What do you do when "you" can't "do" anything?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

How does a "leap of faith" square with historical materialism? (edit: or the human psychology of survival and resource acquisition. Nobody really expects Jesus to provide their daily bread.) I don't quite understand.

I think, in a sense, it's a necessary corollary. Starting from a thorough historical materialism, we have to understand ourselves as subjects, which is to say utterly inextricable from the social relationships and material conditions that construct our being. Consequently, our situations are fundamentally futile: we are not the free agents of the liberal enlightenment or protestant theological thought. As such any act has to be understood in relation to an "imaginary" - not in the sense of fantastic, but in the sense of not (yet) existing. It is for this reason that I use the term "leap of faith".
I don't think this precludes revolutionary theory: in fact, I think it necessitates it. Without revolutionary theory, I think we're bound to act in bad faith, to confront reality as fixed and immutable rather than as a project with which we are bound up. It is precisely revolutionary theory (and materialism) that lets us locate ourselves vis-a-vis the capitalist totality, and provides us with our "cliff".

[argeiphontes]

Well, call me enlightened then ;) because I only think hismat is partially determinate of our thoughts and actions, and we do have freedom of action, but within some limited horizon of possibility. Part of that is just because we're limited animals with a definite evolutionary history, instincts, physical needs, etc, although I consider those to be material influences as well.

And action is usually justified with reference to some goal. Lack of a (reasonable) goal causes inaction, because we are goal oriented. I think that people are much more likely to act based on a concrete, workable alternative than just on a negation. For example, just a really simple-minded one, isn't it easier to get motivated to exercise if you just have to walk 3 miles a day than if your trainer told you he wanted you to climb Mt. Everest? Or, on the other hand, if instead of having you walk 3 miles, the goal was just to "exercise" in general. IIRC studies bear this out. A concrete, realistic goal is something people seem to be willing to act for.

(People do act to destroy what ails them (destroy = create an absence) but nobody is too keen on biting the hand that feeds them, unless they can feed themselves in some real alternative way. Acts of catharsis happen all the time, but that's because either the process or the aftermath is positive for the people involved and can be justified on its own terms.)

edit: But when you expect people to just revolt without a concrete alternative, you're basically saying that you're going to take away how they make a living without any plan as to how they're not going to suffer or starve afterward. The goal is also indeterminate, so there is nothing really to fight for.

[Sea]

we do have freedom of action, but within some limited horizon of possibility.No, darling. We don't have freedom of action because (not to say that it's the only reason) of the limited horizon of possibility. The freedom to do something impossible cannot exist and to wax philosophical about it is just a cheap way to uphold the illusion that we have "freedom of action" in some abstract way despite the fact that, concretely speaking, we clearly don't.

[argeiphontes]

You don't think that freedom of action within a limited set of possibilities is any kind of freedom? Ok, fair enough, but that's still freedom to me. I never said anything about freedom to do something impossible.

[ckaihatsu]

[A]nd we do have freedom of action, but within some limited horizon of possibility. Part of that is just because we're limited animals with a definite evolutionary history, instincts, physical needs, etc, although I consider those to be material influences as well.

And action is usually justified with reference to some goal. Lack of a (reasonable) goal causes inaction, because we are goal oriented.


Yup....


universal context

http://s6.postimage.org/fn8hqaxrh/120407_universal_context_aoi_RENDER_sc_01_png_xc.j pg (http://postimage.org/image/fn8hqaxrh/)





Well, call me enlightened then ;) because I only think hismat is partially determinate of our thoughts and actions,


Agreed -- we're socially determined to the point of how overarching society, and its class relations, form the world in which we live our lives.


[22] History, Macro Micro

http://s6.postimage.org/58kljbt2l/22_History_Macro_Micro.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/58kljbt2l/)


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

http://s6.postimage.org/zbpxjshkd/1_History_Macro_Micro_Precision.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/zbpxjshkd/)

[RedMaterialist]

what do you do when you can't do anything?

Well, maybe you ask your fellow humans to help? In other words, you become a human, social, political being. You transcend the false consciousness of individualism and self-sufficiency created by capitalism.

On the other hand, machines replace most of what we need to "do." We don't walk 3 miles because we can use cars, public transport, even bikes; cars, esp if we need to bring something. So, the products of modern capitalism actually do give us freedom from necessity which deprives us of a sense of social connection, thus the sense of futility.

[ckaihatsu]

On the other hand, machines replace most of what we need to "do." We don't walk 3 miles because we can use cars, public transport, even bikes; cars, esp if we need to bring something. So, the products of modern capitalism actually do give us freedom from necessity which deprives us of a sense of social connection, thus the sense of futility.


I'll argue against your premise that the products / conveniences of modern capitalism necessarily lead us into an experience of 'futility' -- one could just as validly say that they are *enabling* as *tools* and *free* us to make our informal social connections more-or-less as we please.

I have to note that you're arguing within the realm of the *consumer*-side of things -- not from the 'labor' standpoint -- so how one selects and utilizes any given tools is quite *arbitrary* and is outside of one's intrinsic proletarian-collective interests.

[RedMaterialist]

I'll argue against your premise that the products / conveniences of modern capitalism necessarily lead us into an experience of 'futility' -- one could just as validly say that they are *enabling* as *tools* and *free* us to make our informal social connections more-or-less as we please.

That would be true if the products were produced freely in accordance with a freely developed plan. Since they are produced as objects of social relations (i.e. the fetishism argument) they turn us into social objects, thus futile social beings, etc.


have to note that you're arguing within the realm of the *consumer*-side of things -- not from the 'labor' standpoint -- so how one selects and utilizes any given tools is quite *arbitrary* and is outside of one's intrinsic proletarian-collective interests.

Didn't Marx show that consumption is production and production is consumption? I think the use of a "tool (or rather machine)" is certainly outside of one's human interest, but when the use is social, collective and forced (although it appears to be freely done), as in a factory, office, etc., then the use determines one's status as a proletariat.

At any rate, modern life is particularly anxiety-ridden and becoming more a-social. Margaret Thatcher once said, and she was probably more accurate than she realized, that society no longer exists, only individuals and families. Now the families are disappearing. What is the explanation for the destruction of human society? It can only be the economic structure. And how does that happen? Humans are social animals. If modern production destroys that society doesn't it mean that we cease to be human? It can be that the sense of futility is caused by the inability of humans to know what it is to be non-human.

[ckaihatsu]

I'll argue against your premise that the products / conveniences of modern capitalism necessarily lead us into an experience of 'futility' -- one could just as validly say that they are *enabling* as *tools* and *free* us to make our informal social connections more-or-less as we please.





That would be true if the products were produced freely in accordance with a freely developed plan. Since they are produced as objects of social relations (i.e. the fetishism argument) they turn us into social objects, thus futile social beings, etc.


I'm sorry -- I *hear* you, but I still disagree. I think there is a fair amount of latitude at the consumer level for people to be fairly self-deterministic, though still constrained by exploitative social relations, as you're pointing out.

You're sounding like you're blurring the distinction between generic, individual *social alienation*, and proletarian, *Marxist alienation*.





Alienation is essentially a sociological concept developed by several classical and contemporary theorists [1] and is "a condition in social relationships reflected by a low degree of integration or common values and a high degree of distance or isolation between individuals, or between an individual and a group of people in a community or work environment."[2]




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_alienation


---





The four types of Entfremdung are

(I) Alienation of the worker from the work — from the product of his labour

[...]

(II) Alienation of the worker from working — from the act of producing

[...]

(III) Alienation of the worker from himself, as a producer — from his Gattungswesen (species-essence)

[...]

(IV) Alienation of the worker from other workers

[...]




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_alienation


None of these types of proletarian alienation has anything to do with the consumer on their own time -- you *could* use the fetishism argument to point out that the consumer hardly has full control over what is actually manufactured or serviced, but that's the worst that befalls those who have some degree of disposable income.





Didn't Marx show that consumption is production and production is consumption?


I'd be interested in hearing this spelled-out, if you would.





I think the use of a "tool (or rather machine)" is certainly outside of one's human interest,


I really don't understand this at all -- humans are *historically* tool-users, going back to the times of primitive communism.





but when the use is social, collective and forced (although it appears to be freely done), as in a factory, office, etc., then the use determines one's status as a proletariat.


Agreed.





At any rate, modern life is particularly anxiety-ridden and becoming more a-social. Margaret Thatcher once said, and she was probably more accurate than she realized, that society no longer exists, only individuals and families.


Sorry again -- I interpret this saying of hers to be *ideological* and *promotional*, rather than *objective* and *descriptive*.

For anyone who bemoans a perceived growing-anomie, I would just say that, yes, the world's economy has worsened since the '70s onward, but perhaps there's also been a parallel enabling of the consumer at the same time, through an increased range and availability of 'tools', or preferred consumer items. The combination of lessened work prospects, with more ready diversions, may be the zeitgeist here, while the rise of the Internet lessens our need for conventional in-person communications.





Now the families are disappearing. What is the explanation for the destruction of human society?


I'll pass on this sentiment -- you're sounding like a downright conservative.





It can only be the economic structure. And how does that happen? Humans are social animals. If modern production destroys that society doesn't it mean that we cease to be human? It can be that the sense of futility is caused by the inability of humans to know what it is to be non-human.


Sure, the *form* of human society changes over time, but humanity is *not synonymous* with modern industrial production. I'd prefer *both* a healthy body politic *and* modern production, but, then, that's why we're revolutionaries, after all.

[RedMaterialist]

I'd be interested in hearing this spelled-out, if you would.

From the Grundrisse, Production and Consumption

"Production is also immediately consumption. Twofold consumption, subjective and objective: the individual not only develops his abilities in production, but also expends them, uses them up in the act of production, just as natural procreation is a consumption of life forces. Secondly: consumption of the means of production, which become worn out through use, and are partly (e.g. in combustion) dissolved into their elements again. Likewise, consumption of the raw material, which loses its natural form and composition by being used up. The act of production is therefore in all its moments also an act of consumption."



I really don't understand this at all -- humans are *historically* tool-users, going back to the times of primitive communism.


Humans have, of course, always used tools. However, they have only recently begun working in gigantic, mechanized factories; where tools have been transformed into huge, complex machines, and where workers no longer own their tools.


while the rise of the Internet lessens our need for conventional in-person communications.


It also reinforces and expands the "mass" society.


Sure, the *form* of human society changes over time, but humanity is *not synonymous* with modern industrial production.

It appears inhumanity may be synonymous with modern industrial capitalist production. But the point of the original question "what do you do when you cant do anything," seems to me to be what do you do when all your needs, biological, social, cultural, are met by the production of machines or robots? We all end up consuming but never producing. All destruction, no creation, as it were.

[ckaihatsu]

From the Grundrisse, Production and Consumption

"Production is also immediately consumption. Twofold consumption, subjective and objective: the individual not only develops his abilities in production, but also expends them, uses them up in the act of production, just as natural procreation is a consumption of life forces. Secondly: consumption of the means of production, which become worn out through use, and are partly (e.g. in combustion) dissolved into their elements again. Likewise, consumption of the raw material, which loses its natural form and composition by being used up. The act of production is therefore in all its moments also an act of consumption."


Thanks. Well, then, I have to differ with Marx here and/or point out that the *meaning* of 'consumption' here is different from that of an economic-material 'consumer-consumption'.

I think there's an overall direction of *entropy* implied in the statement, and this is a typical problematic *in general* in the conventional linear Western tradition, anyway.

Marx is using the term 'consumption' / 'used up' without mentioning or acknowledging that -- both subjectively and objectively -- the consumption of *lower-level* materials, for production, results in the *creation* of *higher-level* products and services. (For the individual we *learn* as we develop our abilities and these abilities are *not forgotten* through the act of using them.)





Humans have, of course, always used tools. However, they have only recently begun working in gigantic, mechanized factories; where tools have been transformed into huge, complex machines, and where workers no longer own their tools.


Yes, and this is an argument for the *proletarian* realm of being -- you can't seriously be implying that people *only* use tools in the workplace, and that they / we don't also have access to tools of our own (to varying degrees) as *personal* property -- !





It also reinforces and expands the "mass" society.


The 'mass communications commons', as-it-were. So that's a *good thing* -- correct? -- and cuts *against* the 'anomie' sentiment, right?





It appears inhumanity may be synonymous with modern industrial capitalist production.


I'll generalize this to *any* society that has the class division. That means that we would reach a more-humane social relations by *overthrowing* the ruling class, no matter what the historical era.





But the point of the original question "what do you do when you cant do anything," seems to me to be what do you do when all your needs, biological, social, cultural, are met by the production of machines or robots?


Are you really arguing this, or just putting it out there as a hypothetical -- ? It sounds more like the premise of a science fiction script than a description of actual social reality.





We all end up consuming but never producing. All destruction, no creation, as it were.


You're edging onto the terrain of technological determinism -- workers would still be required to engineer, produce, and maintain such infrastructure, whether it's robotic / automated, or not.

Again, this is more like a standard pessimistic dystopian post-apocalyptic Hollywood movie than anything else.