Teleological notions in Marxism

[Tim Cornelis]

What do people here think about teleology in Marxism? Expressed in sentences similar to "the historic mission of the proletariat is to bring about the end of class society". The historical materialism of Marx and Engels, and I suppose virtually all subsequent Marxists, has been teleological. To me, this implicit idea that history moves with purpose is nonsensical, as in the same way that nature is not conscious neither is history. Rhetorically it may sound "cool" but theoretically it seems nonsensical. That the proletariat is predisposed to overthrow the yoke of capital is accidental, on the one hand. On the other, it is still "destined" to do so because it is materially predisposed to do so. I can't really recognise this with the notion that history is not conscious. Any thoughts?

[Fakeblock]

This ideological influence generally comes in the form of an economism that stresses the primacy of the productive gorces over the relations of production, instead of vice versa. The idea is that classes are simply reflections of a certain stage of development of the productive forces and therefore representatives of either progress or reaction.

Historical materialism, if it is to be a science, must rid itself of such idealist (and sometimes plainly Hegelian!) notions. If we are to have a claim to scientificity we can't simply replace 'Man' or 'Spirit' with the productive forces as the Subject of history. The category should be abandoned altogether. This was one of Althusser's most important points, a foundation that any materialist philosophy must rise from. History is a process without a Subject, Cause or Goal.

[Subversive]

You're mistaking 'purpose' or 'function' with 'intent'.Teleogy implies no intent, only a purpose or function. Destiny is also foreign to this concept.

The 'telos' of evolution is that it creates small changes over time. This isn't to mean that evolution is an intelligent thing or that it has intent to create change. This is to only mean that the thing which we call 'evolution' serves the purpose, the function, of change over time.
The mitochondria in your body have the function to produce ATP and serves a purpose: To sustain the cell it exists within by creating energy for it, thereby also sustaining the larger body, as a whole, by creating energy for the entire system - For you.
Does the mitochondria have the intent to do so? Absolutely not. They do not 'think'. They merely serve a purpose.

The Proletariat is not yet class-conscious and therefore has no intent. But that certainly isn't to mean that it does not serve a purpose in society. Society has its own form of evolution, of which the Proletariat is a party involved. The Proletariat's teleological purpose is therefore "to bring about the end of class-society". That is the function the Proletariat will fulfill.
There is no 'intent' involved here. That is simply the natural function of the Proletariat.
If it does not ever fulfill this function then it is not truly a Proletariat.

A membrane that does not create ATP, energy, for the cell is not a mitochondria, it does not serve the purpose of a mitochondria, so it is something else.
Something that does not create small change over time is not evolution.

Intent is entirely unnecessary to teleology, to 'purpose'.

Edit: I'll also note that including "intent" in teleology is a Christian-thing. During the advent of modern-Christianity people moved away from natural teleology because it doesn't fit with the modern Christian perspective: That only human beings have 'purpose'. So teleology was disrupted around the 1600-1800's to forcefully include divinity and intent.

[Creative Destruction]

The Proletariat is not yet class-conscious and therefore has no intent. But that certainly isn't to mean that it does not serve a purpose in society. Society has its own form of evolution, of which the Proletariat is a party involved. The Proletariat's teleological purpose is therefore "to bring about the end of class-society". That is the function the Proletariat will fulfill.
There is no 'intent' involved here. That is simply the natural function of the Proletariat.
If it does not ever fulfill this function then it is not truly a Proletariat.

This is complete crap.

The proletariat does not have an "on/off" switch condition whereby if there is not general revolutionary consciousness, then it is not "truly .. Proletariat." Its sole defining condition is their relationship to the means of production.

[Subversive]

This is complete crap.

The proletariat does not have an "on/off" switch condition whereby if there is not general revolutionary consciousness, then it is not "truly .. Proletariat." Its sole defining condition is their relationship to the means of production.
And their relationship to the means of production is what drives their function. That is the entire point.

Read between the lines. I can't do all the work for you.
In the words of one great bear: "Think, Think, Think."

[Creative Destruction]

And their relationship to the means of production is what drives their function. That is the entire point.

Read between the lines. I can't do all the work for you.
In the words of one great bear: "Think, Think, Think."

Nah. I'm sorry you have a tough time actually forming ideas. Nothing in your post implies that you thought the proletariat is proletarian solely because of their relationship to the means of production. You specifically said otherwise; that unless they fulfill the function of overthrowing capital, then they are not "truly proletarian."

The relationship to the means of production does not automatically imbue the proletariat with a revolutionary consciousness. We are aware of our class status and our positions in society. That does not automatically conclude that our "function" is to overthrow capitalism. We are proletarian nonetheless. If we want emancipation, there are certain things we need to do, like overthrowing capitalism, but that is not a foregone conclusion. That much is patently obvious among all the conscious worker uprisings in the past hundred+ years, yet never lead to an actual overthrowing of capital -- most of the time, not even a consideration toward transcending capitalism.

[Creative Destruction]

since this is apparently a revision of Marx, i propose a properly revisionist, self-aggrandizing name. something like "Self-Determinant Marxism". i look forward to the ensuing infighting and splits that come of it.

[Subversive]

Nah. I'm sorry
Apology accepted.

And yes, I am just ignoring you and taking what you said out of context. (Was it obvious enough for you?) You do this nonsense to me all the time, like exactly in both of your replies above.

You do not need to make irrational arguments and strip away context. You do not need to constantly attack me and attempt to discredit me. You have tried in the past and every time I destroy your arguments. I understand you have very likely developed a grudge, from the looks of your recent replies, but this is a pitiful, egotistic, and childish thing to do.
If you have a real argument, make it. Otherwise just shut up.

Now, Mr. Noise, I am sure you're good at something. I'm sure you are not as stupid as your replies make you out to be. So just show me some maturity please. Show me your knowledge, instead. Demonstrate credibility. If the only argument you ever have is to try to discredit others, what point do you make? That you are a hateful person? That is the only conclusion I draw from this.

I can't reply to any of the last reply since it was, honestly, just plain stupidity. It was nothing but a straw man argument. Try again.
This seems to be very common lately, so I would prefer that you try to make a point as replying to your childish behavior is making me feel rather petty. If I weren't new here I would just dismiss and ignore you entirely.
But, to get respect, I feel the need to defend myself even if my arguments are petty like yours.

Do yourself a favor here: Treat others with respect so that they will also respect you. Understand? Try it sometime.

Now, on the issue of the Proletariat: The Proletariat is defined by it's relationship to the means of production. However, this is NOT its function. That is merely a definition. However, it is indeed what drives their function, if you think about this in the actual context and don't dismiss that context in ignorance. When I stated that if their function is not to abolish classes then they are Proletariat that also means that which drives them is also eliminated: That they are no longer defined by that same relationship. They are 'something else'.

Just as evolution is not evolution if it is not change over time.
Just as in, if species are just placed into the world without evolution: Then there is no change over time, is there? It is a very simple concept if you think about it even for a tiny moment.

I understand your point but you have entirely missed mine. You are ignoring all context, as usual.

Think about this and develop your own conclusions. Don't just try to discredit others because you refuse to understand basic communication. Alright?
Hope we understand each other now.

[Creative Destruction]

good lord.

[Бай Ганьо]

The 'telos' of evolution is that it creates small changes over time. This isn't to mean that evolution is an intelligent thing or that it has intent to create change. This is to only mean that the thing which we call 'evolution' serves the purpose, the function, of change over time.

Change over time is the process of evolution, not its purpose. Function and purpose aren't synonymous, as you know.

You didn't make that mistake in your second example.

[Tim Redd]

Function and purpose aren't synonymous, as you know.

I'm not sure what assertion that the function and purpose of a thing may be "synonymous" means here.

In a context of interest, a context that defines the function and purpose of a thing, the function and purpose of a thing may manifest themselves in different ways.

A thing can function in some way, that achieves some purpose, but the purpose of the thing may also be achieved by the thing functioning in multiple ways.

[Tim Redd]

...The category should be abandoned altogether. This was one of Althusser's most important points, a foundation that any materialist philosophy must rise from. History is a process without a Subject, Cause or Goal.

Doesn't the fact that humans are the decisive force in all aspects of history mean that history has acquired humanity's Subject, Cause and Goals?

[Tim Redd]

What do people here think about teleology in Marxism? Expressed in sentences similar to "the historic mission of the proletariat is to bring about the end of class society". The historical materialism of Marx and Engels, and I suppose virtually all subsequent Marxists, has been teleological. To me, this implicit idea that history moves with purpose is nonsensical, as in the same way that nature is not conscious neither is history. Rhetorically it may sound "cool" but theoretically it seems nonsensical. That the proletariat is predisposed to overthrow the yoke of capital is accidental, on the one hand. On the other, it is still "destined" to do so because it is materially predisposed to do so. I can't really recognise this with the notion that history is not conscious. Any thoughts?

Purpose is determined by context. What is purposeful in one context maybe non-purposeful in another context.

One argument for the purpose of this universe is that it appears that the arc of history seems to bend toward the amelioration if not elimination of exploitation and oppression. These are the same 2 things Lenin mentions in What Is To Be Done? as the aim/goal of communism.

More later.

[blake 3:17]

I think most of us reject a certain stupidity made by Marxists -- the vast generalizations, the oh so clever totalizations that tend to leave everything out -- then there are so who lay it out and do talk big and get things right.

There's this amazing speech by Jimmy Reid from 1970(?) that really nails it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/still-irresistible-a-workingclass-heros-finest-speech-2051285.html

[blake 3:17]

That the proletariat is predisposed to overthrow the yoke of capital is accidental, on the one hand. On the other, it is still "destined" to do so because it is materially predisposed to do so.

Neither accidental or destined -- it is natural for slaves to hate the master, the master needs his slaves. He might even love them. And many slaves do have an affection for their masters.

There's a strange mix in Marx and Engel's thought. I've often described myself as an anti progress Marixist -- I was reading some Adam Smith lately and saw of his remarks on empire are in many ways to the left of Marx! As in -- don't invade other countries and steal from them.

[Rafiq]

What do people here think about teleology in Marxism? Expressed in sentences similar to "the historic mission of the proletariat is to bring about the end of class society". The historical materialism of Marx and Engels, and I suppose virtually all subsequent Marxists, has been teleological. To me, this implicit idea that history moves with purpose is nonsensical, as in the same way that nature is not conscious neither is history. Rhetorically it may sound "cool" but theoretically it seems nonsensical. That the proletariat is predisposed to overthrow the yoke of capital is accidental, on the one hand. On the other, it is still "destined" to do so because it is materially predisposed to do so. I can't really recognise this with the notion that history is not conscious. Any thoughts?

Neither for Marx, nor Hegel at that, have there been characteristically teleological notions of history. For Hegel, inevitability can only be enshrined in the pages of history only after it has happened - there could have been alternatives, but after something occurs, it was inevitable. For Marx and Engels (Hegel too), an understanding of history is dependent on present conditions of consciousness, so the proletariat possesses a historic mission insofar as all previous history has already occurred and shaped the present. This doesn't mean capitalism was inevitable two thousand years ago, it simply means it is definitive of our existing epoch. Simply put, history moves with no real aims - it is the result of class war. It is perceived retrospectively because of the conditions of social antagonism today.

The proletariat is not destined to do anything: Communism arises as a means of expressing a real dissonance of interests between them and the bourgeoisie. This dissonance, which takes the form of petty consciousness often, is a contradiction insofar as the demands of the proletariat will always conflate with that of capital, even in the short term. So even the short-term gains of unions, for example, will always be assaulted by capital and none of the gains of the proletariat will ever be permanent. So much so to the point where even if a militant working class always exists, the capitalists will use the state and employ by any means necessary an assault on the organized working class. The overthrow of capitalism becomes a political extension of this dissonance, or moreover, the political embodiment of it. There is also the fact that capitalism creates a commons already vested in it, from which Communism is derived. The teleology comes from the fact that Communism is allegedly the highest expression of self-consciousness, whereby history become willed by men and women as they please, consciously. The idea is that the point of the neolithic revolution and class society was the attainment of societal self-consciousness and mastery over nature. Obviously there is room for debate here - it's clear, for example, that this possibility has only been possible as a result of our present epoch, which was not at all an inevitability since the beginning of time.

[blake 3:17]

but after something occurs, it was inevitable.

I think that's pretty rawking

[Rafiq]

Some elaboration would be nice, and to be clear I have never before encountered such a word as rawking.

[Бай Ганьо]

I'm not sure what assertion that the function and purpose of a thing may be "synonymous" means here.

So you seem not to agree that function and purpose aren't synonyms, and then...


In a context of interest, a context that defines the function and purpose of a thing, the function and purpose of a thing may manifest themselves in different ways.

A thing can function in some way, that achieves some purpose, but the purpose of the thing may also be achieved by the thing functioning in multiple ways.

... you come up with statements that confirm that there is a difference between those notions?


but after something occurs, it was inevitable.

If there were alternatives, then it was not inevitable (but you cannot turn back time). If there were no alternatives, then it was inevitable.

[Tim Redd]

There's a strange mix in Marx and Engel's thought. I've often described myself as an anti progress Marixist -- I was reading some Adam Smith lately and saw of his remarks on empire are in many ways to the left of Marx! As in -- don't invade other countries and steal from them.

And you don't think Marx and Engels expressed the same position: "don't invade other countries and steal from them"?

[Tim Redd]

I think most of us reject a certain stupidity made by Marxists -- the vast generalizations, the oh so clever totalizations that tend to leave everything out -- then there are so who lay it out and do talk big and get things right.

There's this amazing speech by Jimmy Reid from 1970(?) that really nails it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/still-irresistible-a-workingclass-heros-finest-speech-2051285.html

Jimmy Reid: "My conclusion is to re-affirm what I hope and certainly intend to be the spirit permeating this address. It's an affirmation of faith in humanity. All that is good in man's heritage involves recognition of our common humanity, an unashamed acknowledgement that man is good by nature...."

To believe that all that is good in man's heritage involves recognition of our common humanity, is to be off base in understanding the actual structure, and primary development factors of society. "Common humanity" is not the basis for communist revolution which is based upon taking up the interests of one class and a set of related strata in opposition to one class and a set of related strata.

Given that the progress of humanity rests upon one section of society defeating another section of humanity, basing improving society upon "recognition of our common humanity" is a dangerous dead end.

[Rafiq]

If there were alternatives, then it was not inevitable (but you cannot turn back time). If there were no alternatives, then it was inevitable.

Yes, if we would like to reduce Hegel to common sense reasoning. The point of Hegel was to undermine and challenge this. The event re-writes history whereby it was inevitable, because in retrospect it was inevitable in the formation of the conditions of the now whereby we perceive it. It enters into the domain of the inevitable when it passes through the crucible of actualization.

[Subversive]

Change over time is the process of evolution, not its purpose. Function and purpose aren't synonymous, as you know.

You didn't make that mistake in your second example.
Just to clarify, this is teleology we're speaking of: Functions ARE purpose. They are indeed synonymous in respects to teleology. A function both fulfills a role as well as creates a result. The inevitable combination of those results, as a whole, is the 'fulfilled purpose'. The function itself, individually, is merely the act of 'fulfilling purpose'.

As such, the function of the Proletariat is merely to be the Worker, yet, inevitably, as Workers they will fulfill the role they were meant to fulfill - revolution and to 'bring about the end of class society'. Thus, the function of the Worker, to work and be exploited, is the very same function which will inevitably cause the end of class society.

That is teleology.
If you're to imply that 'Purpose' is different than 'function' then you're talking about something other than teleology. This confusion is likely the reason why rednoise reacted the way he did to my earlier posts, not understanding the nature of teleology. That the Proletariat's relationship to their means of Production is exactly the same thing as the creation of classless society, in a teleological perspective. One cannot exist without the other.

[Tim Redd]

If you're to imply that 'Purpose' is different than 'function' then you're talking about something other than teleology.

Teleology is the purpose, goal or aim of a thing. Function if thought as the operation of the thing doesn't always have a clear connection to the purpose, goal, or aim of the thing. Something can operate to achieve an aim while that aim is not immediately evident in the workings of the operation.

[Бай Ганьо]

Just to clarify, this is teleology we're speaking of: Functions ARE purpose. They are indeed synonymous in respects to teleology. A function both fulfills a role as well as creates a result. The inevitable combination of those results, as a whole, is the 'fulfilled purpose'. The function itself, individually, is merely the act of 'fulfilling purpose'.

As such, the function of the Proletariat is merely to be the Worker, yet, inevitably, as Workers they will fulfill the role they were meant to fulfill - revolution and to 'bring about the end of class society'. Thus, the function of the Worker, to work and be exploited, is the very same function which will inevitably cause the end of class society.

That is teleology.
If you're to imply that 'Purpose' is different than 'function' then you're talking about something other than teleology. This confusion is likely the reason why rednoise reacted the way he did to my earlier posts, not understanding the nature of teleology. That the Proletariat's relationship to their means of Production is exactly the same thing as the creation of classless society, in a teleological perspective. One cannot exist without the other.

Ok, but your explanation isn't very helpful to understand the deeper meaning of this:


The 'telos' of evolution is that it creates [evolution]. This isn't to mean that evolution is an intelligent thing or that it has intent to create change. This is to only mean that the thing which we call 'evolution' serves the purpose, the function, of [evolution].

[Tim Redd]

Yes, if we would like to reduce Hegel to common sense reasoning. The point of Hegel was to undermine and challenge this. The event re-writes history whereby it was inevitable, because in retrospect it was inevitable in the formation of the conditions of the now whereby we perceive it. It enters into the domain of the inevitable when it passes through the crucible of actualization.

Do you really think it's scientific and or plausible to claim that whatever has happened was "inevitable", or is *now* inevitable?

If you answer in the affirmative, your claim that it is Maoists who engage in "dialectical magic" needs to be revised to include yourself.

[Tim Redd]

Yes, if we would like to reduce Hegel to common sense reasoning. The point of Hegel was to undermine and challenge this. The event re-writes history whereby it was inevitable, because in retrospect it was inevitable in the formation of the conditions of the now whereby we perceive it. It enters into the domain of the inevitable when it passes through the crucible of actualization.

This is weird Hegelian magic, which has zero connection to reality. This is an assertion of magic idealist, pseudo-dialectics. It is the utterance of someone errantly convinced by convoluted Hegelian high sounding phrases.

[Comrade #138672]

I think you are over-thinking it. Obviously, Marx did not really think that history has a "purpose". He always emphasized the fact that people make their own history, although constrained by material conditions. It is just that historical forces tend to push society in a certain direction, that it appears as predestination.

[Tim Redd]

I think you are over-thinking it. Obviously, Marx did not really think that history has a "purpose". He always emphasized the fact that people make their own history, although constrained by material conditions. It is just that historical forces tend to push society in a certain direction, that it appears as predestination.

I've never read Marx asserting that history had a purpose. However he did lay out a materialist progression of society whose central narrative is a tendency toward more political freedom for the masses of society. And he did know and assert that the realization of this tendency was progress for humanity as a whole.