Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist
22nd November 2012, 06:42
Here is a piece from my blog that I recently finished: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRdQCrqWQCYILHR8ASW3a2idkyvfCFsG wI7pnymXiA5vAWy8gfp
Marx once said in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 that consciousness is societies awareness of itself. What are we to take from this?
Society as a whole does not have a consciousness in the sense that the individual has a consciousness as society is not a physical thing in the sense that an individual is. Rather, the individual represents the manifestation of society's consciousness within multiple conditions. Civilization does not come into existence as a single thing but as a multitude of things intertwined in a monolithic relationship that we know as society. The individual then represents society manifesting in a single instance. What are you then? You are birthed by your parents within a geographical space, your personality is determined entirely by things external to you and by factors that are beyond your control, and this personality in combination with the context of who you are in a given moment determines how you act. Your consciousness then is an awareness of your external conditions and the varying factors beyond your control. In your consciousness, is society manifesting an awareness for it's self as experienced in the context of your life. Let's demonstrate this in simple terms with an example. A boy has a crush on a girl by the name of Layla, but why does he feel this way and why does he feel it for this particular person? In simple terms, the fact that he is attracted to the opposite gender is determined by his genetic predisposition for this attraction, the fact that he is attracted to Layla is determined by what in Layla's personality he is attracted to, and what in Layla's personality he is attracted to is determined by what sort of person society has created in the boy. In ever aspect we can see that this crush is determined by external factors (genetic and otherwise) and societal factors that have created Layla and the boy for each other. The boy's consciousness then is societies awareness of it's creation in the form of the boy, hence if the boy fails to win the game of love his pain is a social pain insofar as the consciousness of the boy in the particular context of the boy is aware of it. Then society is in the peculiar position of experiencing pain and of creating it. This is what I mean when I say that society is a multitude of things intertwined in a monolithic relationship: the individual represents societies awareness of it's own manifestations in particular instances. This is what Mao Zedong understood when he said that we must understand the particularity of contradiction.
Let's propose another hypothetical situation. A goat herder is taking his herd into a field to eat some grass, and when he is not looking a man steals one of his goats and runs off with it. The goat herder, depending on his goats for his livelihood, experiences this as a loss while the thief experiences it as a gain. In this particular insistence we see how society has thrown two men into their roles and has allowed their destines to meet. Civilization has created a man with goats and a man without goats, it has manifested it's self into two different forms which each have two different roles and experience the event differently. The goat herder experiences it negatively while the thief experiences it positively. The interaction here is that of contradiction between the goat herder and the thief create a relationship that is exists only insofar that there is contradiction between the two parties involved, and that without this contradiction there is no relationship. This is why we can speak of an existence of a civilization because the very concept of a civilization requires the contradiction between the civilization expressed in the form of individual consciousness and civilization expressed in the form of that which is external to individual consciousness and thereby creates it.
We have so far seen that there is a contradictory relationship between society's Consciousness expressed in the form of the individual and the expression of sociatial relations as external to the individual, and that two consciousnesses are capable of holding contradictory interests. These interests are in essence expressions of the same force, society in general, and the expression of that essence in contradictory forms that serves the purpose of defining the essence. Eco-systems are defined by the limited resources they contain and how different species which emerge from and depend on every component of the the eco-system compete for these limited resources. Mathematics as a system contains terms that are in contradiction such as negative and positive numbers, division and multiplication, and yet it is understood that every contradicting relationship in mathematics is dependent on the other component for it's existence (there are no negative numbers without positive numbers). Even something as simple as color implies the existence of multiple colors which each have their opposites. In each case, each contradiction is merely an expression of varying forms of the essence of the contradiction, a relationship is only a relationship insofar that there are multiple parties involved.
So now that we have a grasp of the contradictory consciousnesses of individual forms, we can imagine that if the forms can grasp the fact that there is a contradiction between one another, that individual forms are also capable of grasping their common interests. This capacity of being aware of common interests is the only true form of collective consciousness, while this awareness is is not literally the sharing of consciousness by multiple people, it marks the ability for individual forms to recognize their position in the contradiction that marks the essence of their relationship. It creates the concept of "us" as something whose interests are dialectical opposed to the interests of "them"
In capitalist society, one class of people called the bourgeois exist solely by extracting surplus labor from the proletariat, while the proletariat exist by creating value and extracting wages from the bourgeoisie in return for their labor. In this relationship there is no compromise, one party is incapable of bettering one's self without the ruination of the other, and the improvement of one class's lot is simply the degree at which the other class's lot is made worse. It can be expressed mathematically as S=P-W-C, where S is surplus value, P is price (what the consumer pays for a good), C is constant value ( material costs) and W is wages. The only way for the worker to raise his wage is to decrease his master's profit, and vica versa.
However the degree of contradiction does not remain constant. In an eco system a frog and a bird can exist in perfect harmony if the amount of bugs to sustain them is infinite, the shorter the supply the greater their competition is and the closer you get to the victory of one species over another. Likewise during a time of prosperity, while the fundamental contradiction still exists, the degree of contradiction between the classes is reduced and the two classes can exist in harmony, while in times of crisis the degree of contradiction is increased and the well being of one class depends on the misery of another. This is why the proletariat of wealthier nations such as the US have a much lower class consciousness then their Indian brethren because the amount of class consciousness they possess is largely dependent on the degree of contradiction they have with the opposite class.
As Lenin observed, this manifested it's self in the imperial era of capitalism the most. As the first world expanded it's empire on the back of the third world, the degree of contradiction between the proletariat of the developed world and the bourgeois decreased and for a temporary span of time the contradiction between imperial nations and imperialized nations intensified. Since the worker of Britain realized that his wealth along with his bosses came from the sweat and toil of the working man of India, his consciousnesses adapted to encompass the fact that he profited directly from the misery of his foreign brother. While propaganda might have played a role in this development it can not be said in any earnest that the racism the working man of America held towards the Native American did not stem from the fact that his lot in life improved directly in proportion to the extermination of his country's native inhabitants. However as the globe gets smaller, the conflict of nations through imperial conflict is fading into the conflict of classes through the dissolution of nations brought about through globalism, and with this turn of events we will see the degree of contradiction intensify once again
I know it's not a perfect piece so I hope you can critique it. I do intend on making a second draft and perhaps making it into a longer work one day. But basically it's an exploration of class struggle through the use of dialectical philosophy, with a few of my own concepts thrown in there (form and essence, degree of contradiction)
Marx once said in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 that consciousness is societies awareness of itself. What are we to take from this?
Society as a whole does not have a consciousness in the sense that the individual has a consciousness as society is not a physical thing in the sense that an individual is. Rather, the individual represents the manifestation of society's consciousness within multiple conditions. Civilization does not come into existence as a single thing but as a multitude of things intertwined in a monolithic relationship that we know as society. The individual then represents society manifesting in a single instance. What are you then? You are birthed by your parents within a geographical space, your personality is determined entirely by things external to you and by factors that are beyond your control, and this personality in combination with the context of who you are in a given moment determines how you act. Your consciousness then is an awareness of your external conditions and the varying factors beyond your control. In your consciousness, is society manifesting an awareness for it's self as experienced in the context of your life. Let's demonstrate this in simple terms with an example. A boy has a crush on a girl by the name of Layla, but why does he feel this way and why does he feel it for this particular person? In simple terms, the fact that he is attracted to the opposite gender is determined by his genetic predisposition for this attraction, the fact that he is attracted to Layla is determined by what in Layla's personality he is attracted to, and what in Layla's personality he is attracted to is determined by what sort of person society has created in the boy. In ever aspect we can see that this crush is determined by external factors (genetic and otherwise) and societal factors that have created Layla and the boy for each other. The boy's consciousness then is societies awareness of it's creation in the form of the boy, hence if the boy fails to win the game of love his pain is a social pain insofar as the consciousness of the boy in the particular context of the boy is aware of it. Then society is in the peculiar position of experiencing pain and of creating it. This is what I mean when I say that society is a multitude of things intertwined in a monolithic relationship: the individual represents societies awareness of it's own manifestations in particular instances. This is what Mao Zedong understood when he said that we must understand the particularity of contradiction.
Let's propose another hypothetical situation. A goat herder is taking his herd into a field to eat some grass, and when he is not looking a man steals one of his goats and runs off with it. The goat herder, depending on his goats for his livelihood, experiences this as a loss while the thief experiences it as a gain. In this particular insistence we see how society has thrown two men into their roles and has allowed their destines to meet. Civilization has created a man with goats and a man without goats, it has manifested it's self into two different forms which each have two different roles and experience the event differently. The goat herder experiences it negatively while the thief experiences it positively. The interaction here is that of contradiction between the goat herder and the thief create a relationship that is exists only insofar that there is contradiction between the two parties involved, and that without this contradiction there is no relationship. This is why we can speak of an existence of a civilization because the very concept of a civilization requires the contradiction between the civilization expressed in the form of individual consciousness and civilization expressed in the form of that which is external to individual consciousness and thereby creates it.
We have so far seen that there is a contradictory relationship between society's Consciousness expressed in the form of the individual and the expression of sociatial relations as external to the individual, and that two consciousnesses are capable of holding contradictory interests. These interests are in essence expressions of the same force, society in general, and the expression of that essence in contradictory forms that serves the purpose of defining the essence. Eco-systems are defined by the limited resources they contain and how different species which emerge from and depend on every component of the the eco-system compete for these limited resources. Mathematics as a system contains terms that are in contradiction such as negative and positive numbers, division and multiplication, and yet it is understood that every contradicting relationship in mathematics is dependent on the other component for it's existence (there are no negative numbers without positive numbers). Even something as simple as color implies the existence of multiple colors which each have their opposites. In each case, each contradiction is merely an expression of varying forms of the essence of the contradiction, a relationship is only a relationship insofar that there are multiple parties involved.
So now that we have a grasp of the contradictory consciousnesses of individual forms, we can imagine that if the forms can grasp the fact that there is a contradiction between one another, that individual forms are also capable of grasping their common interests. This capacity of being aware of common interests is the only true form of collective consciousness, while this awareness is is not literally the sharing of consciousness by multiple people, it marks the ability for individual forms to recognize their position in the contradiction that marks the essence of their relationship. It creates the concept of "us" as something whose interests are dialectical opposed to the interests of "them"
In capitalist society, one class of people called the bourgeois exist solely by extracting surplus labor from the proletariat, while the proletariat exist by creating value and extracting wages from the bourgeoisie in return for their labor. In this relationship there is no compromise, one party is incapable of bettering one's self without the ruination of the other, and the improvement of one class's lot is simply the degree at which the other class's lot is made worse. It can be expressed mathematically as S=P-W-C, where S is surplus value, P is price (what the consumer pays for a good), C is constant value ( material costs) and W is wages. The only way for the worker to raise his wage is to decrease his master's profit, and vica versa.
However the degree of contradiction does not remain constant. In an eco system a frog and a bird can exist in perfect harmony if the amount of bugs to sustain them is infinite, the shorter the supply the greater their competition is and the closer you get to the victory of one species over another. Likewise during a time of prosperity, while the fundamental contradiction still exists, the degree of contradiction between the classes is reduced and the two classes can exist in harmony, while in times of crisis the degree of contradiction is increased and the well being of one class depends on the misery of another. This is why the proletariat of wealthier nations such as the US have a much lower class consciousness then their Indian brethren because the amount of class consciousness they possess is largely dependent on the degree of contradiction they have with the opposite class.
As Lenin observed, this manifested it's self in the imperial era of capitalism the most. As the first world expanded it's empire on the back of the third world, the degree of contradiction between the proletariat of the developed world and the bourgeois decreased and for a temporary span of time the contradiction between imperial nations and imperialized nations intensified. Since the worker of Britain realized that his wealth along with his bosses came from the sweat and toil of the working man of India, his consciousnesses adapted to encompass the fact that he profited directly from the misery of his foreign brother. While propaganda might have played a role in this development it can not be said in any earnest that the racism the working man of America held towards the Native American did not stem from the fact that his lot in life improved directly in proportion to the extermination of his country's native inhabitants. However as the globe gets smaller, the conflict of nations through imperial conflict is fading into the conflict of classes through the dissolution of nations brought about through globalism, and with this turn of events we will see the degree of contradiction intensify once again
I know it's not a perfect piece so I hope you can critique it. I do intend on making a second draft and perhaps making it into a longer work one day. But basically it's an exploration of class struggle through the use of dialectical philosophy, with a few of my own concepts thrown in there (form and essence, degree of contradiction)