How is society material?

[Luisrah]

I'm still a bit confused about society being material. How is that?

[¿Que?]

I'm still a bit confused about society being material. How is that?
Society is not material, per se. It is determined by material conditions. This means that the way people satisfy material needs (food, clothes, shelter) largely determines the nature of society. Thus, capitalism is not a material thing, but represents material conditions.

That's how I understand it, although some people may be able to elaborate better, or even correct me.

[Hit The North]

Marx talks about material relations between humans. By this he is highlighting how the definite and indispensable relations of a society exist over and above the consciousness of individuals.

The MIA glossary of terms says this:


The objective material relations that exist in any society independently of human consciousness, formed between all people in the process of social production, exchange, and distribution of material wealth.

One of Marx's key insights is the paradox whereby humans enter into relations with each other and create social forms which then act back and limit human consciousness and action.

[black magick hustla]

its just old 19th century talk for something grounded in the concrete, physical reality rather than everything being certain way because of god or because a civilization has adopted "good values". while a lot of conservatives would start from the premise of values, marxists care about concrete economic issues

[Chaz]

Society isn't concrete, it's just an idea. Marx has this thing with reification, which is taking things that don't exist physically and treating them like they do. Society's just a fancy word for the combined individual interactions in a specified location.

[¿Que?]

Society isn't concrete, it's just an idea. Marx has this thing with reification, which is taking things that don't exist physically and treating them like they do. Society's just a fancy word for the combined individual interactions in a specified location.
Well, unless you're Durkheim, then it's a bit more.

[Chaz]

Well, unless you're Durkheim, then it's a bit more.

Then what is it? Under what rock can I dig up a physical Society, and can I cook it for dinner or is it a little too bitter for that? Can I have a discussion about Chopin with it, or throw it through my annoying neighbor's window? I wonder if it smells good...

[ckaihatsu]

Society is not material, per se. It is determined by material conditions. This means that the way people satisfy material needs (food, clothes, shelter) largely determines the nature of society. Thus, capitalism is not a material thing, but represents material conditions.

That's how I understand it, although some people may be able to elaborate better, or even correct me.


I can only make the *slightest* of adjustments here....





Thus, capitalism is not a material thing, but [determines] material conditions.





Society isn't concrete, it's just an idea. Marx has this thing with reification, which is taking things that don't exist physically and treating them like they do. Society's just a fancy word for the combined individual interactions in a specified location.


Society *is* more concrete than just an idea, though.... The "proof" is that there are various *sizes* and *complexities* of society -- if you want to banish the concept of a formal civilization, or society, you may, but there will still be simple isolated rural villages that are mostly self-sufficient. At that scale would you call humanity a small local network of individuals, or maybe an aggregation of families and clans, if not an entire "village society" -- ? From there we might look at a *number* of small rural communities in close proximity to each other -- how about at *that* scale -- etc. -- ?

What I'm getting at is that at *some* scale we have to talk about humanity's *abilities* becoming greater because of the scale of *complexity* of its 'combined individual interactions in a specified location'. Perhaps one kind of people happen to have practiced certain rituals over countless generations through time -- would you call *that* "combined individual interactions in a specified location", or might we call it a *societal institution* of some sort -- ?

How about monetary value? We could easily dismiss *that* as well, as just an "idea" that people "buy into", and thus we all acquiesce into a kind of shared sleepwalking in that these rectangles of colorful paper have real "value", right -- ?

The reason why a whole comprehensive intellectual framework like Marx's can be called 'reified' is because it's withstood the test of time -- it's beyond just 'proven' -- all the sub-pieces fit together and make sense as a conceptual whole, in a scientific way. If we choose *not* to recognize this analytical strength we are basically missing the forest for the trees.

[¿Que?]

Then what is it? Under what rock can I dig up a physical Society, and can I cook it for dinner or is it a little too bitter for that? Can I have a discussion about Chopin with it, or throw it through my annoying neighbor's window? I wonder if it smells good...
We call that rock statistics, bro.

[Chaz]

Society *is* more concrete than just an idea, though.... The "proof" is that there are various *sizes* and *complexities* of society -- if you want to banish the concept of a formal civilization, or society, you may, but there will still be simple isolated rural villages that are mostly self-sufficient. At that scale would you call humanity a small local network of individuals, or maybe an aggregation of families and clans, if not an entire "village society" -- ? From there we might look at a *number* of small rural communities in close proximity to each other -- how about at *that* scale -- etc. -- ?

What I'm getting at is that at *some* scale we have to talk about humanity's *abilities* becoming greater because of the scale of *complexity* of its 'combined individual interactions in a specified location'. Perhaps one kind of people happen to have practiced certain rituals over countless generations through time -- would you call *that* "combined individual interactions in a specified location", or might we call it a *societal institution* of some sort -- ?

How about monetary value? We could easily dismiss *that* as well, as just an "idea" that people "buy into", and thus we all acquiesce into a kind of shared sleepwalking in that these rectangles of colorful paper have real "value", right -- ?

The reason why a whole comprehensive intellectual framework like Marx's can be called 'reified' is because it's withstood the test of time -- it's beyond just 'proven' -- all the sub-pieces fit together and make sense as a conceptual whole, in a scientific way. If we choose *not* to recognize this analytical strength we are basically missing the forest for the trees.

I'd say you're overthinking it. There are various statistics and assumptions/conclusions that one can draw from an individual's interactions, and this can be generalized and attached to a larger group who has something in common, be it location or interests or occupation or what have you. That is society, it's a method of documenting the individual relations within large groups, it exists- as an idea, an abstract construct, a generalization used to study and predict and control. It doesn't have a physical form, it doesn't walk up to you and ask you for a dime. Individuals may come up and ask you for a dime, and maybe a group of individuals who have suits and guns calling themselves 'the government' may tell you if you don't give them your dime they'll throw you in a cage, and maybe if a lot of people give the bum on the street a dime the 'society' they're lumped into will be considered a charitable one, but that's only because the individuals within it have made a personal decision that can be generalized over a large population. That's the extent of human 'abilities', we can't merge Power Rangers-style into Society and battle evil, and if it's a 'societal institution' that implies it's something you're pressured by a large group of agreeing individuals to abide by- not being gay or wearing a burqa or listening to Justin Bieber for instance. And at what point is it not a society? Is two people too few, and is twenty billion too many? If I have multiple personalities can I be considered a society unto myself? If I don't go along with society but live within it, or am forced to go along with it (social institution), what does that make me? Am I part of a generalization that ignores my individuality out of self-importance or am I an anomaly that must be dealt with?

And yes, monetary value is one of the biggest ideas people buy into. The dollar is worth the paper and ink that makes it, everything else is just some guys telling you to trust them and making it illegal to use any other form of tender. And you have no idea what you're talking about, reification is considered a logical fallacy:

"Reification in thought occurs when an abstract concept describing a relationship or context is treated as a concrete "thing", or if something is treated as if it were a separate object when this is inappropriate because it is not an object or because it does not truly exist in separation."
Marxism doesn't make scientific sense as a whole, Marx had to spend half of his catalogue redefining the entirety of human history to explain why you should demand other people's stuff. Stirner, whom Marx swept under the table by writing 1/3 of a book basically calling him names, gave a very thorough criticism of Liberalism as a whole before it was put into action and the predictions he made in 1845 regarding its faults are painfully obvious in the current era.

[ckaihatsu]

Contradiction here:








[If] it's a 'societal institution' that implies it's something you're pressured by a large group of agreeing individuals to abide by





[T]he 'society' [...] will be considered [...] one, but that's only because the individuals within it have made a personal decision that can be generalized over a large population.





If I don't go along with society but live within it, or am forced to go along with it (social institution), what does that make me? Am I part of a generalization that ignores my individuality out of self-importance or am I an anomaly that must be dealt with?


Our being is self-determined but socially mediated. (Being is a social construction.)





And yes, monetary value is one of the biggest ideas people buy into. The dollar is worth the paper and ink that makes it, everything else is just some guys telling you to trust them and making it illegal to use any other form of tender.


People could fairly easily set up their own barter-type economic exchanges -- these days more than ever before.... Instead of a simple 1-to-1 swap there could be a 3-way forward rotation, or any among countless other configurations.... The reason why people still tend to use a capitalist economy, besides it being enforced, of course, is not simply for the "idea" of it -- it's because the major capitalist economies are *complex* and have *large*, *varied* markets from which to pick your desired items, once you have money.





Marxism doesn't make scientific sense as a whole


Actually, it does. But we'll take care of the more-basic stuff first here....

[Chaz]

Contradiction here:
No, I deliberately drew a line between 'institution' (the society governing the individual, or peer pressure) and a trend (many people happening to behave similarly).


Our being is self-determined but socially mediated. (Being is a social construction.)
What do you even mean by that?


People could fairly easily set up their own barter-type economic exchanges -- these days more than ever before.... Instead of a simple 1-to-1 swap there could be a 3-way forward rotation, or any among countless other configurations.... The reason why people still tend to use a capitalist economy, besides it being enforced, of course, is not simply for the "idea" of it -- it's because the major capitalist economies are *complex* and have *large*, *varied* markets from which to pick your desired items, once you have money.
By this point I'm assuming you have no idea what either you or I are talking about, because I was implying that little pieces of paper have no real value and you seemed to be on the same page until you started bringing up some complaint about the Capitalist economy, which is nothing more than the private ownership of businesses without government interference, which would make this "3-way swap" between just people you suggested even more Capitalistic than the government I was talking about.

[ckaihatsu]

No, I deliberately drew a line between 'institution' (the society governing the individual, or peer pressure) and a trend (many people happening to behave similarly).


Okay.





What do you even mean by that?


I mean that we are raised in social environments and we spend our entire adult lives interacting with others in a variety of contexts -- thus we are all *social* beings primarily.





By this point I'm assuming you have no idea what either you or I are talking about, because I was implying that little pieces of paper have no real value and you seemed to be on the same page until you started bringing up some complaint about the Capitalist economy, which is nothing more than the private ownership of businesses without government interference, which would make this "3-way swap" between just people you suggested even more Capitalistic than the government I was talking about.


Okay, let me ask you this, then -- since we both know that pieces of paper are merely *symbols* of value, at best, what do you think is the *real* source of value underlying that currency? In other words, what makes a 10-dollar bill worth twice as much as a 5-dollar bill?

[RedMaterialist]

I'm still a bit confused about society being material. How is that?

Marx began his analysis of capitalism by saying that it presents itself as an immense accumulation of commodities. (Capital, Vol I, first paragraph.) If you look around you (I live in the U.S.) the first thing you notice is the immense accumulation or distribution of commodities. They are everywhere: esp. cars (of every imaginable type), TVs, computers, houses (MacMansions), the throwaway clothes people wear, fast food, dozens of football games on TV, etc. etc. etc.

This "commodification" of society becomes the ethic of materialism. Madonna is the material girl, greed is good, Paris Hilton is famous for being famous. Opinion and thought become commodities which we can buy, mostly on Fox News or the New York Times. (However, thanks to RevLeft, et. al., there are alternatives. The giant monopolies (Google, Verizon) are trying to limit free access to these web sites.)

Thus, a material society is a society of material things produced by that society. What kind of things and how those things are produced determines what kind of society is produced.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Turn to your left or right. Pick an object at random.

SOCIETY!

[Chaz]

Okay, let me ask you this, then -- since we both know that pieces of paper are merely *symbols* of value, at best, what do you think is the *real* source of value underlying that currency? In other words, what makes a 10-dollar bill worth twice as much as a 5-dollar bill?

The only thing that makes it really worth twice as much is the government saying it's worth twice as much. They base this information on comparing five other countries' currencies and probably revolve that around imports and exports and some supply/demand issues (waiting for the inevitable explanation of 'means of production' and 'classes' and so on and so forth).

[ckaihatsu]

The only thing that makes it really worth twice as much is the government saying it's worth twice as much. They base this information on comparing five other countries' currencies


This part of yours deals with the government's control of the federal funds rate, or money supply, and its own currency in relation to those of other countries.





and probably revolve that around imports and exports and some supply/demand issues


Here you're talking about economic competitiveness in relation to other countries.





(waiting for the inevitable explanation of 'means of production' and 'classes' and so on and so forth).


Glad to oblige -- this is from a past posting at RevLeft, at tinyurl.com/monetize-labor





Soooooooooo, *in conclusion*, we can fall into the trap of talking about the money supply *itself*, as the nationalists would have us do, or we can talk about economics from the standpoint of the working class. *How many* of those dollars or scrip notes will be heading our way, exactly?

Considering that -- contrary to the complexities of manufacturing -- there are usually no elaborate supply chains in the *service* sector (just several layers of parasitic management), then the issue becomes *who* gets to be waited upon, and how much is going to actually be *paid out* for that service?

When we look at it from the perspective of *wages*, the money supply isn't as much of a concern any more. If *more of* the money supply ends up in the pockets of the workers, independently from the concerns and politics of the propertied class, then that's a *proportional shift* of economic control from ownership to labor -- (and all that *exists* is labor and capital...).

You simply *won't* hear the supply-side arguments flipped over into labor's hemisphere, as in "Oh, no, we're seeing a slowdown in consumer spending due to a lack of paying work positions and sufficient incentives for people to gain employment -- quick, let's monetize the labor sector with subsidized wages in order to get production going again...!"

That's, of course, because in class war terms this is giving in to the working class -- it would *not* be in the bourgeoisie's best interests to empower labor because a shift in economic power (as we saw during WWII) would embolden the working class *politically*, towards labor strikes, factory occupations, revolutionary movements, and so on.

Please see:

Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

http://tinyurl.com/6bs6va