Can you be a socialist and a existentialist? [Archive]

Palmares

22nd October 2014, 05:46

Well, if you are willing to take Sartre himself as an example, then certainly.

The first period of Sartre's career, defined in large part by Being and Nothingness (1943), gave way to a second period—when the world was perceived as split into communist and capitalist blocs—of highly publicized political involvement. His 1948 play Les mains sales (Dirty Hands) in particular explored the problem of being a politically "engaged" intellectual. He embraced Marxism, but did not join the Communist Party. While a Marxist, Sartre attacked what he saw as abuses of freedom and human rights by the Soviet Union. He was one of the first French journalists to expose the existence of the labor camps, and vehemently opposed the invasion of Hungary, Russian anti-Semitism, and the execution of dissidents. As an anti-colonialist, Sartre took a prominent role in the struggle against French rule in Algeria, and the use of torture and concentration camps by the French in Algeria. He became an eminent supporter of the FLN in the Algerian War and was one of the signatories of the Manifeste des 121. Consequently, Sartre became a domestic target of the paramilitary Organisation de l'armée secrète (OAS), escaping two bomb attacks in the early '60s.[27] (He had an Algerian mistress, Arlette Elkaïm, who became his adopted daughter in 1965.) He opposed U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and, along with Bertrand Russell and others, organized a tribunal intended to expose U.S. war crimes, which became known as the Russell Tribunal in 1967.

His work after Stalin's death, the Critique de la raison dialectique (Critique of Dialectical Reason), appeared in 1960 (a second volume appearing posthumously). In the Critique Sartre set out to give Marxism a more vigorous intellectual defense than it had received until then; he ended by concluding that Marx's notion of "class" as an objective entity was fallacious. Sartre's emphasis on the humanist values in the early works of Marx led to a dispute with a leading leftist intellectual in France in the 1960s, Louis Althusser, who claimed that the ideas of the young Marx were decisively superseded by the "scientific" system of the later Marx.
Sartre went to Cuba in the 1960s to meet Fidel Castro and spoke with Ernesto "Che" Guevara. After Guevara's death, Sartre would declare him to be "not only an intellectual but also the most complete human being of our age"[28] and the "era's most perfect man."[29] Sartre would also compliment Guevara by professing that "he lived his words, spoke his own actions and his story and the story of the world ran parallel."[30] However he stood against the persecution of gays by Castro's régime, which he compared to Nazi persecution of the Jews, and said: "Homosexuals are Cuba's Jews".[31]
During a collective hunger strike in 1974, Sartre visited Red Army Faction leader Andreas Baader in Stammheim Prison and criticized the harsh conditions of imprisonment.[32] Towards the end of his life, Sartre became an anarchist.[33][34][35]

Rafiq

22nd October 2014, 06:06

Existentialism is pretty materialist so I'd say yes, though it puts a bigger emphasis on individualism, with the idea of morality and our "nature" as humans being whatever we choose to make of it, while Marxists and most other communists believe that it is our material conditions, the current mode of production, that determine these things.

A problem here is that no one is talking about Marxism - but "socialism". Can one be an existentialist, and a socialist at the same time? It would depend on how one would like to define such a vague, historically vague term as "socialism" - I suppose you could be a socialist and an existentialist, but not a Marxist (remember Marx also spoke of other forms of socialism, petty bourgeois socialism - not that this existentialism is petty bourgeois).

The problem is that it has nothing to do with its emphasis on individualism - at all. Existentialism is incompatible with Marxism because it posits that reality, or our existence is irrational - and that life is an absurdity. It pre-supposes the standards of bourgeois-rationalism (idealist in nature) and follows it to the conclusion that in the absence of a "meaning" which would make our consciousness now significantly, cosmically relevant - our existence is irrational.

Materialism, conversely, shows us that our existence is rational even if it does not conform to the coordinates of our present rationality - more specifically, our ignorant and idealist understanding of our 'place' in the world. Our existence is explainable, traceable - and human experience is thus also explainable and rational. One thing existentialism may offer of value is the notion that meaning, morality or whatever - is what we make of it. The problem of course is that this ignores the process of how we "make" our meaning - as though it's a matter of what we will it to be. Existentialism essentially responds to the theological - while materialists are perfectly post-theist.

Also, while you are - I suppose 'correct' it is important to not fall into this trap of reductionism. Our moraity is not "determined" by our mode of production, it actively reproduces our mode of production, it coincides actively with our mode of production.

Well, if you are willing to take Sartre himself as an example, then certainly.

Sartre's flirtations with Marx - namely the young, romantic Marx - does not identify him as ever being a Marxist. Indeed Sartre was not a Marxist in any meaningful sense, and certainly, one could deduce that his self-identification as one is likely tied to the overall fashionable nature of Marxism in the academic field during the time. Perhaps Sartre "becoming an Anarchist" nearing the end-times of 20th century Communism is evidence of this.

consuming negativity

22nd October 2014, 06:57

The problem is that it has nothing to do with its emphasis on individualism - at all. Existentialism is incompatible with Marxism because it posits that reality, or our existence is irrational - and that life is an absurdity. It pre-supposes the standards of bourgeois-rationalism (idealist in nature) and follows it to the conclusion that in the absence of a "meaning" which would make our consciousness now significantly, cosmically relevant - our existence is irrational.

Materialism, conversely, shows us that our existence is rational even if it does not conform to the coordinates of our present rationality - more specifically, our ignorant and idealist understanding of our 'place' in the world. Our existence is explainable, traceable - and human experience is thus also explainable and rational. One thing existentialism may offer of value is the notion that meaning, morality or whatever - is what we make of it. The problem of course is that this ignores the process of how we "make" our meaning - as though it's a matter of what we will it to be. Existentialism essentially responds to the theological - while materialists are perfectly post-theist.

To be absurd doesn't mean to be irrational; it just means that we will never find any meaning that is inherent to reality itself. Reality is still completely rational, though. It has to be. If it weren't, it wouldn't be. That much seems obvious to me, speaking from the perspective that I am. But reality is absurd in that there is no point, or cause, or meaning, or anything. We procreate and keep going and keep experiencing misery and pleasure and everything else... but, in the end, it will have no meaning other than what we've given it. There is no point but we do things anyway. I don't see how this view is incompatible with Marxism at all.

Thirsty Crow

22nd October 2014, 10:57

The problem is that it has nothing to do with its emphasis on individualism - at all. Existentialism is incompatible with Marxism because it posits that reality, or our existence is irrational - and that life is an absurdity. It pre-supposes the standards of bourgeois-rationalism (idealist in nature) and follows it to the conclusion that in the absence of a "meaning" which would make our consciousness now significantly, cosmically relevant - our existence is irrational.

Materialism, conversely, shows us that our existence is rational even if it does not conform to the coordinates of our present rationality - more specifically, our ignorant and idealist understanding of our 'place' in the world. Our existence is explainable, traceable - and human experience is thus also explainable and rational.

I don't think, but I could definitely be wrong here, that in case of existentialism there is the position that the absurdity and irrationality of life implies that it is inexplicable. Existence is indeed irrational in the sense that it isn't rationally designed (i.e. rejection of religion and secularized intelligent design), but humans as rational beings can explain it.

Anyway, it might as well be that existentialists did make such a connection between absurdity/irrationality and inexplicability. I'm not sure, it seems entirely plausible. What I'm here trying to show in short is the way I think it is best to talk about irrationality and rationality. The latter is a constitutive attribute of the human species.

EDIT: just to be clear, I think this is pretty accurate and correct:

A The problem of course is that this ignores the process of how we "make" our meaning - as though it's a matter of what we will it to be. Existentialism essentially responds to the theological - while materialists are perfectly post-theist.

Reality is still completely rational, though. It has to be. If it weren't, it wouldn't be. That much seems obvious to me, speaking from the perspective that I am.
What do you mean by "rational" here?

For instance, what is rational about tigers and their life activity?

Disco

22nd October 2014, 11:40

Has there been any great debate between socialists/marxists and existentialists?

As I understand it the main difference is between the two schools of thought is the emphasis on human agency.

Do you interpret existentialism as naive when it comes to analyze power in society? Doesn't Marxism posit that people do have a lack of agency even if we have formal rights in society? Most of us are still not free.

Rafiq

22nd October 2014, 17:09

That our existence is rational, and the daily activity of tigers is rational - which for materialists could only ever mean explainable. The universe (biology too, of course) for Marxists, for instance, is lawful - while existentialists tend to view existence as a matter of random, almost unexplainable chance (again, revealing a standard of reasoning that is inclusive of the theological one of "design" - by responding to it, they include it).

Even our attempts at finding 'meaning' are (or were, for example) necessarily rational - because humans are not exempt from the laws of nature, or biology - or whatever you like (therefore, our beliefs have real social implications, when they have a legitimate ideological place in our order).

But for communer: like I said, existentialist respond to idealist theology, while Marxists are post theists. We don't concern ourselves with entertaining such nonsensical, borderline metaphysical questions of "meaning" - because our notion of meaning is not idealist and it therefore does not demand the same potential answer(s) .

It is true that all attempts at finding "our place" in the universe are essentially idealist - and arrogant. It pre-supposes that meaning must necessarily be ordained on a divine level, or existing in such a way that places our consciousness as having primary cosmic significance. Existentialist say that there is no meaning - Marxists say there IS meaning, it just doesn't conform to an idealist understanding our our existence.

GiantMonkeyMan

22nd October 2014, 20:16

The universe (biology too, of course) for Marxists, for instance, is lawful - while existentialists tend to view existence as a matter of random, almost unexplainable chance (again, revealing a standard of reasoning that is inclusive of the theological one of "design" - by responding to it, they include it).
I'm by no means an expert on Sartre or existentialism but it is my understanding that, for Sartre at least, saying that he 'views' existence as random or unexplainable wouldn't be exactly right. Rather for Sartre the dissonance between Marxist theory (ie a totalised understanding of the world through historical materialism and dialectics) and Marxist practice (by which he means 'living within capitalism and experiencing imperfect class struggle' as opposed to 'organising for revolutionary socialism') prevents individuals from achieving any clear self-consciousness. That is, events may appear or be perceived as 'unexplainable' yet an overarching and undeniable analysis of history exists to make those events clear so it can be said that individuals cannot truly understand their part in the making of history, their part in the historical materialist conception of the world, except after events have unfolded. Which is why he writes "we were convinced at one and the same time that historical materialism furnished the only valid interpretation of history and that existentialism remained the only concrete approach to reality. I do not pretend to deny the contradictions in this attitude."

He sees dialectical materialism simultaneously establishing an a priori conception of the world whilst also providing a developing understanding of a world that is always in motion, that knowledge itself is a dialectical concept. So for Sartre "it is not the dialectic which forces historical men to live their history in terrible contradictions; it is men, as they are, dominated by scarcity and necessity, and confronting one another in circumstances which History or economics can inventory, but which only dialectical reason can explain." And this is pretty much how he reconciles his existentialism with marxism - our experience of reality is existential but we can understand it in our analysis through dialectics and materialism... or something.

I might be butchering Sartre here, though. It's been a while since I properly read Critique of Dialectical Reason (as opposed to just skimming through what's on marxists.org to jog my memory) and if I'm confused say so. I'd have to read it again if I wanted to come to a conclusion about whether or not he actually succeeds in this attempt of reconciliation. Thoughts?

Illegalitarian

23rd October 2014, 00:46

Existentialism says "there is no meaning" in the sense that there is no objective meaning, there is only the meaning we assign to it. Again this is not out of line with a materialist conception of history or anything else, as far as I can tell.

As I said before Marxism and Existentialism depart from each other not over any notion of a metaphysical "meaning of it all", but over what drives society forward. Socialists (Not a very vague term. I think even non-marxist communists would still agree with most if not all of what Marx had to say about the mechanics of class society) believe that it is contradictions within a given economic system by classes who are at odds with one another that drive forth development and that, as they say, the superstructure is determined by the base

As to where an existentialist would say that we as individuals must follow our own intuitions and values, and that all of these things come from within us

Rafiq

24th October 2014, 00:45

And this is pretty much how he reconciles his existentialism with marxism - our experience of reality is existential but we can understand it in our analysis through dialectics and materialism... or something.

How exactly is this presented as a new insight? I cannot find anything uniquely existentialist about this. As a matter of fact, this understanding of history predates Marxism and has its origins in Hegel - who was certainly by no means an existentialist. But this isn't Sartre's conception of history at all. Sartre gravely misunderstands the the usage of dialectics by Marxists by creating a dichotomy between the scientific understanding of the world - and the absurdity of reality, or man's struggle against coercive society - or whatever you want. This dichotomy certainly is not dialectic - it is a false dichotomy to begin with - the notion of a scientific understanding of our existence necessarily opposes (NOT dialectically, but in ESSENCE) Sartre's conception of "self-consciousness" or resisting "external impositions" as a foundation for some kind of transhistorical, vague and idealist notion of "freedom". Calling this contradiction dialectical is ridiculous - the contradiction between materialism and idealism is not dialectical, and the 'contradiction' between dialectics and non-dialectics is not dialectical. Dialectics posits that reality exists as a sum of contradictions - but not contradictions in the pursuit of truth. It concerns the real relationship between things.

Existentialism says "there is no meaning" in the sense that there is no objective meaning, there is only the meaning we assign to it. Again this is not out of line with a materialist conception of history or anything else, as far as I can tell.

As I said before Marxism and Existentialism depart from each other not over any notion of a metaphysical "meaning of it all", but over what drives society forward. Socialists (Not a very vague term. I think even non-marxist communists would still agree with most if not all of what Marx had to say about the mechanics of class society) believe that it is contradictions within a given economic system by classes who are at odds with one another that drive forth development and that, as they say, the superstructure is determined by the base

As to where an existentialist would say that we as individuals must follow our own intuitions and values, and that all of these things come from within us

Saying it a second time doesn't making it any less wrong. Where have existentialists posited that the driving force for history is the notion that "individuals must follow their own intuitions and values"? Existentialism is not a conception of history - it is negative in nature and pre-supposes the foundations of idealist theology - and simply opposes them. Again, because the prevailing notion that our lives have meaning is monopolized by the religious - existentialists posit that there is no "meaning". And you're completely wrong, materialists recognize that there is an objective meaning, albeit one that does not conform to the idealist notion of meaning. Marxists are post theists - it is ridiculous to argue that there is no conscious meaning for the existence of the universe, no designed or intended purpose - no place for humans in the cosmos, this is something we already know, and the understanding of the world that it addresses we ought not to entertain on any serious theoretical level. Reducing historical materialism to "the contradictions of different classes within a given economic system" might be appropriate for an American high school text book, but it certainly is not as far as trying to demonstrate your understanding of Marxism goes. What you have to realize is that we are talking about the foundations of the reproduction of life, of language, of ideology and so on - not different interchangeable "economic systems" having classes and contradictions which change history, as this ignores the process of how exactly these contradictions lead to change in the first place - and secondly, it leaves room for exaggeration of the trans-historical - that which exists independently of according mode(s) of production (Mind you, there are things which do).

On a very basic level, you are reducing Marx's materialism to a very basic form of determinism. Honestly, what exactly is distinguishable about your notion of Marxism and (economic) determinism? Absolutely nothing. Determinism is mechanical in nature, not because it "reduces" the sacred human spirit, but because it is ignorant of any notion of the active processes of different relationships between things.

I don't know what compels you to believe that non-Marxist socialists would "pretty much agree" with what Marx has to say about "the mechanics of class society" (?) when it is their utter rejection of the materialist conception of history and Marx's scientific understanding of class that, partially at leas,t distinguishes them from Marxists. In other words, that is why they are not Marxists. Marx's scientific understanding of class is not accepted by "non marxist socialists" on a significant level, save perhaps for today's anarchists. And certainly, Marx's understanding of class relations was not conceived to reinforce the legitimacy of Communism as an ideology - there was no "agenda" behind it - so why exactly in your mind would "non-Marxist" socialists, who we have already established are not Marxists, give their acceptance to it? I'm going to be completely honest here: I have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about. Judging by your phraseology, as well as the structure of your posts, I am going to say in the kindest way possible that you have no idea what you're talking about. As far as my advice goes, excessively posting for the sake of posting is definitely not the best way to derive your information, or to demonstrate a useful, unique insight to people.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

24th October 2014, 00:57

Rafiq - the thesis that existence is irrational isn't the defining feature of existentialism, although it is prominent in Camus's absurdist existentialism. Instead, the thesis that unites existentialists is merely that our existence precedes our essence. I don't think essentialism is necessarily a component of materialism (although it could be in certain accounts of materialism) and so in that sense, existentialism can be compatible with Marxism.

In fact, the critique of a strong essential "human nature" probably puts a lot of existential ideas in line with Marxist ideas, where Marx looked at how humans live and think very different lives based on their material circumstances. They're not the same of course, and history was full of "anti-Marxist" existentialists (Heidegger of course being the best example), but I'd say existentialism is more compatible with Marxism than the vulgar Christianity, Platonism and Cartesianism it was often responding to.

I'm not an expert on Sartre, though I know a little about him, so I can't attest to your critique of him, but the wider existential theses are not necessarily incompatible with Marx's conceptions.

Also, I like that the OP used "y'all", just (to use the words of Existentialist philosophy) to prove that you are an authentic Texan :P

Rafiq

24th October 2014, 01:35

Rafiq - the thesis that existence is irrational isn't the defining feature of existentialism, although it is prominent in Camus's absurdist existentialism. Instead, the thesis that unites existentialists is merely that our existence precedes our essence. I don't think essentialism is necessarily a component of materialism (although it could be in certain accounts of materialism) and so in that sense, existentialism can be compatible with Marxism.

In fact, the critique of a strong essential "human nature" probably puts a lot of existential ideas in line with Marxist ideas, where Marx looked at how humans live and think very different lives based on their material circumstances. They're not the same of course, and history was full of "anti-Marxist" existentialists (Heidegger of course being the best example), but I'd say existentialism is more compatible with Marxism than the vulgar Christianity, Platonism and Cartesianism it was often responding to.

Yes but the problem comes with their notion of our existence to begin with. Existentialism inevitably leads to the notion of the trans-historical human, which makes it actually the complete opposite of a Marxist critique of human nature. But you are completely right - existentialism is much more valid than that which it was responding to - but it was still bound by this disagreement. I think the point of Marxism is that it doesn't concern itself with this dichotomy, because it plants the foundations of a logic which would essentially render this dichotomy as ridiculous to begin with.

consuming negativity

24th October 2014, 02:19

I think Rafiq might be right here. This is my attempt to put what he said into my own words.

Our original attempts at meaning were ignorant of humans completely and instead all supposedly came from divine figures apart from us which then gave us a collective, objective meaning separate from us. Existentialism is just the transverse: there is no meaning given through divinity, and thus there is no meaning that is objective, meaning that the only meaning we have is subjective because it comes from us. But it's still working within the framework of saying whether or not there is meaning given by an "objective figure" that is apart from us - existentialism posits that the answer is "no". But we are the objective figure because we are all that is - there is an objective figure, it just isn't a god(s). There is no difference between us and the universe or the material world or whatever you want to call it - we are the universe itself - and so the dichotomy between subjective and objective meaning doesn't actually exist in the same way that divinity doesn't exist. We have meaning because our existence is rational, and therefore our existence is self-validating through the laws that govern reality. It isn't about a purpose at all - it's about explaining that we are here in the way we are because of events that preceded us.

Illegalitarian

24th October 2014, 02:47

Where have existentialists posited that the driving force for history is the notion that "individuals must follow their own intuitions and values"? Existentialism is not a conception of history - it is negative in nature and pre-supposes the foundations of idealist theology - and simply opposes them. Again, because the prevailing notion that our lives have meaning is monopolized by the religious - existentialists posit that there is no "meaning".

What I'm trying to say is, existentialists would disagree with any sort of materialist conception of society, since it is a negative, and would say that it is individuals and individual initiative that shapes the world that morality is derived from, nothing else, which is an idea opposed to Marxism.

And you're completely wrong, materialists recognize that there is an objective meaning, albeit one that does not conform to the idealist notion of meaning.

.. Which is what I said, that materialists do not recognize an idealist notion of meaning. This is the context we're speaking of.

Reducing historical materialism to "the contradictions of different classes within a given economic system" might be appropriate for an American high school text book, but it certainly is not as far as trying to demonstrate your understanding of Marxism goes. What you have to realize is that we are talking about the foundations of the reproduction of life, of language, of ideology and so on - not different interchangeable "economic systems" having classes and contradictions which change history, as this ignores the process of how exactly these contradictions lead to change in the first place - and secondly, it leaves room for exaggeration of the trans-historical - that which exists independently of according mode(s) of production (Mind you, there are things which do).

I wasn't implying that this was all that historical materialism consisted of, of course there is more to it than that. If I was trying to demonstrate my understanding of Marxism rather than demonstrating the key difference between existentialist ideas of individual v. material conditions as the "base" for the superstructure.

On a very basic level, you are reducing Marx's materialism to a very basic form of determinism. Honestly, what exactly is distinguishable about your notion of Marxism and (economic) determinism? Absolutely nothing. Determinism is mechanical in nature, not because it "reduces" the sacred human spirit, but because it is ignorant of any notion of the active processes of different relationships between things.

Materialism has absolutely nothing to do with determinism (well, not nothing I suppose), I'm not sure where you think I've implied otherwise. I'm merely referring to the rejection of the idea of some sort of "base-superstructure analysis" by existentialists be default of holding some notion of the individual above all else, at least in a Nietzschian sense.

I don't know what compels you to believe that non-Marxist socialists would "pretty much agree" with what Marx has to say about "the mechanics of class society" (?) when it is their utter rejection of the materialist conception of history and Marx's scientific understanding of class that, partially at leas,t distinguishes them from Marxists.

Because this is not what distinguishes them from Marxists. Or at least, I have never heard this as a widespread citation among non-marxist communists as to why they're not Marxists.

Marx's scientific understanding of class is not accepted by "non marxist socialists" on a significant level, save perhaps for today's anarchists. And certainly, Marx's understanding of class relations was not conceived to reinforce the legitimacy of Communism as an ideology - there was no "agenda" behind it - so why exactly in your mind would "non-Marxist" socialists, who we have already established are not Marxists, give their acceptance to it?

I am referring mostly to anarchists, yes. I'm not aware of the existence of any non-marxist socialists who aren't anarchists save for perhaps radical social democrats who call their brand of liberal democracy socialism. There doesn't have to be an "agenda" behind it, I've simply never heard of any anarchists who reject the key notions of historical materialism, or Marx's conception of class relations, again speaking of the general details.

I'm going to be completely honest here: I have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about. Judging by your phraseology, as well as the structure of your posts, I am going to say in the kindest way possible that you have no idea what you're talking about. As far as my advice goes, excessively posting for the sake of posting is definitely not the best way to derive your information, or to demonstrate a useful, unique insight to people.

I'll have to chalk it up to reading comprehension on your end I'm afraid, and assumption making.

I was not trying to boil down the complexities of Marxism down because of some sort of lack of understanding of the wider picture, I was talking about certain concepts within Marxist ideas because I was trying to demonstrate a specific point rather than wax on about the finer points of Marxist thought.

Rafiq

24th October 2014, 17:26

I've simply never heard of any anarchists who reject the key notions of historical materialism, or Marx's conception of class relations, again speaking of the general details.

Anarchists seldom made distinctions between the rural petty bourgeoisie and the proletariat (maybe besides radical unions and organizations like the IWW, who didn't concern themselves with a rural petty bourgeoisie at all). Historically, you're completely wrong - anarchists did reject the "key notions of historical materialism". Your inability to understand this stems from your inability to properly understand what materialism is - at least outside of a superficial, introductory level.

I was not trying to boil down the complexities of Marxism down because of some sort of lack of understanding of the wider picture, I was talking about certain concepts within Marxist ideas because I was trying to demonstrate a specific point rather than wax on about the finer points of Marxist thought.

Well, you irresponsibly and wrongly demonstrated "certain concepts within Marxist ideas" (Honestly.. Really? Really? 'Within Marxist ideas"?), no one is criticizing you because you didn't provide us with an in-depth understanding of Marxism. The point, is that you actually pass off your wholly determinist, wholly mechanical understanding of Marxism as a "simple" understanding - this isn't even the "Simple, straight to the point" conceptualization you think it is - it's just blatantly wrong. Nobody's talking about the "finer points of Marxist thought" - we're talking about some pretty basic concepts. You focus too much on defending yourself personally - it emits the idea that you are taking all of this personally. That's enough of the "I meant this" or "I did this". I don't care about self justification - I don't know you. You have to defend what you're posting, not yourself.

.. Which is what I said, that materialists do not recognize an idealist notion of meaning. This is the context we're speaking of.

No, that's not what you said. What you said, in reference to existentialists claiming that there is no "objective meaning":
Again this is not out of line with a materialist conception of history or anything else, as far as I can tell.

You didn't mention idealism at all. It seems like you're changing your positions in correspondence to my posts. You're trying to justify them upon realizing they were erroneous. Why? There's nothing wrong with being mistaken - the point is to learn.

I'm merely referring to the rejection of the idea of some sort of "base-superstructure analysis" by existentialists be default of holding some notion of the individual above all else, at least in a Nietzschian sense.

To sum up your own point, you're trying to say that existentialism differs from Marxism because Marxists hold that the base determines the superstructure (and therefore the individual) while existentialists hold the individual above all else (I don't understand how this is uniquely Nietzschian, but okay).

Again, this is simplistic and deterministic.

The Feral Underclass

24th October 2014, 18:38

In case people get bogged down in Rafiq's verbiage, let's make sure we are using terms correctly (which Rafiq is not doing). I say this because Rafiq is attempting to compare materialism with existentialism, which is entirely ridiculous, since materialism and existentialism are two completely different branches of philosophy and are therefore not comparable.

Materialism is what's called a philosophical monism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism), or in other words, a type of philosophical view arguing that our explanation for existing things is based on one reality. For materialism it posits that reality (existence and reality are not the same thing) is made up of matter/objects and that the products of our thinking come from our interaction with that matter/objects.

Existentialism on the other hand is a branch of ontology, or the attempt at understanding the human condition, i.e. existence. This is fundamentally not the same as attempting to understand reality. Also, the term existentialism encompasses a variety of philosophical thought and is not just one homogeneous view (though it comes from a specific premise).

Existence is the state of living in reality. It is not the same as reality. Since everyone experiences existence differently, our existence is therefore necessarily individual, irrespective of the nature of reality. Put more clearly, materialism is the overarching explanation for reality. Existence is that which individuals experience living in reality. Therefore there is no conflict between the two.

Saying that "Materialism...shows us that our existence is rational" is true insofar as objects could be explained as facts and that our existence is therefore based upon those facts, since we exist within a reality of objects, but that is not a premise to reject existentialism.

Existentialism's premise is that existence precedes essence, "which means that the most important consideration for individuals is that they are individuals—independently acting and responsible, conscious beings ("existence")—rather than what labels, roles, stereotypes, definitions, or other preconceived categories the individuals fit ("essence").

Putting aside the elaborations of the various existential philosophers, what is it about that view that is fundamentally at odds with materialism? How does that central view of existentialism conflict with the notion that reality and existence is rational in so far as it comes from objects...

I also want to correct Rafiq's claim that existentialism posits that existence is an absurdity. Rafiq is using a literal understanding of the term absurd, when actually "the absurd" as a concept is articulating "the conflict between (1) the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and (2) the human inability to find any."

Existentialism and Marxism are entirely compatible. Philosophically at least, and I would go so far as to say politically -- since making meaning out of being a communist is entirely more noble that not doing that. Certainly, there has been no criticism in this thread that would suggest otherwise.

Thirsty Crow

24th October 2014, 18:43

That our existence is rational, and the daily activity of tigers is rational - which for materialists could only ever mean explainable.
Well here's the crux of the thing, and it boils down to this: I take it that only some kinds of daily activity is rational, that of humans. Tigers aren't rational (not through any fault of their own; and many people aren't either) and can't be since they don't fulfill the behavioral criteria behind the term "rational". Along the lines of the remark made by Marx about the bee and the architect.

Of course, animals (and much more) and their activity is perfectly explicable. However, the fact that we can explain much doesn't say anything wether the explained things are rational (since there is no good reason to assume that rational explanation requires rational objects - a kind of tit for tat).

The reason behind my objection is that indeed some other people do believe, implicitly or explicitly, that things are rational (the whole of existence in fact) - but in a particular way that can't be described in any way other than by using the term "idealism" (in short they believe "the structure" of the universe is ideal/immaterial, which is taken to be synonymous with "rational").

Yes, it's a semantic thing; how people use the word "rational". No other kind of disagreement actually.

Rafiq

24th October 2014, 20:09

Materialism is what's called a philosophical monism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism), or in other words, a type of philosophical view arguing that our explanation for existing things is based on one reality. For materialism it posits that reality (existence and reality are not the same thing) is made up of matter/objects and that the products of our thinking come from our interaction with that matter/objects.

[...(drivel)]

Existentialism and Marxism are entirely compatible. Philosophically at least, and I would go so far as to say politically -- since making meaning out of being a communist is entirely more noble that not doing that. Certainly, there has been no criticism in this thread that would suggest otherwise.

Well, that's just about enough. No, that isn't what materialism is in pertinence to Marxism. That's metaphysics. Marxism doesn't concern itself with responding to metaphysics or idealist theology. You don't know what you're talking about either, except you don't have any real excuse. you SHOULD know better. Marxism is violently opposed to existentialism - which is idealist in ESSENCE. Vague statements about "making meaning" about being a Communist are just that - they pre-suppose the meaning as necessarily having to conform to idealist standards of meaning. By merit of being a Communist, meaning is already there. Materialism concerns the process of the reproduction of life - and the various changes in our foundations of life (i.e. History), as well as the implications this has as far as the behavior of our species is concerned. There is this prevailing tendency of petty bourgeois postmodern Leftists to reduce materialism to simply accepting that matter, or the universe precedes consciousness - or that a single objective reality exists independently of our consciousness. By simply accepting this premise, they go on to adhere and adopt the most wildly idealist views about our present condition (from which all talk is derived in the first place) - no, claiming that you reject idealist metaphysics does not give you the green card to run about pretending that your nonsense is perfectly in conformity to Marx's notion of materialism. According to your understanding of materialism - Nietzsche was also a materialist too - what you ignore is that this is wildly devoid of the same context of which Marx's materialism is concerned. It isn't SIMPLY by merit of not conforming to historical materialism that existentialism is incompatible with Marxism, however.

Existentialism, in your own words, adheres to the notion of the trans-historical man - the "individual" who acts as an individual within circumstances which discourage him from realizing this. The problem of course is that any understanding of what constitutes the "individual" can never be exempt from the same categorizations existentialists see as an obstacle to 'self consciousness'. They themselves are the greatest culprits. But self consciousness independent of the reality from which consciousness was derived is impossible - self consciousness, as far as Marxists are concerned, can only ever mean consciousness of the absence of the so-called 'trans-historical man' - that you are conscious about your class identity, that you are conscious about your so called "essence".

I also want to correct Rafiq's claim that existentialism posits that existence is an absurdity. Rafiq is using a literal understanding of the term absurd, when actually "the absurd" as a concept is articulating "the conflict between (1) the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and (2) the human inability to find any."

That's very well, except that you're just making things up at this point. Wow, what great insight you possess, feral - I understand perfectly what absurdity means in pertinence to its usage by existentialists - if you would have fucking bothered to read what I had posted, you'd realize that to recognize so-called "absurdity" IS A RESPONSE to idealist theology - or idealist metaphysics. Existentialism is the realization that there is no "meaning", as you said - while Marxism goes beyond such a dichotomy in the first place. The very idea that we ought to concern ourselves, or find this overwhelming, universal relevance in "Man's attempt to seek inherent value and meaning in life" pre-supposes that this is an eternal question to begin with, a question man asks simply by merit of being man - simply by merit of existing and therefore being "unable to find any". But for Marxists, we know very well the mechanisms of idealist thought - we know very well the process of man trying to attribute consciousness characteristics to the cosmos - to not only ask, but deal with the question of "meaning" in life pre-supposes the ridiculous foundations that lead to the question in the first place - that meaning must necessarily conform to the idealist standards of meaning.

To put it shortly, in "man's inability" to find any consciously designed, providentially ordained, intended "purpose", he lives in absurdity. Like the Satanist who claims that the rejection of Christ means pledging oneself with Satan - existentialists pre-suppose the foundaitons of that which they claim to oppose.

Thanks for you're worthless "clarification", feral, but you honestly have said nothing. Regurgitating the same nonsense that anyone with any semblance of what existentialism constitutes as does no one good. We don't need to have a discussion with a talking wikipedia page - you can actually address some of the points at hand, or you can not post at all.

Kill all the fetuses!

24th October 2014, 20:13

Reducing historical materialism to "the contradictions of different classes within a given economic system" might be appropriate for an American high school text book, but it certainly is not as far as trying to demonstrate your understanding of Marxism goes. What you have to realize is that we are talking about the foundations of the reproduction of life, of language, of ideology and so on - not different interchangeable "economic systems" having classes and contradictions which change history, as this ignores the process of how exactly these contradictions lead to change in the first place - and secondly, it leaves room for exaggeration of the trans-historical - that which exists independently of according mode(s) of production (Mind you, there are things which do).

How should we understand materialism? How exactly these contradictions lead to change?

The Feral Underclass

24th October 2014, 20:31

Well, that's just about enough. No, that isn't what materialism is in pertinence to Marxism. That's metaphysics. Marxism doesn't concern itself with responding to metaphysics or idealist theology.

LOL! No, you're right, the philosophy of materialism has absolutely nothing to do with Marxism :rolleyes:

You don't know what you're talking about either, except you don't have any real excuse. you SHOULD know better.

You're entitled to your opinion. Even when it's wrong.

Marxism is violently opposed to existentialism

Existentialism doesn't present a contradiction against Marxism. Your dogmatic response in this thread is only testament to your prejudices and not to anything else.

which is idealist in ESSENCE

Existentialism makes no pronouncements about reality. It is a philosophy that focuses on existence.

Vague statements about "making meaning" about being a Communist are just that - they pre-suppose the meaning as necessarily having to confrom to idealist standards of meaning. By merit of being a Communist, meaning is already there.

I didn't say "making meaning about," I said making meaning out of being a communist. Of course meaning is already there, the question is how do we respond to it.

no, claiming that you reject idealist metaphysics does not give you the green card to run about pretending that your nonsense is perfectly in conformity to Marx's notion of materialism.

Actually, I don't accept that my saying that materialism and existentialism are not comparable is the same as saying it conforms to Marx's notion of materialism. I suggest you pay more attention to what I say.

According to your understanding of materialism - Nietzsche was also a materialist too - what you ignore is that this is wildly devoid of the same context of which Marx's materialism is concerned. It isn't SIMPLY by merit of not conforming to historical materialism that existentialism is incompatible with Marxism, however.

It's not "my understanding" of materialism, it is what materialism is.

Existentialism, in your own words, adheres to the notion of the trans-historical man - the "individual" who acts as an individual within circumstances which discourage him from realizing this. The problem of course is that any understanding of what constitutes the "individual" can never be exempt from the same categorizations existentialists see as an obstacle to 'self consciousness'. They themselves are the greatest culprits. But self consciousness independent of the reality from which consciousness was derived is impossible - self consciousness, as far as Marxists are concerned, can only ever mean consciousness of the absence of the so-called 'trans-historical man' - that you are conscious about your class identity, that you are conscious about your so called "essence".

What are you blabbering on about? Why don't you say things so that your meaning is clearer. Honestly, you speak in such an arcane way.

I understand perfectly what absurdity means in pertinence to its usage by existentialists

That is evidently untrue.

Existentialism is the realization that there is no "meaning", as you said

That is neither what I said nor what existentialism realises.

while Marxism goes beyond such a dichotomy in the first place. The very idea that we ought to concern ourselves, or find this overwhelming, universal relevance in "Man's attempt to seek inherent value and meaning in life" pre-supposes that this is an eternal question to begin with, a question man asks simply by merit of being man - simply by merit of existing and therefore being "unable to find any".

It's not that we ought to concern ourselves, it's that we are made to do so precisely because we are human; because we exist. It is a question that faces everyone. How do we respond to the fact there is no meaning...We make meaning. Why does someone choose to be a doctor? Why does someone choose to do be a couch potato?

But for Marxists, we know very well the mechanisms of idealist thought - we know very well the process of man trying to attribute consciousness characteristics to the cosmos - to not only ask, but deal with the question of "meaning" in life pre-supposes the ridiculous foundations that lead to the question in the first place - that meaning must necessarily conform to the idealist standards of meaning.

And yet we are able to ask what is the meaning of our existence and also able to to find meaning in it...

Rafiq is living in bad faith. He rationalises existence by rejecting the premise of meaning entirely, which is strange, because presumably Rafiq gets up in the morning and enjoys his life. He eats the food he likes, watches the TV shows he likes, he seeks out education and love and happiness. He has interest in art and movies... Rafiq lives his life and by doing so creates meaning for himself. And he does that by constructing his belief system and rejecting the question of meaning to begin with. Despite that, he finds meaning in life, even though life has no meaning.

Thanks for you're worthless "clarification", feral, but you honestly have said nothing. Regurgitating the same nonsense that anyone with any semblance of what existentialism constitutes as does no one good. We don't need to have a discussion with a talking wikipedia page - you can actually address some of the points at hand, or you can not post at all.

I can't address points that are being obfuscated. You have essentially mislead in this thread and I have corrected you. Deal with it.

Rafiq

24th October 2014, 20:33

I'd like people engaging in this thread to read this text: https://www.marxists.org/archive/novack/works/history/ch12.htm

...The whole of existentialism revolves around the absolute primacy of the conscious subject over everything objective, whether it be physical or social. The truth and values of existence are to be sought exclusively within the experiences of the individual, in our self-discovery and self-creation of what we authentically are.

Marxism takes the reverse position. It gives existential priority, as any consistent materialism must, to nature over society and to society over any single person within it. Nature, society, and the individual coexist in the closest reciprocal relationship, which is characterised by the action of human beings in changing the world. In the process of subduing objective reality for their own ends they change themselves. The subjective comes out of the objective, is in constant interaction and unbreakable communion with it, and is ultimately controlled by it.

These opposing conceptions of the object-subject relationship are reflected in the conflict between the two philosophies on the nature of the individual and the individual’s connections with the surrounding world. The category of the isolated individual is central in existentialism. The true existence of a person, it asserts, is thwarted by things and other people. These external forces crush the personality and drag it down to their own impersonal and commonplace level.

The individual can attain genuine value only in contest with these external relationships. We must turn inward and explore the recesses of our being in order to arrive at our real selves and real freedom. Only at the bottom of the abyss where the naked spirit grapples with the fearful foreknowledge of death are both the senselessness and the significance of existence revealed to us.

Thus existentialism pictures the individual as essentially divorced from other humans, at loggerheads with an inert and hostile environment, and pitted against a coercive society. This desolation of the individual is the wellspring of inconsolable tragedy. Having cut off the individual from organic unity with the rest of reality, from the regular operation of natural processes and the play of historical forces, existentialism is thereafter unable to fit the subjective reactions and reflections of the personality to the environing conditions of life. Indeed, says Sartre, our attempts to make consciousness coincide with “facticity”, the world of things, are a futile business.

[...]

Historical materialism takes an entirely different approach to the relationship between individual and environment. We are essentially social beings; we develop into individuals only in and through society. For Marxists, the isolated individual is an abstraction. All distinctive things about humans, from toolmaking, speech, and thought to the latest triumphs of art and technology, are products of our collective activity over the past million years or so.

Take away from the person all the socially conditioned and historically acquired attributes derived from the culture of the collectivity and little would be left but the biological animal. The specific nature of the individual is determined by the social content of the surrounding world. This shapes not only our relations with other people but our innermost emotions, imagination, and ideas.

Rafiq

24th October 2014, 20:36

Existentialism makes no pronouncements about reality. It is a philosophy that focuses on existence.

Again, the idealism that we oppose is not necessarily metaphysical in nature - it's funny you claim this though - since exisentialism completely focuses on the relationship of the so-called "individual" and the reality around him. Pre-supposing, of course, that their understanding of reality is a given.

I didn't say "making meaning about," I said making meaning out of being a communist. Of course meaning is already there, the question is how do we respond to it.

Well, that's just the damn point, Feral - by merit of being Communists, they are responding to it.

Rafiq

24th October 2014, 20:39

How should we understand materialism? How exactly these contradictions lead to change?

By the active relationship of these contradictions with each other. Change is nothing more than what we call the result of one class triumphing another.

Thirsty Crow

24th October 2014, 20:42

We're all closet existentialists from one shipwreck to another, that much is clear.

(bonus points for being really deep amirite amirite)

Kill all the fetuses!

24th October 2014, 20:55

By the active relationship of these contradictions with each other. Change is nothing more than what we call the result of one class triumphing another.

I don't think many people actually understand what you mean by this, as it is obvious by you yourself claiming that people don't get it, so could you maybe give an example of what you mean exactly, i.e. what is an active and passive relationship between which contradictions?

Would saying that there is economic base determining the superstructure (ideology etc.) be considered a passive/deterministic relationship by you? Conversely, would saying that there is a constant interaction between economic base and superstructure, one legitimatising another and one not being able to exist without the other, be considered an active relationship?

Or you mean something entirely different? Masses would benefit by your explanation.

Illegalitarian

24th October 2014, 22:38

Anarchists seldom made distinctions between the rural petty bourgeoisie and the proletariat (maybe besides radical unions and organizations like the IWW, who didn't concern themselves with a rural petty bourgeoisie at all). Historically, you're completely wrong - anarchists did reject the "key notions of historical materialism". Your inability to understand this stems from your inability to properly understand what materialism is - at least outside of a superficial, introductory level.

Anarchists reject the notion that rural peasantry are somehow not revolutionary opposed to the industrial proletariat but it is wrong to say that anarchists made no distinctions between the two, or sided with some "rural petty bourgeois" forces. Historically it was the toiling peasantry, rather than the landed peasantry or "kulaks" or whatever you wish to call them. Are you denying that most anarchists believe that changes to material conditions has influence on how the rest of society is organized, so to speak? That they do not believe in the materialist conception of history? Sorry, that's simply not true, I've yet to meet an anarchist who rejects these notions. Perhaps they do not adhere to the theory in its entirety all of the time, but the most basic ideas behind the methodology are embraced.

Well, you irresponsibly and wrongly demonstrated "certain concepts within Marxist ideas" (Honestly.. Really? Really? 'Within Marxist ideas"?), no one is criticizing you because you didn't provide us with an in-depth understanding of Marxism. The point, is that you actually pass off your wholly determinist, wholly mechanical understanding of Marxism as a "simple" understanding - this isn't even the "Simple, straight to the point" conceptualization you think it is - it's just blatantly wrong. Nobody's talking about the "finer points of Marxist thought" - we're talking about some pretty basic concepts. You focus too much on defending yourself personally - it emits the idea that you are taking all of this personally. That's enough of the "I meant this" or "I did this". I don't care about self justification - I don't know you. You have to defend what you're posting, not yourself.

I'm not attempting to defend myself, it has nothing to do with me personally. I've yet to see how this is "determinist" or how these ideas are not concepts found within the materialist conception of history, though.

No, that's not what you said. What you said, in reference to existentialists claiming that there is no "objective meaning":
Again this is not out of line with a materialist conception of history or anything else, as far as I can tell.

You didn't mention idealism at all. It seems like you're changing your positions in correspondence to my posts. You're trying to justify them upon realizing they were erroneous. Why? There's nothing wrong with being mistaken - the point is to learn.

I said: Existentialism says "there is no meaning" in the sense that there is no objective meaning, there is only the meaning we assign to it. Again this is not out of line with a materialist conception of history or anything else, as far as I can tell.

Objective meaning is what I was referring to, in the 'idealist' religious sense. I appreciate your sentiment, I do, and I am not trying to be defensive.. just responding to this particular criticism.

To sum up your own point, you're trying to say that existentialism differs from Marxism because Marxists hold that the base determines the superstructure (and therefore the individual) while existentialists hold the individual above all else (I don't understand how this is uniquely Nietzschian, but okay).

Again, this is simplistic and deterministic.

Sure thing (I was specifically referring to Nietzschian notions of the 'superman', the rugged individual determining the future.) I never said it wasn't simplistic, is the thing, nor did I try and present this simplistic explanation as an exact explanation of these concepts in their entirety.

I wouldn't boil down Marxism to economic determinism, as that wouldn't only be simplistic, but misleading. It's undeniable though that certain aspects of Marxism are somewhat deterministic, though not in a "there is no free will" sense.