Idealism

[The Jay]

The word Idealism and it's other forms gets thrown around constantly on this forum at all kinds of different statements. When someone makes a moral distinction - idealism. When someone asks about the integrity of a politician - idealism. When someone wants to change the world to stop suffering - idealism. These examples have little to do with the Idealism that we should chastise. What was being referred to was a different Idealism than upholding convictions and making moral judgements. The Idealism that we should be against is that which adheres to there being an objective nature to abstract thoughts.

What I mean by this is that Plato's world of forms does not exist. There is not any hierarchy of superiority in different forms of society.

Material conditions - the environment - affect the likelihood of an idea occurring to any given individual. This idea can then change the actions of that individual, thus changing the environment. This is not the Idealism of Plato and was not the Idealism that Marx argued against.

Could we get this discussion out of the way so that people can't flame each other through the abuse of a philosophical term that used to - and could again - have a strict definition on the forum?

[Ostrinski]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2467082&postcount=2

[Dean]

The word Idealism and it's other forms gets thrown around constantly on this forum at all kinds of different statements. When someone makes a moral distinction - idealism. When someone asks about the integrity of a politician - idealism. When someone wants to change the world to stop suffering - idealism. These examples have little to do with the Idealism that we should chastise. What was being referred to was a different Idealism than upholding convictions and making moral judgements. The Idealism that we should be against is that which adheres to there being an objective nature to abstract thoughts.

Fair enough. But in everyday language, people are not talking about Forms, and when someone speaks of Obama's "attitudes" and Romney's "job creators" ideals are being invoked, whether there is a strict philosophical assessment of their claims or not. The term has other uses rather than the concise philosophical sense.


What I mean by this is that Plato's world of forms does not exist.
Yes it does. It exists as an idea in your mind, and materially, as the chemical and electrical processes behind those thoughts. It exists as the methodology of human senses, and therefore, of human research and science. The fact that ideas are reflections of reality does not mean that ideas do not exist in and of themselves.


There is not any hierarchy of superiority in different forms of society.
If you spell out normative values to judge societies by, such as utility for its constituent members, equality of input, spontaneity and individualism, hierarchies can be made insofar as we have data to compare between societies that reflect on these variables.


Material conditions - the environment - affect the likelihood of an idea occurring to any given individual. This idea can then change the actions of that individual, thus changing the environment. This is not the Idealism of Plato and was not the Idealism that Marx argued against.

Could we get this discussion out of the way so that people can't flame each other through the abuse of a philosophical term that used to - and could again - have a strict definition on the forum?
I don't think you're going to end flame wars and/or improper use of language by having a discussion in the philosophy forum. Usually when I use the term, I actually am referring to ideas that fit into the Platonic forms-reality framework, but there are still alternate uses that are valid themselves, polemical or not.

[The Jay]

Fair enough. But in everyday language, people are not talking about Forms, and when someone speaks of Obama's "attitudes" and Romney's "job creators" ideals are being invoked, whether there is a strict philosophical assessment of their claims or not. The term has other uses rather than the concise philosophical sense.


There are certainly other definitions for the term and I alluded to that. What I take issue with is that people use the legitimate arguments against the philosophical definition and conflate the argument to make it seem to apply to the other definitions. For example, Obama's "attitudes" may have some bearing on how he makes decisions, but I don't know him it may not. That is not an idealistic thing to say using the philosophical definition and shouldn't be attacked with, "Marx disagreed with your Idealistic worldview," or something like that. As for your "job creator" example, I would say that was spot on with the philosophical definition since the "job creator" was proposed as a theory - or narrative - of economics.

What I'm saying is that people should learn to recognize the difference between the different definitions being used and which arguments apply to which.



Yes it does. It exists as an idea in your mind, and materially, as the chemical and electrical processes behind those thoughts. It exists as the methodology of human senses, and therefore, of human research and science. The fact that ideas are reflections of reality does not mean that ideas do not exist in and of themselves.


What I meant was that there is no aetherial plane on which ideas sit and wait to be viewed by the mind. I accept that all ideas are simply chemical reactions in the brain, which is why I'm an advocate of historical materialism.



If you spell out normative values to judge societies by, such as utility for its constituent members, equality of input, spontaneity and individualism, hierarchies can be made insofar as we have data to compare between societies that reflect on these variables.


Such a comparison would require those normative values to be chosen, which is subjective. I think that we both agree on this as I was just re-stating.



I don't think you're going to end flame wars and/or improper use of language by having a discussion in the philosophy forum. Usually when I use the term, I actually am referring to ideas that fit into the Platonic forms-reality framework, but there are still alternate uses that are valid themselves, polemical or not.

No, but maybe one or two people would stop using it willy-nilly. :lol:

[MuscularTophFan]

It's a term thrown around by the Stalinists and Marxist-Leninists to anything or anyone they don't like. It's kinda like tea party lunatics who call anything or anyone they don't like socialists.

[Rafiq]

The word Idealism and it's other forms gets thrown around constantly on this forum at all kinds of different statements. When someone makes a moral distinction - idealism.

Any links? Examples? Because there aren't any.

What you're probably referring to is upholding morals as a basis for criticism. That is indeed Idealism, because it implies that a subjective form of thought (Morality) is universal and devoid of material conditions.

Moralism also pressuposes that a Moral, i.e. an Idea can shape material conditions. For one, when someone sais "Well, if Capitalists had more morals, we'd get out of this crises!", that's pure Idealism, as it implies an idea can precede material conditions, rather than understanding that morals themselves are a result, not a cause, of material conditions and are different in accordance with them.

When someone sais "Well, if the Bolsheviks would have avoided ripping power from the Soviets and wouldn't have established the Cheka, we'd be living in Socialism!"

This implies many things. It implies the bolsheviks had "free will" and were not acting on behalf of material conditions. The point isn't to look at their actions and criticize those in themselves. That's just as much of worth as criticizing a meth addict. The point is to target the conditions in which what the Bolsheviks did became necessary.


When someone asks about the integrity of a politician - idealism.

Well, yes. Politicians can only act on behalf of their own class, so to criticize a single politician is worthless. Must you criticize something, it is the class in which's interest the politician is for filling. Moreover, it is the system which gives such a class it's power.


When someone wants to change the world to stop suffering - idealism.

But it's true. I'm sure any sane person would want to "rid the world of suffering". Whether it's possible is a different question. To think that the communist movement was built around liberating or saving humanity is a mistake, it formed purely as the embodiment of the interests of the proletarian class. The proletariat's class dictatorship is of first priority, always. Whether this amounts to the end of "human suffering" is irrelevant. The Bourgeois classes (petite, etc.) may have to suffer to sustain the DOTP.

I mean, what the hell does that even mean? "ridding the world of human suffering"? The suffering of who? A slave exists automatically to emancipate himself. The slave's interest are antithetical to it's masters. Both belong to our "world" and both are capable of suffering.

You think that your Idea (ridding the world of suffering) is going to shape and precede material conditions? No. Instead, real material conditions, real existing material and productive forces are what shapes Ideas. All history is a history of class warfare. To make your support for communism primarily based in your dream, is Idealism in that the minute we start executing the Bourgeoisie in mass numbers, you'll hop off. Why? Because for you, Man establishes his own social circumstance, his own conditions. It's the opposite, that is valid.


These examples have little to do with the Idealism that we should chastise. What was being referred to was a different Idealism than upholding convictions and making moral judgements.

All are forms of Idealism, and, indefinitely, all will be opposed by Marxists and (non Marxist) Materialists alike. Move beyond this moralist dimension where all positions are held for "moral" reasons. Marxism is a science, a mode of analysis, not an ethical conviction. We oppose Idealism because it is indeed antiscientific and inherently opposed to our mode of analysis, which, be it to your knowledge, has always been re assured to be valid.

Some Revolutionaries are materialists because materialism strengthens their revolutionary convictions (which it does, to an extent, that our problems are not inherent to single individuals, but to the conditions which necessitated the actions of those individuals). For me, and, for Marx, we Materialists are revolutionaries because we come to such a conclusion based on extensive and strictly objective scientific analysis.


The Idealism that we should be against is that which adheres to there being an objective nature to abstract thoughts.


There isn't an Idealism we cannot be against, as Marxists, and as Materialists. Here's my question to you, though: Why?


What I mean by this is that Plato's world of forms does not exist. There is not any hierarchy of superiority in different forms of society.


A criticism of Idealism extends far beyond this, friend.


Material conditions - the environment - affect the likelihood of an idea occurring to any given individual. This idea can then change the actions of that individual, thus changing the environment. This is not the Idealism of Plato and was not the Idealism that Marx argued against.

It's problematic, at best. Material conditions shape Ideas, and in turn, those Ideas can influence the actions, or, the rhetorical nature of those actions. So while Ideas can influence material conditions (But it is important to remember that material conditions precede Ideas), Matter still has the upper hand and Ideas do not shape material conditions. Capitalism is a good example. Capitalism was not brought about based on the Ideas of the several classes which would later evolve into the Bourgeois class, it was the product of the exemplification of the interests of a single class, i.e. This class which sought class dictatorship, this process of the entanglement of several interests, as an end result, became something that was in no ones interest, i.e. that no one willed.


Could we get this discussion out of the way so that people can't flame each other through the abuse of a philosophical term that used to - and could again - have a strict definition on the forum?


It does have a strict definition. It's just unfortunate you couldn't interpret it's usage correctly and accordingly to each post. Which isn't surprising, and isn't a bad thing, as we all have had problems interpreting it at one point in our life.

And to your frustration, unfortunately, it will continue to be utilized in the exact same way that it has by me and hopefully others.

[The Jay]

I don't appreciate that paternalistic tone, nor you telling me what I believe. You not only told me what I supposedly think, you also misrepresented what I had said to make me seem unreasonable.

You did contradict yourself at the end there though.


It's problematic, at best. Material conditions shape Ideas, and in turn, those Ideas can influence the actions, or, the rhetorical nature of those actions. So while Ideas can influence material conditions (But it is important to remember that material conditions precede Ideas), Matter still has the upper hand and Ideas do not shape material conditions. Capitalism is a good example. Capitalism was not brought about based on the Ideas of the several classes which would later evolve into the Bourgeois class, it was the product of the exemplification of the interests of a single class, i.e. This class which sought class dictatorship, this process of the entanglement of several interests, as an end result, became something that was in no ones interest, i.e. that no one willed.That last sentence recognizes that their desire to follow their own interests and setting up a system to accomplish that changed the socio-economic relations of society. You tried to pass it off as though anyone would actually say that the rising bourgeois class wanted to set up Capitalism because it would be superior for some abstract reason other than their material interest. I would not say that, nor would most others.

The fact is that you accepted that mat. conditions affect the formation of ideas and that those ideas cause changes to material conditions. What it seems - and I may be wrong - you are doing is acknowledging that and then since matter came first reject the effects of ideas almost entirely. The only reason that your reasoning that people act in their own economic interest is that almost all people want to avoid pain and maximize pleasure. These are desires.

You could argue that those desires developed out of the mat. conditions of the brain due to the evolutionary process but that would be irrelevant to the current situation.

The fact that people act solely in their own economic interests is flawed as well. Does everyone you know act like some sort of Game Theory automaton? No, and so to predict what some people will do you must bring in ideology into the equation. To factor ideology into the analysis of a situation is not Idealism, since that could be a major, if not the deciding, factor in a subject's actions.

[Rafiq]

I don't appreciate that paternalistic tone, nor you telling me what I believe. You not only told me what I supposedly think, you also misrepresented what I had said to make me seem unreasonable.

You did contradict yourself at the end there though.

I'm eager to see how you've drawn yourself to that conclusion.


That last sentence recognizes that their desire to follow their own interests and setting up a system to accomplish that changed the socio-economic relations of society. You tried to pass it off as though anyone would actually say that the rising bourgeois class wanted to set up Capitalism because it would be superior for some abstract reason other than their material interest. I would not say that, nor would most others.

Well, firstly, yes, as a materialist, I recognize that history is itself men and women trying to achieve their own ends. In the case of the Bourgeois class, seizing state power was the highest expression of their class interest.


The fact is that you accepted that mat. conditions affect the formation of ideas and that those ideas cause changes to material conditions. What it seems - and I may be wrong - you are doing is acknowledging that and then since matter came first reject the effects of ideas almost entirely. The only reason that your reasoning that people act in their own economic interest is that almost all people want to avoid pain and maximize pleasure. These are desires.

See, that's problematic. For one, Ideas do not change material conditions, they can influence them, or, to put it frankly, human interaction with material conditions, not the conditions themselves.

Now that we've been over that, I'd liketo address a point you've made that I really distaste: My point is that it's not as simple as "Well, Matter came first" and then, with that, give yourself a green card to assert and pressupose all sorts of Idealist obscurities under the guise of materialism. This isn't simply a question of the "chicken and the egg", the rest given to Idealism. The point is that the process of Matter preceding thought is an ongoing, dynamic and indefinite process. Meaning, at any given time, should any thought or Idea get in the way of a material force, it will be trampled upon and replaced. Take for example, capitalism. We all know Liberalism is a reflection of capitalism, or, to put it in a better way, a reflection of the interests of the Bourgeois class. When, though, capitalism can no longer sustain several aspects of Liberalism, liberalism mutates or is done away with. So while indeed Liberalism does influence the actions and behaviors of many, the ways humans interact and reflect material conditions, should the material conditions which necessitate liberalism expire, it is done away with. This isn't possible in the case of Ideas, as, ideas cannot do away with material conditions to exist. The world as we know it doesn't exist to adjust to human thought, to human experience, but it's quite the contrary.

People act in economic interest for several reasons, actually. Sure, every human being, or, every sane human being doesn't want suffering or pain. But here is the ultimate question: What is our pleasure, and pain? Is it something objective and universal? No. It is indeed a reflection of material conditions. A capitalist, for him, maximizing pain could even mean sacrificing his own self interest, personal life, to feed capital. As this is the process of capitalism.

So, I go as far as saying that these economic interests shape our "hedonism", and not the other way around.


You could argue that those desires developed out of the mat. conditions of the brain due to the evolutionary process but that would be irrelevant to the current situation.


"material conditions of the brain"? What does that even mean, exactly?

The evolutionary process itself is a tenet of the materialist understanding of the development of the human species. No, as far as Pain and pleasure divorced from the mode of production go, Survival, Fucking, Food, etc. Sometimes we don't really know, or have the language to articulate what, even in this regards, what really guarantees our survival, etc.


The fact that people act solely in their own economic interests is flawed as well. Does everyone you know act like some sort of Game Theory automaton?

Again, you miss the point. The point isn't that everyone acts in their own economic interest, because that would in itself imply class consciousnesses by default. The point is that you are, by default, acting in the economic interest in some sort of class, whether it be your own or another. Everyone I know buys consumer goods, including me, etc.

Change only comes about through class warfare, the realization of your own class consciousness, which is brought about when the ideological mystification that cover capitalism are weakened due to the weakening of capitalism itself (economic crises).


No, and so to predict what some people will do you must bring in ideology into the equation. To factor ideology into the analysis of a situation is not Idealism, since that could be a major, if not the deciding, factor in a subject's actions.


Well, of course! The point is simply to understand that the point isn't to change ideology, the point is to target the conditions that sustain it. That was always my point, never have I asserted that Ideology doesn't affect the ways in which people behave.

The demand to abolish illusions must be a demand to abolish a condition which requires illusions.

[Positivist]

Rafiq, accepting your definition of materialism I have two questions.
1. While material conditions are the original determinant factor of ideas, do you believe that education or proppaganda can serve to impress ideas into subjects?

2. Do you believe that people may develop ideas that are not in line with their class interests? Presumably through some sort of education.

[Jimmie Higgins]

1. While material conditions are the original determinant factor of ideas, do you believe that education or proppaganda can serve to impress ideas into subjects?If I'm understanding you correctly, yes. But then where do these original ideas emerge from? From a "I think therefore I am" place of ideas popping out of someone's head with no regard or connection to the life and experiences of that person and those around him/her? I think anyone can adopt any ideas, but these ideas, are rooted in some kind of class experience.


2. Do you believe that people may develop ideas that are not in line with their class interests? Presumably through some sort of education.Subjectively yes. Most people do not have ideas which are in line with their class interests - otherwise we'd be living in socialism if not full communism now. Ruling classes always strive to make ideas that maintain the kind of society they want... it's not necessarily a conscious trick (though often the specific arguments can be... such as things being argued by think tanks or oil lobbies etc), as much as it tends to be favoring ideas which are self-serving or self-flattering (not in a vain way).

So most workers, though, have some mix of working class ideas based out of their own experiences but also some petty-bourgeois ideas (since most cultural production is in line with the interests of these kinds of individual/semi-autonomous producers) and ruling class ideas. But the important thing is that while any individual may subjectively think anything they want, the ideas that stick in society in general have some kind of class basis for someone - and these ideas came from the experiences and interests of people in class society.

[The Jay]

Well, firstly, yes, as a materialist, I recognize that history is itself men and women trying to achieve their own ends. In the case of the Bourgeois class, seizing state power was the highest expression of their class interest.


We agree on this, that was my point.



See, that's problematic. For one, Ideas do not change material conditions, they can influence them, or, to put it frankly, human interaction with material conditions, not the conditions themselves.



If ideas effect humans which then effect mat. conditions then that means that ideas effect mat. conditions. It was obvious that I didn't mean that ideas magically change the environment, ideas effect the world indirectly, through people. That is not to personify ideas, do not get me wrong. Put as plainly as I can: if A causes B which causes C then A causes C. It's that simple.



Now that we've been over that, I'd like to address a point you've made that I really distaste: My point is that it's not as simple as "Well, Matter came first" and then, with that, give yourself a green card to assert and pressupose all sorts of Idealist obscurities under the guise of materialism. This isn't simply a question of the "chicken and the egg", the rest given to Idealism. The point is that the process of Matter preceding thought is an ongoing, dynamic and indefinite process.


Which obscurities would they be? If you point them out then I would seriously examine them. Anyway, I know that it is an ongoing process. I did not say otherwise as it was obvious.



Meaning, at any given time, should any thought or Idea get in the way of a material force, it will be trampled upon and replaced. Take for example, capitalism. We all know Liberalism is a reflection of capitalism, or, to put it in a better way, a reflection of the interests of the Bourgeois class. When, though, capitalism can no longer sustain several aspects of Liberalism, liberalism mutates or is done away with. So while indeed Liberalism does influence the actions and behaviors of many, the ways humans interact and reflect material conditions, should the material conditions which necessitate liberalism expire, it is done away with. This isn't possible in the case of Ideas, as, ideas cannot do away with material conditions to exist. The world as we know it doesn't exist to adjust to human thought, to human experience, but it's quite the contrary.


When did I say otherwise? I did not. You're acting as though I said anything to the contrary of what you just said when that is not the case.


People act in economic interest for several reasons, actually. Sure, every human being, or, every sane human being doesn't want suffering or pain. But here is the ultimate question: What is our pleasure, and pain? Is it something objective and universal? No. It is indeed a reflection of material conditions.


It is not only a consequence of material conditions though. Education and culture play a role. Yes, you may say that culture is effected by material conditions but it is not the soul factor. Humans are not wholly rational, this leads to actions and ideas that can be in contradictory nature to where mat. conditions are pushing. With this in mind we can drop the issue of culture's origin and say that since humans are not always rational some notions or ideas that run contrary to where material conditions are pushing towards will be followed. This I don't think you will disagree with.



"material conditions of the brain"? What does that even mean, exactly?

I meant the physical orientations and connections of the neurons.




Again, you miss the point. The point isn't that everyone acts in their own economic interest, because that would in itself imply class consciousnesses by default. The point is that you are, by default, acting in the economic interest in some sort of class, whether it be your own or another. Everyone I know buys consumer goods, including me, etc.


I do not think that it would imply class consciousness as a default, while ending capitalism would benefit them. People don't think of ending Capitalism, they want to have enough money to do what they want, at least most people. Hopefully more will wish to end Capitalism soon.

People do not intentionally try to perpetuate the capitalist class, though the actions they take to get by serve that function. I think we can agree on that as well.


Change only comes about through class warfare, the realization of your own class consciousness, which is brought about when the ideological mystification that cover capitalism are weakened due to the weakening of capitalism itself (economic crises).

I do not object to this.


Well, of course! The point is simply to understand that the point isn't to change ideology, the point is to target the conditions that sustain it.

I honestly don't know how you would carry out a revolution without having a majority, or very large minority, already in favor of one. What you wrote implies to me that propaganda work and outreach is useless. If that's what you meant that's alright. I'm just not sure what you're implying in terms of practical action.



That was always my point, never have I asserted that Ideology doesn't affect the ways in which people behave.

That's what it sounded like you were saying. I'll take you at your word though.

[Luís Henrique]

It's a term thrown around by the Stalinists and Marxist-Leninists to anything or anyone they don't like. It's kinda like tea party lunatics who call anything or anyone they don't like socialists.

It's a well established philosophical term. Just because it is misused by some it doesn't mean it is such misuse.

Luís Henrique

[Rafiq]

If ideas effect humans which then effect mat. conditions then that means that ideas effect mat. conditions. It was obvious that I didn't mean that ideas magically change the environment, ideas effect the world indirectly, through people. That is not to personify ideas, do not get me wrong. Put as plainly as I can: if A causes B which causes C then A causes C. It's that simple.

Again, I found this problematic. They don't change the material conditions in themselves, but the nature of those conditions. That was my ultimate point. Whatever Ideas effect humans (and of course, the material conditions which effect those Ideas) will alter their behavior, but not to the point where that specific ideological behavior changes material conditions completely, but the rhetorical nature of those conditions.

And I wouldn't say it's that simple if C causes A, A influences B, and B participates and is a component of C process, meaning A can influence the nature of C, but not completely change it, or to the extent where C is a product of A.



Which obscurities would they be? If you point them out then I would seriously examine them. Anyway, I know that it is an ongoing process. I did not say otherwise as it was obvious.


Well, the analysis of modern society. A materialist analyzation of Art, superstructure, etc. is still necessary. We can't simply say "Well, during the begging of the material world, matter preceded thought" and call it a day. No, it's an ongoing, indefinite and dynamic process (As I said) that is still occurring (the process of matter preceding Ideas). Meaning, we can't expect to simply spread ideas in conditions in which those ideas have no place (No sign of mediocre class consciousness, i.e. In times of trade union consciousness, perhaps this would work, but not in, say, the conditions of today).

It's still important to recognize the existence of a materialist conception of history. The crediting of whole material movement to one man (Either praising or blaming Stalin, for example) is Idealist. To say that a country operates based on the interests of a single individual, is Idealist. To say a country, a state, bases it's decisions, based on a religion or ideology is Idealist (Which is why I said that Ideas effect the rhetorical nature, i.e. Islamism is a reflection of the Iranian Bourgeoisie, which, in turn, is applied to several laws, however, it only effects the rhetorical nature of such, and doesn't conflict with the overall interests of the Iranian bourgeoisie, etc. etc.)



When did I say otherwise? I did not. You're acting as though I said anything to the contrary of what you just said when that is not the case.


You said I contradicted myself when I pointed out that Matter still has the upper hand over Ideas, whether Ideas influence material conditions or not. Forgive me, I didn't necessarily assume that you held any understanding of that nature, I was simply defending my position.


It is not only a consequence of material conditions though. Education and culture play a role. Yes, you may say that culture is effected by material conditions but it is not the soul factor. Humans are not wholly rational, this leads to actions and ideas that can be in contradictory nature to where mat. conditions are pushing. With this in mind we can drop the issue of culture's origin and say that since humans are not always rational some notions or ideas that run contrary to where material conditions are pushing towards will be followed. This I don't think you will disagree with.

But like you pointed out, both education and culture are products of material conditions as well. Above, one of my main points was that Ideas can never stand in the way of material conditions, or alter them, (go the other way). They can change the nature of those conditions, but not the conditions as well. Though I do understand what you're getting at and for the most part I agree. We aren't taught, in school, to "OBEY THE BOURGEOISIE" directly, but we're taught a series of ideologically tainted, bias interpretation of things like history that lead us to that conclusion. And it's not at all a conspiracy, it is to be expected. The people writing the text books probably actually maybe believe what they're writing.



I meant the physical orientations and connections of the neurons.


That's a bit more metaphysical. Material conditions don't always mean only matter exists, as, anyone who isn't a spiritualist or an obscure quantum physicist would agree.


I do not think that it would imply class consciousness as a default, while ending capitalism would benefit them. People don't think of ending Capitalism, they want to have enough money to do what they want, at least most people. Hopefully more will wish to end Capitalism soon.


Yes, but the point is that for proletarians, capitalism can no longer sustain their economic wants and desires. The only reason we've seen a jump in living standards, for example, is either through living off the fruits of the war, or debt. The point is that part of the interests of the proletarian is to higher his wages, less hours, etc. Which directly conflict with the interests of a capitalist and the function of capital (it gets in the way of capital). I mean, class warfare existed long before Communists as we know them did.


People do not intentionally try to perpetuate the capitalist class, though the actions they take to get by serve that function. I think we can agree on that as well.


Definitely. The actions of most are done on behalf of their own class interest. One of the most interesting aspects of Marxist thought is the concept that a homogeneous collective interest does exist, beyond simply altruism. That an interest can exist, which is a self interest that is held by several others, which in turn morphs into a collective interest. This was reassured by a lot of psychologists and sociologists, even of the Bourgeois mode of thought.



I honestly don't know how you would carry out a revolution without having a majority, or very large minority, already in favor of one. What you wrote implies to me that propaganda work and outreach is useless. If that's what you meant that's alright. I'm just not sure what you're implying in terms of practical action.

But by you saying this, you automatically pressupsoe that a revolution is simply a reflection of what we as intellectuals prefer, that a revolution will come about when we convince an apathetic populace to "make communism". No, the point is that the spreading of propaganda is useless, and it's also useless to RAF style blow things up (which is just as Idealist). The point is that intellectual action is useless without mild class consciousness. Those conditions won't be targeted simply at will of us who understand it must be, but almost naturally by the proletarian class (I mentioned above how, in my previous post, that the ideological mystification behind capitalism crumble by themselves, and they don't require us -intellectuals- to bare them down).

[The Jay]

That was a good post, but I can't reply to it right now since I'm away from my computer. I'll do my best to give you a worthy response in a few hours.

[The Jay]

Again, I found this problematic. They don't change the material conditions in themselves, but the nature of those conditions. That was my ultimate point. Whatever Ideas effect humans (and of course, the material conditions which effect those Ideas) will alter their behavior, but not to the point where that specific ideological behavior changes material conditions completely, but the rhetorical nature of those conditions.

Changing the nature of something is changing the thing by definition. Are you thinking that I meant that the power of the influence of ideas can liberate people from material conditions? I don't think that you think so, but just to be clear that is not what I am saying. I'm not sure what you mean by "the rhetorical nature of those conditions." What you could be saying is that the way we view those material conditions could change through a change in ideas, which is possible but incomplete.

The reason it is incomplete - if that is what you meant - is that through ideas people may change the very socio-economic structures they live in, altering the very material conditions that spawned the ideas. These new conditions would then alter the likelihood of new ideas arising. This would then alter the likelihood of humans future actions. In this way the issue goes beyond a rhetorical change of perception and into a reflexive complex equation.


And I wouldn't say it's that simple if C causes A, A influences B, and B participates and is a component of C process, meaning A can influence the nature of C, but not completely change it, or to the extent where C is a product of A.


If it is altered at all, then A is in in-ignorable part of the process and cannot be relegated to a slur, unless A is held as the paragon of decisions and prediction. The same is true for B and C. That is why I started this thread. No part can be ignored or held too highly: ideas, human behavior, or the material conditions. All effect the other.



Well, the analysis of modern society. A materialist analyzation of Art, superstructure, etc. is still necessary. We can't simply say "Well, during the begging of the material world, matter preceded thought" and call it a day. No, it's an ongoing, indefinite and dynamic process (As I said) that is still occurring (the process of matter preceding Ideas). Meaning, we can't expect to simply spread ideas in conditions in which those ideas have no place (No sign of mediocre class consciousness, i.e. In times of trade union consciousness, perhaps this would work, but not in, say, the conditions of today).


I would say that I am not guilty of denying or acting against the agreement to any of that. I agree with you.


It's still important to recognize the existence of a materialist conception of history. The crediting of whole material movement to one man (Either praising or blaming Stalin, for example) is Idealist. To say that a country operates based on the interests of a single individual, is Idealist. To say a country, a state, bases it's decisions, based on a religion or ideology is Idealist (Which is why I said that Ideas effect the rhetorical nature, i.e. Islamism is a reflection of the Iranian Bourgeoisie, which, in turn, is applied to several laws, however, it only effects the rhetorical nature of such, and doesn't conflict with the overall interests of the Iranian bourgeoisie, etc. etc.)

I agree with all of that and have not acted against that agreement, except partially for one of them. Some groups do act mainly on ideas, regardless of material conditions. You can see that in some cults and other such groups. Other than that I agree.




You said I contradicted myself when I pointed out that Matter still has the upper hand over Ideas, whether Ideas influence material conditions or not. Forgive me, I didn't necessarily assume that you held any understanding of that nature, I was simply defending my position.

I don't think that there is any "upper hand" in this dynamic system of the interaction of ideas, human behavior, and material conditions. I do think that we were misunderstanding each other in the beginning though as we agree on more than we disagree it seems.



But like you pointed out, both education and culture are products of material conditions as well. Above, one of my main points was that Ideas can never stand in the way of material conditions, or alter them, (go the other way). They can change the nature of those conditions, but not the conditions as well. Though I do understand what you're getting at and for the most part I agree. We aren't taught, in school, to "OBEY THE BOURGEOISIE" directly, but we're taught a series of ideologically tainted, bias interpretation of things like history that lead us to that conclusion. And it's not at all a conspiracy, it is to be expected. The people writing the text books probably actually maybe believe what they're writing.


Like I said above, if an idea can influence any part of material conditions (the systems that people live in) then the material conditions are in fact changed. Even the recent health care law passed in the United States slightly changed the material conditions for the people of the USA. You seem to differentiate between changing the conditions from altering the nature of the conditions which doesn't make sense to me. No-one can ever break free completely of material conditions but those conditions can be changed or through psychology their power to influence mitigated.



That's a bit more metaphysical. Material conditions don't always mean only matter exists, as, anyone who isn't a spiritualist or an obscure quantum physicist would agree.


I honestly don't know what you mean here.



Yes, but the point is that for proletarians, capitalism can no longer sustain their economic wants and desires. The only reason we've seen a jump in living standards, for example, is either through living off the fruits of the war, or debt. The point is that part of the interests of the proletarian is to higher his wages, less hours, etc. Which directly conflict with the interests of a capitalist and the function of capital (it gets in the way of capital). I mean, class warfare existed long before Communists as we know them did.


I agree with this completely.




Definitely. The actions of most are done on behalf of their own class interest. One of the most interesting aspects of Marxist thought is the concept that a homogeneous collective interest does exist, beyond simply altruism. That an interest can exist, which is a self interest that is held by several others, which in turn morphs into a collective interest. This was reassured by a lot of psychologists and sociologists, even of the Bourgeois mode of thought.

Yup.



But by you saying this, you automatically pressupsoe that a revolution is simply a reflection of what we as intellectuals prefer, that a revolution will come about when we convince an apathetic populace to "make communism". No, the point is that the spreading of propaganda is useless, and it's also useless to RAF style blow things up (which is just as Idealist). The point is that intellectual action is useless without mild class consciousness. Those conditions won't be targeted simply at will of us who understand it must be, but almost naturally by the proletarian class (I mentioned above how, in my previous post, that the ideological mystification behind capitalism crumble by themselves, and they don't require us -intellectuals- to bare them down).

No, I'm not implying that. If the general population of proletarians do not find the idea of overthrowing the system in their best interests it will not happen. If intellectuals try to put propaganda out that does not mean that they are in charge or create the revolution. It merely means that they are trying to help raise class consciousness. Notice I said help, not solely create. Material conditions will provide both evidence for the truth of the propaganda and motive to effect change.

[Rafiq]

Changing the nature of something is changing the thing by definition. Are you thinking that I meant that the power of the influence of ideas can liberate people from material conditions? I don't think that you think so, but just to be clear that is not what I am saying. I'm not sure what you mean by "the rhetorical nature of those conditions." What you could be saying is that the way we view those material conditions could change through a change in ideas, which is possible but incomplete.

Well, firstly, I'd like to clarify that no, I don't think at all you were suggesting that ideas can emancipate humans from material conditions. What I mean by the rhetorical nature of those conditions is simply the ways in which we perceive and understand those conditions from the perspective of the human brain, rather than the conditions themselves which exist divorced from human consciousness. What this means, perhaps, is that Ideas can change the flavor of those conditions, but not the conditions in themselves.


The reason it is incomplete - if that is what you meant - is that through ideas people may change the very socio-economic structures they live in, altering the very material conditions that spawned the ideas. These new conditions would then alter the likelihood of new ideas arising. This would then alter the likelihood of humans future actions. In this way the issue goes beyond a rhetorical change of perception and into a reflexive complex equation.

But Ideas can't change the structures they live in, in that, for example, those Ideas would have to be reflections of already existing material conditions. The Petite Bourgeois classes, classes which are not proletarian (in developed countries) have absolutely no chance of changing the mode of production, however, they can alter. But this has very little to do with Ideas they perceive as positive, rather than these Ideas being the embodiment of an already existing class interest sprung up from conditions accordingly.



If it is altered at all, then A is in in-ignorable part of the process and cannot be relegated to a slur, unless A is held as the paragon of decisions and prediction. The same is true for B and C. That is why I started this thread. No part can be ignored or held too highly: ideas, human behavior, or the material conditions. All effect the other.

While I do agree that Ideas have a major part in the behavior of humans, and that, of course, they cannot be ignored, they are in themselves reflections of material conditions, but like you said, it's important we analyze and take into account that although these Ideas are reflections of the interests of several different classes, those ideas in themselves, yes, can influence and have a major play in the ways humans perceive the world around them, and of course, behave. Though, I still hold that Matter does indeed have an upper hand in regards to Ideas. That Ideas, though dynamic, are still reduced to reflections of material conditions. Meaning, X idea isn't helpful unless existing conditions provide the basis for it's possibility, i.e. This has a lot to do with the failure of several Utopian movements in the 1800s, the existing Communists today, etc.


I agree with all of that and have not acted against that agreement, except partially for one of them. Some groups do act mainly on ideas, regardless of material conditions. You can see that in some cults and other such groups. Other than that I agree.


Yes, I agree. But it's important to remember that this is an obscure manifestation of false consciousness and, perhaps, can even be treated as a sort of a mental condition. In regards to states, and real existing movements, they cannot act upon Ideas solely, i.e. These Ideas have to represent a class interest which is larger (Religious fundamentalist groups usually act on behalf of the upper crust of the Petite Bourgeois classes). States, though, do not act on behalf of Ideas, but Ideas which represent a larger material or class interest.


I don't think that there is any "upper hand" in this dynamic system of the interaction of ideas, human behavior, and material conditions. I do think that we were misunderstanding each other in the beginning though as we agree on more than we disagree it seems.


Yes, of course. There isn't at all anything wrong with disagreements.



Like I said above, if an idea can influence any part of material conditions (the systems that people live in) then the material conditions are in fact changed. Even the recent health care law passed in the United States slightly changed the material conditions for the people of the USA. You seem to differentiate between changing the conditions from altering the nature of the conditions which doesn't make sense to me. No-one can ever break free completely of material conditions but those conditions can be changed or through psychology their power to influence mitigated.

What I was attempting to get at, for example, when I said Ideas can change the nature of those conditions, is that those conditions themselves can only be completely changed by conditions devoid simply of human will. When we talk of the health care law passed, of course this law alters existing material conditions. That is undeniable. But my point is that such laws, -passing of health care- are done so not to satisfy the ideas of a group of individuals, but to exist on behalf of the class interest of perhaps, different classes. In this case, the Bourgeois class, as such a law may be necessary to sustain the capitalist mode of production, thus, protecting their class interest. Ideas come secondly, here, or, as a result or product of this.



I honestly don't know what you mean here.


Metaphysical in that it implies what something is made of. While Dialectical Materialism is quite metaphysical, what I am referring to: Historical Materialism, isn't. Even if, for example, a ghost was in our heads and not a physical brain, that would do little to nothing to the existing thesis on Historical materialism and the interaction between humans and their material surroundings. Material forces, in this case, doesn't necessarily just mean matter, it means the productive forces existent in each according mode of production and social mode of organization humans have (uninentinally) found themselves in.



No, I'm not implying that. If the general population of proletarians do not find the idea of overthrowing the system in their best interests it will not happen. If intellectuals try to put propaganda out that does not mean that they are in charge or create the revolution. It merely means that they are trying to help raise class consciousness. Notice I said help, not solely create. Material conditions will provide both evidence for the truth of the propaganda and motive to effect change.


What I'm getting at is only by themselves will proletarians be able to achieve a lower stage of class consciousness, as a direct response of the dynamic process of the accumulation of capital (that is, the movement of the capitalist mode of production, which can include crises). From there, it is indeed the job of Non Worker intellectuals, or Worker intellectuals, to maximize class consciousness and steer whatever existing movement is in place in the right direction.

[The Jay]

Well, firstly, I'd like to clarify that no, I don't think at all you were suggesting that ideas can emancipate humans from material conditions. What I mean by the rhetorical nature of those conditions is simply the ways in which we perceive and understand those conditions from the perspective of the human brain, rather than the conditions themselves which exist divorced from human consciousness. What this means, perhaps, is that Ideas can change the flavor of those conditions, but not the conditions in themselves.


I think I am seeing where you are wrong here. You posit that since human experience is a subjective matter that a difference in interpretation is the sole source for the appearance in the alteration of material conditions. This is wrong because through the actions initiated by those subjective experiences the material conditions change in some cases. If enough people are convinced that changing an institution that effects their lives is in their best interest and they actually change it, have they not altered the material conditions of their lives due to that act?

You also touched on the subjectivity of perception. This is where science comes in. Through science we approach closer approximations of how the world actually is. I know that you know this but you seem to be giving this aspect less importance than it deserves.



But Ideas can't change the structures they live in, in that, for example, those Ideas would have to be reflections of already existing material conditions. The Petite Bourgeois classes, classes which are not proletarian (in developed countries) have absolutely no chance of changing the mode of production, however, they can alter. But this has very little to do with Ideas they perceive as positive, rather than these Ideas being the embodiment of an already existing class interest sprung up from conditions accordingly.

You are taking specific examples and unduly applying the rule to the general.

Voting rights for blacks came at the cost of great effort and blood. They were and successfully did change their material conditions. It does not have to always be about Capitalism and it's shedding off.



While I do agree that Ideas have a major part in the behavior of humans, and that, of course, they cannot be ignored, they are in themselves reflections of material conditions, but like you said, it's important we analyze and take into account that although these Ideas are reflections of the interests of several different classes, those ideas in themselves, yes, can influence and have a major play in the ways humans perceive the world around them, and of course, behave. Though, I still hold that Matter does indeed have an upper hand in regards to Ideas. That Ideas, though dynamic, are still reduced to reflections of material conditions. Meaning, X idea isn't helpful unless existing conditions provide the basis for it's possibility, i.e. This has a lot to do with the failure of several Utopian movements in the 1800s, the existing Communists today, etc.

I think that it would be beneficial to the conversation if you would give a longer definition of what you mean when you say "Matter".




Yes, I agree. But it's important to remember that this is an obscure manifestation of false consciousness and, perhaps, can even be treated as a sort of a mental condition. In regards to states, and real existing movements, they cannot act upon Ideas solely, i.e. These Ideas have to represent a class interest which is larger (Religious fundamentalist groups usually act on behalf of the upper crust of the Petite Bourgeois classes). States, though, do not act on behalf of Ideas, but Ideas which represent a larger material or class interest.

You cannot ignore the contradiction even though it is small. You must add the qualifier: mostly or something like that when talking about whether or not actions are guided by material interests or not. If you ignore that exception and others like it then you are wrong.


Yes, of course. There isn't at all anything wrong with disagreements.

We should discuss them over beer, when you are legally able to do so of course.



What I was attempting to get at, for example, when I said Ideas can change the nature of those conditions, is that those conditions themselves can only be completely changed by conditions devoid simply of human will. When we talk of the health care law passed, of course this law alters existing material conditions. That is undeniable. But my point is that such laws, -passing of health care- are done so not to satisfy the ideas of a group of individuals, but to exist on behalf of the class interest of perhaps, different classes. In this case, the Bourgeois class, as such a law may be necessary to sustain the capitalist mode of production, thus, protecting their class interest. Ideas come secondly, here, or, as a result or product of this.

The will of the class is nothing more than the sum of the collective actions of the people that compose that class. Those actions are guided by the perceptions, real or imaginary, of the people as individuals. The integration of their will produces enough power to effect vast systems and change material conditions drastically.

We agree on that.

What else can be derived from this is that if class will, power, and action is the sum of that of the members of which it is comprised then each individual member must have some small amount of potential to change material conditions. Small changes are easy and do count.

When people act they are partly, indeed, sometimes mostly driven by ideas through their own personal belief systems. If this is considered then it is unarguable that - collectively - ideas can, do, and will continue to change material conditions in accordance with the ability of those ideas to be carried out.

The ability of ideas to act through people to change material conditions is limited both by the "strength" or "power thresh-hold" of those structures as well as the rules of logic.

I made up some terms but I think that they helped me to explain my point. Let's never use those stupid terms I invented again, unless you really want to haha.



Metaphysical in that it implies what something is made of. While Dialectical Materialism is quite metaphysical, what I am referring to: Historical Materialism, isn't. Even if, for example, a ghost was in our heads and not a physical brain, that would do little to nothing to the existing thesis on Historical materialism and the interaction between humans and their material surroundings. Material forces, in this case, doesn't necessarily just mean matter, it means the productive forces existent in each according mode of production and social mode of organization humans have (uninentinally) found themselves in.



Okay then.



What I'm getting at is only by themselves will proletarians be able to achieve a lower stage of class consciousness, as a direct response of the dynamic process of the accumulation of capital (that is, the movement of the capitalist mode of production, which can include crises). From there, it is indeed the job of Non Worker intellectuals, or Worker intellectuals, to maximize class consciousness and steer whatever existing movement is in place in the right direction.


Alright then, but your saying that intellectuals will steer the revolution in the right direction is an example of what I meant. That would clearly be effecting material conditions based on ideas.

Cheers

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

It's a term thrown around by the Stalinists and Marxist-Leninists to anything or anyone they don't like. It's kinda like tea party lunatics who call anything or anyone they don't like socialists.
And what about the view that you held in another thread--that religion is the root of all evil? This is an idealist point of view as well. Would you accuse me of adhering to Stalinism, then? In any case, blaming the misuse of "idealist" solely on the Stalinists is misguided.

[Thirsty Crow]

The word Idealism and it's other forms gets thrown around constantly on this forum at all kinds of different statements. I think you're right here, unfortunately.

To back this up with at least one piece of evidence:


Therefore all postrevolution "planning" and even vague speculating in regards is absolutely useless and purely Idealist. We call them Idealist because they assume that with this "plan", this "idea", more people will join the "Cause for a future communist society" because apparently it's a "good idea".


http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxist-categoricalism-t174657/index.html?p=2503844#post2503844

Sorry Rafiq, and don't take it as a personal attack.

But it is true that here you're mangling the term and misusing it. First, as I said, to dismiss the deeply ingrained curiosity (yeah, this is kind of a wishful thinking, but the point is that this legitimate and expected question will come up very often when interacting with other workers and discussing issues pertaining to class struggle) about the possibilities of workers' rule is outright dangeorus, especially politically. Furthermore, such an attitude could very easily lead to elitism of a kind, and worse, political substitutionism, whereas you'd merely tell these nosey workers to zip it and follow the cue of those you refer to as "distinguished scientists". Another point, such an attitude is totally blind to the reality of bourgeois ideological and cultural hegemony, and by extension, about the possible means of struggling against it. It derides propaganda as "idealism" when there's no evidence of idealism.

But in the end, as I think the discussion so far shows, this amounts not to such factual errors, but matters of emphasis and aspect. Which is not crucial in my opinion.

[PetyaRostov]

Suggestion for a general rule


Idealism/Idealist: refers to the school of philosophy
Idealistic:having unrealistic notions, expectations. overly optimistic

[PetyaRostov]

Suggestion for a general rule


Idealism/Idealist: refers to the school of philosophy
Idealistic:having unrealistic notions, expectations. overly optimistic

Sorry doublepost. That doesn't work given that idealistic is often used as a perjorative for Idealists. (plus my definition offers only a negative connotation)

Just be aware of the context. to say that G.W.F. Hegel was a German Idealist is something else entirely than to say that someone who believes in peaceful revolution is an Idealist.

[PetyaRostov]

also, don't cite passages by Marx critiquing German Idealism to refute claims made by people whom you deem overly-optimistic

[The Jay]

Who are you telling this to?

[PetyaRostov]

no one specifically, i just noticed the potential for clever semantics and pointed it out.
i've been here too long and my eyes are lazy so there's a mild case of tl;dr

[Камо́ Зэд]

Tangentially related to the issue is my experience with being called an idealist because I place importance on the issue of the infiltration of revisionist trends in the politics of the C.P.S.U. with regards to the question of the restoration of capitalism in the U.S.S.R. The irony, and pardon me if I've used the word incorrectly, is that those individuals tend to attribute the same problem to Stalin's "betrayal" of the revolution.

[PetyaRostov]

First the Trots, then the Marxist-Leninists!!! no one is safe.