffalo Souljah]

^^^ I've never been fond of lumping individuals into artificial groups, because this seems to me to make it easier for someone to pretend to understand them as a sum and then make judgments about them like that.

True, you see alot of corollaries between those in the Frankfurt school with each other [obviously, if you see someone regularly, you'll start to sound like them eventually], but they are by no means 'identical': and this is in part what they were so crtitical of, each in their own right, in the first place: Lukacs (who really precedes and influences the FS) wrote of reification and how class consciousness can be both a tool and antagonist to organization and to normative and progressive social activity; Benjamin, who was directly influenced by Lukacs, wrote more pointed criticisms of the 'particularities' of industrial culture--he drew theoretical observations out of practical conditions in Paris, or in contemporary literature or music or art, etc; Adorno, who was Benjamin's student, and who wrote prolifically with Max Horkheimer, criticized Benjamin for his [sic] failure to draw substanial theortetical 'distance' in his writings, and tends himself to abstract more from the 'particularities'--he's probably the most similar to Marcuse in that vain. If you don't enjoy reading Marcuse, I advise you to stay away from Adorno! However, I will advise you to at least familiarize yourself with some of the other figures in the school before you de facto dismiss them.

[black magick hustla]

True, you see alot of corollaries between those in the Frankfurt school with each other [obviously, if you see someone regularly, you'll start to sound like them eventually], but they are by no means 'identical': and this is in part what they were so crtitical of, each in their own right, in the first place: Lukacs (who really precedes and influences the FS) wrote of reification and how class consciousness can be both a tool and antagonist to organization and to normative and progressive social activity; Benjamin, who was directly influenced by Lukacs, wrote more pointed criticisms of the 'particularities' of industrial culture--he drew theoretical observations out of practical conditions in Paris, or in contemporary literature or music or art, etc; Adorno, who was Benjamin's student, and who wrote prolifically with Max Horkheimer, criticized Benjamin for his [sic] failure to draw substanial theortetical 'distance' in his writings, and tends himself to abstract more from the 'particularities'--he's probably the most similar to Marcuse in that vain. If you don't enjoy reading Marcuse, I advise you to stay away from Adorno! However, I will advise you to at least familiarize yourself with some of the other figures in the school before you de facto dismiss them.

First, Lukacs is not Frankfurt school, and I certainly dislike Lukacs.

Obviously they are not identical, but I am deeply suspicious. I will give you the benefit of doubt, but unfortunately, the people I know who are really into this stuff have all failed to impress me, and seem really fuzzy minded.

[A.R.Amistad]

I don't really understand the appeal of existentialism. I think it's because I expect philosophy to give me some sort of social and historical framework, which existentialism never offered, but maybe I just haven't read the right books. And I've never found existentialist aesthetics to be very satisfying.


Existentialism should be appealing to the revolutionary Marxist, or the revolutionary in general, because as a philosophy it liberates life from the false and oppressive determinism of such ideas of divine will, "human nature" and determinism in general. Sartre described existentialism as "looking at the universe in a purely atheist way." Kierkegaard and others make this definition quite misleading, but I believe it is possibly the most materialist outlook on the world (assuming that one doesn't think materialism gives life meaning).

You can read all of the Marxist philosophers from Marx, on to Engels, Lenin, etc. They never give meaning to the universe. They simply describe how history has happened and give some diagnoses for how things could be better. Existentialism and communist philosophy should not be at odds, because existentialism is only at odds with determinist and nihilistic philosophies. "Existence precedes essence" and take it from there. That is existentialism. Marxism is a great philosophy for interpretation of history, societal relations, politics, economics, anthropology, etc. etc. If you are looking for a philosophy to give you a "social and historical framework," than Marxism is where it is at. And you are right, existentialism does not seek to give answers to these questions. If it did, existentialists would end up denying everything from evolution to physics. And we don't. Existentialists deal with issues of meaning, and creating meaning in a meaningless world. This means that humanity is not inherently "greedy," mankind is not part of a divine plan, mankind is not determined by anything that would prevent it from creating a classless society. Mankind has all the potential, and is limited only by facticity.


And I've never found existentialist aesthetics to be very satisfying.

Hm, not quite sure what you mean here. To tell you the truth I used to be extremely hostile to existentialism. But I later learned I was confusing it with nihilism, and that all of my Marxist arguments about society were also existentialist arguments about the individual. I don't believe one comes before the other, they are simultaneous. Marx said that society is constantly defining itself. We agree and say that the individual is constantly defining itself. If the aesthetic seemed to be too "individualist" I hope that clarified it.

As for existentialist fiction, I agree its not the most pleasant of things to read. The only existential fiction I really enjoyed was The Myth of Sisyphus. Otherwise, I stick to essays such as Sartre's Humanism.

Otherwise, existentialist "aesthetics" include the idea that no one can be truly free if they live in an exploitative society, mankind has the possibility to reach great potential,
we are free to define ourselves and make our own meaning. Whats wrong with all of that?

[Proletarian Ultra]

What makes you weary about the Frankfurt School?

Well it is rather wearying, isn't it? "No poetry after Auschwitz." Fuck that. Mass culture sucks. Fuck that. Marcuse hating on the working class. Fuck that especially. Reactionary Spenglerian gloom, petty bourgeois anti-consumerism, and just straight up liberalism - tarted up in a little Marxian glitter. That's the Frankfurt School. Oh, and Adorno had shitty taste in music.


Existentialism should be appealing to the revolutionary Marxist, or the revolutionary in general, because as a philosophy it liberates life from the false and oppressive determinism of such ideas of divine will, "human nature" and determinism in general. Sartre described existentialism as "looking at the universe in a purely atheist way." Kierkegaard and others make this definition quite misleading, but I believe it is possibly the most materialist outlook on the world (assuming that one doesn't think materialism gives life meaning).

This has to do with the humanism vs. antihumanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihumanism) debate. I think most of us here are instinctively or consciously antihumanist.


When Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser coined the term "antihumanism," it was directed against Marxist humanists, which he considered a revisionist movement. It meant a radical opposition to the philosophy of the subject. Althusser considered "social relations" to have primacy over individual consciousness. For Althusser, the beliefs, desires, preferences and judgements of the human individual are the product of social practices. That is to say, society makes the individual in its own image. The human individual's belief that he is a subject responsible for his own actions is not innate; rather, he is constituted as a subject by society and its ideologies. For Marxist humanists such as Georg Lukács, revolution was contingent on the development of the class consciousness of an historical subject, the proletariat. In opposition to this, Althusser stated that it was not "man" who made history, but the "masses". Thus, Althusser's antihumanism downplays the role of human agency in the process of history.

[Buffalo Souljah]

First, Lukacs is not Frankfurt school, and I certainly dislike Lukacs.

As I previously stated:


Lukacs (who really precedes and influences the FS) wrote of reification and how class consciousness can be both a tool and antagonist to organization and to normative and progressive social activity...As to this:

and I certainly dislike Lukacs.I would like to see some qualifications in his own terms that make you believe that Lukacs is not worth considering an integral part of the Western Marxist pantheon. If it is simply because he adopts some of the Hegelian terminology, then this could be applied to marx himself, as well. I find Lukacs one of the most thoroughgoing and exhaustive interpreters of class consciousness and models of interpreting history (I will say nothing of his metaphysical writings, as I am unfamiliar with them at present) in the history of western Marxism.



Obviously they are not identical, but I am deeply suspicious. I will give you the benefit of doubt, but unfortunately, the people I know who are really into this stuff have all failed to impress me, and seem really fuzzy minded.Read the introductory remarks to Benjamin's Passagen-Werk, as well as his Artwork in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction; you will not regret it. I had a history professor at the university of Alabama encourage me to read Benjamin, Bloch, Lukacs, et al on the basis of my interest in Marx's Theses on Feuerbach, and I certainly do not regret reading these fellows--and I certainly don't consider myself "fuzzy-minded" in the least! ;)

[Buffalo Souljah]

You can read all of the Marxist philosophers from Marx, on to Engels, Lenin, etc. They never give meaning to the universe. They simply describe how history has happened and give some diagnoses for how things could be better.And calling every mode of human society prior to the immanent socialist transformation "the prehistory of man" (cf. Critique of Gotha Programme) does not at all lead one to the conclusion that Marx had/has an agenda? ;) Get real.

[Buffalo Souljah]

Well it is rather wearying, isn't it? "No poetry after Auschwitz." Fuck that.Benjamin was a literary critic, meaning he wrote about art and literature (before the Nazis killed him). An entire chucnk out of Adorno's Dialectic of Enlightnment (DE) is dedicated to epic poetry. Get your facts straight.


Mass culture sucks. Fuck that.Benjamin was quite fond of mass culture: he was an avid collector of stamps, magazine clippings, pornography and a great number of other tidbits--he loved advertising!


Marcuse hating on the working class. Fuck that especially.Marcuse wrote in One-Dimensional Man that the working class had to be "shown the good road". What he meant was that revolutiona would not magically spring up ex nihilo, but that it would be the end result of a long process of education and this could only come "from above". He may have been wrong about this, but that is not the point. "Must be shown the way" does certainly not equal "fuck the working class". You're barking up the wrong tree.


Reactionary Spenglerian gloom, petty bourgeois anti-consumerism, and just straight up liberalism - tarted up in a little Marxian glitter. That's the Frankfurt School. Oh, and Adorno had shitty taste in music.Not a jazz fan, I presume?:(

That's a terribly inadequate summation of the life works of quite a handful of people, don't you think? Read more before you open your mouth next time.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Benjamin was a literary critic, meaning he wrote about art and literature (before the Nazis killed him).

Benjamin was quite fond of mass culture: he was an avid collector of stamps, magazine clippings, pornography and a great number of other tidbits--he loved advertising!

Benjamin's aesthetics were considerably less philistine than, say, Adorno and Horkheimer's. He was also notably never a core member of the Institute.


Marcuse wrote in One-Dimensional Man that the working class had to be "shown the good road". What he meant was that revolutiona would not magically spring up ex nihilo, but that it would be the end result of a long process of education and this could only come "from above". He may have been wrong about this, but that is not the point. "Must be shown the way" does certainly not equal "fuck the working class". You're barking up the wrong tree.

I don't think I am. The effect of Marcuse's work has been to justify callous anti-worker sentiment on the American "left". I don't think it's possible to overstate the destructiveness of it.


Not a jazz fan, I presume?:(

???


That's a terribly inadequate summation of the life works of quite a handful of people, don't you think?

Oh my yes. But then so's your post on Nietzsche. No hard feelings, though: it's only the internets.

[BAM]

There's an interesting parallel in part three of Sartre's Being and Nothingness with Marx's discussion of the equivalent form of value in chapter one of Capital.

For Marx, the value of commodity A is expressed in the use-value of B (the value of 1 coat A = 20 yards of linen B). As B expresses the value of A, ie the value of A is reflected in the physical body of B, we speak of a mediation known as reflection. Commodity A is related to that aspect of itself (its value) through another commodity, just like as people we get to know our own characters through interaction with other people or we see our own image in the reflection of a mirror.

The section "Being-for-Others" in Being and Nothingness is an lengthy treatment of this kind of relation, albeit in a different context. I don't think there's any evidence Sartre had Marx's theory in mind though, so do be careful. Marx's discussion of the equivalent form is also one of the famous incidences of Marx "coquetting with modes of expression peculiar to Hegel". Indeed, Sartre and Marx had both drawn on the same source to make these points.

[A.R.Amistad]

And calling every mode of human society prior to the immanent socialist transformation "the prehistory of man" (cf. Critique of Gotha Programme) does not at all lead one to the conclusion that Marx had/has an agenda? ;)


Having an agenda or a belief that in an ideal does not at all mean that you are giving life an inherent meaning. here, an existentialist would praise Marx for creating a meaning outside of himself. But Marx never said that there was any sort of God or natura force that would guide the uninterested masses to socialism. The demise is inevitable, I agree, It has basically already died and been saved by Keynsian economics. Nothing otherworldly or even naturally has predetermined this. History is not part of a grand plan. Individual life is not part of a grand plan. We as human beings make the plan ourselves, and that's what Marxism does. Read Lucaks. Class consciousness is something that has to be acheived. If Marx, Egels and Lenin had ever put out an idea that the essence of the individual is class consciousness, well, we'd be having a revolution now wouldn't we? People would already be born with class consciousness and naturally overthrow the exploitive system. There'd be no need for a revoutionary vanguard because everyone would be of a single class consciousness. You are confusing political ideas and agendas with determinist meaning giving ideas and they are not related, at least not in the marxist sense. Get real ;)

[Buffalo Souljah]

Having an agenda or a belief that in an ideal does not at all mean that you are giving life an inherent meaning.

Again, that depends on what you mean by 'meaning'.


here, an existentialist would praise Marx for creating a meaning outside of himself. But Marx never said that there was any sort of God or natura force that would guide the uninterested masses to socialism.

All I said is that Marx did indeed have an agenda in choosing to write what he did. He was not a fish out of water.


The demise is inevitable, I agree, It has basically already died and been saved by Keynsian economics. Nothing otherworldly or even naturally has predetermined this. History is not part of a grand plan. Individual life is not part of a grand plan. We as human beings make the plan ourselves, and that's what Marxism does. Read Lucaks. Class consciousness is something that has to be acheived. If Marx, Egels and Lenin had ever put out an idea that the essence of the individual is class consciousness, well, we'd be having a revolution now wouldn't we? People would already be born with class consciousness and naturally overthrow the exploitive system. There'd be no need for a revoutionary vanguard because everyone would be of a single class consciousness. You are confusing political ideas and agendas with determinist meaning giving ideas and they are not related, at least not in the marxist sense. Get real

Way to take my words out of context, mate. Again, all I said is that you have to be deluding youself to believe that Marx didn't have something up his sleeve to begin with. I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

[Buffalo Souljah]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Pilgrim http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1722489#post1722489)
Marcuse wrote in One-Dimensional Man that the working class had to be "shown the good road". What he meant was that revolutiona would not magically spring up ex nihilo, but that it would be the end result of a long process of education and this could only come "from above". He may have been wrong about this, but that is not the point. "Must be shown the way" does certainly not equal "fuck the working class". You're barking up the wrong tree.

I don't think I am. The effect of Marcuse's work has been to justify callous anti-worker sentiment on the American "left". I don't think it's possible to overstate the destructiveness of it.Again, as has been stated before, I don't think the speaker of the Sermon on the Mount would have been supportive of the Spanish Inquisition. If Marcuse has been misused, who can blame him for that? Is Marx personally responsible for sending millions into the Gulags?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Pilgrim http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1722489#post1722489)
Not a jazz fan, I presume?http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/sad.gif

???Adorno was a renowned critic of jazz music. I suppose you in dismissing his views in music "shitty", you were taking this into account. Or perhaps you should go back and do your homework, comrade.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Pilgrim http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1722489#post1722489)
That's a terribly inadequate summation of the life works of quite a handful of people, don't you think?

Oh my yes. But then so's your post on Nietzsche. No hard feelings, though: it's only the internets. No. That's off topic anyway.

[which doctor]

Well it is rather wearying, isn't it?

"No poetry after Auschwitz." Fuck that. Mass culture sucks. Fuck that. Marcuse hating on the working class. Fuck that especially. Reactionary Spenglerian gloom, petty bourgeois anti-consumerism, and just straight up liberalism - tarted up in a little Marxian glitter. That's the Frankfurt School. Oh, and Adorno had shitty taste in music.[/QUOTE]
With the possible exception of reading their wikipedia article, you don't show the slightest bit of familiarity with the Frankfurt School, so I suggest you quit running your mouth about them.

[BAM]

It's funny Adorno being mentioned in a thread on existentialism. After reading The Jargon of Authenticity I never looked at Existenz philosophy in the same way again. And then not much longer after that, I dropped the Frankfurt School too (with the exception of Henryk Grossman).

[A.R.Amistad]

Again, that depends on what you mean by 'meaning'.



All I said is that Marx did indeed have an agenda in choosing to write what he did. He was not a fish out of water.



Way to take my words out of context, mate. Again, all I said is that you have to be deluding youself to believe that Marx didn't have something up his sleeve to begin with. I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

I think you may be right, so my apologies if I came across to harshly. I think we may be debating two different things. I think you also may be confusing nihilism with existentialism (nihilism is a type of existential despair, not a tenet of existentialism) For example, Marx analyzed the class struggle through dialectical materialism. Marx showed how people's relations to material needs is the driving force of history, and that class struggle is the most fundamental form of this. Marx not only analyzed the class struggle in a scientific (as opposed to idealistic) way, he also asserted a communist morality ("worker's of the world unite" is a moral statement.) But I doubt that Marx, or any respectable Marxist for that matter, would assert that the all-true meaning of life is to win the class struggle and build communism. This isn't an objective truth, otherwise we would have achieved socialism a long time ago.

[Turinbaar]

I suppose the crux disagreement is on the issue of reality itself. Marxism asserts the real and the actual over the illusions of religion and the bourgeoisie, but existentialists and nihilists deny that there are such things as "real" and "actual." Both positions are unprovable by their own conflicting standards when asserted against each other.

[A.R.Amistad]

I suppose the crux disagreement is on the issue of reality itself. Marxism asserts the real and the actual over the illusions of religion and the bourgeoisie, but existentialists and nihilists deny that there are such things as "real" and "actual." Both positions are unprovable by their own conflicting standards when asserted against each other.

My understanding was that Existentialism rejects that the objective world can give us meaning. I don't think they necessarily reject the existence of the objective world or its laws, just that it can't act as a force of morality and how to live on its own. Maybe I'm mistaken. I'm coming to distance myself from Existentialist Marxism for Marxism Humanism.

[Buffalo Souljah]

I think you may be right, so my apologies if I came across to harshly. I think we may be debating two different things. I think you also may be confusing nihilism with existentialism (nihilism is a type of existential despair, not a tenet of existentialism) For example, Marx analyzed the class struggle through dialectical materialism. Marx showed how people's relations to material needs is the driving force of history, and that class struggle is the most fundamental form of this. Marx not only analyzed the class struggle in a scientific (as opposed to idealistic) way, he also asserted a communist morality ("worker's of the world unite" is a moral statement.) But I doubt that Marx, or any respectable Marxist for that matter, would assert that the all-true meaning of life is to win the class struggle and build communism. This isn't an objective truth, otherwise we would have achieved socialism a long time ago.Thanks for the apology. I don't think you've said anything here that I disagree with.