Is Marxism compatible with Humanism? [Archive]

View Full Version : Is Marxism compatible with Humanism?

Dorian

3rd February 2014, 07:05

3rd February 2014, 11:34

When you're including Friedrich Engels in your list of 'famous humanists', aren't you answering your own question?

Jimmie Higgins

3rd February 2014, 11:43

Criminalize Heterosexuality

3rd February 2014, 11:46

motion denied

3rd February 2014, 11:52

To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter. But, for man, the root is man himself.
[...]
Where, then, is the positive possibility of a German emancipation? Answer: In the formulation of a class with radical chains, a class of civil society which is not a class of civil society, an estate which is the dissolution of all estates, a sphere which has a universal character by its universal suffering and claims no particular right because no particular wrong, but wrong generally, is perpetuated against it; which can invoke no historical, but only human, title; which does not stand in any one-sided antithesis to the consequences but in all-round antithesis to the premises of German statehood; a sphere, finally, which cannot emancipate itself without emancipating itself from all other spheres of society and thereby emancipating all other spheres of society, which, in a word, is the complete loss of man and hence can win itself only through the complete re-winning of man. This dissolution of society as a particular estate is the proletariat.

In my book, any coherent humanist, that is, anyone concerned with the humanity of Men, sides with the proletariat against capital. After all, what is socialism if not the free and multilateral development of the humankind?

Althusserians, don't kill me pls.

Lokomotive293

3rd February 2014, 12:02

The critique of religion ends with the doctrine that man is the highest being for man, hence with the categorical imperative to overthrow all conditions in which man is a degraded, enslaved, neglected, contemptible being.

I would say, based on this quote, that Marxism is in fact the highest form of humanism.

reb

3rd February 2014, 12:03

There are people who call their views "marxist-humanism" or something like that but I'm not all that familiar with what would differentiate them as a tendency or whatnot.

Others on this website have disagreed with me on this, but my view is that marxism and anarchism are necessarily generally humanist in the sense of humans having agency to shape our world and our relationships. This would be opposed to crude determinism or biological-determinism (biology or genetics determining all our behaviors and social interactions) or some kind of religious or human nature arguments about society.

Marxist-humanists put alienation to the center of their understanding of class society and capitalism and as a result they do not seperate between a young Marx and a mature Marx.

I would also consider marxism to be humanist in the sense you put it "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please".

Jimmie Higgins

3rd February 2014, 12:05

Marxism is compatible with rejection of faith or non-scientific authority - in fact, accepting those things is anti-Marxist - but I don't think it is at all compatible with the notion of an abstract, supra-class "humanity". To the Marxist, society is to be analyzed in terms of classes, the development of the means of production etc., not a "humanity" that is not divided by class.But ironically communism is a universal humanist end that can only be created through the means of working class self-emancipation.

Dodo

3rd February 2014, 12:43

Marxism is compatible with rejection of faith or non-scientific authority - in fact, accepting those things is anti-Marxist - but I don't think it is at all compatible with the notion of an abstract, supra-class "humanity". To the Marxist, society is to be analyzed in terms of classes, the development of the means of production etc., not a "humanity" that is not divided by class.

Just to highlight, those classes, relations and means of production are not things external to humans. They exist and change with humans, therefore human is central to Marxist thought. I am not saying this in the Althusserian vs "humanist Marxists" context.

Dorian

3rd February 2014, 13:21

When you're including Friedrich Engels in your list of 'famous humanists', aren't you answering your own question?

I ask because I actually know some self-proclaimed Marxists who regard humanism as too much of an "idealistic" movement and don't like to call themselves humanists or even freethinkers - they see it as a "liberal" thing. I think they're just ignorant of the definition of humanism. Anyways, I don't agree with their thinking.

argeiphontes

3rd February 2014, 22:05

I ask because I actually know some self-proclaimed Marxists who regard humanism as too much of an "idealistic" movement and don't like to call themselves humanists or even freethinkers

Oh good, I'll start a thread about this.

Hit The North

3rd February 2014, 23:21

Just to highlight, those classes, relations and means of production are not things external to humans. They exist and change with humans, therefore human is central to Marxist thought. I am not saying this in the Althusserian vs "humanist Marxists" context.

True, but for Marxists these relations and means can, and do, exert an external power over humans. This dialectic is what is missing from most strands of humanism.

I ask because I actually know some self-proclaimed Marxists who regard humanism as too much of an "idealistic" movement and don't like to call themselves humanists or even freethinkers - they see it as a "liberal" thing. I think they're just ignorant of the definition of humanism. Anyways, I don't agree with their thinking.

I think they're right to be cautious because humanism is bourgeois - perhaps the most advanced and enlightened view of the world possible from a bourgeois position. Marxists do not have to describe themselves as humanists though, we already have a name: communists.

Rafiq

7th February 2014, 04:28

Marxism is incompatible with Humanist ideology, because not only is humanism idealist, it is a component of bourgeois ideology. Marxism is incompatible with humanism simply because it fails to recognize an innate spirit of humanity that survives through the revolutionary changes in their forms of social organization. Marxism recognizes the innate worthlessness of the human species, simply because we are able to understand it's basic animality. It is through this basic recognition, that we are able to transcend the limitations of our animality to the highest potential. We as Communists seek not to be constrained by our humanity, indeed, we wish to transcend it. We wish to exemplify a basic imparity in our conduct (as humans), through general madness will we become super-human, zealously devoted not to our self preservation but a single and absolute cause, namely, the international dictatorship of the proletariat and the destruction of our current state of affairs. Communism is trans-human, we uphold our goals above the well-being of humanity, even if it means the destruction of our species will we strive for power. This is the religious-madness we must inherit.

Lily Briscoe

7th February 2014, 07:49

No offense Rafiq, but sometimes you make these posts that just come across as being like these poor attempts at writing edgy poetry:
Marxism recognizes the innate worthlessness of the human species, simply because we are able to understand it's basic animality. It is through this basic recognition, that we are able to transcend the limitations of our animality to the highest potential. We as Communists seek not to be constrained by our humanity, indeed, we wish to transcend it. We wish to exemplify a basic imparity in our conduct (as humans), through general madness will we become super-human, zealously devoted not to our self preservation but a single and absolute cause, namely, the international dictatorship of the proletariat and the destruction of our current state of affairs. Communism is trans-human, we uphold our goals above the well-being of humanity, even if it means the destruction of our species will we strive for power. This is the religious-madness we must inherit.What is stuff like this actually supposed to mean, if anything?

Lokomotive293

7th February 2014, 10:15

Tenka

7th February 2014, 11:08

Communism is trans-human, we uphold our goals above the well-being of humanity, even if it means the destruction of our species will we strive for power. This is the religious-madness we must inherit.

What's the point of communism if the human species doesn't exist anymore? Also, no offense, but are you serious?

I think he is saying that our interests as a class trump our interests as a species or "humans", and with this I agree. I wanted to say in this thread that Marxism is "trans-humanist", as opposed to humanist (and not "trans-humanist" in that pop-technophile sense necessarily...) but he beat me to it. As some kind of wannabe-Marxist I think it is relevant to our revolutionary goals to redefine "humanity", at the very least--so what if it is so out of line with the ideas we have hitherto had about ourselves? In short, Humanism is too constrained by bourgeois ideology to be really compatible with Marxism.

edit: and/or he is promoting being a communist with religious fervour, but I also agree with this.

Rurkel

7th February 2014, 11:42

Originally Posted by Tenka
our interests as a species or "humans"What would these be?

Anyway, Nechaev FTW (his ideas, partially at least, seem to gain popularity on RevLeft recently).

motion denied

7th February 2014, 11:45

What would these be?

The end of capitalism.

tbh I don't even know who you're quoting.

Rurkel

7th February 2014, 11:49

The end of capitalism.

tbh I don't even know who you're quoting.
Tenka, with apologies. And I doubt they meant it this way, since it would mean that our interests as a class trump the end of capitalism...

Tenka

7th February 2014, 11:59

Tenka, with apologies. And I doubt they meant it this way, since it would mean that our interests as a class trump the end of capitalism...

I meant our interests as a class trump whatever humanist ideals. Of course, when classes are done away with humanism might make some sense, but at present it is 100% bourgeois ideological rubbish even as it outrages at the acts of individual bourgeoisie. Sorry for being unclear--it was the quasi-religious fervour you know...

Rurkel

7th February 2014, 12:04

Tenka

7th February 2014, 12:08

Then again, people are questioning the necessity of human survival here.

I dunno, I try to interpret some of Rafiq's posts in a prose-poetic light and then I can usually make almost perfect sense of them.

Fakeblock

7th February 2014, 12:21

I wouldn't say that "our interests as species" = "humanist ideals". I don't think that a species, whether human or not, has any other interests but surviving, while "humanism", whatever definition you use, is an ideology with far more baggage then just that.

Then again, people are questioning the necessity of human survival here.

Well, in my view, it's quite clear that class interest has historically always been of higher priority than survival. The bourgeoisie would rather see the destruction of all humanity than the victory of the proletarian revolution. My guess is that Rafiq and Tenka are saying that communists should take a similar attitude, but from the proletarian standpoint and that revolution requires people who would rather die and see the death of the whole species than accept defeat.

Rurkel

7th February 2014, 12:38

This sounds like "people who would rather be completely defeated, then accept defeat".

I think I need to re-read Catechism of a Revolutionary before continuing discussion on this thread (though I guess there're residual fumes of narodnik-style humanism even there).

Tenka

7th February 2014, 13:01

It may be unavoidable that our species ceases to exist before we even begin to see a light in the dark crypt wherein we all grope, whether or not we are unflinching in our revolutionary principle. For my part, I'd rather the bougies end the world as a reaction to incipient revolutionary change than as a natural consequence of them going on pursuing their class interests without being fundamentally challenged, even if it does take a little longer in the latter case. In general I think Rafiq's message is just that we ought to be uncompromising as a religious extremist and Humanism ain't our pal. It is perhaps needlessly complicating to read anything deeper than that.

Rurkel

7th February 2014, 14:17

Originally Posted by Tenka
I'd rather the bougies end the world as a reaction to incipient revolutionary change than as a natural consequence of them going on pursuing their class interests without being fundamentally challengedAs long as people understand that we've already irrevocably lost if we're faced with such a choice, I don't see anything wrong with that.

Lily Briscoe

7th February 2014, 15:31

Well, in my view, it's quite clear that class interest has historically always been of higher priority than survival. The bourgeoisie would rather see the destruction of all humanity than the victory of the proletarian revolution. My guess is that Rafiq and Tenka are saying that communists should take a similar attitude, but from the proletarian standpoint and that revolution requires people who would rather die and see the death of the whole species than accept defeat.

Which just seems like absurd posturing.

Fakeblock

7th February 2014, 15:52

Which just seems like absurd posturing.

I don't know. I'm not going to claim to have achieved such a level of revolutionary commitment. With the way things are, not being completely defeatist is an achievement in itself imo. But I don't think recognising the necessity of commitment, perhaps even revolutionary fanaticism, on the revolutionary's part is posturing or absurd. Any revolution of any class requires such a fervour among its participants. The whole problem is that so few people have such a zealous commitment to the communist goals.

Rurkel

7th February 2014, 17:16

"Revolutionary fervour advocacy" can be a symptom of shitty idealistic politics in which "Communists" immiserate the actually existing proletariat in the name of "the Revolution" or the "enthusiastically sacrificial" proletariat that exists in their heads. This is a fine line between this and realization that in any revolution, sacrifices are necessary and some things will get worse. Making necessity a virtue results in bad politics, regardless whether you're a humanist or not.

Lily Briscoe

7th February 2014, 21:14

I don't know. I'm not going to claim to have achieved such a level of revolutionary commitment. With the way things are, not being completely defeatist is an achievement in itself imo. But I don't think recognising the necessity of commitment, perhaps even revolutionary fanaticism, on the revolutionary's part is posturing or absurd. Any revolution of any class requires such a fervour among its participants. The whole problem is that so few people have such a zealous commitment to the communist goals.

I don't really think that's the problem at all, considering that revolution is made collectively by the working class rather than by the glorious heroism and fearless self-sacrifice of strong leftist supermen. To be honest, I'm extremely skeptical of people whose attraction to communist politics seems to be rooted in some sort of obsession with (and glorification of) power and mass violence. That sort of mentality seems way more conducive to being a middle class Maoist in the mountains somewhere fighting the military or to playing at being a hardman than to any sort of desire for working class self-emancipation.

PhoenixAsh

7th February 2014, 21:38

Wasn't Bloch a Marxist Humanist? Anyways...the Praxis group in Yugoslavia is seen in the light of Marxist Humanism and Fromm and Marcuse wrote something about Humanist socialism. And the whole idea bases itself on early Marx.

Althusser argued against Marxist Humanism denouncing early Marx as being too much influence by Hegelian philosophy. Althusser himself was a Stalinist...and is also denounced as being un Marxist.

So ...well..yeah...

You can combine Marxism and Humanism if you like. But why would you want to?

argeiphontes

7th February 2014, 23:34

Fromm

Check out Marx's Concept of Man, a good read.

Fakeblock

8th February 2014, 00:37

I don't really think that's the problem at all, considering that revolution is made collectively by the working class rather than by the glorious heroism and fearless self-sacrifice of strong leftist supermen. To be honest, I'm extremely skeptical of people whose attraction to communist politics seems to be rooted in some sort of obsession with (and glorification of) power and mass violence. That sort of mentality seems way more conducive to being a middle class Maoist in the mountains somewhere fighting the military or to playing at being a hardman than to any sort of desire for working class self-emancipation.

Yes, the working class must be committed to revolutionary goals if the revolution is to succeed. You're misinterpreting my position, since I never advocated a revolution carried out by "strong leftist supermen" or anything of the sort. However, it's obvious that a revolution based on half-hearted participants isn't going to get anywhere. A working class utterly devoted to the communist struggle is a necessity if any proletarian revolution is to succeed. This doesn't necessarily mean ideological purity or whatever, but focused, strategic and uncompromising action. Those are the tactics of the bourgeoisie. How could a revolutionary proletariat retaliate with anything less?

Halert

8th February 2014, 01:17

Humanism is i believe not compatible with Marxism for reason others people in this thread have argued.

When you're including Friedrich Engels in your list of 'famous humanists', aren't you answering your own question?
People are able to hold conflicting believes. We have several christian and muslin comrades on this discussion board for example. Engels is not a super human who is above having conflicting believes. The fact that Engels is a humanist is not prove that humanism is compatible with Marxism.

Hit The North

8th February 2014, 02:47

People are able to hold conflicting believes. We have several christian and muslin comrades on this discussion board for example. Engels is not a super human who is above having conflicting believes. The fact that Engels is a humanist is not prove that humanism is compatible with Marxism.

Then you must concede that Marx was also not a super human and perhaps held conflicting beliefs, so what does it even mean to say this or that is not "compatible with Marxism"?

Anyway, it hasn't been shown that Engels was any more a humanist than Marx.

Hit The North

8th February 2014, 03:11

You can combine Marxism and Humanism if you like. But why would you want to?

It might serve practical political reasons to bend the stick towards humanism. It served the interests of the 1950s/60s New Left to do it in order to distance itself from the overly deterministic Stalinists and the machinery of oppression that became the Soviet Union.

I think it is worth stressing at this point that Marx was only interested in the emancipation of the proletariat because he saw it as the precondition for the emancipation of all humanity, not because he wanted to replace one class rule with another class rule. Marxism presents itself as the highest expression of humanism, having discovered the secret for human freedom in the revolutionary self-activity of the working class. Therefore, it is nonsense to argue, as some do here, that Marxism has to oppose itself, as an enemy, to all strains of humanism.

It is more accurate, I think, to see that Marx overcomes the limitations of bourgeois humanism, not through its entire negation, but carries its best insights into a more complete and realistic framework of thinking. Similar, in fact, to the way he synthesises the best insights of political economy and puts them to work in Capital.

PhoenixAsh

8th February 2014, 03:27

It might serve practical political reasons to bend the stick towards humanism. It served the interests of the 1950s/60s New Left to do it in order to distance itself from the overly deterministic Stalinists and the machinery of oppression that became the Soviet Union.

True.

It didn't do them any real good though and the eventual outcome of most of the humanist Marxists is that they eventually developed into Euro-communism. A gross simplification but basically what happened.

Interestingly enough it is now the humanists (in Holland) who bring Marx back into the spotlights. Nothing really major.

I think it is worth stressing at this point that Marx was only interested in the emancipation of the proletariat because he saw it as the precondition for the emancipation of all humanity, not because he wanted to replace one class rule with another class rule. Marxism presents itself as the highest expression of humanism, having discovered the secret for human freedom in the revolutionary self-activity of the working class. Therefore, it is nonsense to argue, as some do here, that Marxism has to oppose itself, as an enemy, to all strains of humanism.

well said

It is more accurate, I think, to see that Marx overcomes the limitations of bourgeois humanism, not through its entire negation, but carries its best insights into a more complete and realistic framework of thinking. Similar, in fact, to the way he synthesises the best insights of political economy and puts them to work in Capital.[/QUOTE]

Althusser

8th February 2014, 04:18

No, it's metaphysical to think there's something more to human beings than just a product of evolution. Humanism isn't compatible with materialism.

Alexios

8th February 2014, 04:29

No, it's metaphysical to think there's something more to human beings than just a product of evolution. Humanism isn't compatible with materialism.

Humanists don't really think this though. There's a big difference between thinking that humans are supernatural and thinking that humanity is in some ways special.

Thirsty Crow

8th February 2014, 04:46

Humanists don't really think this though. There's a big difference between thinking that humans are supernatural and thinking that humanity is in some ways special.
So, why doesn't someone lay out a coherent definition of humanism?

Hit The North

8th February 2014, 15:05

So, why doesn't someone lay out a coherent definition of humanism?

Well, for convenience sake and because i find little to objection to it, the Wikipedia entry on humanism begins:

Humanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism) is a philosophical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) and ethical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics) stance that emphasizes the value and agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_%28philosophy%29) of human beings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human), individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking, and evidence (rationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism), empiricism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism)) over established doctrine or faith (fideism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism)). The meaning of the term humanism has fluctuated, according to the successive intellectual movements which have identified with it.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism#cite_note-What_2004-1) Generally, however, humanism refers to a perspective that affirms some notion of a "human nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature)" (sometimes contrasted with antihumanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihumanism)).Whilst antihumanism is described as

In social theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_theory) and philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy), antihumanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihumanism) (or anti-humanism) is a theory that is critical of traditional humanism and traditional ideas about humanity and the human condition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_condition).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihumanism#cite_note-1) Central to antihumanism is the view that concepts of "human nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature)", "man", or "humanity", should be rejected as historically relative or metaphysical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics).My point would be that the schism between these two one-sided perspectives is fought out in bourgeois social science but that this schism has already been synthesised into a new relationship in historical materialism: "species being as the ensemble of social relations"; "Men make history but not in circumstances chosen by themselves", etc.

As to humanism's ethical dimension, as is well known, Marxism does not have a distinctive ethical discourse of its own. Nevertheless, if antihumanism can be employed to justify the massive projects of social engineering that can be found in Stalinism and Maoism (as "historical necessity" or whatever mystified and metaphysical formula is available), then humanism's focus on the dignity and autonomy of the individual at least makes us hesitate to go down the road of treating human beings like faceless statistics (as per the famous quote from Stalin about one man's death being a tragedy and a thousand deaths being a mere statistic, or whatever it was).

Btw, being mindful of the autonomy and dignity of the individual doesn't mean that we should always oppose killing, merely that it should be opposed when done for arbitrary or trivial reasons and only done as a last resort.

By the way, the MIA page on Marxist Humanism (https://www.marxists.org/subject/humanism/index.htm) has links to lots of interesting writers both for and against.

markchan

12th February 2014, 13:46

It is very dangerous to read Marx as a humanist.
Foucault has reminded us that subject/the self is constituted by discourse and I also see no sign of Marx as a humanist in Capital because capitalists are just personifications of capital. A structure is preferred to humanism when understanding our society. Of course we need some humanist concern in the end but it should not take priority and obscure our understanding of the dynamics of capitalism and social constructivist nature of things

motion denied

12th February 2014, 19:07

It is very dangerous to read Marx as a humanist.
Foucault has reminded us that subject/the self is constituted by discourse
Could you expand on this? To me, is pretty clear that men make themselves through first order mediation, that is, productive activity.

and I also see no sign of Marx as a humanist in Capital because capitalists are just personifications of capital.

And how is characterizing capitalists as personifications of capital opposed to humanism? Also, what is commodity fetish if not alienation (one of the core theories of 'young' Marx)? The centrality of labour is there too.

markchan

13th February 2014, 12:58

Could you expand on this? To me, is pretty clear that men make themselves through first order mediation, that is, productive activity.

And how is characterizing capitalists as personifications of capital opposed to humanism? Also, what is commodity fetish if not alienation (one of the core theories of 'young' Marx)? The centrality of labour is there too.

Even though Marx has no idea of what structuralism is in his age, he is often characterized as a structuralist. His approach is definitely one of structuralism as opposed to humanism. Besides, I don't think it is appropriate to universalize human as social force just like I don't think it is appropriate to universalize that use-value exists all the time too. The productive labor and use-value + exchange-value are historical contingency specific to capitalism. It is risky to universalize human beings, having any promise of salvation of suffering human beings. Instead, I think it is more appropriate to historicize human subjects and analyse the discursive formation of subjects( a more foucauldian approach).

Brotto RÃ¼hle

13th February 2014, 23:32

Marx did describe the new society (communism) as a "new humanism". If you're interested in the Marxist-Humanist concept, there's a few organizations and a few people you should check out.

motion denied

14th February 2014, 00:31

Even though Marx has no idea of what structuralism is in his age, he is often characterized as a structuralist.
By structuralists, that is.

His approach is definitely one of structuralism as opposed to humanism.
That's what I asked you to expand on.

Besides, I don't think it is appropriate to universalize human as social force just like I don't think it is appropriate to universalize that use-value exists all the time too. The productive labor and use-value +
exchange-value are historical contingency specific to capitalism.

No one is universalizing human social force, but it will exist as long as there is History and society (that is, until our species is vanished).

According to Marx,

The utility of a thing makes it a use value [...] But this utility is not a thing of air. Being limited by the physical properties of the commodity, it has no existence apart from that commodity [...] Use values become a reality only by use or consumption: they also constitute the substance of all wealth, whatever may be the social form of that wealth. In the form of society we are about to consider, they are, in addition, the material depositories of exchange value.

Besides, he says that concrete labours differ qualitatively from one another, that it produces use-value. He then proceeds to say that the production of use-value is necessary for human reproduction. I guess it is correct to say that what is contingent to capitalism is the subsumption of concrete labour by abstract labour (or use-value by exchange-value).

It is risky to universalize human beings, having any promise of salvation of suffering human beings. Instead, I think it is more appropriate to historicize human subjects and analyse the discursive formation of subjects( a more foucauldian approach).

Humanism is not oppose to historicism. Marx's categories rely on the historicity of the social being, as opposed to eternal categories to be applied (oh noes, sorry, diamat!).

Das war einmal

17th March 2014, 01:14

Brotto RÃ¼hle

17th March 2014, 01:52

Raya Dunayevskaya (https://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/index.htm) is where you should start with Marxist-Humanism... I mean...the focus on alienation is key...the subject...etc.

Alexios

17th March 2014, 05:52

Not all to familiar with the contents of humanism, but looking at the description/ summary I'd say it's not only compatible, it's inherently part of Marxist thought. However the value of an individual has been overlooked at by many who considered themselves marxist and that is putting it lightly.

Nearly everyone who claims to be a Marxist either hasn't read or disregards entirely the 1844 Manuscripts, The German Ideology, and Marx's other humanist works. Coincidentally, these are some of his best and all had an influence on Capital and his later work.

Rafiq

18th March 2014, 03:13

Nearly everyone who claims to be a Marxist either hasn't read or disregards entirely the 1844 Manuscripts, The German Ideology, and Marx's other humanist works. Coincidentally, these are some of his best and all had an influence on Capital and his later work.

Undeniably, aspects of Marx's early works played a significant role in the shaping of Marx's later works, however, whether the innately humanist nature of these works were innately humanistic as a whole, or whether the humanism of these works is what precisely influenced works like capital, is what we disagree about.

Humanism, not liberalism, is the universal father of all forms of bourgeois ideology, liberalism, fascism, and even Stalinism were all inherently humanist at there core. What Marx recognized, as well as revolutionaries of the early 20th century recognized, was that the abandonment of humanism was the first and perhaps most crucial step in realizing and adopting the historical force of proletarian consciousness, that which expresses the desires, ambitions and aspirations of the revolutionary proletariat. Marx's abandonment of humanism was the breakthrough that defined Marxism. Remember Marx, who said my method does not start from man, but from the given social period. Meaning humanity is defined by the social relations wherein it operates in, and humanism, which developed during the development and solidification of capitalist relations, which was championed by the early bourgeoisie, is as such the exaltation of humanity as it exists in a state of capitalist production. Though it is no wonder why you, Alexios, who has always maintained an identification with the most elementary forms of bourgeois thought, would be so keen in expressing praise towards Marx's early works.

Brotto RÃ¼hle

18th March 2014, 13:53

Undeniably, aspects of Marx's early works played a significant role in the shaping of Marx's later works, however, whether the innately humanist nature of these works were innately humanistic as a whole, or whether the humanism of these works is what precisely influenced works like capital, is what we disagree about.

Humanism, not liberalism, is the universal father of all forms of bourgeois ideology, liberalism, fascism, and even Stalinism were all inherently humanist at there core. What Marx recognized, as well as revolutionaries of the early 20th century recognized, was that the abandonment of humanism was the first and perhaps most crucial step in realizing and adopting the historical force of proletarian consciousness, that which expresses the desires, ambitions and aspirations of the revolutionary proletariat. Marx's abandonment of humanism was the breakthrough that defined Marxism. Remember Marx, who said my method does not start from man, but from the given social period. Meaning humanity is defined by the social relations wherein it operates in, and humanism, which developed during the development and solidification of capitalist relations, which was championed by the early bourgeoisie, is as such the exaltation of humanity as it exists in a state of capitalist production. Though it is no wonder why you, Alexios, who has always maintained an identification with the most elementary forms of bourgeois thought, would be so keen in expressing praise towards Marx's early works.Your hilariously vague, and poorly poetic posts are in and of themselves some of the worst examples of bourgeois thought, and anti-proletarian nonsense I've ever come across to date. So, for you to be lecturing anyone on what constitutes bourgeois thought, especially when it's the topic of the humanism of Marx, is laughable. You're entire proof of Marx's supposed break with his humanist beginnings is a sentence fragment...

Seriously... I'll paraphrase the type of shit that you manage to type: "We will abolish capitalism....even if it means we are to end the human species!!!" - Rafiq, King of Soliloquies, Master of Limericks, Emperor of exaggeration (or at least we hope that's what it is).

Tell me, oh great Rafiq... where did Marx break with his theory of alienation?

Rafiq

18th March 2014, 14:11

Rafiq

18th March 2014, 14:13

What exactly is vague or poetic about that post? If you are unable to form an actual argument, instead of resorting to personal attacks from what you believe to know of my previous posts, maybe you should re assess your decision to reply.

First you claim my posts are bourgeois in nature, and are "anti proletarian" and you have yet to explain yourself. Yes they are anti proletarian, I seek the abolition of the proletariat as a class, you however, with your passionate humanism, perhaps would see to the submission of them as a class whole to the forces of humanity and nature.

Then you go on to claim that I only have one sentance to support my post - yet distinguished and prominant Marxist thinkers have arrived at identical conclusions with vigorous and careful readings of Marx's works in great detail. Would you speak to them in the same manner? You could not.

Brotto RÃ¼hle

18th March 2014, 15:01

Althusser wrote an entire book on the topic. There's no need for me to rehash it, do yourself a favor and look into it. You make it as if what I say is so outlandish and ridiculous, everyone with even the most elementary understanding of Marx's chronological life recognizes his break with humanism and his disregard for his theory of alienation.Althusser is an embarrassment, and has been taken down again and again. John Lewis comes to mind...

What exactly is vague or poetic about that post? If you are unable to form an actual argument, instead of resorting to personal attacks from what you believe to know of my previous posts, maybe you should re assess your decision to reply.I'm speaking of you in general, someone who's fetish for violence is trumped only by the vague and, again, poorly poetic structure of his posts.

First you claim my posts are bourgeois in nature, and are "anti proletarian" and you have yet to explain yourself. Yes they are anti proletarian, I seek the abolition of the proletariat as a class, you however, with your passionate humanism, perhaps would see to the submission of them as a class whole to the forces of humanity and nature. Embarrassing, yet again. It's in the interests of the proletarian class to abolish itself. Say what you will, claim your positions are X, but the shit you say is absolute nonsense. Stalin and Mao claimed to want to abolish classes as well. Stalin claimed to have succeeded in abolish "parasitic" classes. Doesn't make it so.

Then you go on to claim that I only have one sentance to support my post - yet distinguished and prominant Marxist thinkers have arrived at identical conclusions with vigorous and careful readings of Marx's works in great detail. Would you speak to them in the same manner? You could not.Distinguished and prominent are two very nice adjectives, which are subjective.

Rafiq

18th March 2014, 15:07

Rafiq

18th March 2014, 15:22

It is those who desire peace and minimal violence that are truly the fetishizers of violence, as they seek to retain the innate violence of existing social relations and the structures of bourgeois power. They seek a continual, unending cruel and oppressive violence under the guise of stability and peace, 'freedom' and 'liberty'. Ours is for the destruction of this state of affairs. If this is poetic to you, perhaps it is your inability to evade such truth that leads you to such a conclusion. The conquest of state power legitimizes any magnitude of violence, you can in the name of reason and sanity speak to me as if what I say is excessive, though don't pretend that you are dedicated or loyal to the prospect of revolution, don't pretend to be a communist in any meaningful usage of the term, as you, despite what you say, still recognize the legitimacy of bourgeois ideology. I don't hold you to blame, I speak to you honestly, you are a bourgeois ideologue. You don't have to be.

Brotto RÃ¼hle

18th March 2014, 15:38

Since you are unable to address thr content of my posts, besides a few cheap slurs (interestingly enough, you claim I am vague, and yet what else can your reply be but vague?) I should like to bring attention to your allegation that Althusser has been "brought down". If that is true, you should find no problem replicating these allegedly shattering arguments against him, against me. Yet you are unable to. Is it because they do not exist? Or is it because you either do not understand them, or have not read them. Therefore, you do not understand Althusser.You told me you wouldn't rehash Althusser, so I won't do you the courtesy of rehashing the arguments against him... although I will link you to a couple:

The Althusser Case - John Lewis (http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1653&context=alr)

Althusser's Marx - Leszek Kolakowski (http://www.socialistregister.com/index.php/srv/article/view/5334/2235#.UyhU1fldUTk)

The "Scientificity" and Humanism of the Early Marx - Aaron Jaffe (http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/the-scientificity-and-humanism-of-the-early-marx)

and more that I'm not going to bother digging up atm...

Rafiq

19th March 2014, 00:58

You told me you wouldn't rehash Althusser, so I won't do you the courtesy of rehashing the arguments against him... although I will link you to a couple:

The Althusser Case - John Lewis (http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1653&context=alr)

Althusser's Marx - Leszek Kolakowski (http://www.socialistregister.com/index.php/srv/article/view/5334/2235#.UyhU1fldUTk)

The "Scientificity" and Humanism of the Early Marx - Aaron Jaffe (http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/the-scientificity-and-humanism-of-the-early-marx)

and more that I'm not going to bother digging up atm...

Although I saw no attempt to rehash Althusser's arguments in order to prove that I was not alone in them, I still did make an argument.

Are you so naive to think that these criticisms delegitimize Althusser? Let's take a look at the arguments presented:

Already we have a straw-man

Althusser’s position is that Marx in 1845 totally
abandoned all his early views as Hegelian and
idealist, and thereafter they play no part at all in his
writings

Nowhere has Althusser claimed this, he was fully aware that Marx's earlier views had a recognizable influence on his later views, only that aspects of his earlier views were innately idealist, which he did later abandon, as anyone with a decent grasp on Marx's works in chronological order can come to the conclusion.

Lewis is incapable of recognizing that although Marx did forego an epistemological break, it was not so sudden that all of his earlier views were disregarded in one sitting, merely that the foundations of these views were abandoned, and the views themselves flexibly changed and rescinded over the decades of Marx's life.

In the section regarded Marx's theory of alienation, it is true that Marx never really fully abandoned it, however it is undeniable that he did away with it's humanist essence. In other words, alienation was no longer the deprivation of "nature" from man by capitalist relations (nature is the summation of the existing social period from which it is conceived, Marx recognized social relations exist in totality, there is no universal, relentless and undying "nature" of man. Do you believe Marx to have said otherwise?) but a means to explain the phenomena of exploitation (which was not a moral attack on capitalist relations, but a real social phenomena) in Capital. Furthermore, what the author refuses to recognize is that the style in which Capital was written utilized several different in a satirical, and allegorical manner, prominent ideas which he did not actually ascribe to in order to convey an understanding of his theories.

The topic on humanism gives us a quote by Lenin

In few scientific treatises will you find so much
heart, so many burning and passionate polemical
outbursts. It depicts capitalist society as a living
thing with the actual social manifestation of the
antagonistic classes in the relations of production

This is pathologically taken as evidence of Lenin's recognition of the humanism of capital! He goes on to say:

O f course, we are well aware of the possibility of a
rapid, emotional kind of uplift which can call itself
humanism, but its existence seems a poor reason for
eliminating the basic concern for humanity from
socialism. To strip Marxism of its concern for man,
for human interests, for the fulfilment of human
aspirations and the human personality would be to
deny everything that Marx, and after him Lenin,
stood for.

So here, heart, passion and righteousness are seen as evidence of Marx's alleged basic concern for humanity. In other words, the author pre-supposes Marx operated within a humanist-moral paradigm, and then continues to take as evidence moral interpretations of something like capital by Lenin (which is not innately humanist on any level!) as evidence of his humanism! Surprise Surprise! The author is unable to address Althusser's evidence of Marx's abandonment of humanism directly, and instead attempts to associate Marx's morality as innately humanist, and we the audience are simply supposed to take his word for it. How can talk of a humanity, a universal humanity with an innate nature, an innate moral characteristic be anything but ideological? How is the author unable to recognize that literally every other ideology claims humanity for their own as well, and that humanist-'Marxists' have absolutely no right to claim theirs is valid? It is beyond me. Surely, my posts contain ideological content, undoubtedly I ascribe to ideology, but at the end I am fully aware of it and possess the capability of separating communism as an ideology (which is essentially anti-humanist) and Marxism as a paradigm of a science.

He then goes on to quote Marx from works like The Holy Family, and use them as evidence of Marx's humanism. But nowhere did Althusser deny Marx's humanism during 1844! The whole point was the epistemological break! I feel as though I am insulted by reading such nonsense. Why is the author unable to bring forth phrases from Marx during the latter years of his life as evidence? He is not. Because they do not exist!

The whole of the German
Ideology is concerned with this very problem, for the
alienation of m an’s condition under capitalism
arises because:
“ . .. we have themajorityofindividuals from whom
these forces have been wrested away, who robbed
them of all life content, have become abstract
individuals.” 22
It is not M arx who treats man as an abstraction, it is
capitalism!

The author clearly fails to recognize Marx's abandonment of such an idea as well as his abandonment of his humanistic opposition to capitalism. During his latter years, Marx had become fascinated with the functions of capitalist production and thus recognize whatever "life content" the worker is able to possess is a result of the revolutionary forces of capitalist production, which had brought forth a social revolution within feudalism and enabled such "content" to exist. Only that through exploitation, it is deprived from the worker. Why would Marx say man does not exist, and that he is a reflection of his social period if he had espoused humanist values to his grave?

I think that alone should be enough to suffice in proving the inability for the link you presented to challenge Althusser. And if you recognize that as legitimate, than who can say for the others? Read Althusser's works, not his alleged works. You'll know the faulty of their points. I am aware that there may exist a profound and insightful cirticism of Althusser (whether that invalidates his works is another story altogether). But that, that was not one. You want to speak of embarrassing, you should feel infinitely embarrassed for identifying with such nonsense. It's madness, it's almost as if the author had never laid eyes on Althusser's works.

Proletarian ideology, Communism, cannot operate under the pretense that we fight for humanity, as the notion humanity acts in essence as the core ideological supplement of bourgeois ideology. Humanity is the summation of bourgeois class hegemony, it is the summation of the capitalist mode of production. One of the definitive characteristics of Stalinism as a bourgeois ideology is it's innate humanism, or would you like to deny this as well? Please know that I do not wish to engage in such childish petty insults with you. I don't see you as a threat, on a theoretical or personal level. There is nothing profound, provocative or stimulating about your posts. I'm trying to help you. Of course I'm not going to change your mind. Of course this argument does not prove anything, of course legitimacy is not gained through debate, and neither is truth. It is clear that you have no place in a new Communism, or a new wave of class struggle. You'll rot, you'll die away like the rest of the posturing "left" adhering to ideology with no modern context, and if any, only to negatively supplement the ideology of the state apparatus.

Rafiq

19th March 2014, 01:13

It is no surprise that the article was written by the journalistic wing of the Communist Party of Australia, another disgraceful and impotent organization of the cold war which failed to provide a viable base from which class struggle was conducted. It is self defeating to take the ideological dribble of the failed Left, which Althusser himself had attacked for their ideological foundations, and utilize it as an argument against him. Humanism as a component of 20th Communist ideology during the cold war, make no mistake, was not a utilitarian mistake, it was not a matter of decision or policy, it simply reflected the role these communist parties took in relation to the class struggle. Any fool can recognize that the interests of the proletarian class were never uniform with the Leninist Left.

It is interesting that you ascribe to the likes of Pannekoek, Otto Ruhl, who, like today's Chomsky, stand as the left optimatos, the bourgeois ideologues who fulfilled the demands of their liberalism with the rhetoric of proletarian struggle. If you want to speak of universal history, than it is not difficult to recognize that since antiquity, from Greece to the latter part of the 19th century, talk of "tyranny" and talk of "liberty" were clear indications of identification with the propertied, the aristocratic, and so on. Even in ancient Greece, many of the historically regarded tyrants were popular democrats who were renowned for their cruelty towards the aristocrats and nobles, and therefore historically regarded as such.

ARomanCandle

19th March 2014, 01:15

Marx has a concept of human nature. It's all over his work. It's human nature to consciously direct one's activities.

In Capital, after the alleged "break," he writes (in a brilliant critique of utilitarianism):

The principle of utility was no discovery of Bentham. He simply reproduced in his dull way what Helvétius and other Frenchmen had said with esprit in the 18th century. To know what is useful for a dog, one must study dog-nature. This nature itself is not to be deduced from the principle of utility. Applying this to man, he that would criticise all human acts, movements, relations, etc., by the principle of utility, one must first deal with human nature in general, and then with human nature as modified in each historical epoch.

Same book:

But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement. He not only effects a change of form in the material on which he works, but he also realises a purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi, and to which he must subordinate his will. And this subordination is no mere momentary act. Besides the exertion of the bodily organs, the process demands that, during the whole operation, the workman’s will be steadily in consonance with his purpose. This means close attention. The less he is attracted by the nature of the work, and the mode in which it is carried on, and the less, therefore, he enjoys it as something which gives play to his bodily and mental powers, the more close his attention is forced to be.

Rafiq

19th March 2014, 01:16

Like the stoics of Rome, their works may at first glance appear to be revolutionary, but within the social context from which they operated, their overall ideological function was the preservation of the existing order and all of the philosophical and meekly political abstractions made were done so in such a vacuum that it had absolutely no application to existing social relations and, within their abstract context, only furthered to champion the ruling class.

Rafiq

19th March 2014, 01:28

When Marx sais One must first deal with human nature in general, and then with human nature as modified in each historical epoch he does not mean to say human nature as an undying moral aspiration or ideological subject. I too, recognize that there exists a "human nature" and have said such in earlier posts (not in this thread, however). Of course there is a human nature. Of course humans are naturally inclined to feed themselves, to mate, and so on. Of course humans are naturally inclined to behave in a certain way that would be indiscriminate of their specific historical social period for purely biological reasons, convenient reasons. Meaning the nature of man is his revolutionary relationship to nature, and the distinct character of his social relations which define him. But the undying nature of man does not signify an innate nature in man, but an innate nature in social relations, meaning that which all social relations will have in common. I could not say it better myself, as a matter of fact, there is a human nature, it is not however an objective subject, i.e. in the manner by which it is conceived ideologically (For example, by humanists). That which is inherent to man itself does not exist out of some kind of cosmic or natural balance, it is hardly something which can be claimed by a specific ideology as a fulfillment of it's (the ideologies) universality.

I have said before that there is a human nature, and that is the ever revolutionary relationship to nature, which as a result produces specific social-historical conceptions of humanity which reflect humanity only insofar as humanity is existent within that specific social period.

What we are speaking of here is human nature, human "essence" as an ideological category.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

22nd March 2014, 09:30

Calling Marx a "Humanist" in the modern sense of the term is not accurate because his writing predates modern conceptions of humanism. Those modern conceptions are rooted in ideas that existed before Marx's time, although they were ideas that Marx himself engaged with, and both borrowed from and rejected in different cases. Insofar as a "Marxist Humanism" is possible, it's not going to be a "humanism" as often conceived by bourgeois society.

As for this debate Rafiq is having with others - Rafiq is right that Marx asserted a socially contingent definition of "human nature" as opposed to an abstract, idealized version of it, which does put him at odds with various humanists. There is also something appealing about the discourse of transcending and moving beyond our concepts of "humanity". However I think it's presupposing what we seek to prove if we then define humanism such that it cannot contain such a dynamic conception of human nature. If we have a broader conception of "humanism" there's still the sense in which we can conceive of Marx as articulating certain "humanist" thoughts without bastardizing his philosophy. As much as anything else, the kind of "humanist" one is depends on how they define "human" and how much importance they put on the term "human." As such, "humanist" in and of itself is a meaningless term without more context - what sort of "humanity" are we talking about, etc.

It is interesting that you ascribe to the likes of Pannekoek, Otto Ruhl, who, like today's Chomsky, stand as the left optimatos, the bourgeois ideologues who fulfilled the demands of their liberalism with the rhetoric of proletarian struggle. If you want to speak of universal history, than it is not difficult to recognize that since antiquity, from Greece to the latter part of the 19th century, talk of "tyranny" and talk of "liberty" were clear indications of identification with the propertied, the aristocratic, and so on.

That seems like an argument of guilt by association. Sure, monied classes talked more of liberty, but that doesn't make any discussion of liberty defined in terms of left-liberalism and everything to the right of it, or of aristocratic or bourgeois values.

I agree that rhetoric of liberty vs tyranny is usually overly reductionist and simplistic, but I don't think that makes any mention of liberty as somehow inherently bourgeois. For instance, gay Russians during the 30s and 40s in Russia, or a woman seeking an abortion at the same time, had a legitimate demand to not only get access to sexual partners or abortions without the interference of the Soviet state, but to speak freely to other Soviet citiens about their particular needs. Even if there's a sense that such a notion comes from liberal philosophy, it's not fundamentally wrong or misguided for people in that situation to complain of a lack of liberty. It's just a statement of fact that the State deprived them of the right to organize around their interests or fulfill their needs without resorting to an underground lifestyle. Their liberation can only come in an ultimate sense from the liberation of the working class, but we can see how specific kinds of activities are closed off from various groups in every political situation (of course, depriving some folks of liberty has always been a method of preserving the domination of some other group or class in modern mass society)

Rafiq

23rd March 2014, 01:02

I might contradict myself, but this is my real position with regard to humanism:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2733512&postcount=6

Turinbaar

25th March 2014, 01:21

Here are some excerpts of marx on communism and humanism

By embracing this relation [between property and labour] as a whole, communism is:

(1) In its first form only a generalisation and consummation of it [of this relation]. As such it appears in a two-fold form: on the one hand, the dominion of material property bulks so large that it wants to destroy everything which is not capable of being possessed by all as private property. It wants to disregard talent, etc., in an arbitrary manner. For it the sole purpose of life and existence is direct, physical possession. The category of the worker is not done away with, but extended to all men. The relationship of private property persists as the relationship of the community to the world of things...

This type of communism – since it negates the personality of man in every sphere – is but the logical expression of private property, which is this negation...

The community is only a community of labour, and equality of wages paid out by communal capital – by the community as the universal capitalist. Both sides of the relationship are raised to an imagined universality – labour as the category in which every person is placed, and capital as the acknowledged universality and power of the community...

The first positive annulment of private property – crude communism – is thus merely a manifestation of the vileness of private property, which wants to set itself up as the positive community system...

(2) Communism (α) still political in nature – democratic or despotic; (β) with the abolition of the state, yet still incomplete, and being still affected by private property, i.e., by the estrangement of man. In both forms communism already is aware of being reintegration or return of man to himself, the transcendence of human self-estrangement; but since it has not yet grasped the positive essence of private property, and just as little the human nature of need, it remains captive to it and infected by it. It has, indeed, grasped its concept, but not its essence.

(3) Communism as the positive transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement, and therefore as the real appropriation of the human essence by and for man; communism therefore as the complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., human) being – a return accomplished consciously and embracing the entire wealth of previous development. This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution.

Against the calls for Religious-Madness, holding such zeal greater than humanity, and the wailing to an empty sky at the upset of such high dreams, there has always been the challenger, the first of which was praised by Lucretius and echoed by Marx in his dissertation on Epicurus.

When human life lay grovelling in all men's sight, crushed to the earth under the dead weight of religion whose grim features loured menacingly upon mortals from the four quarters of the sky, a man of Greece was first to raise mortal eyes in defiance, first to stand erect and brave the challenge. Fables of the gods did not crush him, nor the lightning flash and growling menace of the sky.... Therefore religion in its turn lies crushed beneath his feet, and we by his triumph are lifted level with the skies.

Rafiq

26th March 2014, 02:35

Turinbaar

26th March 2014, 04:28

What do you expect to prove? That was written in 1844, we are well aware of Marx's humanist as well as Idealist views during then.

The religious-madness I speak of is not the submission before gods, with that regard to humanists and other bourgeois ideologues (as ideologues of the ruling class) have more in common, submitting before the idols of bourgeois thought. The religious-madness I speak of is an uncompromising, transhuman zeal, undoubtedly greater than humanity, the humanity of the old world, the humanity by which's nature is to serve the interests of capital. A criticism of gods, or religion, pre-supposes the universal validity of them. We carry the legitimacy of the whole Marx, the Marx of capital, who understood religion within the paradigm of a greater understanding of human social relations as a whole.

So what marx said in the manuscripts is to be rejected, or dismissed as "Idealist," even his critique of hegel's idealism? How is this to "carry the legitimacy of the whole Marx"? Everything said in the manuscripts applies to his later works, such as religion being the social-relations from which capital draws its own relation to labour. Nothing from Marx's later works contradicts his earlier claim that capital alienates humanity from its essence (quite the opposite of what you say that there is something naturally human about the alienated state of the worker), that the laborer is object to property as the devout is object to god, that to abolish the illusions enforcing one set of relations requires the same of the other, and that socialism is the re-affirmation of humanity as its own master. Criticizing religion does not pre-supose it's universal validity, especially if the criticism is against the validity of its claim to universality.

Thirsty Crow

26th March 2014, 19:04

... such as religion being the social-relations from which capital draws its own relation to labour...
It's misleading to conclude that capital draws its own relation to labor from religion.
Rather, the point I believe Marx makes is that the generic notion of alienation encompasses both what happens with religious practice and social life based on capital, with important differences of course (and common features which precisely enable us to talk of the generic notion of alienation).

Brotto RÃ¼hle

26th March 2014, 21:23

Istvan Meszaros writes interestingly on the related topic in Marx's Theory of Alienation (http://www.marxists.org/archive/meszaros/works/alien/index.htm)

"If, then, Marx's Manuscripts of 1844 are idealistic, so must be Lenin's praise of their central concept – incorporated from them into The Holy Family – as “the basic idea of Marx's entire system”. And this is not the worst part of the story yet. For Lenin goes on praising this work (see his article on Engels) not only for containing “the foundations of revolutionary materialist socialism” but also for being written “In the name of a real, human person”.Thus Lenin seems to “capitulate” not only to “idealism”, confounding it with revolutionary materialist socialism”, but – horribile dictu – to “humanism” as well."

Turinbaar

27th March 2014, 01:17

It's misleading to conclude that capital draws its own relation to labor from religion.

Not at all. Religion is the generic and prototypical form of alienation. Primitive production process before capitalism was always conceived as a religious relationship between humanity as the object of a divine nature. Things such as farming, basket weaving, architecture, medicine etc. were attributed to divine origins and processes. The Catholic church is the prototypical corporation and monopoly. Adam Smith's invisible hand is nothing more than a Deus ex Machina made up to make things come out right in the marketplace, an attempt to deny the human foundations of a system that feels itself above humanity.

Rafiq

27th March 2014, 02:31

So what marx said in the manuscripts is to be rejected, or dismissed as "Idealist," even his critique of hegel's idealism? How is this to "carry the legitimacy of the whole Marx"? Everything said in the manuscripts applies to his later works, such as religion being the social-relations from which capital draws its own relation to labour. Nothing from Marx's later works contradicts his earlier claim that capital alienates humanity from its essence (quite the opposite of what you say that there is something naturally human about the alienated state of the worker), that the laborer is object to property as the devout is object to god, that to abolish the illusions enforcing one set of relations requires the same of the other, and that socialism is the re-affirmation of humanity as its own master. Criticizing religion does not pre-supose it's universal validity, especially if the criticism is against the validity of its claim to universality.

Essentially, what I am saying is that there are inarguable tendencies toward Idealism, and bourgeois ideology in Marx's earlier works. Does this mean that as a whole they are to be dismissed? No, quite simply that these tendencies exist in a dynamic and pervasive manner which you cannot ignore. The evolution of Marx's thinking is not divided through conclusive spiritual epiphanies, but a dynamic trend which can be summarized as different stages only afterwards. They were gradual changes in his beliefs that led to the changing of those beliefs completely. For example, as soon as 1845 Marx abandoned all discourse which reduced politics and history to 'man's innate nature'. It is qutie pathetic that humanists today attempt to portray Marx as some kind of consistent humanist - even Marxist-humanists, among them Jean Paul Sartre recognized Marx's abandonment of humanism, albeit the "corrupting influence" of Engels took the blame. What Marx recognized was that humanity, man can be characterized by his according social period, and that humanity cannot "become it's own master" because humanity is already it's own master. A quick and simple google search reveals Marx's position regarding a criticism of religion - not as that which divorces man from his 'human essence', but a component of productive and social relations which define humanity itself. An underlying point with regard to Marx's understanding of bourgeois ideology, was that the same society which gave birth to ideas of human essence (and therefore human rights) was the same society which was under the totality of the process of capital accumulation, the same society whose basis resided with capitalist social relations.

Turinbaar

27th March 2014, 04:06

Essentially, what I am saying is that there are inarguable tendencies toward Idealism, and bourgeois ideology in Marx's earlier works. Does this mean that as a whole they are to be dismissed? No, quite simply that these tendencies exist in a dynamic and pervasive manner which you cannot ignore. The evolution of Marx's thinking is not divided through conclusive spiritual epiphanies, but a dynamic trend which can be summarized as different stages only afterwards. They were gradual changes in his beliefs that led to the changing of those beliefs completely. For example, as soon as 1845 Marx abandoned all discourse which reduced politics and history to 'man's innate nature'. It is qutie pathetic that humanists today attempt to portray Marx as some kind of consistent humanist - even Marxist-humanists, among them Jean Paul Sartre recognized Marx's abandonment of humanism, albeit the "corrupting influence" of Engels took the blame. What Marx recognized was that humanity, man can be characterized by his according social period, and that humanity cannot "become it's own master" because humanity is already it's own master. A quick and simple google search reveals Marx's position regarding a criticism of religion - not as that which divorces man from his 'human essence', but a component of productive and social relations which define humanity itself. An underlying point with regard to Marx's understanding of bourgeois ideology, was that the same society which gave birth to ideas of human essence (and therefore human rights) was the same society which was under the totality of the process of capital accumulation, the same society whose basis resided with capitalist social relations.

Here's your quick google search,

From Capital

The religious world is but the reflex of the real world. And for a society based upon the production of commodities, in which the producers in general enter into social relations with one another by treating their products as commodities and values, whereby they reduce their individual private labour to the standard of homogeneous human labour – for such a society, Christianity with its cultus of abstract man, more especially in its bourgeois developments, Protestantism, Deism, &c., is the most fitting form of religion. In the ancient Asiatic and other ancient modes of production, we find that the conversion of products into commodities, and therefore the conversion of men into producers of commodities, holds a subordinate place, which, however, increases in importance as the primitive communities approach nearer and nearer to their dissolution. Trading nations, properly so called, exist in the ancient world only in its interstices, like the gods of Epicurus in the Intermundia, or like Jews in the pores of Polish society.

Christianity, a religion of Shepards and sheep, whose "cultus of abstract man" is indeed a divorce of humanity from it's real essence, is a perfect pre-cursur to industrial commodity society. The entire chapter is on commodities as fetishism. Where does the fetishism come from and what is it but not religion, and what is it for but to deny humanity in exchange for worshipping an object? Later on it says

Those ancient social organisms of production are, as compared with bourgeois society, extremely simple and transparent. But they are founded either on the immature development of man individually, who has not yet severed the umbilical cord that unites him with his fellowmen in a primitive tribal community, or upon direct relations of subjection.They can arise and exist only when the development of the productive power of labour has not risen beyond a low stage, and when, therefore, the social relations within the sphere of material life, between man and man, and between man and Nature, are correspondingly narrow. This narrowness is reflected in the ancient worship of Nature, and in the other elements of the popular religions. The religious reflex of the real world can, in any case, only then finally vanish, when the practical relations of every-day life offer to man none but perfectly intelligible and reasonable relations with regard to his fellowmen and to Nature.

Whence cometh the practical relations of everyday life? Marx answers,

These formulæ, which bear it stamped upon them in unmistakable letters that they belong to a state of society, in which the process of production has the mastery over man, instead of being controlled by him, such formulæ appear to the bourgeois intellect to be as much a self-evident necessity imposed by Nature as productive labour itself. Hence forms of social production that preceded the bourgeois form, are treated by the bourgeoisie in much the same way as the Fathers of the Church treated pre-Christian religions.

To take a historic example, the Confederacy, a capitalist system nurturing the ancient technique of slavery as an old testament to their new, who's motto was Deo Vindice, which reduced humanity to livestock, where the productive process was master of humanity, the laborers were made to sacrifice everything both to capital and god. Indeed what is the Confederacy if not a confusion between the two?

This confirms what is said in Estranged Labor

All these consequences are implied in the statement that the worker is related to the product of labor as to an alien object. For on this premise it is clear that the more the worker spends himself, the more powerful becomes the alien world of objects which he creates over and against himself, the poorer he himself – his inner world – becomes, the less belongs to him as his own. It is the same in religion. The more man puts into God, the less he retains in himself. The worker puts his life into the object; but now his life no longer belongs to him but to the object. Hence, the greater this activity, the more the worker lacks objects. Whatever the product of his labor is, he is not. Therefore, the greater this product, the less is he himself. The alienation of the worker in his product means not only that his labor becomes an object, an external existence, but that it exists outside him, independently, as something alien to him, and that it becomes a power on its own confronting him. It means that the life which he has conferred on the object confronts him as something hostile and alien.

Rafiq

28th March 2014, 03:41

Rafiq

28th March 2014, 03:42

No one can deny that these traces still exist, but to exploit them, to take them out of context and to exaggerate them only serves as to confuse Marx's works and demonstrate ignorance in the grander scheme of things (as far as Marx's thinking goes).

renalenin

28th March 2014, 07:01

Just noticed this thread and it seems very interesting - I think I largely agree with you Rafiq.

IMHO Marxism seeks to describe human species being not human nature which is a bourgeois concept par excellence. In describing the nature of humans we are making only one ethical claim as such which is for the equal worth of all humans. From there we are making a scientific set of observations not least that humans are curious apes who use tools to modify nature to make it more agreeable for the human. Much then proceeds as the tool is leading us to describe production, labour power, and of course class and the epochs of history.

By contrast the humanists are a sub-group of the enlightenment philosophers. These are bourgeois in that they focus on abstract individual rights not on the material basis of existence. For the more class-aware the rights in question are always the rights of the most exploited fraction of the exploited class. The One Percent can take their rights and place them where the sun don't shine.

Just a few thoughts on the topic.

Turinbaar

28th March 2014, 07:22

This is not a criticism of religion in itself, but a comprehensive analysis of religion in it's relation to the social relations which allow it to exist, something all Marxists engage in. And I fail to see how anything you have brought forth could ever possible demonstrate innate humanist tendencies. Marx means not to say that Christianity divorces man from himself, merely that the illusion of the abstract man, the illusion it conveys that there is a natural essence of man (but he is redeemed through Chrstianity) is befitting of reproducing capitalist relations. This is not a moral criticism but an understanding of the relationship between religion and the capitalist mode of production. You are attributing ideas alien to Marx, and taking quotes by him out of context in order to do so. There are several phrases in capital which, without greater context could mean a variety of things which even you would recognize as something not inherent to Marx's theory. Marx's use of satire and allegory does not help with this regard either. Now undeniably, there are still traces of Marx's humanism in capital. However, this does not exist as a component of the legacy he left behind, it is simply an ideological remnant which has no place in a consistent understanding of Marx's logic. Marx was, after all, still only a person. The underlying foundations of Marxism are free from humanism.

That is not at all what Marx is saying, and I never said it was a moral criticism. The illusion of christianity's cultus of abstract man, is that human essence is abstract, and not natural, and that precisely because it divorces humanity from itself, it is befitting of reproducing itself as capitalist relations. It is part and parcel of the analysis of religion and its relation to social relations to notice that it prefigures capitalism, and that humanity acts and thinks not an object for itself when alienated by capital and religion, and thus deprived of its essence (its material life activity realized as commodity, or its mental activity expressed as thought and culture) and owned as object, whilst worshiping from afar its product as higher than itself. In the same way it is not moralism, but simple fact to say that in order for humanity to revolve around itself as its own sun it must break the chains that objectify it. I quoted quite a long bit of the section for "out of context", and it does start out by noting the metaphysical and theological nature of commodities, and that,

"In order, therefore, to find an analogy, we must have recourse to the mist-enveloped regions of the religious world. In that world the productions of the human brain appear as independent beings endowed with life, and entering into relation both with one another and the human race."

I went ahead and re-read the section and re-assert what I said before as valid. I understand Marx used satire, as in when he speaks of "table turning," but was that all just a joke? No, the purpose of identifying the fetishism inherent to commodity production, and its reduction of individual labor to abstract labor (as man under religion is reduced to abstract man), is an analysis of religion's elevation of object above humanity and its definition of the social relations from the outset. Nowhere can I find anything close to him saying the real problem is that humans believe they have a human nature, nor can I find anything remotely resembling your alien and feverish talk of transhuman zeal. Would you care to quote and analyze?

Alan OldStudent

28th March 2014, 11:53

I personally consider myself a staunch secular humanist and I would think it is compatible with Marxist ideology in every way. But just to clarify, as defined by Wikipedia:

Humanism is a movement of philosophy and ethics that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers individual, free thought and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith. In modern times, many humanist movements have become strongly aligned with secularism, with the term 'Humanism' often used as a byword for non-theistic beliefs about ideas such as meaning and purpose.

Famous Humanists include: Jean-Paul Sartre, Edward Said, Friedrich Engels, Bill Nye, Richard Dawkins, Gloria Steinem, Howard Zinn, Albert Einstein, Huey P. Newton, Bill Maher, Bertrand Russell, Christopher Hitchens, Carl Sagan.

Hello Comrade Dorian,

I see you're newish here, and so I extend a warm welcome.

The answer to your question depends on what one means by "humanism." A lot of contemporary ideas on humanism come from the Scottish and European Enlightenment of the 18th century, although varieties of humanism existed in the ancient Chinese, Indian, and Greek worlds, as well as during the Muslim renaissance with scholars such as Avicenna.

European and Scottish humanism was an ideological reaction to European feudalism, with its notion of the divine right of kings. The divine right of kings doctrine held that law got its legitimacy from God, and to disobey the rule of the kings was to disobey God.

Humanism generally posited that the legitimacy of law came from natural law, not some divine edict. Natural law could be supposedly discovered through a rational investigation of "human nature." Natural law could not legitimately be denied by any earthly government and was considered universally valid for all people and all times. Through reasoned discussion and discourse, some kind of understanding of natural law could be acquired.

Human society was held to be an arrangement between free individuals, and the laws of society were supposedly a contract between free individuals who agreed to give up certain degree of individual liberty for the common good. This is where the idea of "consent of the governed" comes from. Just law could supposedly be derived from a rational analysis of human nature and how human individuals ceded some degree of autonomy to gain the benefits of ociety. The Latin phrase "vox populi, vox Dei" (the will of the people is the will of God) gained a certain vogue.

This annoyed the feudal order and religious authorities, who did not like to have their prerogatives questioned.

Marx starts from a rather different set of assumptions about humans and where law derives its legitimacy. He does not see society as a collection of free individuals who cede a degree of self-determination to get the benefits of society. Instead, he sees us humans as being social animals, unable to live on our own. In other words, our existence as a species requires us to live in some sort of cooperative society so as to obtain our means of survival. We are biologically and genetically interdependent for life. But genetics and so-called human nature do not determine the specific form our social organization takes. This evolves throughout history and changes, often radically.

For about 95% of our history, we lived in small bands as hunter-gatherers and probably had no property. What hunter-gatherer society wants to shlep a lot of property about as it moves from place to place in seach of fresh food and clean shelter?

But a certain stage of human development, beginning with the Neolithic revolution, about 10,000 years ago, our technology exploded. We developed agriculture and settled city living. But to do that, we had to develop class society and private property, along with laws to protect property.

We developed laws. The laws derived their legitimacy from the property relations that existed as these societies evolved, first through slave-based societies, then feudal-based societies, and our current capitalism-based society with its commodity trading and markets.

Marxism does not see the existence of a universal natural law defining what it means to be human. For Marx, it is not natural law coming out of unchanging human nature that gives legitimacy to social laws and norms, So in that sense, Marxism is not a humanistic philosophy in the 18th, 19th, and 20th century meaning of the term.

However, if one thinks of humanism in a more present-day sense, in the sense defined by the Wikipedia article you cited for us, most schools of Marxism are indeed a form of humanism.

That is because most proponents of Marxism see our movement as advancing and protecting the interests of humanity as a whole.

This explanation is a bit different than the answer so-called Marxist humanists (such as Raya Dunayevskaya)and Marxist anti-humanists (such as Louise Althusser) might give.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living-Socrates
Gracias a la vida, que me ha dado tanto-Violeta Parra

renalenin

31st March 2014, 04:28

This thread is most interesting. Thanks everyone.

On the whole Rafiq seems correct. Marx only ever had one ethical commitment and it is all through his mature writing and that is that all humans are of equal worth. The remaining ideas are purely scientific.

Rather than humanistic ideas which as Rafiq points out are bourgeois, Marx seems to be examining the human species being and thus his use of the term human nature in Capital. Humans are curious apes, beings who make tools and thus modify their surrounds to make life easier. Tool making is peculiar to the human species except for some rare exceptions. From tool making we derive an idea of human labour and labour power, and then relations of production, class, and of course the epochs of history. What need is there for any account of humanism? Idealism is classic bourgeois mysticism, it prevents a scientific view of human history and class war.

And by the way, thanks Rafiq for your analysis of the old CPA. The new CPA has become exactly the same. How frustrating for us Aussies!!!

:hammersickle::hammersickle::hammersickle:

Rafiq

1st April 2014, 00:17

That is not at all what Marx is saying, and I never said it was a moral criticism. The illusion of christianity's cultus of abstract man, is that human essence is abstract, and not natural, and that precisely because it divorces humanity from itself, it is befitting of reproducing itself as capitalist relations. It is part and parcel of the analysis of religion and its relation to social relations to notice that it prefigures capitalism, and that humanity acts and thinks not an object for itself when alienated by capital and religion, and thus deprived of its essence (its material life activity realized as commodity, or its mental activity expressed as thought and culture) and owned as object, whilst worshiping from afar its product as higher than itself. In the same way it is not moralism, but simple fact to say that in order for humanity to revolve around itself as its own sun it must break the chains that objectify it. I quoted quite a long bit of the section for "out of context", and it does start out by noting the metaphysical and theological nature of commodities, and that,

"In order, therefore, to find an analogy, we must have recourse to the mist-enveloped regions of the religious world. In that world the productions of the human brain appear as independent beings endowed with life, and entering into relation both with one another and the human race."

If there is anything from Marx that is of significance here, it is that humanity does not have a specific identity, or homogeneous interest as a species or a historical subject. This should be plainly obvious to any Marxist, and any idiot can deduce, as a logical conclusion of the materialist conception of history, that if we Communists were ever to claim the "interests of humanity" for our own, this would be purely ideological. Had Marx thought otherwise (which he did not, when his thinking matured), he would have remained horribly inconsistent. And besides, even if you are correct, these are just remnants of older Marx that he did not abandon, but would have as a logical consequence of the theoretical framework that was his legacy.

But to address specifically the quote, you are again attributing things to Marx which are not his. When Marx speaks of Christianity's "abstract cultus of man", he does not say that Christianity divorces man from his real essence, rather, that Christianity itself assumes man has a real, natural essence, and rejects it. The natural essence of man is a negative component of Christian logic. How do I know this? Because any idiot who knows anything about Christianity knows this. I cannot quote specifically anything from Marx, of course Marx did not overtly say this, but using Marx's theoretical framework, utilizing the logic that defined him and his further studies on history, and so on, we can deduce this with ease and without controversy. Marx recognizes that the given social period defines the "essence of humanity" and even champions of human culture, Plato, Aristotle, and so on, are objects of perception made within the ideology of existing relations. Turinbaar, what you fail to realize is that without the proletariat as a class with conflicting interests with the bourgeoisie, there would be absolutely no reason for anyone to oppose capitalism, besides reactionaries. What they (bourgeois humanists) forget, is that any Marxist opposition to capitalism is solely and purely Communist (that is, proletarian). And the proletariat as a class exist inseparably from capitalist social relations. I shouldn't have to be saying this, because we all already know this.

When Marx sais class struggle is the driving force for history, he means that all historical change is a result of class conflict. It is not a result of the struggle to "go back to our human essence" and class struggle is not an eternal battle between humanity and those who are apparently the enemies of "humanity". We are all of the same species, of the same organic identity, so what right do Marxists have to claim the alleged interests of humanity for Communism? Is it this weak, pathetic utilitarian "We'll bring what's best for the world" nonsense? I assure you, if we are ever to attain power, the world will descend into chaos for hundreds of years. Even this identification with previous struggles for emancipation, Spartacus, Populares, countless Peasant rebellions, these objectively have nothing to do with Communism, but are identified with as a result of ideology, or our conception of history.

But this brings me to a bigger point: Humanists aren't ideologically communists, but bourgeois. Despite everything, even disregarding liberalism, the most distinct, pervasive and universal ideological manifestation of the bourgeoisie, no matter where, is humanism. The concept of a universal humanity and a human essence is a purely ideological one, but distinctly bourgeois. The proletariat, the class that seeks to abolish itself and impose it's will upon several other opposing classes, which is democratic only insofar as it constitutes a majority in most countries, could only ever adhere to humanism in the most immature forms of revolutionary consciousness. Can the Communists claim humanity for themselves? Yes, but only in a new man, a new humanity which is distinctly Communist, the same one, mind you, that existed during Marx's time (when class struggle actually existed). To speak of humanity today, in which the notion of humanity is irreversibly and unarguably a possession of international capital, cries of ideological confusion as well as theoretical weakness. It has no place in Marxism.

I went ahead and re-read the section and re-assert what I said before as valid. I understand Marx used satire, as in when he speaks of "table turning," but was that all just a joke? No, the purpose of identifying the fetishism inherent to commodity production, and its reduction of individual labor to abstract labor (as man under religion is reduced to abstract man), is an analysis of religion's elevation of object above humanity and its definition of the social relations from the outset. Nowhere can I find anything close to him saying the real problem is that humans believe they have a human nature, nor can I find anything remotely resembling your alien and feverish talk of transhuman zeal. Would you care to quote and analyze?

Marx recognized that ideology encompasses all things, including our notion of a human nature. It is ridiculous to argue that somehow, "humanity" would be an exception. You have failed, also, to address the historical origins of humanism. Has humanism existed since the beginning of class struggle? You claim to believe that all of history possess this objective struggle by which humanity frees itself, so where in history does humanism exist, before the rise of the bourgeois class as a conscious political and ideological force? Even things about antiquity, which we might deem "humanist" were a result of the revival of taking classical literature during the Renaissance.

Nowhere did I state that Marx adheres to the Communism which I deem is necessary in modern times. I claim that we need this "transhuman zeal" precisely because the conditions of capitalism have changed drastically since Marx's time, since the rise of things like globalized capitalism, finance, complete and total ideological hegemony, and so on. Nowhere would I ever claim that Marx is the final word with regard to Marxism, as Marxism is a historical tradition carried on through real struggles, Lenin inherited Marxism, and the Communism of the Third international was different than Marx's, in accordance with the different conditions. What you fail to recognize is that, what any good Marxist does, that the only means by which the legacy of something, be it Communism or whatever else, can ever survive is for it to change. In a way, there is nothing to change, as Communism (of the 20th century) has died. Any new form of Communism will not be a change of heart, but a real manifestation of new revolutionary struggle.

As I said before, we are Marxists, which means we do not take everything Marx said directly as gospel. We are not bourgeois-empiricists, we recognize the dynamic theoretical framework, and therefore tradition Marx left behind as a pervasive understanding of all things social, when we return to classical Marxism, we do not pay close detail to everything Marx said word by word, but the overall logical system espoused by Marx and those later we can decide worthy of carrying on his tradition.

Just out of curiosity, and I do not mean to be condescending, as I am serious. Are you aware of the materialist conception of history? As well as Marx's understanding of ideology?

Rafiq

1st April 2014, 00:18

It is not simply that humans are curious apes, but that there are real evolutionary, and therefore social explanations as to why they are curious. And that is due to their revolutionary relationship with nature, the existence of history itself.

Rafiq

1st April 2014, 00:21

Thirsty Crow

1st April 2014, 04:08

We can find thousands of quotes by Marx taken out of context, and explain them how we'd like to. Your explanation is a false one, you are obviously attempting to portray Marx as a humanist, so what makes you think that I would take your explanation seriously?
Your first sentence flat out contradicts the second one (if there's so and so ways to explain quotes, what's your basis for arguing somebody's explanations is false). Just saying, not that I have an axe to grind here.

Though I will say that the prospect for a human community appeals to me greatly. Am I a humanist?

*awaiting diagnosis*

Turinbaar

1st April 2014, 04:48

If there is anything from Marx that is of significance here, it is that humanity does not have a specific identity, or homogeneous interest as a species or a historical subject. This should be plainly obvious to any Marxist, and any idiot can deduce, as a logical conclusion of the materialist conception of history, that if we Communists were ever to claim the "interests of humanity" for our own, this would be purely ideological. Had Marx thought otherwise (which he did not, when his thinking matured), he would have remained horribly inconsistent. And besides, even if you are correct, these are just remnants of older Marx that he did not abandon, but would have as a logical consequence of the theoretical framework that was his legacy.

But to address specifically the quote, you are again attributing things to Marx which are not his. When Marx speaks of Christianity's "abstract cultus of man", he does not say that Christianity divorces man from his real essence, rather, that Christianity itself assumes man has a real, natural essence, and rejects it. The natural essence of man is a negative component of Christian logic. How do I know this? Because any idiot who knows anything about Christianity knows this. I cannot quote specifically anything from Marx, of course Marx did not overtly say this, but using Marx's theoretical framework, utilizing the logic that defined him and his further studies on history, and so on, we can deduce this with ease and without controversy. Marx recognizes that the given social period defines the "essence of humanity" and even champions of human culture, Plato, Aristotle, and so on, are objects of perception made within the ideology of existing relations. Turinbaar, what you fail to realize is that without the proletariat as a class with conflicting interests with the bourgeoisie, there would be absolutely no reason for anyone to oppose capitalism, besides reactionaries. What they (bourgeois humanists) forget, is that any Marxist opposition to capitalism is solely and purely Communist (that is, proletarian). And the proletariat as a class exist inseparably from capitalist social relations. I shouldn't have to be saying this, because we all already know this.

When Marx sais class struggle is the driving force for history, he means that all historical change is a result of class conflict. It is not a result of the struggle to "go back to our human essence" and class struggle is not an eternal battle between humanity and those who are apparently the enemies of "humanity". We are all of the same species, of the same organic identity, so what right do Marxists have to claim the alleged interests of humanity for Communism? Is it this weak, pathetic utilitarian "We'll bring what's best for the world" nonsense? I assure you, if we are ever to attain power, the world will descend into chaos for hundreds of years. Even this identification with previous struggles for emancipation, Spartacus, Populares, countless Peasant rebellions, these objectively have nothing to do with Communism, but are identified with as a result of ideology, or our conception of history.

But this brings me to a bigger point: Humanists aren't ideologically communists, but bourgeois. Despite everything, even disregarding liberalism, the most distinct, pervasive and universal ideological manifestation of the bourgeoisie, no matter where, is humanism. The concept of a universal humanity and a human essence is a purely ideological one, but distinctly bourgeois. The proletariat, the class that seeks to abolish itself and impose it's will upon several other opposing classes, which is democratic only insofar as it constitutes a majority in most countries, could only ever adhere to humanism in the most immature forms of revolutionary consciousness. Can the Communists claim humanity for themselves? Yes, but only in a new man, a new humanity which is distinctly Communist, the same one, mind you, that existed during Marx's time (when class struggle actually existed). To speak of humanity today, in which the notion of humanity is irreversibly and unarguably a possession of international capital, cries of ideological confusion as well as theoretical weakness. It has no place in Marxism.

It starts to get a bit much when you stress that, though you cannot find the quote, the author who you pray in aid for would surely have it for you had he lived longer and seen the light. I can find you a quote in his critique of Hegel (yes from 1844) in which he identified the precept in both religion and the bourgeois system that the true essence of humanity is divine and not natural, and that the body, as a negation of spirit, is a merely a body, and in itself not essential at all to the spirit (hence "ensoulment" and the post-mortum survival in heaven). I'm sure you can't actually find anything really christian that would say anything other than that. Marx recognized that there is an ideology of humanism, and recognized that there was a scientific basis for it as well a a rival to and criticism of the ideology, which is why his Dissertation was on Epicurus, who was the great critic of Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics and the rest. Through the Roman poet Lucretius these works were carried on to the Renaissance, where they faced repression from the Church, which ascribed to this ideology of "humanism" (from Plato, Aristotle, etc.) that held the divine essence of humanity to be the basis for the construction of a perfect world, knowing of god's workings. This is the basis of bourgeois "humanism," which you rightly reject, and I would never argue. I mean to say that it is too simplistic to call humanism necessarily "bourgeois," and then try to erase all reference to it with these nebulous categories of "Old Marx" and so on, which is to completely miss the point.

Nothing I had to say conflicts with the theory of class warfare. The ruling class is necessarily the enemy of an objectified labour class, whose humanity has been alienated, and thus the rulers must be abolished along with the system of class rule as a whole, violently if necessary. As with humanism, its not that "rights" are ever considered, when communism identifies both the interests and the nature of humanity, it is that we observe these things as historically confirmed and true when set against all other interpretations. Our criticism of unconscious revolts such as those who shouted "Vox populi Vox Dei," like the criticism of capital and the state, are not against their violence and chaos as such, but rather are founded in irreligious criticism, and the wellspring of consciousness that resists the dominance of these systems over humanity, which are by no means irreversible. The greatest theoretical weakness is to throw all of this away in exchange for coffee without caffein, alcohol without spirit, a religion without god, a "Marxism" without Marx, and an Ubermench without the mench; in other words, what Zizek would call "Ideology at its purest."

Marx recognized that ideology encompasses all things, including our notion of a human nature. It is ridiculous to argue that somehow, "humanity" would be an exception. You have failed, also, to address the historical origins of humanism. Has humanism existed since the beginning of class struggle? You claim to believe that all of history possess this objective struggle by which humanity frees itself, so where in history does humanism exist, before the rise of the bourgeois class as a conscious political and ideological force? Even things about antiquity, which we might deem "humanist" were a result of the revival of taking classical literature during the Renaissance.

Nowhere did I state that Marx adheres to the Communism which I deem is necessary in modern times. I claim that we need this "transhuman zeal" precisely because the conditions of capitalism have changed drastically since Marx's time, since the rise of things like globalized capitalism, finance, complete and total ideological hegemony, and so on. Nowhere would I ever claim that Marx is the final word with regard to Marxism, as Marxism is a historical tradition carried on through real struggles, Lenin inherited Marxism, and the Communism of the Third international was different than Marx's, in accordance with the different conditions. What you fail to recognize is that, what any good Marxist does, that the only means by which the legacy of something, be it Communism or whatever else, can ever survive is for it to change. In a way, there is nothing to change, as Communism (of the 20th century) has died. Any new form of Communism will not be a change of heart, but a real manifestation of new revolutionary struggle.

As I said before, we are Marxists, which means we do not take everything Marx said directly as gospel. We are not bourgeois-empiricists, we recognize the dynamic theoretical framework, and therefore tradition Marx left behind as a pervasive understanding of all things social, when we return to classical Marxism, we do not pay close detail to everything Marx said word by word, but the overall logical system espoused by Marx and those later we can decide worthy of carrying on his tradition.

Just out of curiosity, and I do not mean to be condescending, as I am serious. Are you aware of the materialist conception of history? As well as Marx's understanding of ideology?

I was actually going to ask you the same question, and I find I can guess, judging from your reading of his work against mine. I understand that Capital is not the bible (that's partly my point), I merely observe that my reading is more in line with what the man actually said from 1840's onward, and indeed what he meant in his logical system, than yours is. You'd expect to find at least something of his to confirm what you say if it your position is to be considered marxist. The proper Marxist critique of religion and the bourgeois ideology of humanism is that it poses a humanity that isn't actually human, and suffers untenable contradiction. To say of a "new" communism that it should be religious madness, as though that was not the problem the last century round, is again to miss the point in the most heroic of ways. Really, who didn't see something bad coming when the Bolshevik controlled churches began turning out propaganda works depicting Lenin and Trotsky as Moses and Aaron? To talk of "tragedy and farce" of such a thing would be cliche, but there it is.

MarxIsMaster

3rd April 2014, 09:43

No, No way. :laugh:

Rafiq

5th April 2014, 15:38

Your first sentence flat out contradicts the second one (if there's so and so ways to explain quotes, what's your basis for arguing somebody's explanations is false). Just saying, not that I have an axe to grind here.

Though I will say that the prospect for a human community appeals to me greatly. Am I a humanist?

*awaiting diagnosis*

If there are a thousand different ways to interprete them out of context, then logically the only valid interpretation comes with a pervasive understanding of Marx's thinking in totality.

There is no need for a "diagnosis", but tell me Links, what exactly does a non-human community look like, and how is it significant to the topic at hand?

It starts to get a bit much when you stress that, though you cannot find the quote, the author who you pray in aid for would surely have it for you had he lived longer and seen the light. I can find you a quote in his critique of Hegel (yes from 1844) in which he identified the precept in both religion and the bourgeois system that the true essence of humanity is divine and not natural, and that the body, as a negation of spirit, is a merely a body, and in itself not essential at all to the spirit (hence "ensoulment" and the post-mortum survival in heaven). I'm sure you can't actually find anything really christian that would say anything other than that. Marx recognized that there is an ideology of humanism, and recognized that there was a scientific basis for it as well a a rival to and criticism of the ideology, which is why his Dissertation was on Epicurus, who was the great critic of Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics and the rest. Through the Roman poet Lucretius these works were carried on to the Renaissance, where they faced repression from the Church, which ascribed to this ideology of "humanism" (from Plato, Aristotle, etc.) that held the divine essence of humanity to be the basis for the construction of a perfect world, knowing of god's workings. This is the basis of bourgeois "humanism," which you rightly reject, and I would never argue. I mean to say that it is too simplistic to call humanism necessarily "bourgeois," and then try to erase all reference to it with these nebulous categories of "Old Marx" and so on, which is to completely miss the point.

Nothing I had to say conflicts with the theory of class warfare. The ruling class is necessarily the enemy of an objectified labour class, whose humanity has been alienated, and thus the rulers must be abolished along with the system of class rule as a whole, violently if necessary. As with humanism, its not that "rights" are ever considered, when communism identifies both the interests and the nature of humanity, it is that we observe these things as historically confirmed and true when set against all other interpretations. Our criticism of unconscious revolts such as those who shouted "Vox populi Vox Dei," like the criticism of capital and the state, are not against their violence and chaos as such, but rather are founded in irreligious criticism, and the wellspring of consciousness that resists the dominance of these systems over humanity, which are by no means irreversible. The greatest theoretical weakness is to throw all of this away in exchange for coffee without caffein, alcohol without spirit, a religion without god, a "Marxism" without Marx, and an Ubermench without the mench; in other words, what Zizek would call "Ideology at its purest."

I was actually going to ask you the same question, and I find I can guess, judging from your reading of his work against mine. I understand that Capital is not the bible (that's partly my point), I merely observe that my reading is more in line with what the man actually said from 1840's onward, and indeed what he meant in his logical system, than yours is. You'd expect to find at least something of his to confirm what you say if it your position is to be considered marxist. The proper Marxist critique of religion and the bourgeois ideology of humanism is that it poses a humanity that isn't actually human, and suffers untenable contradiction. To say of a "new" communism that it should be religious madness, as though that was not the problem the last century round, is again to miss the point in the most heroic of ways. Really, who didn't see something bad coming when the Bolshevik controlled churches began turning out propaganda works depicting Lenin and Trotsky as Moses and Aaron? To talk of "tragedy and farce" of such a thing would be cliche, but there it is.

Marx's criticism of Christian metaphysics was not unique to Marx, but by then it had already been established that Christian metaphysics (The spirit, and so on) was nonsense. When Marx speaks of Christianities "abstract cultus of man" he does not simply refer to the disassociation of body and spirit as empirically false, he speaks of its significance to capitalist relations and bourgeois ideology. Compared to previous modes of production, capitalism has drastically redefined the social formation, and very essence of man. The same redefinition that will lay the foundations for Communism (as an ideology). In Capital, it is important to recognize that Marx speaks of capitalism in relation to previous modes of production, and not a future one. What this essentially means is that nowhere in Capital did Marx attempt to say that the divorcement of our human essence, from capital, in comparison with our ego in Feudalism, is necessarily a "bad thing". He simply recognizes it as an integral part of capitalist ideology.

It should be clear to any idiot that the bourgeois ideologues of the Renaissance were still constrained by the church, but that does not mean that the church was instrumental in the development of capitalism or were in uniform interests with the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie had not yet attained political power, and thus, Renaissance humanism was a mere embryo of future bourgeois ideology, constrained by the feudal state mechanisms and ideology. You speak of "real" humanists who were repressed by the church, valiant bourgeois ideologues at best. If we recognize ideology as a manifestation of a class interest, than what social forces during the Renaissance could have given birth to such a "real", "non-bourgeois" humanism? Also, I might add, what is the significance in the repression of (allegedly) humanist works by the church during the Renaissance? You make it as though the church composed as an ideological vanguard of the developing bourgeoisie. On the contrary, they were enemies. It is clear that during the enlightenment, from Rousseau to the liberals of the 19th century, there was disunity between humanism and explicit religious ideas in contrast to the Renaissance. My point is that humanism as an ideology had it's origins in the Renaissance, not that it had fully matured. It is no wonder that Marxist-humanists tend to be vigorous empiricists. They miss the point. They are unable to recognize the development of ideas in a dynamic way, they simply rigidly categorize things without understanding the whole, the very process of development and which way it is developing.

You misinterpret me as you do Marx. When I speak of class warfare, I mean to say that the bourgeoisie have a distinct understanding of humanity (as a component of universality) than the revolutionary proletariat. We are all humans, this is frankly not something of any significance, no one is speaking of a "humanity without humanity" but simply that your notion of what humanity actually constitutes, is false. Of course if we pre-suppose that humanity actually does have a real, natural, biological essence repressed by capitalist relations, and then demand they continue to be repressed, of course this is "humanity without humanity". But like Zizek, I recognize you pose a false question. The Communists do not recognize a "humanity" in essence that the intruding forces of capital disallow to be realized. We recognize that our very humanity as it exists within capitalist relations is one divorced from our interests as a class. The first step toward freedom from bourgeois ideology is the destruction of yourself, in other words, to be reborn. There is the significance of Christianity, and whether Marx directly espoused this or not, it is again a logical conclusion. We seek a new man, a man none the less, but we dis recognize what constitutes as "human" as espoused by the bourgeois ideologues, the fight for universality encompasses all things. Another thing that is important to recognize, that I must stress, is that bourgeois ideology does not only produce affirmative views, but negative ones. Not in the dialectical sense, but in this sense: The forces of bourgeois ideology produce an illusion of what is opposed to them, they have their positive drive, and then their negative conscious which keeps them in check. Capital decides precisely the dichotomy between good and bad. So what is the significance of humanism? At times we recognize that capitalism is "destroying our humanity". This remains within a false dichotomy which only serves to reproduce bourgeois ideology in a dialectical way. There is no need for the ideological exultation of man as a species, as we are all humans, at odds with nothing outside of our humanity (besides forces without consciousness, nature, and so forth). The ideological exultation of man serves only those who posses hegemony of our notion of man, those who are in power.

Now if we re-approach alienation, and recognize that the proletariat is not alienated from its humanity, but its potential as a revolutionary class, a contender for state dictatorship. If we recognize an alienation from the embryo of a new world, the alienation of the spirit of a society which can come only after capitalism, we are able to understand Marx in an infinitely more proficient manner. It is funny that you mention Zizek, though:

http://www.lacan.com/zizrobes.htm

There is, however, a fourth variation, usually left aside: the choice "humanism OR terror," but with TERROR, not humanism, as a positive term. This is a radical position difficult to sustain, but, perhaps, our only hope: it does not amount to the obscene madness of openly pursuing a "terrorist and inhuman politics", but something much more difficult to think. In today's "post-deconstructionist" thought (if one risks this ridiculous designation which cannot but sound as its own parody), the term "inhuman" gained a new weight, especially in the work of Agamben and Badiou. The best way to approach it is via Freud's reluctance to endorse the injunction "Love thy neighbor!" - the temptation to be resisted here is the ethical domestication of the neighbor - for example, what Emmanuel Levinas did with his notion of the neighbor as the abyssal point from which the call of ethical responsibility emanates. What Levinas thereby obfuscates is the monstrosity of the neighbor, monstrosity on account of which Lacan applies to the neighbor the term Thing (das Ding), used by Freud to designate the ultimate object of our desires in its unbearable intensity and impenetrability. One should hear in this term all the connotations of horror fiction: the neighbor is the (Evil) Thing which potentially lurks beneath every homely human face. Just think about Stephen King's Shining, in which the father, a modest failed writer, gradually turns into a killing beast who, with an evil grin, goes on to slaughter his entire family. In a properly dialectical paradox, what Levinas, with all his celebration of the Otherness, fails to take into account is not some underlying Sameness of all humans but the radically "inhuman" Otherness itself: the Otherness of a human being reduced to inhumanity, the Otherness exemplified by the terrifying figure of the Muselmann, the "living dead" in the concentration camps. At a different level, the same goes for Stalinist Communism. In the standard Stalinist narrative, even the concentration camps were a place of the fight against Fascism where imprisoned Communists were organizing networks of heroic resistance - in such a universe, of course, there is no place for the limit-experience of the Muselmann, of the living dead deprived of the capacity of human engagement - no wonder that Stalinist Communists were so eager to "normalize" the camps into just another site of the anti-Fascist struggle, dismissing Muselmann as simply those who were to weak to endure the struggle.

Give this a read, too.
http://www.egs.edu/faculty/slavoj-zizek/articles/humanism-is-not-enough/

What right do you have to claim humanity for your own? As a viable Marxist criticism of bourgeois ideology, who are we to say that this humanism is not "human". What defines humanity as a species? As materialists, in the spirit of natural science, what about the mechanisms of capitalist relations are "non-human"? What makes Marxism scientific is the Darwinian application to social relations, humanity as a species, as an animal, is defined by their very social being. But like natural history, this is as an actively changing, contradictory process. You simply have failed to address this besides claiming that the young Marx believed otherwise. Even if Marx retained this to his death, which he did not, what precisely makes it true?

When I speak of religious madness, I do not speak of superstition, idol worship, passive belief or anything of that nature. The religious aspects of communism during the Soviet Union, long after the October revolution, is precisely what I am not talking about. When I speak of religious-madness, I do so only in a way to embrace the inevitable accusations that would be lauded towards me. I speak of it in the sense of the uncompromising notion of universality, you cannot avoid the adoption of universality, universalism, I merely demand we Communists appropriate it for our own. I speak of the spirit of self sacrifice, discipline, and irrational struggle, to break through the logical barriers set forth by bourgeois ideology and set the world ablaze. This is why I speak of the revolution as almost a cosmic catastrophe, it is not natural, it is not inevitable, it is a brutal act of will and force which is irrational, which has no place in the cosmic, or natural order of things. It redefines nature and man itself. I do not want Marx without Marx, but to rigidly and habitually espouse the exact same views within our condition is the real marx without marx, but reversed. It is Marx, but without the real Max. What Marx and Hegel recognized is that in order for something to be relentless and undying, it must change. In order for the legacy of Communism to survive, it's ideological nature must change in correspondence to the changing in capitalist relations. However, Communism in it's relation to capitalist society will be identically correlated with it's relation to capitalist society before, it would be parralel. Just as in an ideological sense (and this is a bad example) Napoleon was the true parallel, heir to Charlemagne, despite several historical, social and political complications. It is the contradiction in higher stage.

Turinbaar

8th April 2014, 03:42

Rafiq, the question you pose to Links is a false one - everyone knows what an in-human society looks like, I mentioned the Confederacy already. Of course Marx speaks of christianity's significance to capitalist relations; its significance is their pre-figuration of these relations, plain and simple. The cultus of abstract man predates these relations (not just as Ego in Fuedalism, but also integral in production process in the guild monoplies and the pilgrimage/relic based economy, which nurtured the early petty bourgeoisie), which emerge out of a church controlled europe, and stands as the best analogy to understand them, so logically it prefigures it. Of course the french revolution was anti-clerical, but the bourgeoisie did consecrate a temple to a Goddess of Reason, and finally beckoned in a grave digger for themselves in the person of a corsican crowned emperor of France by the Pope.

The best example of what I'm saying is found in Jessica Mitford's book Kind and Usual Punishment, the prison industry. The origin of the penitentiary, distinct from the feudal dungeon in its reforming scheme, is in early America, where those gentle Quakers created a system consisting of solitary confinement with a bible, divorced from economics altogether. It was only after this drove so many people insane and to suicide, that "piety through good works" was introduced and the profit mechanism took over. This is slavery that became constitutionally mandated in the 13th amendment and all subsequent developments in the system are the dressing of its essence as religion (seeing criminals as possessed by satan in need of jesus) in scientific and psychiatric language and even the introduction of North Korean mind control techniques as methods of reform. This dehumanizing system is the backbone of production of cheap commodities for both the Military and the University system and is something without which capitalism cannot endure, indeed certainly not in a system that locks away more than Stalin ever did.

I represent Marx as he did himself in his writings, which you still cannot find confirmation in. I can tell from these give away phrases like "allegedly" that you've not actually read Marx's work on Epicurus, nor read anything from De Rerum Natura, and thus have no actual idea of what humanism or the materialist conception of history really is. Had you done so we might be able to have meaningful exchange. When I speak of repression by the church during the Renaissance, it is not of bourgeois ideologues, but of the very foundations of science that hold the senses rather than divine grace to be the herald of truth. This is in response both to your talk of "rights" and Zizek's absurd statement that the foundations of modern science lay in Decartes philosophy that 2 and 2 make 4 because god says so (and if god says they make 5, then what? have I read this somewhere before in a novel?). Humanity need claim no right at all, merely its own senses to see a self evident reality by the abolition of all illusions as to its own condition - that is the foundations of modern science. It is through the senses that one understands as Marx did that,

Man is a species-being [20], not only because in practice and in theory he adopts the species (his own as well as those of other things) as his object, but – and this is only another way of expressing it – also because he treats himself as the actual, living species; because he treats himself as a universal and therefore a free being.

The life of the species, both in man and in animals, consists physically in the fact that man (like the animal) lives on organic nature; and the more universal man (or the animal) is, the more universal is the sphere of inorganic nature on which he lives. Just as plants, animals, stones, air, light, etc., constitute theoretically a part of human consciousness, partly as objects of natural science, partly as objects of art – his spiritual inorganic nature, spiritual nourishment which he must first prepare to make palatable and digestible – so also in the realm of practice they constitute a part of human life and human activity. Physically man lives only on these products of nature, whether they appear in the form of food, heating, clothes, a dwelling, etc. The universality of man appears in practice precisely in the universality which makes all nature his inorganic body – both inasmuch as nature is (1) his direct means of life, and (2) the material, the object, and the instrument of his life activity. Nature is man’s inorganic body – nature, that is, insofar as it is not itself human body. Man lives on nature – means that nature is his body, with which he must remain in continuous interchange if he is not to die. That man’s physical and spiritual life is linked to nature means simply that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature.

In estranging from man (1) nature, and (2) himself, his own active functions, his life activity, estranged labor estranges the species from man. It changes for him the life of the species into a means of individual life. First it estranges the life of the species and individual life, and secondly it makes individual life in its abstract form the purpose of the life of the species, likewise in its abstract and estranged form.

With these foundations it is possible to approach class warfare in a way that doesn't resemble a crusade. Furthermore the foundations of a theory of evolution are to be found in the atomist theory if you have to bring up Darwin, and the natural application evolution to the marxist analysis of religion and capitalism is that the one bears the indelible stamp of its lowly origin in the other. None of this is addressed by Zizek, whose presentation was a long false trail about plato, the Frankfurt school, his friend Badiou etc, ending by assuming what he should be proving by urging the same Marxism without Marx that you propose. Zizek's analysis of Ideology is generally good, he also affirms in other talks the religious foundations of capitalism, particularly commodity fetishism, though you both rush headlong for the kool-aid with this one. I know what you mean when you talk of applying marx to modern conditions, such in the way the social-domocrats did when they urged on "Marxist" grounds, with quotations and all, for polish independence to defend the french republic against a Tzarist empire that france had since aligned itself with, but this is not the same at all, this is marxism itself that you're abandoning.

What you would have in its place would be superstition and idol worship, necessarily, for how else would you seize this spirit of self sacrifice, discipline, and irrational struggle, to break through the logical barriers set forth by bourgeois ideology and set the world ablaze? That which is relentless and undying is unreal, or else it is the void, and to deprive communism of its reality in this way and to call the void god as Zizek does, is ideology.

I get your point about class and and its relation to humanity, which is why I originally presented Marx's work on "Crude Communism." Its is an illustration of the interests of the class running counter to humanity. If such a society is based around the "universal capitalist" in the community itself, then the its essential relations, as relations between property and labour, will retain its alienating and objectifying (religious) stamp, and I assert that marx is right that, though dialectically necessary, it is this, not humanism, which is not enough, precisely because of its "denial of the personality of man," which bears the marks of contradiction (indeed a higher one, but a contradiction nonetheless), of a society where the production process holds mastery over man, and leads to crisis. The potential of the proletariat for their seizure of state and dictatorship is precisely to do with their potential to enact the final abolition of these and of class as such in order for the affirmation of humanity as its own master. The resolution of the contradiction is communism as humanism.

Thirsty Crow

10th April 2014, 07:18

There is no need for a "diagnosis", but tell me Links, what exactly does a non-human community look like, and how is it significant to the topic at hand?

That was just my pun on the opposition between the community of capital and the (possible) human community, the latter also being called communism.

The former looks, feels, tastes, smells rather nasty.

RedMaterialist

10th April 2014, 23:15

As materialists, in the spirit of natural science, what about the mechanisms of capitalist relations are "non-human"?

The mechanism of capitalism, and other exploitative economic systems, which is non-human is the alienation, the self-estrangement of humans from their social product. Instead of social beings, humans become individual non-human beings.

If you don't want to 're-humanize' man, then it seems the only way out is to create the new superman/woman. And we saw where that ended up.

BolshevikBabe

13th May 2014, 14:07

Marxism is a theoretical anti-humanism, it posits that history is not a matter of the conscious action of "Man" but the objective process of class struggle. At the same time, Marxists shouldn't revert to a crude naturalism and pretend that people are solely shaped by environment - there is a dialectical contradiction at work between social being and social consciousness, with the primacy laying upon social being.