Materialism and idealism

[Narodnik]

I've been called an idealist a bunch of times, and here's why mainly. I have a view that socialism (worker control over production) could have been established in Russia in the WW1 time, and those calling themselves materialists say that it couldn't, being that there weren't "material conditions" met that are "necessary" for socialism to be established.

[No matter that anarchists in Ukraine did establish socialism (worker control over production), it was deemed impossible then (as a "justification" for their massacre), and it's "failure" (destruction by the bolsheviki) is deemed now as proof of it's "impossibility".]

Also, I've been called an idealist, and I call myself so, on account of my view that people are not wholly determined by their social conditions but that ideas people accept do matter. I'd really like an explanation why is that considered so wrong that "idealist" is being used as dirty word.


So, can someone state precisely what are materialism and idealism, and then I'd like to ask all of you why do you think one better then the other?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Also, I've been called an idealist, and I call myself so, on account of my view that people are not wholly determined by their social conditions but that ideas people accept do matter. I'd really like an explanation why is that considered so wrong that "idealist" is being used as dirty word.Seeing the ideas that people hold as important is not in contradiction to materialism, neither is subjective action by people or human agency. But the questing is where do those ideas come from, how do they develop, why do they resonate with enough people to become a recognizable trend or attitude in society? I think then it comes back to material reality: enough people experiencing something that an idea can resonate and become more general.

Things like slavery, for example, don't come from "bad ideas" it comes from the way societies are organized to produce and who they are organized by. The "bad ideas" about slavery come in as explainations and justifications for this condition - rulers need to make their oppression seem natural on the one hand, and on the other, populations dealing with slavery or oppression interact with it as daily fact and so their ideas about these things are informed by that experience. When a system seems stable, for example, people will likely accept that slavery or aristocratic rights or capitalist relations are "natural", but in times of more conflict or uncertaintly, these ideas can change and attitudes alter.


So, can someone state precisely what are materialism and idealism, and then I'd like to ask all of you why do you think one better then the other?Broadly: materialism as far as history goes is just the view that the world is shaped by material conditions; Idealism tends to see ideas as shaping the world. In my view materialism is essential for having a grasp on understanding society and therfore what people might do to change conditions to change that society. Idealism however deals in the reflections of material reality and so it can cause greater confusion about the underlying functions of society and on a practical level it leads to all sorts of ineffective or just outright wrong ideas about the world. It can lead people to believe that revolutionaries need a "great man" or a group with enough "will" to change history and society.

[Narodnik]

But the questing is where do those ideas come from, how do they develop, why do they resonate with enough people to become a recognizable trend or attitude in society? I think then it comes back to material realityHow is such a assuption confirmed? Does that mean that the two brother, living in the same material conditions must neccessarily accept the same ideas? And if no, where does the differnce comes from?


Things like slavery, for example, don't come from "bad ideas" it comes from the way societies are organized to produce and who they are organized byAnd who organized societies? People or something other then people? The people who first organize a society, why do they organize it the way they do? Did they before organising it in that way had an idea about organizing it that way?


Broadly: materialism as far as history goes is just the view that the world is shaped by material conditions; Idealism tends to see ideas as shaping the world.TY for the answer, but I know as much. That's why asked about precisely stating what they are, I want to learn what precisely we're talking about when saying "materialism" and "idealism".


Idealism however deals in the reflections of material reality and so it can cause greater confusion about the underlying functions of society and on a practical level it leads to all sorts of ineffective or just outright wrong ideas about the world.Can you give concrete examples?


It can lead people to believe that revolutionaries need a "great man" or a group with enough "will" to change history and society.As oppossed to needing what to change a society?

[Jimmie Higgins]

How is such a assuption confirmed? Does that mean that the two brother, living in the same material conditions must neccessarily accept the same ideas? And if no, where does the differnce comes from?No, that would be a very deterministic take on matierialism and while you do see this kind of determinism sometimes applied in science (and sometimes in pop-science in regards to biology or certain genes causing specific behaviors in induviduals) but I think it's at odds with Marxist materialist methods. Though again, people have had overly-deterministic views in Marxism, but I don't think it's inherent to materialism or marxism, just a misapplication - "bad" uses of ideas about evolution don't negate evoltutionary theory as another example.


And who organized societies? People or something other then people? The people who first organize a society, why do they organize it the way they do? Did they before organising it in that way had an idea about organizing it that way?No things develop, they don't form in someone's head and then pop into being. If a non-class band society had an induvidual who wanted to make himself an absolute monarch, there would be no material way for this to happen. If people said "no" what would be his recourse? He couldn't physically force everyone to bend to his will unilaterially - where would he get the soldiers to enforce this? If he bribed people into being soldiers, how would they be able to make sure eveyone else was gathering food for the king and then feed themselves too? They couldn't because in these sorts of societies, everyone had to produce, gather and hunt, because there wasn't any extra, there wasn't a seasonal harvest that could feed more than the population, people had to gather regularly, people had to hunt when they could etc. But once there is a society that produces more than what is just needed for people to survive on a regular basis, then it might become possible for people to take on non-producing roles in society, out of this comes the potential for a group who rely on the farming of others for their goods to then organize things so that people HAVE to keep farming to produce for the non-producing members of society, then you start to get hereditary positions and hierarchies and religious justifications for social inequalities (gods ordaned my family to be in charge!).

TY for the answer, but I know as much. That's why asked about precisely stating what they are, I want to learn what precisely we're talking about when saying "materialism" and "idealism".


Can you give concrete examples?Well idealism is pretty widespread in capitalist "common sense". For example, investors might believe that it's their smart investing that creates wealth - because subjectivly for them it seems to do just that. But it requires a materialist view to understand what those ideas and whatnot relate to production as a whole - their ideas are not creating wealth, the labor directed through the process of capital investment actually creates the wealth, so the investor is mearly directing others in wealth creation.

Petty-bourgoise ideologies focus on morals and self-reliance: if you work hard, you will suceede. This reflects their position in society where their sacrifice in terms of their own labor either in creating their own business or attaining professional skills is subjectivly part of how they maintain their position in society. But because this is an idealist concept of how capitalist economies actually operate, they also tend to be frustrated because all their hard work doesn't actually give them any control over the processes of production that they are involved in - it would be like being on a raft in a stream and thinking that if you steered correctly then you could go upstream against the current - of course you need to steer, and this might help you navigate a bit, but it won't take you whereever you want to go: just where the stream takes you.


As oppossed to needing what to change a society?An understanding of the main pillars and basic motors of our society: to be able to hack at the roots rather than get lost among the leaves.

[Narodnik]

Well idealism is pretty widespread in capitalist "common sense". For example, investors might believe that it's their smart investing that creates wealth - because subjectivly for them it seems to do just that. But it requires a materialist view to understand what those ideas and whatnot relate to production as a whole - their ideas are not creating wealth, the labor directed through the process of capital investment actually creates the wealth, so the investor is mearly directing others in wealth creation.I don't see why an idealist would oppose such an obvious fact, that it is labor that creates. Does accepting that makes me a materialist? Even though I think I'm an idealist, and everybody keeps telling me I am.


No things develop, they don't form in someone's head and then pop into being.Didn't the bolsheviki first had to have an idea of what they will do before they did it? Didn't the CNT-FAI first had to have an idea of what they want before they could do it?


An understanding of the main pillars and basic motors of our societyThat was so vague I just don't know to what to compare it with. You said that it is not "great men" or a bunch of people willing to change society that is needed to change society. Please do tell me what is it that is needed to change it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't see why an idealist would oppose such an obvious fact, that it is labor that creates. Does accepting that makes me a materialist? Even though I think I'm an idealist, and everybody keeps telling me I am.Well people can, and often do, have mixed ideas - many will believe idealist versions of history, for example, but also believe that planes work according to physical forces and aeodynamics and not because the pilots believe it hard enough or that god puts angels on the wings. So someone might have a materialist view of how wealth is created, but then have idealist views of other things like how ideas change or how rulers rule or whatnot.


Didn't the bolsheviki first had to have an idea of what they will do before they did it? Didn't the CNT-FAI first had to have an idea of what they want before they could do it?Yeah, but where did those ideas develop from ultimately? In both Spain and Russia, a convergence of factors came together: a democractic struggle, populist movements against both capitalist development and the standing power of historically reactionary decaying feudal powers, rapidly devleoping working class, and outside of those countries workers movements as well as examples of how reformist parties betrayed those movements. Both the Bolsheviks and the CNT developed their ideas in that context. Marx too - he wasn't smarter than utopian socialists or Goodwinian egalitarian liberals before him necissarily, he was able to connect intellectual analysis of capitalism, the tradditions of radicalism post-French Revolution, and the emerging workers struggles.

In order to believe that the working class and not capitalists or aristocrats should run society, there has to be a working class that might potentially be able to liberate society. In order for even the utopian (idealist) socialists or some idealist trends in anarchism to develop, there first has to be an inequal capitalist system and encosures of the land in order to dream up an alternative to the inequalities of capitalist property and the expuslsion of the population from the land.


That was so vague I just don't know to what to compare it with. You said that it is not "great men" or a bunch of people willing to change society that is needed to change society. Please do tell me what is it that is needed to change it.Well yeah I was trying to be general because the specifics go beyond just a materialist perspective alone since there are disagreements about how specifically society can change. But basically revolutionary movements need to have a materialist grasp of how society functions so that we focus our energy on altering the fundamental aspects of society, rather than trying to alter the secondary aspects. So, more specifically, from a revolutionary marxist and anarchist perspective, to have real democracy in society, we must organize with other workers to end an exploitative system of collective production for a democratic collective form of producing what is needed. Furthermore, as workers, we need a basic understanding of class differences. The ruling class won't be convinced through ideas because they are guardians of a system of relations and if they induvidually change their mind, the system will neissarily replace them because to be a capitalist, you have to compete and explploit no matter how much an induvidual thinks otherwise. Utopian Socialists or Lifestyle anarchists, by contrast, tend to focus on moderating working class behavior and corporate behavior - to live more "morally" - and change society by changing the ideas of people in that society alone.

[Narodnik]

Well people can, and often do, have mixed ideas - many will believe idealist versions of history, for example, but also believe that planes work according to physical forces and aeodynamics and not because the pilots believe it hard enough
Are you saying that idealism is beliveing in things that no one who called himself an idealist ever believed?


Yeah, but where did those ideas develop from ultimately? In both Spain and Russia, a convergence of factors came together: a democractic struggleHow has democratic struggle happened? Did those struggling for democracy first have an idea about democracy before starting to struggle for it, or not?


order for even the utopian (idealist) socialists or some idealist trends in anarchism to develop, there first has to be an inequal capitalist system and encosures of the land in order to dream up an alternativeOf cource. There has to be death in order for people to start believing in the ressurection. I don't see how idealism denies that.


But basically revolutionary movements need to have a materialist grasp of how society functions so that we focus our energy on altering the fundamental aspects of society, rather than trying to alter the secondary aspects.What is the concrete difference of a materialist revolutionary, and an idealist revolutionary that both want to establish worker control over production. Why is the idealist wrong?


The ruling class won't be convinced through ideas because they are guardians of a system of relations and if they induvidually change their mind, the system will neissarily replace them because to be a capitalist
You say that individuals can change their minds, but that a class of people can change their minds because of the system is made that way. But the system is not a law of nature, it's a human construct, and is made of individuals and their actions, the same individuals you said can change their minds.


Utopian Socialists or Lifestyle anarchists, by contrast, tend to focus on moderating working class behavior and corporate behavior - to live more "morally" - and change society by changing the ideas of people in that society alone. If there is a situation where the working people have by a large majority the idea that there's shouldn't be a revolution and abolition of capitalism, the idealist would try to change their minds, and what would the materialist do?

[The Jay]

I'm sorry to jump the thread but I think that this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/idealism-t173456/index.html?t=173456) is what you are looking for.

[Narodnik]

I don't accept Platonic Idealism, I'm with Stoic Nominalism.

[subcp]

The gist of what Marx wrote in The Poverty of Philosophy:

"When it has been shown once and for all that the driving force of the capitalist system is not the individual capitalist's desire for profits, but the impersonal requirements of social capital- a social force which only a revolution will be able to overthrow - to grow by means of surplus-value, one has shown the exact reasons for the necessity of the death of capitalism and thus, as Marx indicates, its scientifically determined non-existence. But only a science that is revolutionary and no longer doctrinaire can achieve this result!"

This recognition of the need to overthrow capitalism is grounded in understanding how capital operates, what it does, what it has done, and if it has fulfilled its function as a transitory society. Marx wrote that a mode of production which becomes a fetter, a brake, an obstacle for further development, it must be sublimated by a new social relation-mode of production (Communist Manifesto).

Opposing capitalism is understanding it; this is materialism. Opposing capitalism because it's responsible for 'bad things' is idealism.

Luxemburg (and the very early Third International) recognized capitalism had undergone an epochal change with the First World War; its transition from a progressive, growing, healthy mode of production to its decadent phase, having become a fetter on further development (evidenced by the colonization of the globe by the advanced capitalist nations who were forced to turn on each other in WWI- that the finite limit of the Earth had been reached with the completion of the world market).

Nothing was possible in Russia alone- capitalism was at that point a world system, which had to be sublimated on an international level. Applying the "unscientific" view backward and believing anything resembling communism could have happened in Russia (anything other than capitalism) without the success of the world revolution (German November Revolution, the Hungarian council revolution, the neonatal soviets in the US, the commune in Shanghai, UK general strike, etc. all spreading and developing and not being defeated) is idealism.

For example:


How has democratic struggle happened? Did those struggling for democracy first have an idea about democracy before starting to struggle for it, or not?But why is it that democracy was so close to the ideological heart of the revolutionary bourgeoisie? Why is it the chosen form of ideology and social organization in contemporary advanced capitalist nations?

The content of all the mystification about democracy masks its true purposes- freedom of commerce, freedom to associate, to own property. Democratic ideology is just a cover for its content, the 'freedom' of wage laborers to sell their labor as a commodity, the freedom to conduct business in accordance with the needs of capital accumulation.

The link between the needs of the economy and the political expressions which appear on the surface of society (such as 'democratic struggle') is a matter of one resulting in the other. But this doesn't mean there is a determinist, mechanistic vulgar materialism- the proletariat has agency as a revolutionary class (the last revolutionary class) because the class struggle is a subjective element of the class relation.

[Narodnik]

Applying the "unscientific" view backward and believing anything resembling communism could have happened in Russia (anything other than capitalism)
So it is idealist to believe it wrong to massacre the RIAU and destroy a stateless and classless society built by 7 milion people, and to deny the reality of them organizing a stateless and classless society is materialism? And idealism is the dirty word? Sorry, but it should be the other way round.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Are you saying that idealism is beliveing in things that no one who called himself an idealist ever believed?:rolleyes: No, I'm saying that people who believe idealist explainations, because this view is common in our society, would not necissarily see idealist explainations for hard science as very convincing.


How has democratic struggle happened? Did those struggling for democracy first have an idea about democracy before starting to struggle for it, or not?Where did that idea come from? From material conditions of lack of popular or participatory decisions or control in society. Democracy would not occour to people living in a "primmitive communist" band society, for example, because things would already be pretty mutual and people could argue things out in an ad-hoc way.


What is the concrete difference of a materialist revolutionary, and an idealist revolutionary that both want to establish worker control over production. Why is the idealist wrong?Well this is too general: it's like saying what's the concrete difference between a materialist who wants to travel over a hill and an idealist who also wants to travel over the hill. Neither are wrong for wanting to go over the hill (or at least they are both equally wrong), but it's in how they might concieve of how to do that where they might diverge.

Workers control over production would be a materialist view of how to achieve worker's power in society because it recognizes that society is held together by how we produce what we need to live and reproduce and therefore whoever controls that production process has inherent power in society.

Where idealism might become problematic is in viewing how this materialist project might be created. If "control over production" is seen as abstractly moral, rather than the material source of workers power, then people might get confused by capitalist worker self-management schemes; they might see co-opts as a viable challenge to the system; people who see class "equality" in idealist abstract terms, might get confused over social-democracy and welfare-state type reforms or state-capitalism.


You say that individuals can change their minds, but that a class of people can change their minds because of the system is made that way. But the system is not a law of nature, it's a human construct, and is made of individuals and their actions, the same individuals you said can change their minds.If an induvidual capitalist concludes that capitalism is too contradictory and dangerous, this does nothing about the overall capitalist relationships in society. If he ceases to be a capitalist, then that capital is just shifted to someone else to take that role in society. Capitalists are not capitalists because they will themselves to be, they are people taking roles in dircting a system of production; in fact those relations don't even need capitalists, sometimes another group in society manages this process (like in the USSR).


If there is a situation where the working people have by a large majority the idea that there's shouldn't be a revolution and abolition of capitalism, the idealist would try to change their minds, and what would the materialist do?Try and change minds in order to act apon the material world. Again, materialism doesn't negate subjective agency and marxist materialism specifically sees what induviduals comprising a class do in society (class struggle) as the motor of history. But what is actually possible as well as the ideas that can generalize in a society is rooted in the material circumstances of that society. As Marx said: people make history, just not under conditions of their choosing. So there is a relationship: material realities shape ideas and ideas, when translated into action, can then alter the material conditions which in turn can cause new ideas to take hold in a general way.

[Narodnik]

Workers control over production would be a materialist view of how to achieve worker's power in society because it recognizes that society is held together by how we produce what we need to live and reproduce and therefore whoever controls that production process has inherent power in society.

Where idealism might become problematic is in viewing how this materialist project might be created. If "control over production" is seen as abstractly moral, rather than the material source of workers power, then people might get confused by capitalist worker self-management schemes; they might see co-opts as a viable challenge to the system; people who see class "equality" in idealist abstract terms, might get confused over social-democracy and welfare-state type reforms or state-capitalism.

This explanation basically says that materialist know what worker control over production means, and that idealist somehow must be wrong about it and accept some capitalist myth about what it is. Yet I know what worker control over production is, and advocate it, yet everybody calls me an idealist.


If an induvidual capitalist concludes that capitalism is too contradictory and dangerous, this does nothing about the overall capitalist relationships in society. If he ceases to be a capitalist, then that capital is just shifted to someone else to take that role in society. Capitalists are not capitalists because they will themselves to be
You say that a capitalist can will himself to stop being a capitalist, and that capitalists are not capitalists because they will themselves to be? How is that not contradictory?


Try and change minds in order to act apon the material world.
Same as the idealist. I still don't see the practical difference. (except some matierialist justifying mass murder of Ukrainian socialists because it was then "impossible" to abolish capitalism).

[Jimmie Higgins]

This explanation basically says that materialist know what worker control over production means, and that idealist somehow must be wrong about it and accept some capitalist myth about what it is. Yet I know what worker control over production is, and advocate it, yet everybody calls me an idealist.If you believe that workers should control production because this is materially how liberation can be achieved, that by itself would not be a idealist position. If someone thought that if enough workers believe in socialism strong enough that the state will just cease to be a factor and then workers just waltz into liberation, then that would be an idealist view of how this change may happen.

I don't think anyone is calling your view in worker's power is idealist - but, for example from another thread, your view that the scripture of Islam is more determinent than the broader social circumstances in which both those documents were created as well as how views and practices have changed with changing circumstances, is an idealist critique of Islam as it exists in material society. The bible doesn't mean to people today what it meant for early pre-Christian Roman Empire Christians, or the Feudal Church, or the Prodestant interpretations that developed along with bourgoise ideas about society. Same text, totally different understandings because the people reading the bible or the Quran today are not under the same conditions as oppressed people in the first century, or merchants in the 7th century or whatnot. Same books, but different material circumstances which result in a different understanding and application of those same texts. At any rate, that's just an example, so if you want to debate the specific points, we can continue in the other thread.


You say that a capitalist can will himself to stop being a capitalist, and that capitalists are not capitalists because they will themselves to be? How is that not contradictory?Seriously? Statements like this make me think I'm being trolled.

Capitalists did not will themselves into being capitalists as a class. There was space in the feudal and classical economies for people in towns to begin to develop these economic relations. Under certain conditions, their methods could become more prevelant and more sucessful and in Europe and China ideologies could devlop that began to reflect capitalist logic. In Europe this eventually lead to a long series of clashes and capitalist methods eventually came to dominate. But in order for people to get the idea that society would be better organized on the basis of induvidual rights and competition on the market, there had to be a group in society and initial relations that would benifit from this arrangement.

Now induviduals today may "desire" to become capitalists and work at it and eventually they may achieve their mobility. But they did not do this through "will" they did this through luck or being better at extracting wealth from labor or betting on investments/stocks (for companies which extract more wealth from labor than their competators therby yieliding a return). Once someone is a well-off capitalists, well then yeah they have the luxury to then sell everything and cese being an active capitalist (though they still contribute to the system even just by keeping money in banks - which just means they are giving their capital for others to pick the investments, but with little risk and less reward for themselves). They might also reject capitalism and side with working class struggle, or just decide that capitalism is wrong for moral reasons. In a relative way, they would be "willing" themselves to no longer be capitalists, but it's not free-will, it's just the privilage of being in that position where they could decide as an induvidual to just keep enough to live off or they might decide to become a worker themselves (why?) or to persue some professional position. So "will" in the sense of pure will isn't really it - really I think it's just that their position means they have more induvidual freedom and more choices than the rest of us.


Same as the idealist. I still don't see the practical difference. (except some matierialist justifying mass murder of Ukrainian socialists because it was then "impossible" to abolish capitalism).
Are you talking about Makhno? You're conflating the reasoning for the conflict with a critique of the possibilities of socialism in one region. Materialist explainations for why full socialism can not be sustained with a rural semi-pesant population in isolation were not the reasons for the conflict. Putting aside views on the validity of the Red Army's argument or whatnot, the Reds ultimately attacked Makhno because they saw him as hurting the efforts against the whites and hindering their efforts to consript grain for the urban populations and essentially agitating in a way that pulled on tensions between peasants and workers. At any rate, believe these rationales or not, the point is that they did not attack because of a materialist argument about socialist possibilities.

In retrospect, people have tried to present Makhno as an alternative to Bolshivism let alone the state-capitalist system that developed out of the failed revolution. In responce to that claim, people put forth a materialist perspective. I agree with this and I think even within these zones you can see tendencies where the army was more like an egalitarian warlord band - at points conscripting people and supplies themselves. My view is that without the revolution spreading at least to places with more developed working classes that Socialism in Russia couldn't survive and this is why ultimately there was an internal counter-revolution and the beurocrats stepped into the role of organizing accumulation and exploitation in order to modernize Russia. If the free areas of the Ukrain survived, I think there would have been a similar trajectory even if they landed in a differnet place than the USSR did politically. Either Makhno's Army leaders would have become like little Castros or once the threat of the Whites and Reds was gone, the peasants would have turned to privite production and begin to establish a little capitalist class out of the larger land-owners and they would have eventually turned to other bigger powers to be incorporated into the capitalist world-system.

If a peasant socialism was possible, why did countless peasant revolts (many of which toppeled regimes and dynasties) only ultimatly produce new ruling autocrats? Dynasties in China began with pesant rebels building armies to topple the old authority and create land reform and scale back oppression - but without any real material alternative to some various kind of feudal relationship, the children of rebel leaders ended up becoming the new hated autocrats.

This wasn't the case for lack of "will" - it's just that as pesants, what would be their liberation? Control over the noble's land that they work, but in order to do this, they need people who can defend that territory, but this group of defenders relies on the pesantry to supply and feed them and so they must consript or tax the pesantry... leading essentially to what again? A new class that relies on peasant surplus.

[Narodnik]

If you believe that workers should control production because this is materially how liberation can be achieved, that by itself would not be a idealist position.
Well, I'm certainly not an epistemogical idealist, thinking that the world is only mental, and that we can change reality by thoughts, I'm pretty sure almost no one accepts that Leibniz/ Kant thinking except maybe Christian Science and TM followers.


your view that the scripture of Islam is more determinent than the broader social circumstances in which both those documents were created as well as how views and practices have changed with changing circumstances, is an idealist critique of Islam as it exists in material society
I find that critique of my critique void. Islam is an idea (set of ideas). Critique of people's behaviour that is motivated by that idea can have materialistic traits (and I think no idealist will deny that), but when an idea is concerned- the only critique of it that can exist is an idealist one.


Capitalists did not will themselves into being capitalists as a class.
Of cource, because individuals have wills, and classes are not individuals, and thus don't have wills. But being that you said that an individual capitalist can will himself to stop being a capitalist, a question- do we agree that a class is just a group of individuals, or do you think there is something more to it?


Materialist explainations for why full socialism can not be sustained with a rural semi-pesant population in isolation were not the reasons for the conflict.
They were, and are, (a part of) the justification for the destruction of the Free Territory.


If a peasant socialism was possible, why did countless peasant revolts (many of which toppeled regimes and dynasties) only ultimatly produce new ruling autocrats?
That's induction, it doesn't prove that peasant socialism is impossible. My answer to this question is due to peasants in those revolts not being dedicated to the idea of non-hierarchical organization of society.

[Art Vandelay]

So it is idealist to believe it wrong to massacre the RIAU and destroy a stateless and classless society built by 7 milion people, and to deny the reality of them organizing a stateless and classless society is materialism? And idealism is the dirty word? Sorry, but it should be the other way round.

My dear boy it seems you are a supporter of socialism in one country, the defining tenet of Stalinism! They didn't achieve classlessness (they were peasants) and they certainly didn't create statelessness (they lived within the confines of the Russian state) so I think the only person arguing against very simple facts here is yourself.

[subcp]

Same as the idealist. I still don't see the practical difference. (except some matierialist justifying mass murder of Ukrainian socialists because it was then "impossible" to abolish capitalism).

The solution to the crisis of capitalism cannot be applied in one place- the international domination of capital (even over areas and regions which still have remnants of pre-capitalist classes and forms) requires that communism/socialism be international. This does not mean that the real movement of the proletariat in its movement for communism has to be absolutely everywhere at the same moment for a revolution to happen; some regions will by nature of being first be the 'only places' where this movement is taking place- but only for a very, very short time: the real movement for communism must spread outward and of increasing depth in the transformation of all things for the revolution to be successful- so no, there is no 'justification of slaughter because Full Communism couldn't be built in one country'. The revolutionary wave was international, but it was combined and uneven in its development. The neonatal soviets in the United States (Buffalo, Toledo, Butte, Tacoma, Seattle) in 1919 were politicized joint-strike committee's, whereas soviets in Russia were of much greater 'depth' in their power over social organization (taking on political, social and overseeing economic decisions), while the German factory committee's (Unionen) were somewhere in the middle- they were embryonic worker's councils, which supported the communist programme. But it was all a part of the same revolutionary movement.

When that wave went into reflux (on the international level- the defeat of the Hungarian council revolution, defeat of the November Revolution, return to the terrain of trade unionism in the US and UK, massacre in Shanghai, etc.) the communist transformation of society became impossible- the counterrevolution had triumphed.

It is idealism to believe that, through strength of will, despite the conditions of the international movement, that those areas which were first or had achieved the deepest movement for social transformation could, on their own, create communism locally.

[Deliverous]

I've been called an idealist a bunch of times, and here's why mainly. I have a view that socialism (worker control over production) could have been established in Russia in the WW1 time, and those calling themselves materialists say that it couldn't, being that there weren't "material conditions" met that are "necessary" for socialism to be established.

[No matter that anarchists in Ukraine did establish socialism (worker control over production), it was deemed impossible then (as a "justification" for their massacre), and it's "failure" (destruction by the bolsheviki) is deemed now as proof of it's "impossibility".]

Also, I've been called an idealist, and I call myself so, on account of my view that people are not wholly determined by their social conditions but that ideas people accept do matter. I'd really like an explanation why is that considered so wrong that "idealist" is being used as dirty word.


So, can someone state precisely what are materialism and idealism, and then I'd like to ask all of you why do you think one better then the other?


Those who are calling you an idealist for highlighting that ideas do matter have no idea what they are talking about. What is the Communist Manifesto? - A propagation of ideas to aspire revolutionary struggle. Karl Marx, by nature of his dedication to knowledge, accepted the importance of ideas in history.

I would however call you an idealist if you thought the Soviet Union in its early stages could simply ignore the fact that it lived inside a world capitalist system and allow for complete democratic workers control. This was particularly the case during the civil war, where the Socialist revolutionaries were facing a very organized and capable enemy.

[Narodnik]

My dear boy it seems you are a supporter of socialism in one country, the defining tenet of Stalinism!
If Stalinism were socialist, which it isn't. It's state-capitalist (or more like state-feudalist/ state-slavery).


They didn't achieve classlessness (they were peasants)So what if they were peasants? Classlessness is achieved when the parisitic class (political and economic rulers and their servants) disappear, which they did in the Free Territory, leaving only the working class (rural and industrial labourers) to manage the political and economical organization.


and they certainly didn't create statelessness (they lived within the confines of the Russian state)If were to in a purely idealist (Kant/Leibniz idealist) way define the extent of a state by what it drawn on the map, and not by the factual existence of the state apparatus on some territory, then yes- they were within the Russian state.


It is idealism to believe that, through strength of will, despite the conditions of the international movement, that those areas which were first or had achieved the deepest movement for social transformation could, on their own, create communism locally.
I see it as dogmatism (quoting Marx like Scripture) to believe that it's impossible to have and sustain a local revolution.


I would however call you an idealist if you thought the Soviet Union in its early stages could simply ignore the fact that it lived inside a world capitalist system and allow for complete democratic workers control.
Okay, I declare myself an idealist, being that I see no arguments as to why it's wrong.


This was particularly the case during the civil war, where the Socialist revolutionaries were facing a very organized and capable enemy. The bolsheviks.

[Deliverous]

If Stalinism were socialist, which it isn't. It's state-capitalist (or more like state-feudalist/ state-slavery).

So what if they were peasants? Classlessness is achieved when the parisitic class (political and economic rulers and their servants) disappear, which they did in the Free Territory, leaving only the working class (rural and industrial labourers) to manage the political and economical organization.

If were to in a purely idealist (Kant/Leibniz idealist) way define the extent of a state by what it drawn on the map, and not by the factual existence of the state apparatus on some territory, then yes- they were within the Russian state.


I see it as dogmatism (quoting Marx like Scripture) to believe that it's impossible to have and sustain a local revolution.


Okay, I declare myself an idealist, being that I see no arguments as to why it's wrong.

The bolsheviks.

It is not dogmatism to quote Marx unless you do so because you believe, he, being Marx, is always right. If you are a historical materialist, accept the importance of class struggle, it is completely understandable why a local revolution could not succeed.

[Narodnik]

It is not dogmatism to quote Marx unless you do so because you believe, he, being Marx, is always right.I hope you were sarcastic, because that's the definition of dogmatism.


it is completely understandable why a local revolution could not succeed.Yes, de fide.

[Jimmie Higgins]

So what if they were peasants? Classlessness is achieved when the parisitic class (political and economic rulers and their servants) disappear, which they did in the Free Territory, leaving only the working class (rural and industrial labourers) to manage the political and economical organization.Well they didn't disappear, they had to be defeated first of all - which also wouldn't have been possible if the Red Army wasn't also fighting the White.

As to the bigger question of why peasants can't have sustainable classlessness, first there's the whole history of uprisings at various times which could only achieve a better warloard situation no matter how much people desired otherwise. You claim elsewhere that this process of peasant armies just becoming the new feudal rulers is because the peasants didn't have the right ideas of anti-hirearchy, but I don't think this is the case and it's a really moralistic argument. Again this parallels the "great man" view of history as if had Stalin been Makhno, or if Stalin had been focused on the right ideals, then the USSR wouldn't have become what it did.

A counter-explaination for this tendency is that in general, peasnat production ties people to (communal or family) plots of land and they produce for themselves from this land and from the commons and as a community they produce enough to meet needs with a little bit left over. Part of this surplus is taken by the lords (and/or labor is conscripted directly) and the remainder goes to trade for other items by the producer or a small amount of sales which are then just put back into peasant prodution and the peasant's self-matainance. The egalitarian goals of peasant uprisings is to unburdon the peasants from exploitation by the lords. The lords maintain their power through hegemony (religion/caste and custom) but ultimatly through thier ability to employ direct force.

To get rid of the exploiters, peasants have to raise an army. But if a peasant leaves his land to fight in an army, then he isn't a peasant in the way he sustains himself. He gets the things he needs through spoils of battle and through the support of the still-producing peasantry who identify with that rebellion and support it - a sort of voluntary thithing or tax for supplies and sometimes soldiers themselves from peasant families.

So in the very practical means necissary to end aristocratic rule is a new warlord group in esseance - just one that while fighting against the old aristocratic group needs to fight for the interests of the peasntry for support. Now if they suceede in one feudal region, they can disband the militia, but what happens? The neighboring fifdom claims the land and tried to repress everyone and sets itself up. So to counter this, peasants need a permanent military force to protect their peasnat production.

It would have been similar if Makhno's army had suceeded. If they somehow had been able to defeat the whites without the Reds also fighting the whites, then they would still be surrounded by hostile reactionary capitalist and semi-feudal regimes who would create an embargo and would probably have wanted to invade. So the peasants probably couldn't survive without weapons and so on and they would need an army. So to build this up, they would have needed to get trade or develop their own manufacturing - but doing this requires capital which peasant production is not that good at creating, also food produced would have to go, in part, to feed and supply the army and so the army might have to conscript or tax peasant production, if they need to compete with more advanced militiaries, they might need to get more wealth from the peasants to start that up. In effect you'd have a tiny version of what the USSR became except it would be libertarian soldiers rather than Party beurocrats that became the new exploiting group.

If the soliders had the right ideals, then they would have been egalitarian warloards, but it doesn't change that they rely on wealth taken from the peasantry to maintain themselves. The more intense the war-effort, the more they would have needed to take. And since Makhno's base of support was due to peasant frustrations over Red conscription of grain and supplies for the Red Army and the starving cities, there would have been a conflict. In fact, as it was there were some examples of this resentment building when they did conscript people into their army or take grain.


They were, and are, (a part of) the justification for the destruction of the Free Territory.No, it was not the justification for attacking, materialist explainations of why this zone could not have sustained itself are retrospective answers to the argument made later that Makhno represented a viable alternative. "It's not viable, so it should be stopped" was not an argument I've ever read - so please quote direct sources from the time if I am just not aware of these rationales. I've only seen retrospective arguments made not for a justification, but as a counter to the claim that an island of peasant communes could have been a sustainable alternative.

[Narodnik]

Well they didn't disappear, they had to be defeated first of all - which also wouldn't have been possible if the Red Army wasn't also fighting the White.Well', the Black Army faught the Red, the White, the Ukrainian state, the Cossacs, and the invading forces of the Central Powers, and were doing fine.


As to the bigger question of why peasants can't have sustainable classlessness, first there's the whole history of uprisings at various times which could only achieve a better warloard situation no matter how much people desired otherwise.And there is no case of people desiring otherwise except Nabat-RIAU and CNT-FAI, where the people did want to establish a classless society, and did, but were destroyed by some sort of capitalists (liberal, fascist, bolshevik).


So in the very practical means necissary to end aristocratic rule is a new warlord group in esseance - just one that while fighting against the old aristocratic group needs to fight for the interests of the peasntry for support. Now if they suceede in one feudal region, they can disband the militia, but what happens? The neighboring fifdom claims the land and tried to repress everyone and sets itself up.And the peasants form a militia again and fight them off, too.


So to counter this, peasants need a permanent military force to protect their peasnat production.If there is permanent war, yes. Otherwise no.


And since Makhno's base of support There's wasn't a base of "support". The RIAU was a (anarchist) people's militia, not a seperate, professional, standing army. I don't see can a people not support itself.

[Art Vandelay]

If Stalinism were socialist, which it isn't. It's state-capitalist (or more like state-feudalist/ state-slavery).

I'm not a stalinist, so I'm unsure as to why you bring it up. 'State-feudalist/state-slavery/state-capitalist' you can't seem to make up your mind on this one.


So what if they were peasants?

By nature of their relationship to the means of production, the proletariat is the revolutionary class in capitalist society, as opposed to the peasantry, a generally reactionary class.


Classlessness is achieved when the parisitic class (political and economic rulers and their servants) disappear, which they did in the Free Territory, leaving only the working class (rural and industrial labourers) to manage the political and economical organization.

Classlessness will be achieved once the proletariat succeeds in its historic task of abolishing itself as a class, on a global level. Workers self management also does not equal socialism and I hope you realize that, since it is fairly elementary. If you don't properly understand what socialism is, I'm not sure how you can posit to criticize the revolutionary movements of the 20th century.


If were to in a purely idealist (Kant/Leibniz idealist) way define the extent of a state by what it drawn on the map, and not by the factual existence of the state apparatus on some territory, then yes- they were within the Russian state.

Statelessness isn't achieved in an isolated area, during a civil war, simply because they choose to organize within a non-hierarchical and horizontal fashion (which they didn't entirely anyways, but that is besides the point).

[Narodnik]

I'm not a stalinist, so I'm unsure as to why you bring it up. 'State-feudalist/state-slavery/state-capitalist' you can't seem to make up your mind on this one.
What I know is that it's nothing bearing any semblance of socialism, whether it's characterized as capitalism, slavery or feudalism is not so much the point.


By nature of their relationship to the means of production, the proletariat is the revolutionary class in capitalist society, as opposed to the peasantry, a generally reactionary class.
I don't accept marxist view of classes, and thus neither their marxists pre-judicial evaluations of them. I find anarchist and narodnik (obviously) view of classes to be correct.


Workers self management also does not equal socialism and I hope you realize that, since it is fairly elementary.
Elementary false.


Statelessness isn't achieved in an isolated area, during a civil war, simply because they choose to organize within a non-hierarchical and horizontal fashion.
I disagree.

[Comrade #138672]

So, can someone state precisely what are materialism and idealism, and then I'd like to ask all of you why do you think one better then the other?Material reality precedes thought, therefore materialism is "better" than Idealism. Of course, there is a dialectical relationship between the two, but that doesn't mean the two equally influence each other. If material reality precedes thought, then the former should hold more weight than the latter.

[Narodnik]

Material reality precedes thought
This can be interpreted in many ways. Locke believed that we're tabula rasa at first, and that first come the sense-data, and then thoughts, but he still believed in a soul and free will.

[Comrade #138672]

This can be interpreted in many ways. Locke believed that we're tabula rasa at first, and that first come the sense-data, and then thoughts, but he still believed in a soul and free will.Let's say there is something like a "free will", then why should it be necessarily dominant? Can I use my "free will" to break gravity, for example? No. There are still natural laws that we are unable to ignore. They are independent of our will and impose themselves despite our will. So how "free" are we really?

[Art Vandelay]

What I know is that it's nothing bearing any semblance of socialism, whether it's characterized as capitalism, slavery or feudalism is not so much the point.

Socialism is a global mode of production, just like capitalism and as such can only exist on a global scale. So yes you are correct, the USSR never got anywhere close to a socialist society, nor could they have.


I don't accept marxist view of classes, and thus neither their marxists pre-judicial evaluations of them. I find anarchist and narodnik (obviously) view of classes to be correct.

Anarchists generally have the same analysis of classes as Marxists and the Nardonik's were populists.


Elementary false.

No its not but you've kinda proving yourself to be a bit of a waste of time. Your 'arguments' (and I use that term lightly) consist of 'nope, you're wrong' and lack any semblance of substance. Workers self management, is in fact entirely impossible under socialism (the proletariat itself will no longer exist, as society will become one of free producers) and is merely another method of reorganizing capital.


I disagree.

How compelling.

[subcp]

I see it as dogmatism (quoting Marx like Scripture) to believe that it's impossible to have and sustain a local revolution.

My 2 posts contained one quote from Camatte where he paraphrased what Marx's point was in the Poverty of Philosophy- the rest is me trying to explain to you the Marxist argument for materialism against idealism.

If I recall you wanted to know the difference between idealism and materialism and why communists oppose idealism- a subject that Marx spent a great deal of his writing discussing. So you can't even accuse me of 'relying on Marx like scripture' when there wasn't even a quote from Marx.

You seem to think 'where there's a will there's a way'- and that men with guns are the true motor of history.

[Narodnik]

Can I use my "free will" to break gravity, for example? No. There are still natural laws that we are unable to ignore. They are independent of our will and impose themselves despite our will. So how "free" are we really?There's a big difference between having the freedom to choose from a limited set of options, and being without any freedom.


Socialism is a global mode of production, just like capitalism and as such can only exist on a global scale.
I disagree. Neither is capitalism a neccesarily global mode of production (being that it can exist locally, or even between only two people), neither is there something necessitating socialism to be global.


So yes you are correct, the USSR never got anywhere close to a socialist society, nor could they have.I see no reason why they couldn't have instituted socialism, they could have organized a society where the labourers are emancipated from parasite bosses (as have people in the Free Territory done), and not subjugated by even more oppressive ones.


Anarchists generally have the same analysis of classes as Marxists and the Nardonik's were populists. As Bakunin said- "There is in this program another expression which is profoundly antipathetic to us revolutionary Anarchists who frankly want the complete emancipation of the people; the expression to which I refer is the presentation of the proletariat, the whole society of toilers, as a "class" and not as a "mass". Do you know what that means? Neither more nor less than a new aristocracy, that of the workers of the factories and towns, to the exclusion of the million who constitute the proletariat of the countryside". The Narodniki, toghether with the anarchists, had a view of classes based on the relation of people to exploitation, and not like marxists, based on the relation of people to the ownership of the means of production.
Also, the Narodniki were (unlike the Bolsheviki) socialists.


Your 'arguments' (and I use that term lightly) consist of 'nope, you're wrong'Look again at your claims to which I have respoded in such a manner. You have offered no reasoning or arguments in their favour (except saying it's "elementary" that you are correct). Why should offer any for my rejection of such claims?


Workers self management, is in fact entirely impossible under socialism (the proletariat itself will no longer exist, as society will become one of free producers) and is merely another method of reorganizing capital.Worker self-management means that the proletariat no longer exists, and capitalist bosses no longer exist, thereby (almost) constituting socialism. (almost because the capitalists who are not bosses [rentiers, usurers, patenters] need to disapear also)

[Brutus]

Socialism is a stateless, classless society and it can only be established worldwide. According to Nardonik, we can institute socialism anywhere! Come and join my socialist commune of bedroomia. Socialism and capitalism can't co-exist. They are both worldwide systems.
Oh dear.

[Comrade #138672]

There's a big difference between having the freedom to choose from a limited set of options, and being without any freedom.There is also a big difference between having the freedom to choose anything and the freedom to choose only from a limited set of options. In the latter case, not everything is possible. It is much like sailing. You can reconfigure your ship any way you want, but if there is no wind, then there can be no sailing.

[Narodnik]

Socialism is a stateless, classless society
A classless society.


and it can only be established worldwide.
It can be established locally.


According to Nardonik, we can institute socialism anywhere!
Something like that.


Socialism and capitalism can't co-exist.
They can.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well', the Black Army faught the Red, the White, the Ukrainian state, the Cossacs, and the invading forces of the Central Powers, and were doing fine....which is why they won, right:lol:

So... they could have won all by themselves against all these forces, except that one of these forces smashed them?


And there is no case of people desiring otherwise except Nabat-RIAU and CNT-FAI, where the people did want to establish a classless society, and did, but were destroyed by some sort of capitalists (liberal, fascist, bolshevik).The Makhnoists had very good egalitarian ideals, but what happened was when the necessities of war demanded it, they broke from their ideals. They stopped asking for voluntary recruits and supplies when needed for their war effort, they acted more autocratic when conditions necessitated it.

The CNT had great ideals and even more they had built up networks and organizations to help workers organize society and their own defense of the cities. In addition to their revolution from below ideals that I support, they had some ideals that I don't support because I think it's problematic. First they had a principle stand against participation in politics. While their rejection of official politics is important, rejecting even an oppositional relationship to it meant that often they had to react to what the middle-class parties were doing and ultimately when conditions made it "necessary" they would, in fact, tacitly support one mainstream faction over another in elections (I think there were other options besides either soft [or full] support of politics or total rejection). Connected to this, but much more damaging, they made a principle of the rejection of power. They thought that the state would just become ineffective and fall away, but when it did, they didn't replace it with the working class networks and militias, they ended up supporting the Popular Front and then the Communists who dismantled worker's power.

So ideals get betrayed when they don't meet material circumstances - even by dedicated people like the Spanish Anarchists or the Russian Bolsheviks of the revolutionary period. In a nutshell this is why materialism is important: to have an understanding of the relationship of ideas to the concrete circumstances so that we can actually figure out how to get to our ultimate ideal without getting confused in-between by thinking that the right-thing at the wrong time is right because it's ideal or thinking that the wrong thing at the right time is right because we don't understand the concrete conditions of that time.


There's wasn't a base of "support". The RIAU was a (anarchist) people's militia, not a seperate, professional, standing army. I don't see can a people not support itself.We the soldiers liberating towns also farming their land and making their living that way? Or were they getting their living through other farmers who supported them giving them some supplies?

[Narodnik]

So... they could have won all by themselves against all these forces, except that one of these forces smashed them?Yes, maybe even the forces that smashed them, unlikely, but possible, counting also the possibility of the revolution spreading. Both the Ukranian and Spanish socialists made the same mistake- trusting state capitalist claims of being their allies, and that's what got them both destroyed. Without that mistake- both of the societies were doing fine as far as battles are concerned.


First they had a principle stand against participation in politics.They participated in it, they sent delegates to participate in the fuctioning of the Second Republic.


They thought that the state would just become ineffective and fall away, but when it did, they didn't replace it with the working class networks and militias, they ended up supporting the Popular Front and then the Communists who dismantled worker's power.They did replace it with working class networks and militias in areas where enough workers wanted to enact such ideas- Catalonia and Andalusia.


In a nutshell this is why materialism is important:Idealists do take into consideration the material reality. There are no epistemological idealists except in Christian science and TM. The only matter where I see the difference of materialists and idealists is that some materialists have a mechanical-determinist view of societal change that I as dogmatic- with no arguments they claim that this or that is simply impossible.


We the soldiers liberating towns also farming their land and making their living that way?I'm pretty sure they would have done so after the war. That's the definition of "people's militia" and it's core characteristic distinguishing it from a standing army.


Or were they getting their living through other farmers who supported them giving them some supplies?The soldiers were the farmers. They weren't a separate, professional army. A bunch of farmers from a village would join the RIAU and their families and friends, meaning- the village, would naturally support the RIAU with supplies.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The soldiers were the farmers. They weren't a separate, professional army. A bunch of farmers from a village would join the RIAU and their families and friends, meaning- the village, would naturally support the RIAU with supplies.Soldiers are the farmers or the soldiers were farmers? So they were soldiers only so long as there was a threat... but wouldn't there always be a threat if socialism only expanded to one region? Cuba, Iran, etc... irregardless of being "socialist" are not allowed self-determination by the capitalist powers and so they need to build up their defense. If peasants did the same, it requires the ability to have a militia. If farmers get upset that some of their children keep having to go - then they will have to be conscription - if not that, then enough surplus held by the militia so that if war broke out, there would be enough supplies and weapons.

But then where are the soldiers or the people in charge of defense getting their food and money and supplies? From farmers, the surplus created by farmers. Hence, a class system no matter what kind of egalitarian gloss is put over it like the regimes of Cuba or whatnot did.

[Narodnik]

so long as there was a threat...
So long as there was a conflict. If there is none, they can continue farming.

[Narodnik]

This talk:

http://vimeo.com/15021585

Is the part ~15 minute an example of idealist vs. materialist view of leftist action? When he talkes about changing the ideas in people's heads.