Noobie Questions

[The Man]

Sorry but I might sound dumb asking these questions.

1. What is a materialist analysis?
2. When someone says they look at stuff in a materialist view, what do they mean by that?

[Aurora]

Materialism is a philosophy usually contrasted with idealism, materialism views ideas as being reflections of the material world, idealism is the opposite. As summed up by Marx "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but rather their social being that determines their consciousness."

So for example an idealist might think that an individual politician has negative idea's like being greedy or corrupt, a materialist would say that it's their position as a politician that creates these traits.

The idealist focuses on the individual, the materialist on the society.

[Obs]

You decided you were a Hoxhaist before you even knew what materialism is...?

[The Man]

Materialism is a philosophy usually contrasted with idealism, materialism views ideas as being reflections of the material world, idealism is the opposite. As summed up by Marx "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but rather their social being that determines their consciousness."

So for example an idealist might think that an individual politician has negative idea's like being greedy or corrupt, a materialist would say that it's their position as a politician that creates these traits.

The idealist focuses on the individual, the materialist on the society.

So for example, I will create a random sentence to see if I get this: The materialist conditions of that society was the reason why the president passed that bill.


Also when someone says "LENIN WAS A HORRIBLE MAN!!! HE KILLED THE CZAR'S FAMILY!!"... That's not a materialist analysis, right?

[Obs]

Also when someone says "LENIN WAS A HORRIBLE MAN!!! HE KILLED THE CZAR'S FAMILY!!"... That's not a materialist analysis, right?
Exactly. Nor is it a materialist analysis when Hoxha attributes the growth of socialism and the rise of revisionism in the Soviet Union to the light of socialism simply burning brighter in the pure soul of Stalin.

[Aurora]

So for example, I will create a random sentence to see if I get this: The materialist conditions of that society was the reason why the president passed that bill.
Ya essentially, usually the legislation that goes through will serve a particular aim of either the capitalist class as a whole or in some cases a particular section of capitalists, increasing military funding serves the military-industrial complex and manufacture capital, bailing out the banks serves finance capital, decreasing minimum wage serves all capital etc etc


Also when someone says "LENIN WAS A HORRIBLE MAN!!! HE KILLED THE CZAR'S FAMILY!!"... That's not a materialist analysis, right?
No it's not, the materialist view would be that Czarist society contained antagonisms that would inevitably lead to it's overthrow and supersession. In that particular instance killing the Romanov's was a necessary act to prevent them being captured by an advancing white army. Which meant that the monarchy could have been restored.

[Rooster]

So, The Man, revision and capitalist roaders; idealist or materialist?

[Roach]

Exactly. Nor is it a materialist analysis when Hoxha attributes the growth of socialism and the rise of revisionism in the Soviet Union to the light of socialism simply burning brighter in the pure soul of Stalin.

It is not so simple, a good book about ''Hoxhaist'' views on the subject is The Restoration of Capitalism in the Soviet Union, by the Canadian Communist Bill Bland. Avaible on-line here: http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html

[Uncle Rob]

Sorry but I might sound dumb asking these questions.

1. What is a materialist analysis?
2. When someone says they look at stuff in a materialist view, what do they mean by that?

A materialist analysis is the process in which one sets out to understand the world on the basis of physical reality. We understand classes and thereby class interest by the material foundation in in which they are founded upon.

When someone says they look at something in a Materialist view it simply means they seek to explain the social by it's material foundations.

[28350]

this is short and you should read it
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm


Canadian Communist Bill Bland
I believe he was British

[Rooster]

Is revisionism materialist?

[Roach]

I believe he was British

Yeeeahh :blushing:, actually, I don't even know why I thought he was Canadian, the site that I linked cleary stated it was from the UK.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Do the notions of human agency and material analysis contradict one another?

[Obs]

It is not so simple, a good book about ''Hoxhaist'' views on the subject is The Restoration of Capitalism in the Soviet Union, by the Canadian Communist Bill Bland. Avaible on-line here: http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html
Actually, I was paraphrasing Hoxha there.

[Roach]

Actually, I was paraphrasing Hoxha there.

Well, paraphrasing is not the same as qouting and qoutes can be taken out of context, if this was the case, for someone who was some knowledge of Hoxha's work, he/she would know his criticisms of the Soviet Union are not only based on ''The Stalin Question''. I prefer using works not written by Hoxha himself as sources, like Bland's book or Socialist Albanian scholars, though they are obviously influenced by him.

But I see you trollin'.

[Obs]

But I see you trollin'.
cool

[Rafiq]

I'll explain it in a bit

[Rafiq]

Materialism is the structural core of Marxism. Without it, Marxism falls to pieces.

Materialism can be described in many different ways:

1. The belief that only the material things exist... There is no spiritual world, this is our world and everything within it is material.

2. Matter is before thought... in all ways. Our thoughts are not causes, but consequences of the material world around us. Our thoughts are merely reflections of the world, society, and the likes around us.

3. 'Economic" advnacement surpasses human 'will' drastically. Cavemen were brainless monkeys, throwing their shits at each other.... That is to say, until they finally organized out of need, and after they organized and structered a society, that is when religion, morals, culture, discoveries etc started to take place. A person who sais "The problem today is morals" is Idealist, since morals are things that are just results of the mode of production (society) which create material and social conditions.

A person who sais "The Soviet Union collapsed because of Revisionism" Is Idealist, because 'Revisionism' is just a result of the material conditions of the soviet union, which, to be honest, were quite shitty.



4. Societies are in constraints. Fuedalism was in a 'constraint' meaning, they were in a bubble, but once came capitalism, the constraint expanded, and we got things like airplanes and all kinds of cool shit. Whatever comes after capitalism is supposed to give us a bigger constraint. This is how human civilization advances.

5. Free will is bullshit, Universal Moral Responsability is bullshit, Moralism is bullshit, and so is the Idea that history is made by one Man.

History is never made by one man. History is not about a Man using men to achieve his own ends. History is all men trying to achieve their ends.

Free will doesn't exist, it pretty much states that we are all given what is right and wrong, we are all equal socially, and that we must make the right choices, and bad stuff is a result of the morals in decay. Complete bullshit. Since morality and the likes are: Bum Bum bum: The result of the material and social conditions created by capitalism!


(This was a shitty, over simplistic response, but hey, its better than nothing)

http://www.marxist.com/History-old/historicalMaterialism.htm

[MortyMingledon]

Materialism is basically what differentiates Marx from what he called "Utopian Socialists" like Fourier and Proudhon. "Utopian Socialists" developed their theories on the basis on some kind of moral foundation, on basic ideas such as "equality" or "freedom", while Marx dismissed the existence of an objective morality. He believed morality was the result of material conditions and class relations.

In short, to Marxists:
Idealism- theories are founded on ideas of what is "right" and "wrong"
Materialism- theories are founded on material conditions

What always puzzles me is that if Marxists dismiss morality as a product of class relations, what drives them to support communism? Material gain? (I'm not being rhetorical I'm genuinely asking)

[Rafiq]

What always puzzles me is that if Marxists dismiss morality as a product of class relations, what drives them to support communism? Material gain? (I'm not being rhetorical I'm genuinely asking)

Yes, definitely.

I do it just because I generally am a Marxist, first of all, which is a science, so through basic logic, it's not that I like communism or not(never lived under it, neither has anyone else on earth), it's that I accept it's probably going to be the future.

[UnknownPerson]

Materialism is a philosophy usually contrasted with idealism, materialism views ideas as being reflections of the material world, idealism is the opposite. As summed up by Marx "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but rather their social being that determines their consciousness."

So for example an idealist might think that an individual politician has negative idea's like being greedy or corrupt, a materialist would say that it's their position as a politician that creates these traits.

The idealist focuses on the individual, the materialist on the society.

"So for example an idealist might think that an individual politician has negative idea's like being greedy or corrupt, a materialist would say that it's their position as a politician that creates these traits."
- Not only that, it's other factors of the material world as well, such as their genetics, their culture, the environment they were raised in, their brain structure (which pretty much defines who we are), etc.

Materialism is believing that the only world which is real/(basis for other worlds, such as the virtual cyber world) is the material world. This doesn't mean that they don't blame someone for doing something to prevent such things like this from happening again.

Choices can be explained as manifestations of the real, material world, such as genetics, brain structure, hormonal levels, environment, social influences, etc., etc.
This means that we can't think that a person can be responsible for something as he/she wasn't responsible for the choices he/she made, as the material world is responsible for this (the material world is responsible for the person's brain structure, hormonal levels, environment, social interactions, etc, which are manifestations of the real world).
This doesn't mean that we shouldn't use blame, as this prevents some undesirable choices from being made.

[Rafiq]

^ we are talking Marxist Historical Materialism. It is much more complex than that.

[GPDP]

What always puzzles me is that if Marxists dismiss morality as a product of class relations, what drives them to support communism? Material gain? (I'm not being rhetorical I'm genuinely asking)

Marxists support communism because it is in the interest of the working class (and thus of Marxists) to achieve it. Is it not in the interest of a worker to not be exploited and have an actual say in how society is run?

[MortyMingledon]

Marxists support communism because it is in the interest of the working class (and thus of Marxists) to achieve it. Is it not in the interest of a worker to not be exploited and have an actual say in how society is run?

I agree, but doesn't that then also require some kind of moral reasoning to believe that it is "right" to support the interests of the working class?