Rafiq
12th December 2012, 21:10
This is somewhat of a response to the suicide thread but I found it necessary to create my own as it divulges into an entirely different topic.
I am starting to see the limitations of several Marxists in the past (Bukharin, for one) who had strived for the masses to replace ideology with science. I don't think this is possible. In terms of understanding suicide we should know that ideology, and "morality" reflect actually existing objective social relations which are devoid of being sustained by ideas which have been mentioned (morality, and so on) but the actual social relations themselves, and we can go into survival, human social organisation as a form of "human nature" (that like the bear whose nature is to roam in the forest, a human's nature is to constantly change his surroundings and organize into modes of organisation). In this sense, science can never replace ideology (for whole-class interests. science can replace ideology on an individual-intellectual level but realistically the function of capitalism does not amount to ideology being defined by what is "rational" scientifically) so long as class exists, class interest will, and it will express itself through ideology (Communism). In this sense ideology is not necessarily false consciousness, it is the conscious-subjective reflection of actually existing objective social relations and the class interests which come about from them. As far as something like suicide goes this usually exists on the basis of complete self-interest. It may sadden you to lose the company of someone you value dearly, it may depress you to see someone whom you did not value perish, for whatever reasons. But science is not "liberating" in itself, science is not a moving force of history. Social and class relations existent between humans and class struggle is. This is why Idealism can never sustain Atheism, because in order to understand humans you must realize they do not act on behalf of what is "logical" but what serves the interests of either their class or another. This is the grand Darwinism that has always been expected to exist, it is this which validates Darwinism, (the survival of the fittest can only translate into human social movement through class struggle, through homogeneous classes themselves, not individual 'alpha males') in human social existence. This "social darwinism" of early 20th century industrialists is laughable, it is a parody of itself (as it pre suppoes the existence of capitalist social relations on a universal level, that these existent relations define what a human has always been, when they say that 'they were the fittest' in their so-called 'economic success'. This 'survival of the fittest' can only exist within the context of the capitalist market, it can never constitute itself as a human nature) The reason I call this 'darwinism' is because through darwinism we see animals striving to survive and yet their actions may not be on a metaphysical level "logical" but none the less they exist objectively. Morality is a reflection of class interests and trying to ponder upon the prospect of "why should materialists oppose suicide" in itself is an abstract concept which misses the point, which pre-supposes an insufficient conception of morality. Can humans ever achieve "scientific consciousness" as a whole? Can most humans eventually come to understand historical materialism? And if it is possible, if they do, history itself will cease to exist.
I am starting to see the limitations of several Marxists in the past (Bukharin, for one) who had strived for the masses to replace ideology with science. I don't think this is possible. In terms of understanding suicide we should know that ideology, and "morality" reflect actually existing objective social relations which are devoid of being sustained by ideas which have been mentioned (morality, and so on) but the actual social relations themselves, and we can go into survival, human social organisation as a form of "human nature" (that like the bear whose nature is to roam in the forest, a human's nature is to constantly change his surroundings and organize into modes of organisation). In this sense, science can never replace ideology (for whole-class interests. science can replace ideology on an individual-intellectual level but realistically the function of capitalism does not amount to ideology being defined by what is "rational" scientifically) so long as class exists, class interest will, and it will express itself through ideology (Communism). In this sense ideology is not necessarily false consciousness, it is the conscious-subjective reflection of actually existing objective social relations and the class interests which come about from them. As far as something like suicide goes this usually exists on the basis of complete self-interest. It may sadden you to lose the company of someone you value dearly, it may depress you to see someone whom you did not value perish, for whatever reasons. But science is not "liberating" in itself, science is not a moving force of history. Social and class relations existent between humans and class struggle is. This is why Idealism can never sustain Atheism, because in order to understand humans you must realize they do not act on behalf of what is "logical" but what serves the interests of either their class or another. This is the grand Darwinism that has always been expected to exist, it is this which validates Darwinism, (the survival of the fittest can only translate into human social movement through class struggle, through homogeneous classes themselves, not individual 'alpha males') in human social existence. This "social darwinism" of early 20th century industrialists is laughable, it is a parody of itself (as it pre suppoes the existence of capitalist social relations on a universal level, that these existent relations define what a human has always been, when they say that 'they were the fittest' in their so-called 'economic success'. This 'survival of the fittest' can only exist within the context of the capitalist market, it can never constitute itself as a human nature) The reason I call this 'darwinism' is because through darwinism we see animals striving to survive and yet their actions may not be on a metaphysical level "logical" but none the less they exist objectively. Morality is a reflection of class interests and trying to ponder upon the prospect of "why should materialists oppose suicide" in itself is an abstract concept which misses the point, which pre-supposes an insufficient conception of morality. Can humans ever achieve "scientific consciousness" as a whole? Can most humans eventually come to understand historical materialism? And if it is possible, if they do, history itself will cease to exist.