Is Marxism a philosophy?

[A.R.Amistad]

Simple question. I'm coming to lean to that it isn't a philosophy, or at least not in the traditional sense since it doesn't really deal with individual conscience, etc, etc. it restricts itself to materialist conception of the world, society and history, which gives a wide range of room for all sorts of philosophy from Freudianism, Existentialism, etc. etc.

[which doctor]

Marxism is a philosophy, but its one that is distinguishes itself from all other philosophies, insofar as the point of Marxism is the bring about a radical change in society. This is Marx's point in his 11th thesis on Feuerbach, when he says that philosophers have only hitherto attempted to interpret the world, the point is to change it. This is precisely what makes Marxism different from other philosophies: that its interpretation, is ultimately one of action. One could understand Marxism as a philosophical interventioned into the course of human history, because this is what it essentially is. Socialist revolution would be both the realization of philosophy, and also its abolition.

I suggest reading Karl Korsch's essay, Marxism and Philosophy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/korsch/1923/marxism-philosophy.htm).

[redwasp]

peace,

lenin teaches that marxism has three sources and three components (marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm). one of these components is the dialectical and historical materialism. this is a philosophical doctrine. the source of this philosophy was the german philosophical tradition.

the answer to the question is double. marxism is philosophical, but it is more than that. the two other components are economy (source: english political economy) and politics (source the french radical socialist thinkers).

peace,

redwasp

[BAM]

lenin teaches that marxism has three sources and three components (marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm). one of these components is the dialectical and historical materialism. this is a philosophical doctrine. the source of this philosophy was the german philosophical tradition.

the answer to the question is double. marxism is philosophical, but it is more than that. the two other components are economy (source: english political economy) and politics (source the french radical socialist thinkers).

Marx's work is not composed of those three things, but is a critique of each of them. It is a critique of Hegel's dialectic, a critique of French socialism and a critique of British political economy.

Also Marxism may be a philosophy, but Marx's work is not. Marx's work is an analysis of the capitalist mode of production and what is necessary for the working class collectively to get rid of it.

[A.R.Amistad]

peace,

lenin teaches that marxism has three sources and three components (marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm). one of these components is the dialectical and historical materialism. this is a philosophical doctrine. the source of this philosophy was the german philosophical tradition.

the answer to the question is double. marxism is philosophical, but it is more than that. the two other components are economy (source: english political economy) and politics (source the french radical socialist thinkers).

peace,

redwasp

Yes, I agree, but it still doesnt show that Marxism is a philosophy in the traditional sense as in being a continental or an analytic philosophy, nor does it go in depth into metaphysics, etc. It restricts itself largely to society, history, politics, etc. and draws some scientific examples from nature. But thats not really a philosophy

[redwasp]

peace,

marx wrote: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it." (thesed on feurbach)

peace,

redwasp

[A.R.Amistad]

peace,

marx wrote: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it." (thesed on feurbach)

peace,

redwasp

But that doesn't support or disprove Marxism as a philosophy

[redwasp]

peace,

both the answers 'yes' and 'no' to the question 'is marxism a philosophy?' are partially wrong.

it is a philosophy as lenin explained in the article mentioned above. it is a system that answers philosophical questions. it is a part of philosophical tradition.

but it is not just a philosophy. it trancends philosophy in its emphasis on practical action and in its relation to scientific analysis (economy and politics).

the answer to the question should be 无 (wu) the negative answer that zhaozhou congshen gave when confronted with the question 'does a dog have buddha nature?' his negative reply didn't mean 'a dog does not have buddha nature' but 'this is not a good question'.

peace,

redwasp

[S.Artesian]

Marx's work is not composed of those three things, but is a critique of each of them. It is a critique of Hegel's dialectic, a critique of French socialism and a critique of British political economy.

Also Marxism may be a philosophy, but Marx's work is not. Marx's work is an analysis of the capitalist mode of production and what is necessary for the working class collectively to get rid of it.


I'm with BAM. Marx's work is no philosophy, no more than it is political economy. Marx's work is the analysis of history, of the social mediation of the labor process. Marx's analysis of capitalism is the exploration of the forces that propel capital accumulation and, simultaneously, generate what he calls the immanent [inherent and pervasive] conditions for the overthrow of capitalist accumulation.

[A.R.Amistad]

Marxism by itself cannot explain our conscience, essence, being or meaning in life. Agree?

[Meridian]

Marxism by itself cannot explain our conscience, essence, being or meaning in life. Agree?
Of course everyone must agree with this.

However, no other theory (or use of language) could ever 'explain' the things you list either.

[A.R.Amistad]

Of course everyone must agree with this.

However, no other theory (or use of language) could ever 'explain' the things you list either.

I guess you are right. Only we can give meaning to our lives.

[JazzRemington]

I guess you are right. Only we can give meaning to our lives.

That only depends on what you mean by "meaning" and "life."

[ChrisK]

peace,

both the answers 'yes' and 'no' to the question 'is marxism a philosophy?' are partially wrong.

it is a philosophy as lenin explained in the article mentioned above. it is a system that answers philosophical questions. it is a part of philosophical tradition.

but it is not just a philosophy. it trancends philosophy in its emphasis on practical action and in its relation to scientific analysis (economy and politics).

the answer to the question should be 无 (wu) the negative answer that zhaozhou congshen gave when confronted with the question 'does a dog have buddha nature?' his negative reply didn't mean 'a dog does not have buddha nature' but 'this is not a good question'.

peace,

redwasp

violent uprising,

Any philosophical ideas that are found in marx are not part of a philosophy. What philosophical questions does marx answer? If you asked five people what marx's opinion was of free will vs determinism, you'd get five very different answers. This is because marx never answers these questions and his writings ignore the possibility of answering these questions.

If anything, Marx rejected philosophy in favor of social science and his only philosophical writings (A Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, The Holy Family and The German Ideology) are all polemics against philosophers.

What we have in Marx is a great polemicist who applied a new framework (historical materialism) to the social sciences and created a critique of what had been written before.

violent uprising,
chris

[syndicat]

well, Marx claimed to reject philosophy but there is a well-argued book that claims to show Marx failed in this because he still makes philosophical assumptions. I think it's titled "Marx's Attempt to Leave Philosophy."

But i think the main problem with this entire discussion is that no one has said what philosophy is. My own view is that there is no essential division between science and philosophy. Scientists set out to develop ideas to explain things in various domains. Philosophy does also. In fact physics was originally called "natural philosophy." "Special sciences" separated off from philosophy only when they developed a well defined subject and, even more importantly a research program with various methods to develop further their explanatory ideas.

Scientists often challenge each others ideas and engage in fierce debates, just as "philosophers" do.

Marx and revolutionary thinkers generally of course have a particular practical aim, to change society. But when sciences are "applied" there are practical aims, and often "sciences" have been developed hand in hand with particular applications. This is why the "sciences" have developed with capitalism, which develops the means of production. Marx may have had particular practical aims in mind, but he also wanted to have a well-defended theory that would stand up to criticism, that would give some confidence it could tell us some things about how capitalism works and so on. And many of the ideas about society he developed in the course of this influenced subsequent social scientists, even when they didn't share Marx's practical aim.

[BAM]

well, Marx claimed to reject philosophy but there is a well-argued book that claims to show Marx failed in this because he still makes philosophical assumptions. I think it's titled "Marx's Attempt to Leave Philosophy."

Not a great book. A lot of it was, for me, beside the point and typical of all those rather boring academic books about Marx. Your own ideas are far more interesting.

[redwasp]

peace,


violent uprising,

a well directed violent uprising can end the war of the capitalists amongst themselves and against the workers. but i do believe that peace is what the workers will gain in the end.


Any philosophical ideas that are found in marx are not part of a philosophy. What philosophical questions does marx answer? If you asked five people what marx's opinion was of free will vs determinism, you'd get five very different answers. This is because marx never answers these questions and his writings ignore the possibility of answering these questions.

marx did the most important answer philosophical questions of his day:


is the world basicly material or basicly spiritual
is scientific knowledge of the world possible
is there a meaning behind history
...

he didn't answer all philosophical questions, but what philosopher did?


If anything, Marx rejected philosophy in favor of social science and his only philosophical writings (A Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, The Holy Family and The German Ideology) are all polemics against philosophers.

as are most philosophical wroks, by most philosophical authors.

his preference of scientific method itself was a philosophical choice.

anyway marx concidered his own work to be (partly) philosophical.

peace,

redwasp

[A.R.Amistad]

well, Marx claimed to reject philosophy but there is a well-argued book that claims to show Marx failed in this because he still makes philosophical assumptions. I think it's titled "Marx's Attempt to Leave Philosophy."

But i think the main problem with this entire discussion is that no one has said what philosophy is. My own view is that there is no essential division between science and philosophy. Scientists set out to develop ideas to explain things in various domains. Philosophy does also. In fact physics was originally called "natural philosophy." "Special sciences" separated off from philosophy only when they developed a well defined subject and, even more importantly a research program with various methods to develop further their explanatory ideas.

Scientists often challenge each others ideas and engage in fierce debates, just as "philosophers" do.

Marx and revolutionary thinkers generally of course have a particular practical aim, to change society. But when sciences are "applied" there are practical aims, and often "sciences" have been developed hand in hand with particular applications. This is why the "sciences" have developed with capitalism, which develops the means of production. Marx may have had particular practical aims in mind, but he also wanted to have a well-defended theory that would stand up to criticism, that would give some confidence it could tell us some things about how capitalism works and so on. And many of the ideas about society he developed in the course of this influenced subsequent social scientists, even when they didn't share Marx's practical aim.

I think Marx was first and foremost a social-scientific thinker, and his ideas can be categorized as such (dialectical materialism.) But if you read my Lukacs thread, you'll find that I argue that philosophy and science are separate and should remain so. I think philosophy should be informed by science as mush as possible, but philosophy is generally a way of explaining moral and ethical issues, issues of consciousness, meaning in life (meaning is defined as any subjective idea that is given to the reason why life is, or what the overall goal and objective of living is.) When science tries to answer these questions, it crosses over into mysticism and is unscientific, as science must in and of itself remain neutral for people to draw what conclusions they will from it. Likewise, philosophy that doesn't jive with scientific fact is mysticism because it is based totally on the a priori. Philosophy and science, though, should remain separate schools. As for Marxism, I think it is a science, and of course Marx did come up with a morally based political diagnoses (communism) that was based on his scientific findings. Although, I fear many will disagree with the "scientific socialism" theory. Personally, though, I think Marxism should be described as a science that embrces a moral diagnoses and morality. "The point however is to change it. (Another point of harmony with existentialism. Existentialism stresses that scientists should not leave out human emotions in their work, since it is futile. Marx successfully combines a love for humanity and hope for the future, which would by itself seem utopian, but bases it and verifys it with the social science of historicasl materialism)

[Belisarius]

it all depends on your definition of philosophy.:)

[A.R.Amistad]

it all depends on your definition of philosophy.:)

aw goddamn it I hate semantics wars :sneaky:

[Belisarius]

aw goddamn it I hate semantics wars :sneaky:
but on the other hand you can't discuss something when everyone is thinking about something else. i would for example call heidegger a philosopher, rosa lichtenstein would call him a mystical charlatan. it's the same person, but other definitions for philosophy and mysticism.

[A.R.Amistad]

but on the other hand you can't discuss something when everyone is thinking about something else. i would for example call heidegger a philosopher, rosa lichtenstein would call him a mystical charlatan. it's the same person, but other definitions for philosophy and mysticism.

Rosa calls everyone a mystical charlatan :rolleyes:

[Belisarius]

Rosa calls everyone a mystical charlatan :rolleyes:
except Carnap, but he is just oversimplifying things :laugh::laugh::laugh:.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

except Carnap, but he is just oversimplifying things :laugh::laugh::laugh:.

To be fair, Carnap does oversimplify things. ;)

[syndicat]

I think philosophy should be informed by science as mush as possible, but philosophy is generally a way of explaining moral and ethical issues, issues of consciousness, meaning in life (meaning is defined as any subjective idea that is given to the reason why life is, or what the overall goal and objective of living is.)

There are many things discussed by "philosophers" that don't fall in here, such as implications of scientific results, foundations of math, logic, interpretations of scientific results such as nature of evolution or causality. Also, you're taking a positivist position when you separate science and ethics.

Also, people called "philosophers" don't regularly talk about "the meaning of life." That's a naive idea of what philosophy is.

[ChrisK]

peace,

a well directed violent uprising can end the war of the capitalists amongst themselves and against the workers. but i do believe that peace is what the workers will gain in the end.

I was just teasing you with that one. I agree with what you say.


marx did the most important answer philosophical questions of his day:


is the world basicly material or basicly spiritual
is scientific knowledge of the world possible
is there a meaning behind history
...
he didn't answer all philosophical questions, but what philosopher did?
To the first, Marx seemed to be more of a realist than a materialist.

To the second, he didn't answer that question at all. He just decieded that it seemed right. There is no writing of his, that I am aware of, that actually answers this question.

To the third, this is one of those points thats up to debate on what marx thought on the subject.


as are most philosophical wroks, by most philosophical authors.

Let me rephrase, his works were against philosophy, his was a turn to the scientific method.


his preference of scientific method itself was a philosophical choice.

How so?


anyway marx concidered his own work to be (partly) philosophical.


Link please.

[ChrisK]

well, Marx claimed to reject philosophy but there is a well-argued book that claims to show Marx failed in this because he still makes philosophical assumptions. I think it's titled "Marx's Attempt to Leave Philosophy."

But i think the main problem with this entire discussion is that no one has said what philosophy is. My own view is that there is no essential division between science and philosophy. Scientists set out to develop ideas to explain things in various domains. Philosophy does also. In fact physics was originally called "natural philosophy." "Special sciences" separated off from philosophy only when they developed a well defined subject and, even more importantly a research program with various methods to develop further their explanatory ideas.

Scientists often challenge each others ideas and engage in fierce debates, just as "philosophers" do.

Marx and revolutionary thinkers generally of course have a particular practical aim, to change society. But when sciences are "applied" there are practical aims, and often "sciences" have been developed hand in hand with particular applications. This is why the "sciences" have developed with capitalism, which develops the means of production. Marx may have had particular practical aims in mind, but he also wanted to have a well-defended theory that would stand up to criticism, that would give some confidence it could tell us some things about how capitalism works and so on. And many of the ideas about society he developed in the course of this influenced subsequent social scientists, even when they didn't share Marx's practical aim.

Interesting. So would you consider verification to be a valid point of seperation between science and philosophy? Or is that argument naive on my part?

Also, would you then say that Marx's framework (historical materialism) is a philosophy (like a philosophy of social science or something)?

[syndicat]

So would you consider verification to be a valid point of seperation between science and philosophy? Or is that argument naive on my part?

well, i'm not a positivist or extreme empiricist so I don't accept verificationism, which was advanced by the positivists as the defining feature of "scientific method." people who want to back up an explanatory claim need to be able to defend it against those who try to refute it, which does involve reference to various kinds of data. but this is rather more complicated business than the old positivist view.



Also, would you then say that Marx's framework (historical materialism) is a philosophy (like a philosophy of social science or something)?

well, he had explanatory views, so it's not a meta theory or philosophy of science. his theory of history was intended to offer an explanatory account. I don't think it really matters whether we call it "social science" or "a philosophy". there can be a sort of interpenetration of philosophy and science...consider "cognitive science" nowadays for example.

he was a realist in practice...this is shown when for example he talks about the "laws of motion" of a mode of production.

but in the 18th and 19th centuries "materalism" was used in a highly ambiguous way, which is why philosophers nowadays tend not to use it. in that era it was a term of art among "philosophers". it referred either to the view that the physical world really exists independently of human consciousness, or to the view that the ultimate entities in the world are material, that is, are the sorts of things that physicists talk about.

Nowadays "philosophers" have divided these two concepts. So the thesis of the independent reality of the physical world is called "realism" and the thesis that the ultimate nature of things in the world is physical is called "physicalism". Marx was probably an advocate of both but realism seems more important to him than physicalism. Lenin, in his attack on radical empiricist phenomenalism (a view held by the positivists), seems more concerned with realism than physicalism, for example.

note also that Lenin's attack on "empirio-criticism" is a work in philosophy, not "science." for a response to Lenin by a Marxist see "Lenin as philosopher" by Pannekoek (a Dutch astronomer).

[mikelepore]

"Philosophy" is a Greek word meaning "love of wisdom." It seems to me that anyone who proposes a world view or a theoretical system, and bothers to expound it to others, would have to be included. Even if the teaching is false, each one believes that the teaching is a transmittal of wisdom.

[A.R.Amistad]

"Philosophy" is a Greek word meaning "love of wisdom." It seems to me that anyone who proposes a world view or a theoretical system, and bothers to expound it to others, would have to be included. Even if the teaching is false, each one believes that the teaching is a transmittal of wisdom.

Yeah, but according to your definition, the tips and tricks that your Dad taught you on how to change a tire could be a "philosophy."

[ChrisK]

well, i'm not a positivist or extreme empiricist so I don't accept verificationism, which was advanced by the positivists as the defining feature of "scientific method." people who want to back up an explanatory claim need to be able to defend it against those who try to refute it, which does involve reference to various kinds of data. but this is rather more complicated business than the old positivist view.

What sort of belief do you hold?


well, he had explanatory views, so it's not a meta theory or philosophy of science. his theory of history was intended to offer an explanatory account. I don't think it really matters whether we call it "social science" or "a philosophy". there can be a sort of interpenetration of philosophy and science...consider "cognitive science" nowadays for example.

he was a realist in practice...this is shown when for example he talks about the "laws of motion" of a mode of production.

but in the 18th and 19th centuries "materalism" was used in a highly ambiguous way, which is why philosophers nowadays tend not to use it. in that era it was a term of art among "philosophers". it referred either to the view that the physical world really exists independently of human consciousness, or to the view that the ultimate entities in the world are material, that is, are the sorts of things that physicists talk about.

Nowadays "philosophers" have divided these two concepts. So the thesis of the independent reality of the physical world is called "realism" and the thesis that the ultimate nature of things in the world is physical is called "physicalism". Marx was probably an advocate of both but realism seems more important to him than physicalism. Lenin, in his attack on radical empiricist phenomenalism (a view held by the positivists), seems more concerned with realism than physicalism, for example.

note also that Lenin's attack on "empirio-criticism" is a work in philosophy, not "science." for a response to Lenin by a Marxist see "Lenin as philosopher" by Pannekoek (a Dutch astronomer).

Thank you. I will look into the books you mentioned.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

A R Amistad:


Rosa calls everyone a mystical charlatan

I most certainly do not.

[redwasp]

peace,


aw goddamn it I hate semantics wars :sneaky:

what else is philosophy about?

peace,

redwasp

[Comrade Jack/LeftPolitiko]

My working definition of Marxism is a "multidisciplinary body of social theory initially developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels." It is undeniable that Marxism incorporates philosophy in much of its analysis, but one cannot pin it to one particular discipline.

So no, Marxism is not simply a philosophy.

[Atlee]

Marx's work is not composed of those three things, but is a critique of each of them. It is a critique of Hegel's dialectic, a critique of French socialism and a critique of British political economy.

Also Marxism may be a philosophy, but Marx's work is not. Marx's work is an analysis of the capitalist mode of production and what is necessary for the working class collectively to get rid of it.

I have to side more with this. Karl Marx was an Economist and work with theory or solid based ideals known. Those who took up his banner to use in the political theory for human needs, social justice, equality, ect created the -ism of the man.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Give that Marx, like Wittgenstein, argued that philosophy is based on a distortion of ordinary language, his work cannot be a philosophy:


The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life." [Marx and Engels (1970) The German Ideology, p.118. Bold added.]

[S.Artesian]

Give that Marx, like Wittgenstein, argued that philosophy is based on a distortion of ordinary language, his work cannot be a philosophy:

Given that Marx, unlike Wittgenstein, is concerned with the actual labor process, the actual social reproduction of the terms and conditions of labor, Marx's work is not a philosophy, no matter how ordinary or extraordinary Marx's language.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

S Artesian:


Given that Marx, unlike Wittgenstein, is concerned with the actual labor process, the actual social reproduction of the terms and conditions of labor, Marx's work is not a philosophy, no matter how ordinary or extraordinary Marx's language.

I agree, but even given all that, Marx still argued that philosophy (including Hegel's) is based on a distortion of ordinary language -- and that includes the use of the word 'contradiction', which explains why he merely 'coquetted' with it.