Dialectical Materialist concept of the individual(Humanist) [Archive]

View Full Version : Dialectical Materialist concept of the individual(Humanist)

A.R.Amistad

11th June 2010, 18:01

I may be wrong since I am no expert, but I think I have figured out to some extent what Marx's concept of the individual was, and it is a humanist concept. Please comment, confirm or deny the validity of this theory:

The idealists claim that man is a thinking being. Materialists (or mechanical, non-dialectical materialists) think that man is nothing but a material machine working towards a definite or indefinite purpose. Either way, both sides are wrong.

The Marxist humanist view is that man is a material object before he is a thinking subject. But man is not a machine. Man's does not secrete ideas "like the liver secretes bile." Man is both subject and object. As Marx beautifully stated:

"The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus the first fact to be established is the physical organisation of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature....Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organisation. By producing their means of subsistence men are indirectly producing their actual material life.

The idealists believe man yearns solely for truth, and to them truth is:

Descartes: "true are those things that are certain."
Husserl: "truth is doubt"
Hegel: "the element in which truth is found is the notion"

Marx retorts with:

Marx: truth is known through practice

Here, I think, is where the Marxist view of the individual. Individual man yearns for his ideas to be erected in reality, i.e., through practice, in the material world. This is certainly not to say that the myth of a "human nature" exists. People are 1. too diverse as individuals and 2. history is too diverse and the human condition changes in accordance to the material social conditions of production. Man does not approach this desire in the same way, but what is common is that man seeks not just to give meaning to their life in the ideal sense, but also erect that belief of meaning in reality. Hence man is a self-creating creature, both idealistically and materially. What separates man from all other organisms is this: the most skilled worker-bee and the most inept human engineer are separted by the fact that the human engineer first erects the idea in mind before he erects it in reality. So that is why I believe that human despair is self constructed because certain ideas are refuted my the material world. This can happen in two ways. There is the despair that is encouraged by capitalist society, where the creative individual is supressed because only commodities which can generate capital are valued, and "individualism" is based completely on how much capital one can accumulate. This can pof course be combatted and overcome by socialist revolution, proletarian dictatorship and subsequently classless communist society, the society that values the individual to the utmost. It is not utopian to think that this kind of despair can be remedied.

But it is Utopian to think that communism will bring about the end of human despair. I don't mean to imply that any serious comrades believe this, or that any of the major Marxist philosophers and theorists did either, it is simply a subject that needs to be excercised. Despair occurs when the subject, man, creates an idea, a theory, and it does not correspond, or is refuted by, reality. (I should also dd despair occurs when necessity, a precursor to freedom, is limited, restricted or unavailable). Even in communist society, man will create ideas, but not all of them will correspond to reality. Hence despair, and extreme despair, will exist in communist society.
Communism will also not be some sort of altruist Utopia. It will be a society where individual creativity is valued to the highest, where ‘equal opportunity’ is a fact, not just a phrase and where man’s personal morality, not brute force, will enforce the laws of man. This is meant to counter the arguments of communism’s enemies, who mockingly try to assert that Marxism seeks to establish a ‘perfect society without despair.’

Lets take some example, one in history, one in fiction.

Don Quixote, Man of La Mancha. In fiction, Don Quixote was impressed with tales of mideaval society, with its “chivalry” and tales of grandeur. He was so enthralled that he decided that he too wanted to become a part of these fantastic tales and be a knight. But alas, he lived in early bourgeois society, which was not consistent with his mythical and outdated world view. He was in despair, so he instead created a mythicl world in his mind to cope with his despair that he did not live in the early middle ages.
Huey P. Long. Yes, he ws a demogouge, but lets analyze this. Long a=had a utopian-capitalist view of how to ‘cure’ society. His famous slogan was to make “every man a king!” Long envisioned a society where everyone had an equal amount of land and private property, a sort of ‘egalitarian capitalism.’ Of course, this did not jive with the reality of industrial capitalism. Again, despair because idea did not correspond to material reality.

In summary of the Marxist view of the individual:
Man is creator, ideally and materially.

Meridian

11th June 2010, 19:57

I find this sort of philosophical theorizing so annoying and pointless.

"Man is creator." "Man is a thinker." "Meaning is blah blah blah." "Truth is known through practice." "Truth is an idea." "Man yearns solely for truth."... etc.

These sentences are just misuse of words.
"Man is a creator"; well, in some cases men are creators of certain things.
"Man is a thinker"; well, often times men think about certain things - though evidently often not too successfully.
"Meaning is blah blah blah"; the word "meaning" some times refer to a word or sentence meaning, other times the intention or goal behind an action.
"Truth is known through practice"; what truth, and what practice? Football practice? We often call sentences true or false, and this is often based on some observation (but not always).
"Man yearns solely for truth"; again, what truth? I usually yearn for other things, anyway, so this can't be true.

A.R.Amistad

11th June 2010, 20:41

JazzRemington

11th June 2010, 22:36

ChrisK

11th June 2010, 23:05

Why even ask this question? Its clear that Marx didn't take the time of day to philosophize about individuals. He wrote about them from a context of social science, not philosophy. If anything, you are attributing a theory to him, that you can in no way prove that he even thought of.

Meridian

11th June 2010, 23:25

I take it this is "pointless" because you think there is no individual, there is no consciousness and that human life is nothing but a misuse of language. Honestly, everything you post here just seems like fatalistic nonsense. We are specifically talking about the human individual here.
What? "There is no individual", what does that even mean? Of course there are individuals, but you frame your sentence in a weird manner. I think it should be "there are no individuals".

"There is no consciousness", I have not claimed this here. However, no I don't believe in consciousness in the form of a metaphysical entity named "consciousness". But I do, of course, recognise the fact that people are able to think.

"Human life is nothing but a misuse of language", WHAT?! No, no, no. Philosophy is consistent misuse of language, just like you employ here. Human life is not the same as philosophy.

Honestly, everything you post here just seems like fatalistic nonsense. We are specifically talking about the human individual here.
There is nothing fatalistic about what I write, because fatalism is yet another nonsensical philosophical idea. "The human individual" - no, no, no, WHAT human individual?! An individual is a singular person.

Human passion and life must not be your forte, which is a tendency all to common here on revleft.
Use of language must evidently not be your forte, which is a shame if you intend to continue using it.

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th June 2010, 02:18

I'm sorry, even if this weren't a bogus topic to begin with, but what has it got to do with 'dialectical materialism'?

Proletarian Ultra

16th June 2010, 08:30

Jump off a bridge, Rosa.

ARA: I don't think your thoughts here have much to do with Marx. You have quote only one real passage of Marx and do not really analyze it. But take a look at it again.

The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals...

Ah! Individuals! Those wonderful unique sparkling rights-bearing inherently dignified things! But wait, let's look at it further.

The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus the first fact to be established is the physical organisation of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature. Of course, we cannot here go either into the actual physical nature of man, or into the natural conditions in which man finds himself – geological, hydrographical, climatic and so on. The writing of history must always set out from these natural bases and their modification in the course of history through the action of men.

Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organisation. By producing their means of subsistence men are indirectly producing their actual material life.

The way in which men produce their means of subsistence depends first of all on the nature of the actual means of subsistence they find in existence and have to reproduce. This mode of production must not be considered simply as being the production of the physical existence of the individuals. Rather it is a definite form of activity of these individuals, a definite form of expressing their life, a definite mode of life on their part. As individuals express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with their production, both with what they produce and with how they produce. The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production.

This production only makes its appearance with the increase of population. In its turn this presupposes the intercourse [Verkehr] of individuals with one another. The form of this intercourse is again determined by production.

Oh, snap. There's nothing about human dignity or individual autonomy or you are a unique snowflake in there. It's all about anatomy and geology and production and reproduction. The closest you get to something about free will and choice is this:

This mode of production must not be considered simply as being the production of the physical existence of the individuals. Rather it is a definite form of activity of these individuals, a definite form of expressing their life, a definite mode of life on their part.

"Expressing their life." Now that certainly affirms choice and autonomy. But (and this is important) it is a collective choice ("their").

I don't believe this passage supports your premises, unless you have a very different reading of it than I do. Would you care to expand, or do you have another text in mind, as well?

(FWIW I'm convinced that Marxism is and must be anti-humanist.)

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th June 2010, 09:23

Proletarian Ultra:

Jump off a bridge, Rosa.

Ah, yet another mystic who can't defend the faith, but has to resort to abuse to hide that fact.

Zanthorus

16th June 2010, 14:48

Jump off a bridge, Rosa.

Although Rosa does have a definite problem getting her point across without looking like a troll, it is funny that even then most of the people who uphold Dialectical Materialism can defend themselves from her arguments without resorting to one liners like this.

(FWIW I'm convinced that Marxism is and must be anti-humanist.)

Well then maybe you don't really understand what "Marxism" is.

Communism as the positive transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement, and therefore as the real appropriation of the human essence by and for man; communism therefore as the complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., human) being – a return accomplished consciously and embracing the entire wealth of previous development. This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution.

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th June 2010, 16:24

Z:

Although Rosa does have a definite problem getting her point across without looking like a troll,

In what way, precisely?

Proletarian Ultra

16th June 2010, 18:05

Well then maybe you don't really understand what "Marxism" is.

Maybe!

Communism as the positive transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement, and therefore as the real appropriation of the human essence by and for man; communism therefore as the complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., human) being – a return accomplished consciously and embracing the entire wealth of previous development. This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution.

Yes, I expected someone to bring up the 1844 manuscripts. I could retort with "yeah but this is early stuff and he moved beyond it" but I won't.

This passage is not as full an endorsement of humanism as you want it to be. The context is a long debate in philosophical anthropology between humanism and naturalism ("what is the heart, but a spring?") Marx is saying that communism is the resolution of these two poles, just as it is the resolution of freedom and necessity, individual and species, etc. It's no more a specific endorsement of humanism than it is a specific endorsement of naturalism, or free will or determinism etc. Just a statement that communism will bring about the resolution of all of these.

Now, it is true that PPaC is concerned with "the transcendence of self-estrangement" of man from himself, which prima facie appears to be a humanist concern. But we have to be specific about what Marx means by 'man'.

Above all we must avoid postulating “society” again as an abstraction vis-à-vis the individual. The individual is the social being. His manifestations of life – even if they may not appear in the direct form of communal manifestations of life carried out in association with others – are therefore an expression and confirmation of social life. Man’s individual and species-life are not different, however much – and this is inevitable – the mode of existence of the individual is a more particular or more general mode of the life of the species, or the life of the species is a more particular or more general individual life.

To say that society is not "an abstraction vis-a-vis the individual" and that "man's individual and species-life are not different" is very different from the traditional humanist position that man has a certain individual dignity, personality and set of rights that is ontologically if not ontically prior to his entrance into society. In this passage, man's social life is ontologically prior, or at least simultaneous with, his individual personality, dignity and rights.

If this can be called humanism at all - which I suppose it could be if you really want to stretch the definition - it is a very bizarre form of it.

Zanthorus

16th June 2010, 18:37

@Proletarian Ultra:

I don't disagree with anything you said. I guess we have different definitions of humanism.

In what way, precisely?

Does it really need to be explained?

A.R.Amistad

16th June 2010, 20:55

Maybe!

Yes, I expected someone to bring up the 1844 manuscripts. I could retort with "yeah but this is early stuff and he moved beyond it" but I won't.

This passage is not as full an endorsement of humanism as you want it to be. The context is a long debate in philosophical anthropology between humanism and naturalism ("what is the heart, but a spring?") Marx is saying that communism is the resolution of these two poles, just as it is the resolution of freedom and necessity, individual and species, etc. It's no more a specific endorsement of humanism than it is a specific endorsement of naturalism, or free will or determinism etc. Just a statement that communism will bring about the resolution of all of these.

Now, it is true that PPaC is concerned with "the transcendence of self-estrangement" of man from himself, which prima facie appears to be a humanist concern. But we have to be specific about what Marx means by 'man'.

To say that society is not "an abstraction vis-a-vis the individual" and that "man's individual and species-life are not different" is very different from the traditional humanist position that man has a certain individual dignity, personality and set of rights that is ontologically if not ontically prior to his entrance into society. In this passage, man's social life is ontologically prior, or at least simultaneous with, his individual personality, dignity and rights.

If this can be called humanism at all - which I suppose it could be if you really want to stretch the definition - it is a very bizarre form of it.
Your confusing Humanism with hyper-individualism. Here is what humanism is:

humanism Belief that individual human beings are the fundamental source of all value (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/v.htm#value) and have the ability to understand—and perhaps even to control—the natural world by careful application of their own rational (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/r.htm#reas) faculties. During the Renaissance (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/r9.htm#rena), humanists such as Bruno (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/b9.htm#brun), Erasmus (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/e9.htm#eras), Valla (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/v.htm#vall), and Pico della Mirandola (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/p5.htm#pico) helped shift attention away from arcane theological disputes toward more productive avenues of classical study and natural science.

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/h9.htm#huma

And more specifically, Marxist Humanism:

Humanism
The system of views which makes the human being its central value, as opposed to abstract notions such as God (http://www.marxistsfr.org/glossary/terms/g/o.htm#god), religious or political ideals, abstractions like History or Reason, or sectional interests such as race or gender. In the theory of knowledge, Humanism holds that concepts are human products (rather than coming from God or Nature) and regards social relations as more fundamental than concepts like ‘Laws of History,’ or ‘Matter’ which ought to be explained in terms of human relations, rather than explaining humans through a given set of ideas. Humanism has its origins in the Renaissance and reached its zenith in the Enlightenment.
In his Private Property & Communism (http://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/marx/works/1844/epm/3rd.htm#s2), Marx wrote: “... communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution”..
Humanism itself does not rise higher than the social consciousness of the epoch of which it is a part. The bourgeois conception of humanism bases itself on private property, the central value of bourgeois society; on the other hand, proletarian humanism is based on cooperative social activity.
For Structuralists (http://www.marxistsfr.org/glossary/terms/s/t.htm#structuralism) like Louis Althusser (http://www.marxistsfr.org/glossary/people/a/l.htm#althusser-louis), “humanism” means the illusion that individual human beings are autonomous, thinking subjects (http://www.marxistsfr.org/glossary/terms/s/u.htm#subject), whereas for structuralists (and poststructuralists), individual human beings are nothing but unconscious agents of structural forces, in much the same way as organisms are agents for the spread of a disease. Thus structuralists associate humanism with a naive and unproblematic conceptions of language and consciousness, and illusory belief in the autonomy of human beings.
It can be argued that humanism, in taking the generic (http://www.marxistsfr.org/glossary/terms/g/e.htm#genus) human being as its starting point, abstracts from the real human being who is male or female, black or white, capitalist or worker, etc., and from this point of view can be argued as obscuring conflicts of interest, or even as being tied to some notion of what is essentially human “behind” the various determinations of class, gender, etc. A Marxist humanist would argue that what is essentially human is to produce oneself, to be free in the fullest sense of the word. From this point of view, the “essentialist (http://www.marxistsfr.org/glossary/terms/e/s.htm#essentialism)” charge is turned on itself.
See also: Naturalism (http://www.marxistsfr.org/glossary/terms/n/a.htm#naturalism), Marxist Humanism Subject Archive (http://www.marxistsfr.org/subject/humanism/index.htm) and Humanism and Socialism (http://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/mattick-paul/1966/humanism.htm), Paul Mattick

http://www.marxistsfr.org/glossary/terms/h/u.htm#humanism

Just to define our terms.

A.R.Amistad

16th June 2010, 20:57

Oh, snap. There's nothing about human dignity or individual autonomy or you are a unique snowflake in there. It's all about anatomy and geology and production and reproduction. The closest you get to something about free will and choice is this:

I think you need to read this:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch09.htm

Proletarian Ultra

18th June 2010, 21:32

Your confusing Humanism with hyper-individualism. Here is what humanism is:

humanism Belief that individual human beings are the fundamental source of all value and have the ability to understand—and perhaps even to control—the natural world by careful application of their own rational faculties.

That's more or less the definition I was working from. Humanism holds that man's rights exist prior to the grant of privilege from any sovereign. That his goodness exists prior to baptism into the church. That his knowledge and reason exist prior to training in the classical canon. That his individual worth exists outside of his position in society, or membership in any clan, caste, family, etc.

And more specifically, Marxist Humanism:

The bourgeois conception of humanism bases itself on private property, the central value of bourgeois society; on the other hand, proletarian humanism is based on cooperative social activity... A Marxist humanist would argue that what is essentially human is to produce oneself, to be free in the fullest sense of the word. From this point of view, the “essentialist” charge is turned on itself.

This entry is better at setting out the case against Marxist humanism than setting out the case for it; there's the PPaC quote that says communism is the reconciliation of humanism with naturalism (i.e. the reconciliation of humanism and anti-humanism). Besides that, I've quoted the two sentences that advance it (they both do so as part of "on the other hand" formations). Since there's not much to work with here do you have another short-ish passage that we can work with (maybe something from Mattick et al.?)

I think you need to read this:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch09.htm

What about it, my friend?