Marxism and Psychology.

[Imposter Marxist]

Yester my Spanish teacher told me that "Marxism failed because it tried to apply a scientific economic theory to an explanation of everything. That Marxism forgets the psychological elements of people." Or something to that degree. What does he mean? He is he correct? Is he wrong?

[AK]

You have to ask him what he means because he's not making any sense. Also, ask him to point out just where it is that Marxism has "failed" for the exact reasons he claims.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yester my Spanish teacher told me that "Marxism failed because it tried to apply a scientific economic theory to an explanation of everything. That Marxism forgets the psychological elements of people." Or something to that degree. What does he mean? He is he correct? Is he wrong?

He's talking bollocks. Marxism is perfectly capable of accounting for the human factor. Although this doesn't mean that individual Marxists can't be terribly wrong about it.

[Hit The North]

You could also ask him why, in the middle of a world capitalist crisis, he thinks Marxism has failed. Not only do Marx's ideas explain the crisis but they predict it too. Also ask him if he thinks that political crises are not underpinned by economic crisis and then ask him for an example. Ask him if he denies that there is a correlation between economic status and psychological well-being. If he says 'yes', ask him how he explains the higher percentage incidence of mental illness amongst the lowest economic groups, or why those nations where the citizens are more equal, have lower crime rates, higher life expectancy and rate themselves as 'happy' more often than the citizens of very unequal nations?

Then direct him to this: http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resource/the-spirit-level

[Widerstand]

I assume he's coming from a "FREE MARKET AND COMPETITION IS HUMAN NATURE" angle? I have no clue to be honest. Ask him how exactly "Marxism" has failed - he's probably talking about the USSR.

[S.Artesian]

Yester my Spanish teacher told me that "Marxism failed because it tried to apply a scientific economic theory to an explanation of everything. That Marxism forgets the psychological elements of people." Or something to that degree. What does he mean? He is he correct? Is he wrong?

Your teacher is just spouting another version of the "it's just human nature" which is based on confusing human beings needs to interact, to produce, and exchange socially, with capitalism' need to exploit, expropriate, and accumulate that social labor as private property.

Marx didn't try to explain everything, he did explain why capitalism was capitalism, was a distinct historical mode of accumulation that inevitably becomes the obstacle to both its own accumulation and human existence.

[Dean]

Yester my Spanish teacher told me that "Marxism failed because it tried to apply a scientific economic theory to an explanation of everything. That Marxism forgets the psychological elements of people." Or something to that degree. What does he mean? He is he correct? Is he wrong?

Bullshit. Plenty of Marxist psychologists have engaged in this topic, and Marx' theories on economic activity do not in any way "ignore" psychological factors. He is probably repeating the historical prejudice which called the Austrian school "psychological" and the Marxist "historicist."

Marxists examine historical data whereas Austrians make prejudiced claims about humans, actively ignoring statistics and history as models for economic theorization.

It's not hard to see which one makes more sense.

[¿Que?]

Yester my Spanish teacher told me that "Marxism failed because it tried to apply a scientific economic theory to an explanation of everything. That Marxism forgets the psychological elements of people." Or something to that degree. What does he mean? He is he correct? Is he wrong?
I think what your teacher is trying to say is that Marxism is generally considered a structural macro theory. It mostly explains human behavior in terms of economic forces (base/superstructure and all that) and for the most part, depending on which Marxist we are talking about, completely ignores or underplays the element of human agency.

While there is some truth to that assertion, namely, that Marx and Marxists tend to foreground large scale structural forces, it is also important to understand that Marx dealt with the issue of agency (although I don't think he ever refers to it as such) dialectically. Thus the issue of structure versus agency is a dialectic problem, which is resolved only through revolutionary praxis.

Thus, so long as these structural forces remain reified in human consciousness, there will always be alienation, and people will be essentially under their yoke. The only way to deal with this problem is through revolutionary praxis, which when it succeeds, will allow human beings to experience real agency, rather than the illusion that results through false consciousness.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Marxism never claimed to be able to explain personal individual behavior or mental problems - but it is wonderful at probing the depths of the insanity of the capitalist system... and providing the framework for a cure.

I agree with what people were saying above - the unspoken assumption is that capitalism works with human nature and communism doesn't. That's a crazy claim since capitalism hasn't been around as long a feudalism and that system explained behavior as being caused by humors and demons and that everything could be explained by a latin text or the pope.

We live in a society that actually makes people crazy as well as neglecting people who have been turned insane or suffer from chemical imbalances or some other environmental trauma. I don't think a hunter-gatherer ever flipped out and killed his tribe because he wasn't making berry-picking quotas and was worried that his bed of straw was going to be foreclosed and taken from him. So I'd say that it's capitalism that doesn't seem to care about psychology since it does nothing to ease mental stress (and actually creates it through inequality and warfare) and constantly makes workers do things that are against their own interests. If capitalism took into account human psychology, then it wouldn't put people on assembly lines or make them work to the edge of breaking because it's more profitable to do so.

[Dean]

I agree with what people were saying above - the unspoken assumption is that capitalism works with human nature and communism doesn't. That's a crazy claim since capitalism hasn't been around as long a feudalism and that system explained behavior as being caused by humors and demons and that everything could be explained by a latin text or the pope.
That's not really accurate. The relevant human activity - that is the social relations of feudalism - were explained by natural law, a model which is used more or less unchanged in today's defense of the market.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


You could also ask him why, in the middle of a world capitalist crisis, he thinks Marxism has failed.

Perhaps you'd like to tell us where you think Dialectical Marxism is in fact a success?

[Jimmie Higgins]

That's not really accurate. The relevant human activity - that is the social relations of feudalism - were explained by natural law, a model which is used more or less unchanged in today's defense of the market.Maybe we are talking about different things, but the natural order as seen in feudalism is pretty different than human nature as seen in capitalism even if they are used to the same effect. It would have been seen as crazy under feudalism to argue that competition between individuals was natural. They would have argued that our positions in society were due to a god-chosen hierarchy that created harmony in society.

[Dean]

Maybe we are talking about different things, but the natural order as seen in feudalism is pretty different than human nature as seen in capitalism even if they are used to the same effect. It would have been seen as crazy under feudalism to argue that competition between individuals was natural. They would have argued that our positions in society were due to a god-chosen hierarchy that created harmony in society.

Natural law is used under both paradigms to justify the prevalent social and economic order.

Furthermore, the competition between individuals is very much alive in feudalism - it was the conflict between fiefdoms at the behest of barons and other nobility that defined the epoch. It was a distinctly competitive model, though well-regulated at times. Not particularly relevant to the natural law point, however.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Perhaps you'd like to tell us where you think Dialectical Marxism is in fact a success?

Please stay on topic; any further dialectical irrelevancies from any party will be split off into a bouncing baby thread of its own for Dean to deal with as he pleases.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Furthermore, the competition between individuals is very much alive in feudalism - it was the conflict between fiefdoms at the behest of barons and other nobility that defined the epoch. It was a distinctly competitive model, though well-regulated at times. Not particularly relevant to the natural law point, however.Yes, because you changed the subject from competition in the dominant form of social relations to competition among the ruling class. In the order of society, peasants did not compete to become lords or even the best peasant. In capitalism justifying the competition that the system creates between workers and between firms is a big part of making the system seem "natural".

[S.Artesian]

That's not really accurate. The relevant human activity - that is the social relations of feudalism - were explained by natural law, a model which is used more or less unchanged in today's defense of the market.

No, they were not explained by natural law. They were explained by divine right, and the intended order of god's universe.

Natural law was, in part, a reaction against this.

[Imposter Marxist]

I assume he's coming from a "FREE MARKET AND COMPETITION IS HUMAN NATURE" angle? I have no clue to be honest. Ask him how exactly "Marxism" has failed - he's probably talking about the USSR.


Actually, he is an Anarcho-Communist. Or was one. He mentioned how Marx tried to use economic science to solve everything. (He really likes Marx, though, just said it was a flaw.)

[Imposter Marxist]

BTB:



Perhaps you'd like to tell us where you think Dialectical Marxism is in fact a success?

Please don't derail this into a Anti-Dialetic, Pro-Dialetic argument.

Also, some addition info, he is not a libertarian, or a right-winger. He is actually a rabid anti-Capitalist.

[Dean]

No, they were not explained by natural law. They were explained by divine right, and the intended order of god's universe.

Natural law was, in part, a reaction against this.

Right, now find a material difference between the two and I'll concede the point. As it stands, they're two manifestations of the exact same model, placed in 'opposing' language.

[Dean]

Yes, because you changed the subject from competition in the dominant form of social relations to competition among the ruling class. In the order of society, peasants did not compete to become lords or even the best peasant. In capitalism justifying the competition that the system creates between workers and between firms is a big part of making the system seem "natural".
Actually, in that post, I wasn't saying that they were justifying it with "human nature" - I was describing how "humors &c." didn't really define the ideological argument for feudalism. Sorry for the confusion.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Actually, in that post, I wasn't saying that they were justifying it with "human nature" - I was describing how "humors &c." didn't really define the ideological argument for feudalism. Sorry for the confusion.No problem and my statement about humors and the pope was meant to be jokey anyway.

[Dean]

No problem and my statement about humors and the pope was meant to be jokey anyway.
I've been had!

[S.Artesian]

Right, now find a material difference between the two and I'll concede the point. As it stands, they're two manifestations of the exact same model, placed in 'opposing' language.


The material difference is the historical difference, the class difference-- the arguments of natural law, or from the "natural" condition of human beings was an argument of and for the emerging bourgeoisie, for equality-- bourgeois equality, for freedom-- bourgeois freedom, for the mobility of property.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Apologies to the above comrades. I will start a thread in Philosophy in the next few days where I will repeat my challenge, and then sit back and observe the deafening silence...

[ckaihatsu]

Actually, he is an Anarcho-Communist. Or was one. He mentioned how Marx tried to use economic science to solve everything. (He really likes Marx, though, just said it was a flaw.)


Hmmmmmm, could power politics have an impact on an individual's psychology -- ???





Ruling Class and Ruling Ideas

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm


If only there was a mechanism by which we could harness the means of our *own* mental production, like an interconnecting *network* of our own ideas -- an "inter-net", if you will...! I think it *could* catch on...!


= D

[AK]

Perhaps you'd like to tell us where you think Dialectical Marxism is in fact a success?
0/10 for the troll and derailing.

[Pawn Power]

Yester my Spanish teacher told me that "Marxism failed because it tried to apply a scientific economic theory to an explanation of everything. That Marxism forgets the psychological elements of people." Or something to that degree. What does he mean? He is he correct? Is he wrong?

your spanish teacher seems to be on the right track. I wouldn't say "psychological elements" but marx did give a "grand narrative" which sought to explain all social phenomena.

he missed some BIG pieces like women's rights and self-determination.

marx also tried a quasi-scientific theory which isn't well equipped to deal with complicated things like human affairs. Science examines very simple things like atoms, chemicals, etc. When you get into the domain of human interactions on a society level, you are entering a realm in which the influencing factors are so great that you cannot account for existing dynamics through soley an linear economic theory.

[ckaihatsu]

When you get into the domain of human interactions on a society level, you are entering a realm in which the influencing factors are so great that you cannot account for existing dynamics through soley an linear economic theory.


Here's my own contribution to this topic -- think of it as a materialist social psychology....


Ideologies & Operations -- Dynamics

http://i46.tinypic.com/2mnoroi.jpg


Ideologies & Operations -- Dynamics (Page 1 of 2)

http://i46.tinypic.com/34qo0fm.jpg


Ideologies & Operations -- Dynamics (Page 2 of 2)

http://i49.tinypic.com/154zvdg.jpg

[Ocean Seal]

Yester my Spanish teacher told me that "Marxism failed because it tried to apply a scientific economic theory to an explanation of everything. That Marxism forgets the psychological elements of people." Or something to that degree. What does he mean? He is he correct? Is he wrong?
If this is a human nature argument he is wrong, but I would be interested in hearing an actual psychological argument.

[ckaihatsu]

Yester my Spanish teacher told me that "Marxism failed because it tried to apply a scientific economic theory to an explanation of everything. That Marxism forgets the psychological elements of people." Or something to that degree. What does he mean? He is he correct? Is he wrong?





I would be interested in hearing an actual psychological argument.


Okay, got one for ya.

Using the materialist (Marxism-compatible) economic-capital--political-capital model that I posted there, let's consider that plenty of people are currently in situations of chronic debt. Economic debt is *beyond* the *absence* of economic capital -- it's a *negative* amount of economic capital.

So, extending this over to the *political* side of things, those whose political universe is "low-ceilinged" may operate in a *perceived* social world of material political pluses and minuses. A "deficit" of *perceived* (or actual) political capital would equate to feelings of remorse and/or guilt.

And, since objectively existing violence and repression -- not to mention economic exploitation -- tends to "lower the ceiling" of the political world in which many live their lives, there is more psychological pain resulting from the "political debt" situation of forced patronage.

[Hit The North]

your spanish teacher seems to be on the right track. I wouldn't say "psychological elements" but marx did give a "grand narrative" which sought to explain all social phenomena.

he missed some BIG pieces like women's rights and self-determination.



But Engels and August Bebel both presented and wrote about women's liberation as a serious issue and made prescriptions which were far more radical than most nineteenth century 'feminist' positions:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bebel/1879/woman-socialism/index.htm

Meanwhile, in the twentieth century, some of the most persuasive and revolutionary fighters for women's liberation, from Sylvia Pankhurst to Angela Davis, were Marxists. And what do you think the men and women of the second and third internationals were doing, if not fighting for their rights and self-determination?


marx also tried a quasi-scientific theory which isn't well equipped to deal with complicated things like human affairs. Science examines very simple things like atoms, chemicals, etc.
Which is why Marx insisted on a dialectical examination of society based on an appreciation of its complexity of relations in both time and space. You need to read Marx's account of his method before dismissing it.


When you get into the domain of human interactions on a society level, you are entering a realm in which the influencing factors are so great that you cannot account for existing dynamics through solely an linear economic theory.Firstly, to call Marxism a 'linear economic theory' does it no justice and betrays a lack of understanding of how Marxism attempts to make sense of the world.

Secondly, despite the difficulty in anticipating or predicting all of the influencing factors, there is a logic to a particular set of social relations, once properly understood, which means that social life is reasonably predictable. For instance, the antagonism between capital and labour, which was first articulated by bourgeois political economy, and developed to a fuller understanding by Karl Marx, continues to beset capitalism. The competition between private capitals still produces and shapes technological innovation and rips up existing social relations in the drive for profit. In order to understand the psyche at the individual level we need to understand the wider relations in which it is located. Marxism provides conceptual tools such as base and superstructure, contradiction, alienation, commodity fetishism, and ideology in order to examine the connection between the fate of societies and the experience and reflections of those who live in them.

I'd like to know which branch of sociology or economic theory you think examines society with more complexity than Marxism? Or do you think a science of society is impossible?

[Amphictyonis]

Yester my Spanish teacher told me that "Marxism failed because it tried to apply a scientific economic theory to an explanation of everything. That Marxism forgets the psychological elements of people." Or something to that degree. What does he mean? He is he correct? Is he wrong?
Read some R.D. Laing and catch your teacher off guard-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._D._Laing

It's the bourgeois psychologists who see mental illness as abjectly hereditary. Laing "challenged the core values of a practice of psychiatry which he thought considered mental illness as a biological phenomenon without regard for social, intellectual and cultural dimensions."

Marx actually, according to his materialist conception of history, said our perception of reality is effected by our relation to the means of production. That different economic systems would create different worlds with varying problems.

"My inquiry led me to the conclusion that neither legal relations nor political forms could be comprehended whether by themselves or on the basis of a so-called general development of the human mind, but that on the contrary they originate in the material conditions of life, the totality of which Hegel, following the example of English and French thinkers of the eighteenth century, embraces within the term "civil society"; that the autonomy of this civil society, however, has to be sought in political economy. The study of this, which I began in Paris, I continued in Brussels, where I moved owing to an expulsion order issued by M. Guizot. The general conclusion at which I arrived and which, once reached, became the guiding principle of my studies can be summarised as follows:
In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_of_production) appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society), the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure), and to which correspond definite forms of consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_consciousness). The mode of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_of_production) of material life conditions the general process of social, political, and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productive_forces) of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or — this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms — with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development, of the productive forces, these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution). The changes in the economic foundation lead, sooner or later, to the transformation of the whole, immense, superstructure.
In studying such transformations, it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic, or philosophic — in short, ideological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological) forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual) by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production."

[ckaihatsu]

"low-ceilinged"




"lower the ceiling"


I'd be remiss if I didn't provide an *illustration* of what "the ceiling" is....

Note that less-than-revolutionary political stances will not even comprehend / acknowledge the "heights" of our political society in the first place -- some perceive lower "ceilings" than others -- use this knowledge as you will...(!)


History, Macro-Micro -- Precision

http://i45.tinypic.com/149030w.jpg

[Pawn Power]

Here's my own contribution to this topic -- think of it as a materialist social psychology....


Ideologies & Operations -- Dynamics

http://i46.tinypic.com/2mnoroi.jpg


Ideologies & Operations -- Dynamics (Page 1 of 2)

http://i46.tinypic.com/34qo0fm.jpg


Ideologies & Operations -- Dynamics (Page 2 of 2)

http://i49.tinypic.com/154zvdg.jpg

This stuff makes no sense to me.

[Pawn Power]

But Engels and August Bebel both presented and wrote about women's liberation as a serious issue and made prescriptions which were far more radical than most nineteenth century 'feminist' positions:

By "he" I meant marx, the man we are talking about.


Which is why Marx insisted on a dialectical examination of society based on an appreciation of its complexity of relations in both time and space. You need to read Marx's account of his method before dismissing it.I've read a bunch of marx. You need to not make assumptions about people before you respond to them. Just because one doesn't agree with your interpretation or opinion on a subject doesn't mean they are ignorant of that subject.

My point still stands. We have not (yet) created a scientific way to evaluate complex social phenomena. People adhere to marx's writing, believing that they are a proven scientific analysis of society, when in fact, it is just one way of interpreting extremely complicated set of social, political, and economic relations. I happen to think it is a good interpretation of society, though in no way encompassing.


Or do you think a science of society is impossible?I guess I don't think it is impossible, it just hasn't ever come close to happening. Society is many times more complicated than anything natural or physical science examines. This is not to say that it cannot or should not be studied but that grand narratives should be looked at critically and not assumed to be akin to scientific theories (like marxism is often assumed to be by some folks the left).

[ckaihatsu]

My point still stands. We have not (yet) created a scientific way to complex social phenomena.


The *components* of it, whatever that scientific way may be, will be [1] politics, and [2] economics, because these are *material* quantities in the social world.





People adhere to marx's writing, believing that they are a proven scientific analysis of society, when in fact, it is just one way of interpreting extremely complicated set of social, political, and economic relations. I happen to think it is a good interpretation of society, though in no way encompassing.


What, exactly, then, falls *outside* of what Marx, or Marxism, has covered?





I guess I don't think [a science of society] is impossible, it just hasn't ever come close to happening. Society is many times more complicated than anything natural or physical science examines. This is not to say that it cannot or should not be studied but that grand narratives should be looked at critically and not assumed to be akin to scientific theories (like marxism is often assumed to be by some folks the left).


There is a distinct difference between a 'narrative' and a 'science'. 'Narratives' have more to do with *personal* accounts, or, in "postmodern social science", with a denial of a common objective world altogether. Science at least *attempts* to find universality, regardless of individual or time-frame.





This stuff makes no sense to me.


My diagrams illustrate that the component material quantities of [1] politics and [2] economics will assert themselves, either through their addition or subtraction, at *any* scale of society -- scale being defined by the magnitude of both components together.

A *very* simple example of this is the children's lesson of "crying wolf" -- we're taught at a young age that it's not wise to "use up our political capital" (my wording). In *any* social context we *know* that we have a certain amount of *credibility* with others, and it's only destructive to that credibility to exaggerate one's claims.

[Hit The North]

By "he" I meant marx, the man we are talking about.


Yes, but the point is that Marxism can account for and articulate action towards women's liberation without contradicting Marx's political theories or attitudes. Surely you don't expect one individual to account for everything?


I've read a bunch of marx. You need to not make assumptions about people before you respond to them. Just because one doesn't agree with your interpretation or opinion on a subject doesn't mean they are ignorant of that subject. Apologies then. It's not your reading habits which are defective but your understanding.


My point still stands. We have not (yet) created a scientific way to evaluate complex social phenomena.

I guess I don't think it is impossible, it just hasn't ever come close to happening. Society is many times more complicated than anything natural or physical science examines. Nature is pretty complex. Animal organisms are incredibly complex. There is no natural science which explains everything about the natural world, but branches which explain some of their domain. Why do you set higher standards for social science?


This is not to say that it cannot or should not be studied but that grand narratives should be looked at critically and not assumed to be akin to scientific theories (like marxism is often assumed to be by some folks the left).
There's no problem in accepting something as a scientific theory, as long as it is not mistaken for a scientific fact. As Marx argues (and he would embrace your critical suspicion of grand narratives, as he did with German philosophy, French socialism and British political economy), all theories must be proved in practice.