Criticism of Marxism

[Kill all the fetuses!]

I stumbled upon this:


Prior to Cohen's work, historical materialism had not been regarded as a coherent view within English-language political philosophy. The antipathy is well summed up with the closing words of H.B. Acton's The Illusion of the Epoch: “Marxism is a philosophical farrago”. One difficulty taken particularly seriously by Cohen is an alleged inconsistency between the explanatory primacy of the forces of production, and certain claims made elsewhere by Marx which appear to give the economic structure primacy in explaining the development of the productive forces. For example, in The Communist Manifesto Marx states that: ‘The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production.’ This appears to give causal and explanatory primacy to the economic structure — capitalism — which brings about the development of the forces of production. Cohen accepts that, on the surface at least, this generates a contradiction. Both the economic structure and the development of the productive forces seem to have explanatory priority over each other.

If I understand the objection to Marxism in this case, it goes as follows: Marx said that the development of forces of production is the driving force of historical development. Once forces of production develop to such an extent that relations of production become a fetter, the revolution occurs. However, when Marx says ‘The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production.’, he is saying that its the bourgeoisie and social relations as such - capitalism - that develops forces of production so the primacy of which explains which seems reversed and so we have a theoretical contradiction.

Now I am not sure if I really understand where the supposed problem is. The forces of production do not develop upon themselves, in the last instance, it's still human beings that must act in order to develop them - consciously or unconsciously. So due to structural reasons (competition, law of value in general, etc) the bourgeoisie is forced to develop means of production. When they cease to do so, i.e. when relations of production (capitalism) becomes a fetter to further development of forces of production, then we have a revolution.

I know Cohen had a kind of idiosyncratic understanding of Marxism, but can someone explain to me where the alleged problem is and where my logic goes off the track?

[Tim Cornelis]

I think you both interpreted and refuted it correctly. Marxism is a theory of social transformation, explaining why one epoch transformed into another. It doesn't argue that all social phenomena in a particular can be reduced to the prevailing forces of production. This critique simply relies on a misunderstanding of Marxism -- one that is shared by many Marxists.

[Creative Destruction]

I stumbled upon this:



If I understand the objection to Marxism in this case, it goes as follows: Marx said that the development of forces of production is the driving force of historical development. Once forces of production develop to such an extent that relations of production become a fetter, the revolution occurs. However, when Marx says ‘The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production.’, he is saying that its the bourgeoisie and social relations as such - capitalism - that develops forces of production so the primacy of which explains which seems reversed and so we have a theoretical contradiction.

Now I am not sure if I really understand where the supposed problem is. The forces of production do not develop upon themselves, in the last instance, it's still human beings that must act in order to develop them - consciously or unconsciously. So due to structural reasons (competition, law of value in general, etc) the bourgeoisie is forced to develop means of production. When they cease to do so, i.e. when relations of production (capitalism) becomes a fetter to further development of forces of production, then we have a revolution.

I know Cohen had a kind of idiosyncratic understanding of Marxism, but can someone explain to me where the alleged problem is and where my logic goes off the track?

It might be good to email the editors to point out this misinterpretation.

[Rafiq]

The problem is that it's a straw man. One can only be tired of these arrogant liberals who think they know what the fuck they're talking about with such infantile phraseology like "economic structure". The point is that the productive forces are irrevocably a part of the "economic structure". It is a nonsensical dichotomy to begin with. The point is that "economic structures" are contradictory, they are not static. New forces of production develop within economic structures. The proletariat, conversely, or Communism, arises not through the pursuit of definite interests or some kind of organic change from within, but through political power. This is why Communism is said to be a self-conscious society (in other words, it's not an accident). Our capitalist epoch represents a consciousness of the social being enshrined into the possibility of social transformation. The criticism stems from fundamentally divorcing Marx's work from his logic, and mis-interpreting words like "instruments" of production with forces - he made the false assumption that his readers wouldn't be ignorant liberal scum taking advantage of a change in intellectual context a hundred years later.

It's so cute to see all of these varied criticisms of Marx coming from a plethora of different backgrounds, all stemming from a rabid resistance of its over-reaching power.



I know Cohen had a kind of idiosyncratic understanding of Marxism, but can someone explain to me where the alleged problem is and where my logic goes off the track?

It is a ridiculous criticism. For Marx, the "forces of production" do not simply develop on their own, if the forces of production are to be read as interchangeable with the instruments of production. The confusion also arises with the fact that Marx was speaking during a time wherein old relations to production, i.e. feudal obligations were being subsumed by capitalism. For Marx, what this refers to is not simply the discovery of new technological means of production out of nowhere, but the rise of new classes within a class society (in the case of feudalism to capitalism) whom in turn foster the development of new instruments of production, subsuming a previous mode of production into a new one by merit of developed technological, productive superiority and so on (i.e. the landed gentry in England assumed the role of a proto-bourgeoisie shortly before and following the English civil war). In coincidence with the rise of new socially hegemonic classes, a new magnitude of possibility is widened by merit of its antagonism with the previous social order, and this very contradiction is able to supersede it - which is why things like the scientific revolution or the protestant reformation became possible. This is owed to the fact that these societies essentially lack self-consciousness, so an understanding of the world in approximation to production exists threreby setting a limitation in understanding the world. For capitalism, a totalized understanding of the world as it is is inversely proportional to the sustenance of the existing order (as it relies on this very non-understanding).

In capitalist society, rather than revolutionizing the forces of production (because it is the same class), the bourgeoisie is forced to regularly revolutionize the instruments of production, adopting better technology, means of organizing production and so on - in order so that capital can surpass crises inducing barriers. This is why Marx understood capitalism is revolutionary and dynamic in nature. There are no 'creative' social predispositions to the destruction of capitalism, in other words, the proletariat cannot have an interest except its own abolition - it does not attain social hegemony through revolutionizing the instruments of production and so on. This is why a proletarian revolution would have been just as possible in 1871 as it is in 2015 - there is no definite point wherein capitalism exhausts its ability to sustain itself - closely examining the 20th century, it is rather obvious that Stalinism had prolonged the vitality of capitalism. The point is that in the process of revolutionizing itself, capitalism can drag civilization down to either non-existence or another dark age, doing away with its own achievements and so on. So there really isn't a magic moment enshrined into the very edifice of capitalism, this "magic moment" is only possible with the conscious intensification of the struggle conducted by the real existing movement.

The point is that the class contradiction arises from the onset between labor and capital. Capital is prone to reducing workers to mere sustenance level, and all the gains of labor will be inevitably assaulted. We know this isn't simply a political claim, considering that in every part of the world wherein capitalist relations have been established, trade-unionism becomes an inevitability. The contradiction is simply irrefutable. One could argue that an infinite cycle is possible, but any idiot can see that doing away with such gains takes a political, and sometimes cultural character (Reagan, Thatcher) that renders previous means incredibly difficult or impossible. It is also important to note that often times such achievements are impossible without ruling class fear of revolution, which necessitates revolutionary politics. There is no way to "control" this contradiction, Timothy Mason notes that class antagonism in Nazi Germany became visible quite fast when the state actually took a side with employers who were attempting to reduce wages rather than their controlled unions - which he proposes necessitated Germany's territorial expansions.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

The point is that the productive forces are irrevocably a part of the "economic structure". It is a nonsensical dichotomy to begin with. The point is that "economic structures" are contradictory, they are not static. New forces of production develop within economic structures.

Appreciate the answer, however, I have a question regarding this one. If I understand the criticism raised in my OP correctly, then "economic structures" is what Marxists would call "relations of production". How then is the dichotomy nonsensical? The dichotomy is necessary in order to establish the primacy of forces of production over relations of production in that one can have, say, communism - as relation of production - only when forces of production are developed sufficiently, but not the other way around. And so the dichotomy is necessary in order to establish the theory of social development in the sense of epochs.

But as far as this criticism is concerned, why would Cohen, as a Marxist, take it seriously to begin with? Why wouldn't he respond the same way as, say, Rafiq did? I am not all that familiar with the circumstances of Cohen's writing so maybe someone can help me out with this one?

[Rafiq]

Appreciate the answer, however, I have a question regarding this one. If I understand the criticism raised in my OP correctly, then "economic structures" is what Marxists would call "relations of production". How then is the dichotomy nonsensical? The dichotomy is necessary in order to establish the primacy of forces of production over relations of production in that one can have, say, communism - as relation of production - only when forces of production are developed sufficiently, but not the other way around. And so the dichotomy is necessary in order to establish the theory of social development in the sense of epochs.

This was used to understand previous social transformations, but the point of Communism is that the forces of production do not have to develop for it to become possible - because they are always developed 'enough' for it, i.e. with the emergence of a proletarian demographic majority and so on. Communism, as I stated, represents consciousness of the social as its means of social transformation, which is why it is unique in retrospect to all previous social history. If it were any other way, then Communism would simply result in the emergence of a new class society, and the riddle of history would never be solved. An understanding of Communism does not derive from looking at history - it derives from looking at the conditions of now, through which we can then look at history.

When I mean they aren't static, I mean that the relations of production necessarily constitute forces of production, and have always throughout history. This is how change was possible to begin with - they are embedded with contradictions. The confusion arises when this is compared to the possibility of Communism, but as stated, Communism will arise through conscious political will as opposed to a necessity, or transformation of the superstructure by merit of the demands of the forces of production. Whether Cohen is a Marxist makes little difference - Marxists point out such 'errors' all the time which stem either from ignorance, or a gross misunderstanding of Marx.

[Tim Cornelis]

But as far as this criticism is concerned, why would Cohen, as a Marxist, take it seriously to begin with? Why wouldn't he respond the same way as, say, Rafiq did? I am not all that familiar with the circumstances of Cohen's writing so maybe someone can help me out with this one?

Cohen is one of many terrible Marxists. There's no guarantee that Marxists have an accurate understanding of Marxism, or even a better understanding of it than bourgeois academics. I still can't get over the fact that there's this Italian Marxist academic (Bruno Jossa) that claims market competition between worker owned enterprises is compatible with the Marxist view on communism. He also argues that "Marxists can be divided into two distinct groups: those who identify socialism with a state-planned command economy and those who equate it with a system of self-managed firms." Right...

Cohen is also a member of the Analytical Marxist school, which is generally terrible.

[Rafiq]

Cohen is also a member of the Analytical Marxist school, which is generally terrible.

My god, this explains it perfectly then. To speak of two opposite ends, I cannot tell what is more vulgar: the Analytical philistines or the Maoist dialectical magicians.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Whether Cohen is a Marxist makes little difference - Marxists point out such 'errors' all the time which stem either from ignorance, or a gross misunderstanding of Marx.


Cohen is one of many terrible Marxists. There's no guarantee that Marxists have an accurate understanding of Marxism, or even a better understanding of it than bourgeois academics.

Yes, I understand that much, my question was related more towards the actual historical circumstances within which Cohen developed his ideas and why exactly he perceived these issues as issues and developed his idiosyncratic understanding of Marxism (technological determinism etc). Broadly speaking, I was asking about historical "role" of Analytical Marxism and why did it develop, if you even understand what I am asking... :)

[Rafiq]

Yes, I understand that much, my question was related more towards the actual historical circumstances within which Cohen his ideas and why exactly he perceived these issues as issues and developed his idiosyncratic understanding of Marxism (technological determinism etc). Broadly speaking, I was asking about historical "role" of Analytical Marxism and why did it develop, if you even understand what I am asking... :)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your question is concerned with why Cohen, a self-proclaimed Marxist, would have arrived at the conclusions he did, no? Not only analytic Marxism, but various vulgarizations of Marxism have occurred with only one thread in common: The conformity of the Marxist theoretical tradition to ruling ideology. It is important to stress the fact that by itself, Marxism wields no power, it is sustained by Communist ideology. The power of Marxism derives from the ability to render the unknowable depths of ideology knowable, approachable and subject to evaluation. Communism, conversely, is unknowable to all in that confronting it externally is only possible by reducing its complexity. When capitalism experienced changes in the late 20th century which rendered existed Communist ideology a carcass of a previous time, it became knowable because it didn't keep up - it became mummified, no longer having derived from present circumstances of life. Hence the strength and ferocity of the assaults on Marxism in academia among other fields.

This is precisely why analytical Marxism rose to prominence during the 1980's - it was attempt to reconcile what was perceived to be a worthwhile theoretical legacy with the powerful ideological assault on part of the ruling class which, in the eyes of most, rendered the old Marxism devoid of real content. In the ecstatic periods wherein bourgeois ideology makes its offensives, be it the first world war, the failure of the October revolution, and so on - bursts of what Lenin referred to as revisionism occur wherein Marxism is conformed to ruling ideology, insofar as it can be reconciled with what is perceived to be a new change which renders the old null. The point for Marxists, however, is to re-invent Marxism in coincidence to the expansion of coordinates of struggle in approximation to such changes, rather than giving ourselves to the devil. In all the great periods of class struggle, from Orthodox Marxism to the third international, this is precisely what had happened.

What Cohen here is doing is retaining the content of Marxist rhetoric but abandoning the form - over conflating the real with the real-in-thought.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your question is concerned with why Cohen, a self-proclaimed Marxist, would have arrived at the conclusions he did, no?

Yes, in a sense. There were particular historical circumstances for Stalinism, Trotskyism or Frankfurt School to emerge, so I thought there was something unique to Analytic Marxism as well, because I remember reading somewhere that Analytic Marxism arose as a response to X, but I've never bothered with it at all up to now.

But I think you answered my question either way, although in a more generic way.


It is important to stress the fact that by itself, Marxism wields no power, it is sustained by Communist ideology. The power of Marxism derives from the ability to render the unknowable depths of ideology knowable, approachable and subject to evaluation. Communism, conversely, is unknowable to all in that confronting it externally is only possible by reducing its complexity. When capitalism experienced changes in the late 20th century which rendered existed Communist ideology a carcass of a previous time, it became knowable because it didn't keep up - it became mummified, no longer having derived from present circumstances of life. Hence the strength and ferocity of the assaults on Marxism in academia among other fields.


I am not sure if I am following your argument here or rather I don't understand the particular jump you are making. So if I understand you correctly, then Marxism, as a scientific method of analysis, allows us to see through "unknownable" in that using Marxism we can understand where do our ideological presumptions come from, what role do they play etc. However, why is it that Communist ideology is "unknowable to all"? Why Marxist analysis can make the depths of Liberalism knowable, but Communism is excluded from that? Is it because Liberalism "became mummified" in that it itself can't and couldn't keep with the development of capitalism and so it became "knowable"? Or does it have to do with Communism deriving from an actually existing material conditions, which necessarily renders communism true and it can't be understood? Even so, why would that be the case in that Marxism wouldn't be able to make Communism "knowable"?

[Rafiq]

It is because Communism is the ideology of the last instance: It's depths are unknowable because externality from it is impossible. There is no aufheben of Communism. It is unbound from ruling social forces, and the epistemological limitations of the necessity of reproducing a class society. It represents consciousness of the social for the fist time in history. Liberalism, however, is contingent upon perpetuating our worldly conditions of life. Look at all the attempts to conceptualize Communism: A secular religion, a utopia, a sinister cult, a grand conspiracy and so on - none of this really adds up for anyone with a semblance of familiarity with it. But all other ideologies are completely, and consistently knowable. You see, ideology is different from science in one regard: it designates a reality (a world-being) without supplying the theoretical means to know that reality. These have their groundings in definite social processes, and Communism is the opposition to these social processes, therefore unbound by them in the last instance. In that very opposition to the existing order, other ideologies can be knowable. But Communism cannot, besides reducing it to the shallow level of others. Marxism is scientific because it designates MORE of reality completely up for evaluation and it renders the reality designated by other ideologies as knowable. For example, a liberal takes as given processes that can be evaluated by Marxists - things deemed human nature, unknowable to reason and yet designated ideologically. But Marxism is sustained by the Communist designation of a wider reality whose depths are unknowable to the eyes of other ideologies. To put it simplistically, ideology fills the gaps science can't, in a socially relative manner. The gaps spawned by Communist ideology are scientifically unknowable to anyone because they represent entirely new possibilities of discovery contingent on the victory of Communism.

Take for example the humanism of the renaissance: Ideologically this was also unknowable in that it's existence was contingent on superseding old Catholicism. What I mean is simple: when changes occur in the productive forces of society, when dichotomy arises between sustaining old power and a better understanding of the world which undermines that power (which arises through the emergence of a challenging hegemonic class), the latter is sustained by definite ideological forces, but because there is nothing which could challenge those forces aside from the strive to retain the old relations, it's ideological depth, vested in which a new world of unknown depth, is completely unknowable, unqualifiable to hegemonic ideology.

[Antiochus]

Marxism is scientific because it designates MORE of reality completely up for evaluation and it renders the reality designated by other ideologies as knowable.

Are you actually claiming Marxism is scientific or are you just using this to criticize other current ideologies?

Because no political ideology is scientific, in the real-meaning of the word. I don't exactly know if Marx and co. actually thought Communism could be "scientific", but that is just a total abstraction because it is impossible for a set of ideas governing human organization to be 'scientific' given that humans aren't bound by any parameters that we can actually measure.

[Rafiq]

Are you actually claiming Marxism is scientific or are you just using this to criticize other current ideologies?

Because no political ideology is scientific, in the real-meaning of the word. I don't exactly know if Marx and co. actually thought Communism could be "scientific", but that is just a total abstraction because it is impossible for a set of ideas governing human organization to be 'scientific' given that humans aren't bound by any parameters that we can actually measure.

This erroneously assumes that Communism is an idea that makes pretensions to governing human organization, furthermore it assumes Communism, an ideology and Marxism - a scientific paradigm are interchangeable. Marxism is NOT an ideology, but it presumes the substrate of Communist ideology. Unless of course, by "ideas governing human organization" you mean ideas which attempt to understand human organization, in which case it would be ridiculous to claim this is impossible scientifically. It is absolute nonsense that humans aren't bound by definite social parameters, a quick glimpse at any previous historic epoch would make this recognizable.

The point is that the reality Marxism formally designates, through a magnitude of possibility widened with Communist ideology is scientifically approachable, whereas the same reality of the social designated by other ideologies is not. The trick is simple: if every other ideological conception of the social was MERELY elaborated upon even on its own terms, it would be inconsistent and ridiculous. It is not a coincidence, for example, that all pretenses to Marxism being unfalsifiable utterly fail in providing a detailed method of social, historic analysis (on any terms) of change that fits their qualifications for validity. Popper, for example even admitted that Rationality Principle, his alternative, was unfalsifiable (or even false). The point is simple: ALL holistic understandings of reality (which will always exist, I.e. ideology) are in one way or another unfalsifiable, the only difference is whether we want to openly admit they are up for debate. Marxism takes what is a given, what is filled by the gaps of ideology and renders it theoretically identifiable, knowable.

[Antiochus]

It is absolute nonsense that humans aren't bound by definite social parameters, a quick glimpse at any previous historic epoch would make this recognizable.

Evolutionary theory is bound by parameters. But these parameters can't be quantitatively measured, hence "theory". Human interactions are so infinitely complex, complete with emergent properties that we still have no clue how they emerged, that yes, you can't measure it scientifically. If you tried to make predictions about human conditions and relations based on these parameters you would be arguing in tautologies. Sort of like trying to 'prove' mathematics.


Marxism - a scientific paradigm are interchangeable

I know they aren't interchangeable. I specifically asked if you were claiming that Marxism is "scientific", because it isn't a falsifiable methodology of analysis.

[Rafiq]

If Communism is simply a political ideology at level with all others, it is either already dead or not properly articulated. It presumes that the world we live in does not necessitate ideas in approximation to it, to perpetuate its existence. It presumes there can be no real challenge to capitalism at all. In other words, that perpetuating the existing order takes no implicit, unquestioned effort and is merely natural. But we know very well otherwise: history wouldn't have ever existed if this was the case. The only question which remains is: Why ought it be questioned at all? Furthermore, a demand to ignorance: that humans are too complex to be scientifically understood, among other ideological trash. As God's earthly domain was once too sublime to be reduced to mere physical processes, I am sure.

[Rafiq]

Human interactions are so infinitely complex, complete with emergent properties that we still have no clue how they emerged, that yes, you can't measure it scientifically. If you tried to make predictions about human conditions and relations based on these parameters you would be arguing in tautologies.

The ability to scientifically designate the social isn't dependent on the ability to make predictions based on those designations. Now that would be ridiculous. Of course, there are certain predictions that can be made through this, but that isn't the point. What predictions can be wrought out from evolutionary theory regarding, for example, what species will look like exactly in a few hundred years? Again, unless of course evolutionary theory isn't scientific either, which Sir Popper himself had to come into terms with later in his life for the sake of retaining a shred of decency for his legacy. I mean, this is absolutely ridiculous! The very geist of scientific discovery even in bourgeois society can't conform to such qualifications to science - which is precisely why it has no place in quantum mechanics today. Even if we assume human relationships are as complex as you say they are, it changes absolutely nothing that the mere insistence on attempting to approximate those relationships is scientific. There is still a lot of biology we don't exactly know about - we don't know exactly (Unless there is something recent) how organic cells emerged spontaneously and so on. That doesn't mean the field of biology is completely ignored because the organic is "too complex" to be measured. You can certainly 'measure' or qualify human social processes scientifically. And under your qualifications, the whole of science is in itself a series of tautology, because it contains definite implicit theoretical qualifications to validity which re-assert themselves regularly through the process of discovery. Keep in mind, upon merely perceiving human social processes, an ideological designation is already made in approximation to existing conditions.

It only ever boils down to whether or not the social should even be knowable. But the question itself is a pretense to ignorance - the mere existence of such a question proves that it should be. To say that humans are "too complex" and so on - this can only ever be ideological.


I know they aren't interchangeable. I specifically asked if you were claiming that Marxism is "scientific", because it isn't a falsifiable methodology of analysis.


Attempting to subject Marxism to falsifiability is in itself an impossibility, because Marxism isn't a singular hypothesis. What Marxism is composed of is several contingent, very much falsifiable hypothesis based on definite theoretical means of conception. A holistic designation of reality can never be falsifiable in itself, this is impossible. But the trick is - eppur si muove - that it will always be present regardless of whether we want to openly admit it or not. What people fail to understand about Marxism (Marxists included) is that definite claims about social processes (wherein humanity is composed of definite "stages" universally applied that have to be consistently adhered to, an image derived from knowledge we ought to formally conform to - this is a gross vulgarization) and defending those claims were never dogmatically integrated into the theoretical edifice of Marxism. It is the mere recognition that social processes exist and are approachable scientifically which is already taking a side. If someone were to say that the sun and moon moving in the sky isn't just divine providence (and saying it is divine providence makes no real claims about the details - just that it's "there" and "god did it"), and then followed with elaborating on the details of their movement, the latter relies on the unfalsifiable former substrate which merely allows for the sky to be scientifically articulated. You could, per se, look at the sky and nothing would change - you could still have the same (lack of) explanation for its movement scientifically. It is unquestionable that Marxism is scientific - Marxism is the triumph of the all-encompassing power of the sciences, the fervent rejection of the last domain of the superstitious and mystical: The social.

Hegel too was scientific. Not because he passed the vulgar empiricist qualifications for scientific constitution, but because: The question of the perfectibility and Education of the Human Race arises here. Those who have maintained this perfectibility have divined something of the nature of mind, something of the fact that it is its nature to have gnothi seanton as the law of its being, and, since it apprehends that which it is, to have a form higher than that which constituted its mere being. But to those who reject this doctrine, mind has remained an empty word, and history a superficial play of casual, so-called ‘merely human’, strivings and passions. Even if, in connection with history, they speak of Providence and the plan of Providence, and so express a faith in a higher power, their ideas remain empty because they expressly declare that for them the plan of Providence is inscrutable and incomprehensible.

Analytic vulgarism is nothing more than the science of perpetual ignorance. The so-called "no-bullshit" Marxists tear out from the heart of our tradition everything that has ever made it worth a damn: bullshit is the only thing which can rejuvenate the sciences as such in the face of their ongoing degeneration.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

So what it seems you are saying is that the power of Marxism, as a scientific tool, relies on Communist designation of reality, the power of the former is contingent upon the expansion in designating our reality by the latter. So Marxism relies on Communism, which is a necessary substrate for Marxism to scientifically evaluate the reality. While I understand how the power of Marxism, as a social force, i.e. it acceptance by people, necessity to deal with it etc, is reliant on Communist ideology and hence Communist movement, what I can't understand is why would you make a claim that Marxism relies on Communism as a scientific tool. Why is it necessary for Communism to designate certain aspects of reality for Marxism to be able to approach them? Take, for instance, your example of providence, sun etc. You say that scientifically evaluating it presupposes an ideological designation of it. But why is it so? Isn't the mere existence of the sun enough for it to be evaluated scientifically? Or are you saying that there can't be anything existing without it being designated ideologically, which would seem to me pretty redundant. So why does Marxism have to rely on Communism in so far as we treat Marxism as a purely scientific tool (I know you can't divorce it from power relation like that etc. by I hope you get my point)? For instance, we can approach and analyse relation between individual in the sphere of production without having communist ideology designating it, because the very material existence of that relation makes it approachable scientifically, no? To put it more bluntly and concretely: could you give an example as to when a Marxist analysis of a particular phenomenon presupposed Communist ideology? In what way Marxist analysis would be different - more expansive, better, whatever - were we to have a powerful Communist movement and its own ideological language?

[Rafiq]

It's rather simple: The designation of reality by ideology represents a social interest. FROM the very criticism and opposition of bourgeois society by Communism, FROM the very insistence of recognizing the finite power of the ruling class and the power of commons, does this substrate form. Copernicus couldn't make the discoveries he did without there being a real social force which could challenge the dogma and doctrine of the church, thereby allowing him to think beyond them in approximation to that force. Without such a social force, then ruling ideology, the church could only be evaluated on its own terms and presumptions. There would be no linguistic magnitude of possibility to actively pursue truth beyond it, the very language wouldn't exist.

The Communist designation of reality is not conscious, of course, and certainly it is not some static world view simply prescribed and then followed upon. It is an understanding of reality actively in approximation to the very opposition to it. It is ideological: it stems from the very desire for emancipation and the commons, as humanism stemmed from the aspirations of the rising bourgeoisie.

Communism doesn't designate the social as such, that's the point: Marxism does scientifically. But Communism does designate a wider reality beyond the social which is unknowable - vested in an unknowable future. The point is that Marxism as a means of understanding social processes is impossible without an ideology to give it breathing space, something we take for granted. Without that very implicit, enshrined position, it couldn't be utilized as a tool, because it would be a tool for no one. The lesson is that taking sides, and acquiring truth are conditions of each other. For example, if I oppose the existing order, vest my faith in the commons, I no longer am bound by the ideas which reproduce the existing order I oppose - I can think beyond them because I have made the gesture of not reproducing it, by opposing it actively. With a Communist movement, a language will be acquired which will allow Marxism to be unhinged from the confused obfuscations of ruling ideology, unbound by the necessity of conforming it to the established normality. The confusion arises wherein most of us have it backwards: we become Marxists first for whatever accidental reason and attempt to understand it through understanding its history, the context from which its derived and so on.

[Tim Redd]

I know they aren't interchangeable. I specifically asked if you were claiming that Marxism is "scientific", because it isn't a falsifiable methodology of analysis.


Attempting to subject Marxism to falsifiability is in itself an impossibility, because Marxism isn't a singular hypothesis. What Marxism is composed of is several contingent, very much falsifiable hypothesis based on definite theoretical means of conception. A holistic designation of reality can never be falsifiable in itself, this is impossible

If you can split something apart, like Marxism, and that makes it possible to falsify, why maintain that it is unfalsifiable? It's falsifiable if split up. And many things are like that. There are many things that if you want to analyze and falsify they must be approached in parts.

I agree that Marxism is something that must be analyzed according to its parts as key observations, assertions and propositions in order to falsify.

This ability to falsify Marxism when partitioned indeed is a major reason why it is scientific theory in its parts and as a whole.

However, I think there are things that can shown to be falsifiable even when taking them as whole. These tend to be simpler less complex things.

[Tim Redd]

...Furthermore, a demand to ignorance: that humans are too complex to be scientifically understood, among other ideological trash. As God's earthly domain was once too sublime to be reduced to mere physical processes, I am sure.

Agreed. The position that human society can not be understood as a science is akin to the beliefs espoused by the Catholic church about reality during the middle ages.

The view that human society can't be understood as science is present and in line with the many sophist views currently being espoused in the realm of academic philosophy.

The belief and drive to uphold religion and with it the concept of a supernatural god are among the chief motivations for this kind of view, as I have determined.

[Qbill harris]

Agreed. The position that human society can not be understood as a science is akin to the beliefs espoused by the Catholic church about reality during the middle ages.

The view that human society can't be understood as science is present and in line with the many sophist views currently being espoused in the realm of academic philosophy.

The belief and drive to uphold religion and with it the concept of a supernatural god are among the chief motivations for this kind of view, as I have determined.

Human societies can be understood scientifically, but not as a complete science. The reason is that humans possess volition whereas, say, carbon molecules within an atmosphere do not.

So-called Orthodox Marxism approaches this conundrum by hypothesizing how volition itself is directed by objective forces, such as the necessity to eat, for example. To a certain extent, this argument is persuasive: it's rather visible, for example, how beliefs are attached to absurdly disfunctional nationalist narratives which themselves clearly serve the interests of a ruling class.

Otherwise, not. Being non-orthodox means using Marxism as one of many factors that determine an outcome, much as you would use a 'co-efficient' within an equation.

A third perspective--mine-- is to see Marx as the one who asked the right question, "What is capitalism?" To this extent, we're all Marxists because we live in an epoch that he defined.

In passing, this paradoxically makes even the horrid types that follow Rand to be 'Marxist', too. Likewise, those who talk of the present world as 'post-capitalist' to be inner-dwelling idiots.

[Rafiq]

So-called Orthodox Marxism approaches this conundrum by hypothesizing how volition itself is directed by objective forces, such as the necessity to eat, for example. To a certain extent, this argument is persuasive: it's rather visible, for example, how beliefs are attached to absurdly disfunctional nationalist narratives which themselves clearly serve the interests of a ruling class.


No, because in talking of "objective forces" this in itself creates a space of externality which simply "shapes" our free will. But the gap between our "will" and "objective forces" remains. We can either assume the Marxists you have come into contact with are terribly confused, or you yourself have projected your own idealist prejudice upon our arguments. From experience, the latter is infinitely more likely.

The fact of the matter is that Orthodox Marxists DO NOT say that we have some kind of otherwise limitless will that is "directed" by objective forces, but that our will is utilized in a manner that composes a rational totality of productive relations. What this in effect means is that our very "free will" is A PART of these objective forces, and can be qualified theoretically into a consistent paradigm of behavior. Some "wills", in other words, en masse, are impossible. So the question isn't "what makes people choose?" but "WHY do people choose in THIS way?" Our choices can only be made in approximation to our means of life, to our social totality. One cannot make a choice that exceeds beyond the limits of their given totality, or even a given ideological framework. That's the point. What choices exist (are possible) - that we cannot make (that we do not know)? So elaborate - what do you mean by claiming that humans can't be subject to a "whole science" because "humans have volition"? Even from a non-Marxist perspective, this is the domain of religiosity and metaphysical spirituality and other such superstitious nonsense - why are animals subject to whole science, but not humans? Can the former NOT make choices? Tell me, what choices that we make are outside the capitalist totality, are... In other words, a "free choice"?

[Qbill harris]

I can either assume that either the scientific commentary that you've come into contact with is terribly confused or that you yourself (sic) have projected your own (sic) prejudices as to what science is about. As for my own opinion as to which, I could care less.

Orthodox Marxism calls itself a science because that's what being orthodox means. This means that Marx qua science is obliged to hold itself to standards of science.

And no, I don't have to rely on others to read Marx for me. To thie end, we can discuss specific marxist problems--such as the 'Transformation' at your convenience. My own PhD was on how changing conditions of production among the Tuareg (Am'zert) effect their nomenclature of kinship.

And as for your accusation of 'idealism', my suggestion is that you can either grow up, do real philosophy, or continue to practice your groupie version of a secular religion in which words mean what you want them to mean, at the time that you use them.

In any case, we know that free will exists because, within the capitalist framework, opposing choices are made. The point, then, is for you to write,

"Our choices can only be made in approximation to our means of life, to our social totality. One cannot make a choice that exceeds beyond the limits of their given totality, or even a given ideological framework"

either a) belabors the point because 'framework' is propositional, b) is a meaningless tautology as to what 'totality' can possibly mean or c) utter nonsense.

'Whole science' in sciencesepak means 'wholly determined, or predicted'..at least in a probabilistic sort of way. This means that billiard balls, when struck, show with 100% predictability the predicted angular momentum. This is because they don't have in say in the matter. This, Marxism cannot do.

Moreover, even if billiard balls were somehow rigged to demonstrate random behavior, claiming that they acted scientifically' within the 'totality' of the table would be doing nothing more than defining the properties of the table itself. This is analogous to describing the 'mode of production' , but not human behavior. So if your brand of orthodoxy believes otherwise, again, I would suggest that you get a better grip on science, ostensibly the object of your claim.

You also wrote, "why are animals subject to whole science, and not humans?"

Uhhhh. I believe that h.sapie'ns are studied as members of the animal kingdom in sciences called 'Biology' and 'Zoology'. On the other hand, 'behavioral sciences' are distinct in that observed behavior beyond that of operant classical conditioning falls into culturally learned patterns. For example, young men in Islamic societies are encouraged to kill a wayward sister--while in the west, not so much.

That many, if not most cultural patterns push against behavior expressing 'class struggle' is obvious. Otherwise, Morocco would be a workers republic with fraternal relations with Polisario, which would govern to their west....

[Rafiq]

And as for your accusation of 'idealism', my suggestion is that you can either grow up, do real philosophy, or continue to practice your groupie version of a secular religion in which words mean what you want them to mean, at the time that you use them.

Not only has the assumption that you're an idealist been absolutely concerned, but now we can at teh very least see that you're a vulgar empiricist idealist. In any case, the qualifications for scienticity in Marxism do not concern a set of hypothesis which have to be confirmed. During the first instances of biology as we know it, a definite theoretical framework was laid out, which posited a definite pre-supposition and worked from there - Marxism does not bring forward one gargantuan hypothesis, it opens up space which was previously subject solely to ideological designation. Science is defined purely by its relationship to ideology. What makes something scientific has nothing to do with nonsense of "whole sciences" and incomplete sciences (which is in this case, just as sorry excuse to make the "particular complexity" of human social being exempt from critical analysis), but its ability to designate reality by providing us the means to make that reality knowable. Ideology, conversely, designates reality without providing us the means of making it knowable. But oh yes, what is this "real philosophy" you prattle of? The legitimate accepted philosophy of the university, with definite criteria for qualification, one ought to abide by so that they might go on the internet and talk about how they do "real" philosophy? No one gives a fuck, Qbill. The fact of the matter in that claiming "words" are what I want them to mean, there has to be some kind of reason as to why I'd want them to mean this outside of my "groupie" secular doctrine. You already admit Marxism has definite, impenetrable collectively refined qualifications that cannot be altered at will, because it is a "secular religion" . So this is entirely contradictory of you. Way to fuck up the only semblance of an insult you could have possibly mustered up, though I suppose the fact that you've actually responded in the manner you have is the greatest insult of all.


In any case, we know that free will exists because, within the capitalist framework, opposing choices are made. The point, then, is for you to write,


Those opposing choices aren't owed to the endurance of human will in the midst of the externality of some kind of metaphysical "system", composed of nothing but humans and their relationships to nature and each other, but from the system itself. Marx explicitly and very thoroughly detailed the various contradictions of capitalism, among them and among all class societies class antagonism. The existence of choices opposed to capitalism are wholly owed to the existence of a social being opposed to capitalism, or its various systemic contradictions which leave the poor subject confused. Though, is this to be your argument? You accuse me of speaking in tautologies, and what's your argument? "Opposing choices are made". So apparently, the mere existence of choices validates the notion that "free will" exists. No need to fret, however, such hypocrisy is excusable so long as one practices "real philosophy" like Qbill, which amounts to nothing more than talking out of your ass with obnoxious platitudes and cheaply imitating the majesty of the master. The fact of the matter is that different choices are made precisely because different people exist in different proximal relationships to life. The alternative choices that do exist in very refined conditions are owed to chance, not "free will". If free will does exist, it can only take the form of a negative, a No. This isn't the free will you're trying to sell us, however.


is a meaningless tautology as to what 'totality' can possibly mean


A totality is an all-encompassing plethora of antagonisms which one cannot escape, antagonisms whose relationship to each other are conditions for their existence. The capitalist totality does not exist in spite of human nature, it defines human nature, its expression, and most of all - the ability for us to conceptualize it right now.


This, Marxism cannot do.


Marxism is scientific within its own theoretical framework, with its own internal means of validity. Within its respective domain, Marxism is indeed a "whole science", but there's no need to play with stupid semantics. The point is that Marxism is scientific, not ideological.


This is analogous to describing the 'mode of production' , but not human behavior. So if your brand of orthodoxy believes otherwise, again, I would suggest that you get a better grip on science, ostensibly the object of your claim.


For something to be random doesn't equate to "free will", but even then, we do have the means to calculate the various behaviors possible within given circumstances. You accuse me of attempting to downplay the complexity of human behavior, and yet you attempt to give us the analogy of a game of billiards to account for it...


That many, if not most cultural patterns push against behavior expressing 'class struggle' is obvious. Otherwise, Morocco would be a workers republic with fraternal relations with Polisario, which would govern to their west....

What a profoundly idiotic claim. This is to be your hallmark of an example, our "true" philosopher? With regard to urban life in ALL of these countries, this is PRECISELY a result of the conditions of class struggle! Where was your "culture" several decades ago when this didn't have a semblance of a basis in the reality of urbanized life in these countries? In Damascus, a handful of women wore the veil during the 1960's. Where was your cultural patterns then? Or let me guess - did they spontaneously re-assert themselves after being suppressed for so long? This doesn't make any sense. In Kabul during the early 70's, where was your culture then? Or was the resistance, and the reaction purely an expression of culture trying to find its place among people again? Then why did it take the billions of Saudi petro-dollars to kickstart? To attribute to culture what is WHOLLY politics and ideology is beyond fucking disgusting. Unless you're talking about rural customs that haven't died, but those have existed for hundreds of years: This IS integral to their class existence already. Unless finally, your argument is that the mere absence of a worker's dictatorship globally is owed to "culture" - than this is beyond fucking ridiculous considering that culture is a meaningless term. Cultural customs, within capitalism are incapable of possessing rigidity and timeless existence. That these customs have gained prevalence in the urban, modernized centers of Muslim countries has nothing to do with age old customs but from the rise of Islamism as a political and ideological force which has been able to account for various social grievances. It's like saying that Fascism in Germany is owed to the power of "German culture" over class interest. Apparently cultural "patterns" come out of one's ass - or develop on accident. This makes absolutely no sense. The fact is that Orthodox Marxists have existed for a hundred years or so, so you have to either admit: That they were completely BLIND to the fact that they weren't living in a proletarian dictatorship, since apparently if social being determines consciousness, that equates to the victory of the proletariat in the class struggle (what nonsense) - or, they were aware of them, but deliberately ignored and downplayed this reality for whatever fucking reason. If there are "cultural patterns" with persist after exposure to the capitalist totality, this means that this culture is either in the process of being broken down, or it is being regularly reproduced by capitalism because it serves a definite purpose within the totality. This is why there are "cultural patterns" which are wiped away over night, and why some persist which apparently is owed to... To what, Qbill? Free will? Apparently those dumb brown people are too stupid to muster up class consciousness because they're too distracted killing adulterers. What you fail to understand is that this prevalence of custom is EXACTLY a reaction to modernization and globalization, and it rose from the ashes of an actual, real secular left that failed with the global left in general.

What can we expect, however, from a "true" philosopher? Critics of Marxism do what they do best - they attribute the most wild accusations against Marxists and proceed, with such great eloquency and wisdom, to demonstrate their falsity. "Marxists think that people are robots, but people are capable of dancing and love, check mate!".

[Rafiq]

Clearly you're not concerned with human individual volition, but "human volition" in general, in other words, the ability for humans as societies to "choose". This infantile methodology has no regard whatsoever for "free will", as you're more than happy to attribute to human choices "cultural patterns" (an interesting wording, and by interesting I mean despicable). Very well, what are the choices of men in spite of? Marxism. You do not posit that humans have "volition" as such, but volition in spite of Marxist theory. Whether it's "cultural patterns" or space aliens compelling them you could care less, so long as humans don't conform to what Marxists claim they do. This is the crux of your hypocrisy: making a dichotomy between human volition and the historical materialist explanation for human behavior. This would require "human violation" to be self-sufficient unto itself, but no idiot would dare claim this seriously. Furthermore this is an ideological claim: what does it MEAN? If choices can't be subject to analysis and critical understanding, an explanation of why is necessary. If this explanation amounts to a pretense to the improbability of quantifying or qualifying something so vastly complex, then evidence for this improbable complexity is needed: what behaviors are simply beyond our understanding, and can solely be attributed to free choice? The example you provided, Islamic customs are rituals, is already demonstrated to not only be wrong, but completely contradicting your conclusions. Not to say that we can quantify all behavior yet, but all the behavior we can imagine as behavior, we can posit as either not being quantifiable, or up for critical analysis - we can. This gap between human behavior and the dogmas of us Marxists is a pathetic last retreat that is so impudent as to assume what is perceivable with common sense somehow escapes Marxists. Humans are "free" from critical comprehension by Marxist because of "other factors", so it goes, but these other factors (like culture or religion) owe their existence to what? The struggle for survival, for reproduction of those conditions of survival, and the relationships we have to the fundamental basis of our livelihood (how we live) is axiomatic. Surely this is common sense? The trouble comes when we have to accept the fact that yes, it is infinitely more complex than to be reducible to a few words, me typing on this computer telling you this is testament to that fact: but when complexity becomes a substitute for critical evaluation, and becomes a green light for pseudo-superstition and awe-inducing mystery, reason dies. The point is that this complexity is itself the complexity of our social being, it provides no open space for metaphysical spiritualism and other such filth.

The fact is that humans are constrained by a magnitude of possible choices, and this magnitude of choice is owed to their social being, to social relations. If human choice is up for critical conception, but not "all" of it, you again need to provide us an example - what is Marxism UNABLE to account for?

The question is, of course rhetorical. The point is that if Marxists haven't been able to account for social phenomena, and there are many examples, this has nothing to do with the impotence of Marxism but Marxists. Marxism provides us the means for understanding, it does not force us to utilize those means. It is very modest in its form: that the social, and history, is scientifically knowable. Whether the conclusions drawn by this or that Marxism are right or wrong is another matter, but this initial premise: that it is knowable, remains unchallenged.

[Qbill harris]

Not only has the assumption that you're an idealist been absolutely concerned, but now we can at teh very least see that you're a vulgar empiricist idealist. In any case, the qualifications for scienticity in Marxism do not concern a set of hypothesis which have to be confirmed. During the first instances of biology as we know it, a definite theoretical framework was laid out, which posited a definite pre-supposition and worked from there - Marxism does not bring forward one gargantuan hypothesis, it opens up space which was previously subject solely to ideological designation. Science is defined purely by its relationship to ideology. What makes something scientific has nothing to do with nonsense of "whole sciences" and incomplete sciences (which is in this case, just as sorry excuse to make the "particular complexity" of human social being exempt from critical analysis), but its ability to designate reality by providing us the means to make that reality knowable. Ideology, conversely, designates reality without providing us the means of making it knowable. But oh yes, what is this "real philosophy" you prattle of? The legitimate accepted philosophy of the university, with definite criteria for qualification, one ought to abide by so that they might go on the internet and talk about how they do "real" philosophy? No one gives a fuck, Qbill. The fact of the matter in that claiming "words" are what I want them to mean, there has to be some kind of reason as to why I'd want them to mean this outside of my "groupie" secular doctrine. You already admit Marxism has definite, impenetrable collectively refined qualifications that cannot be altered at will, because it is a "secular religion" . So this is entirely contradictory of you. Way to fuck up the only semblance of an insult you could have possibly mustered up, though I suppose the fact that you've actually responded in the manner you have is the greatest insult of all.



Those opposing choices aren't owed to the endurance of human will in the midst of the externality of some kind of metaphysical "system", composed of nothing but humans and their relationships to nature and each other, but from the system itself. Marx explicitly and very thoroughly detailed the various contradictions of capitalism, among them and among all class societies class antagonism. The existence of choices opposed to capitalism are wholly owed to the existence of a social being opposed to capitalism, or its various systemic contradictions which leave the poor subject confused. Though, is this to be your argument? You accuse me of speaking in tautologies, and what's your argument? "Opposing choices are made". So apparently, the mere existence of choices validates the notion that "free will" exists. No need to fret, however, such hypocrisy is excusable so long as one practices "real philosophy" like Qbill, which amounts to nothing more than talking out of your ass with obnoxious platitudes and cheaply imitating the majesty of the master. The fact of the matter is that different choices are made precisely because different people exist in different proximal relationships to life. The alternative choices that do exist in very refined conditions are owed to chance, not "free will". If free will does exist, it can only take the form of a negative, a No. This isn't the free will you're trying to sell us, however.



A totality is an all-encompassing plethora of antagonisms which one cannot escape, antagonisms whose relationship to each other are conditions for their existence. The capitalist totality does not exist in spite of human nature, it defines human nature, its expression, and most of all - the ability for us to conceptualize it right now.



Marxism is scientific within its own theoretical framework, with its own internal means of validity. Within its respective domain, Marxism is indeed a "whole science", but there's no need to play with stupid semantics. The point is that Marxism is scientific, not ideological.



For something to be random doesn't equate to "free will", but even then, we do have the means to calculate the various behaviors possible within given circumstances. You accuse me of attempting to downplay the complexity of human behavior, and yet you attempt to give us the analogy of a game of billiards to account for it...



What a profoundly idiotic claim. This is to be your hallmark of an example, our "true" philosopher? With regard to urban life in ALL of these countries, this is PRECISELY a result of the conditions of class struggle! Where was your "culture" several decades ago when this didn't have a semblance of a basis in the reality of urbanized life in these countries? In Damascus, a handful of women wore the veil during the 1960's. Where was your cultural patterns then? Or let me guess - did they spontaneously re-assert themselves after being suppressed for so long? This doesn't make any sense. In Kabul during the early 70's, where was your culture then? Or was the resistance, and the reaction purely an expression of culture trying to find its place among people again? Then why did it take the billions of Saudi petro-dollars to kickstart? To attribute to culture what is WHOLLY politics and ideology is beyond fucking disgusting. Unless you're talking about rural customs that haven't died, but those have existed for hundreds of years: This IS integral to their class existence already. Unless finally, your argument is that the mere absence of a worker's dictatorship globally is owed to "culture" - than this is beyond fucking ridiculous considering that culture is a meaningless term. Cultural customs, within capitalism are incapable of possessing rigidity and timeless existence. That these customs have gained prevalence in the urban, modernized centers of Muslim countries has nothing to do with age old customs but from the rise of Islamism as a political and ideological force which has been able to account for various social grievances. It's like saying that Fascism in Germany is owed to the power of "German culture" over class interest. Apparently cultural "patterns" come out of one's ass - or develop on accident. This makes absolutely no sense. The fact is that Orthodox Marxists have existed for a hundred years or so, so you have to either admit: That they were completely BLIND to the fact that they weren't living in a proletarian dictatorship, since apparently if social being determines consciousness, that equates to the victory of the proletariat in the class struggle (what nonsense) - or, they were aware of them, but deliberately ignored and downplayed this reality for whatever fucking reason. If there are "cultural patterns" with persist after exposure to the capitalist totality, this means that this culture is either in the process of being broken down, or it is being regularly reproduced by capitalism because it serves a definite purpose within the totality. This is why there are "cultural patterns" which are wiped away over night, and why some persist which apparently is owed to... To what, Qbill? Free will? Apparently those dumb brown people are too stupid to muster up class consciousness because they're too distracted killing adulterers. What you fail to understand is that this prevalence of custom is EXACTLY a reaction to modernization and globalization, and it rose from the ashes of an actual, real secular left that failed with the global left in general.

What can we expect, however, from a "true" philosopher? Critics of Marxism do what they do best - they attribute the most wild accusations against Marxists and proceed, with such great eloquency and wisdom, to demonstrate their falsity. "Marxists think that people are robots, but people are capable of dancing and love, check mate!".

['the qualifications for scienticity in Marxism do not concern a set of hypothesis which have to be confirmed.']

Then Marxism self-entitles itself to define what science is. As Koliakowski wrote, this is intellectual fascism at its worse.

['During the first instances of biology as we know it, a definite theoretical framework was laid out, which posited a definite pre-supposition and worked from there ']

And what, precisely, was that? Or rather are you suggesting that, say, Natural Selection is valid regardless of whether or not birds and reptiles have a common ancestry?

[re fucking, this, idiotic that....]

Within the realm of cultural anthropology, many of us used Marxist concepts as hypotheses, to be tested. A good example of this would be the self-identity and demands put upon women in Islamic countries.

Another would be the hypotheses of class interests that brought about naziism in Germany where culture, ostensibly carried far more by the brain than the rectal cavity, had existed for hundreds of years prior to industrialization.

So in both cases, we have competing hypotheses that demand a means of testing on a level playing field. Screaming obscenities at the referee only gets you penalized.

Moreover, to express Marxist concepts as a priori causal rather than conjectural is to do nothing more than project Marx as the prophet of a secular religion. This, of course, is evinced by your vulgar, jihadistic language. Rather, "Tahafuk sung in ghazul is still tahafuk".

['Marxism is scientific within its own theoretical framework, with its own internal means of validity. Within its respective domain, Marxism is indeed a "whole science", but there's no need to play with stupid semantics.']

What's interesting here is that although fascism is clearly verboten on this site, our marxite fanatic demands that his particular belief system privileges itself to set its own standards. So i'm afraid that the 'stupid semantics' is all his.

In any case, the demand that Marxism, by claiming to be a science, must adhere to the accepted definition of 'science', is not semantics. Rasther, it's 'epistemology'.

Rather than using the F word as many times as possible within a paragraph, Mr Tahafuk needs to learn basic words.

[Qbill harris]

If you can split something apart, like Marxism, and that makes it possible to falsify, why maintain that it is unfalsifiable? It's falsifiable if split up. And many things are like that. There are many things that if you want to analyze and falsify they must be approached in parts.

I agree that Marxism is something that must be analyzed according to its parts as key observations, assertions and propositions in order to falsify.

This ability to falsify Marxism when partitioned indeed is a major reason why it is scientific theory in its parts and as a whole.

However, I think there are things that can shown to be falsifiable even when taking them as whole. These tend to be simpler less complex things.

People concoct 'holistic designations of reality' all of the time. They do this order to firewall their ideas from the basic demand of science--that all statements be refutable.

So by the criteria of Rafiq, Marxism isn't a science.

Otherwise, yes, the systemic 'breaking apart' of large ideas into testable parts is precisely what we call 'the scientific method'.

The established corollary of this method of hypotheses-formation is the epistemology that says 'holistic designations of reality', without the application of said method, are utter nonsense of a mystical/religious genre.

Moreover, hypotheses that are proven to be false --that were generated from a particular holistic designation'-- likewise demonstrate the falsity of the 'holistic designation'.

[Rafiq]

And to add, I'm going to request that we move the discussion opened up in the "free will" thread here, since of course this all relates to Marxism, or a criticism of it.



That's because, in science, much of what's observed as existing is presently without an identifiable cause.



Special Relativity clearly gives the matter/energy interchange. Or is this yet another example of bourgeois idealism?


Firstly, what you're arguing against is the notion that nothing actually exists beyond the intricacies of what we know of the universe - and you cite causality as well. That is akin to saying that nothing exists beyond what we already empirically know, which of course is a ridiculous assertion that I'm having trouble assessing how someone could think it is possible - for another to actually think. The fact of the matter is that the example you provided with regard to dark energy: The rest of the energy simply appears out of empty space - in the context of how I'm saying identifiable universe, this is still an identifiable unknown. Meaning, we know something is there, we just haven't identified its particularities. We still, however have identified that something is there and that it is part of the universe. This is what I mean by saying nothing exists beyond the identifiable universe - because the universe simply amounts to the sum-total of everything - it means that there isn't this metaphysical spiritual domain which we can attribute "free will" to, or the soul. There is nothing that exists outside of the domain of the physical because the backdrop under which we have wrought out the physical has come from religion - superstition and so on. To even think about something existing outside of the physical is a retreat into the domain of the spiritual. The society of spectacle has defiled the sciences - today our new mysticism takes the form of mass-entertainment science wherein we have to be mesmorized and mystified when there is no reason to be - where there's a "full circle" in which all of the darkness and ignorance of our species is confirmed by "real science".

And certainly with regard to matter, one makes the difference between metaphysical matter and matter as such, i.e. signifying the common thread of all that exists. This is why the word "matter" doesn't actually have a solid definition - many people have defined it in infinitely many different ways, but with regard to matter as far as "dialectical materialism" is concerned, the interchangeability between energy and matter either qualifies energy as a form of matter, or energy simply as a measurement of the movement of matter. One is inclined to think that it can in fact be both, but that's another story all together. So in fact, there is absolutely nothing that exists outside of matter - including our thoughts:


measured brain activity cannot account for thought.


That it is because reducing our thoughts to MERE neurological processes in-themselves is vulgar and nonsensical, even from a theoretical standpoint. It is a false question itself - you're introducing a gap of mystery from the inability of an idiotic presumption to give us answers. It is not merely our brains which give us our thoughts, but our lived relationship to each other - the brain is nothing unto itself, and on an evolutionary level it developed for purposes of survival. Because humans are social animals, and because our social relationships to each other are grounded in real relationships to survival - it then follows that our brains and thoughts conform to this. So the problem isn't that physical processes can't account for thought, the problem is that physical processes if they are understood in empiricist or positivist terms (a quantifiable, measurable thing) can't account for thought.
But many psychologists have already been able to root our thoughts, and the like, to communication and language. What you say ignores the dimension of social reality of which our "brain activity" composes a mere part of. In fact psychoanalytic theory from Lacan to its various employments by Marxists (Althusser, Badiau) and his followers deal precisely with that. Because this is outside of the domain of "empirical" science, it is dismissed to be on par with all of the mystical bullshit that dwells in the gap of insisted mystery in the back of the minds of ALL vulgar empiricists. The fact of the matter is that this is the relevancy of Marxism: the social processes, and the language thereof, constitute a PART of physical reality and are in themselves physical processes. Humans are not outside of this.


They are likewise given the ability to choose, particularly in situations involving law. This is what is commonly referred to as 'free will'.


The existence of choices themselves doesn't constitute evidence for the actuality of what is inherently a religious concept, i.e. free will. What you are proposing is nothing more than a very stupid game of semantics - are some choices made "freely"? From an empirical standpoint, no - we've been able to observe that we make choices before even thinking about them. Even with that aside, it's still true that we can make choices - we can decide things, but we can only do so in approximation to relative conditions. The point is that our magnitude of choices are dependent on our reality, of which ideological and social processes concern. This is why the notion of free will will ALWAYS have moral connotations (And what a coincidence it is that you mention law!) - choices do exist, but for them to be "free" would mean that they are made unto-themselves, and that is an impossibility. If we can ask the question: Why do people make the choices that they do? there can be no free choice.


To those for whom 'Marxism' designates an infantile disorder of abusive name-calling, rest assured that nearly all participants assume that somewhere, somehow, an identifiable material cause might be found.


How very generous of them, this however should be apparent to anyone who pertains to the subject born after the year 1700. The fact of the matter is that it fundamentally ignores the dimension of social totality, and pre-supposes the definite ideological presumption that we're all independently living organisms, all "rational" subjects whose reality is owed primarily to their own interaction to it - not only is this a bourgeois concept, it is a neoliberal one. The fact of the mater is that this gap only exists if we ignore the fact that the behaviors and thoughts of individuals is not sufficient unto-themselves, that it requires a real relationship to reality, to others and so on.


Although we assume is that everything that happens has a material cause, we still call things by their appearances until we prove a particular hypotheses correct.

Which precisely encapsulates the hypocrisy and degeneracy of bourgeois sciences, which excuses what is solely owed to the dogs, to ideology and to the ruling ideas of society (i.e. religion), whose actual findings are twisted and guzzled up by mass-media in order to further fill ordinary people up with a sense of falsely placed wonder and astonishment. The fact of the matter is that there is a false theoretical relationship proposed between our thoughts and neurology to begin with, and that is the root of the problem. The "gap" which sustains the appearance is a false one! It is for precisely this reason why the prevailing positivist and empiricist vulgarity of bourgeois sciences has been so predisposed to mysticism, and religious poison, because observable reality goes beyond that which is quantifiable, or "empirically" observable, and there is no way around this. Because theoretically this observable reality is impossible to scientifically articulate for the positivist, it is left to the dogs of superstition and ideology.

Imagine if scientific discovery actually took this course - if we weren't able to make such great findings in biology and geology, the "appearance" of a god, the "apparency" of humans being traced to Adam and eve, the "apparent" nature of the Earths age being as it is said in the bible, and so on. You need to justify a particular appearance scientifically. That's the point.

[Qbill harris]

And to add, I'm going to request that we move the discussion opened up in the "free will" thread here, since of course this all relates to Marxism, or a criticism of it.





Firstly, what you're arguing against is the notion that nothing actually exists beyond the intricacies of what we know of the universe - and you cite causality as well. That is akin to saying that nothing exists beyond what we already empirically know, which of course is a ridiculous assertion that I'm having trouble assessing how someone could think it is possible - for another to actually think. The fact of the matter is that t/I] - in the context of how I'm saying identifiable universe, he example you provided with regard to dark energy: The rest of the energy simply appears out of empty space[this is still an identifiable unknown. Meaning, we know something is there, we just haven't identified its particularities. We still, however have identified that something is there and that it is part of the universe. This is what I mean by saying nothing exists beyond the identifiable universe - because the universe simply amounts to the sum-total of everything - it means that there isn't this metaphysical spiritual domain which we can attribute "free will" to, or the soul. There is nothing that exists outside of the domain of the physical because the backdrop under which we have wrought out the physical has come from religion - superstition and so on. To even think about something existing outside of the physical is a retreat into the domain of the spiritual. The society of spectacle has defiled the sciences - today our new mysticism takes the form of mass-entertainment science wherein we have to be mesmorized and mystified when there is no reason to be - where there's a "full circle" in which all of the darkness and ignorance of our species is confirmed by "real science".

And certainly with regard to matter, one makes the difference between metaphysical matter and matter as such, i.e. signifying the common thread of all that exists. This is why the word "matter" doesn't actually have a solid definition - many people have defined it in infinitely many different ways, but with regard to matter as far as "dialectical materialism" is concerned, the interchangeability between energy and matter either qualifies energy as a form of matter, or energy simply as a measurement of the movement of matter. One is inclined to think that it can in fact be both, but that's another story all together. So in fact, there is absolutely nothing that exists outside of matter - including our thoughts:



That it is because reducing our thoughts to MERE neurological processes in-themselves is vulgar and nonsensical, even from a theoretical standpoint. It is a false question itself - you're introducing a gap of mystery from the inability of an idiotic presumption to give us answers. It is not merely our brains which give us our thoughts, but our lived relationship to each other - the brain is nothing unto itself, and on an evolutionary level it developed for purposes of survival. Because humans are social animals, and because our social relationships to each other are grounded in real relationships to survival - it then follows that our brains and thoughts conform to this. So the problem isn't that physical processes can't account for thought, the problem is that physical processes [I]if they are understood in empiricist or positivist terms (a quantifiable, measurable thing) can't account for thought.
But many psychologists have already been able to root our thoughts, and the like, to communication and language. What you say ignores the dimension of social reality of which our "brain activity" composes a mere part of. In fact psychoanalytic theory from Lacan to its various employments by Marxists (Althusser, Badiau) and his followers deal precisely with that. Because this is outside of the domain of "empirical" science, it is dismissed to be on par with all of the mystical bullshit that dwells in the gap of insisted mystery in the back of the minds of ALL vulgar empiricists. The fact of the matter is that this is the relevancy of Marxism: the social processes, and the language thereof, constitute a PART of physical reality and are in themselves physical processes. Humans are not outside of this.



The existence of choices themselves doesn't constitute evidence for the actuality of what is inherently a religious concept, i.e. free will. What you are proposing is nothing more than a very stupid game of semantics - are some choices made "freely"? From an empirical standpoint, no - we've been able to observe that we make choices before even thinking about them. Even with that aside, it's still true that we can make choices - we can decide things, but we can only do so in approximation to relative conditions. The point is that our magnitude of choices are dependent on our reality, of which ideological and social processes concern. This is why the notion of free will will ALWAYS have moral connotations (And what a coincidence it is that you mention law!) - choices do exist, but for them to be "free" would mean that they are made unto-themselves, and that is an impossibility. If we can ask the question: Why do people make the choices that they do? there can be no free choice.



How very generous of them, this however should be apparent to anyone who pertains to the subject born after the year 1700. The fact of the matter is that it fundamentally ignores the dimension of social totality, and pre-supposes the definite ideological presumption that we're all independently living organisms, all "rational" subjects whose reality is owed primarily to their own interaction to it - not only is this a bourgeois concept, it is a neoliberal one. The fact of the mater is that this gap only exists if we ignore the fact that the behaviors and thoughts of individuals is not sufficient unto-themselves, that it requires a real relationship to reality, to others and so on.



Which precisely encapsulates the hypocrisy and degeneracy of bourgeois sciences, which excuses what is solely owed to the dogs, to ideology and to the ruling ideas of society (i.e. religion), whose actual findings are twisted and guzzled up by mass-media in order to further fill ordinary people up with a sense of falsely placed wonder and astonishment. The fact of the matter is that there is a false theoretical relationship proposed between our thoughts and neurology to begin with, and that is the root of the problem. The "gap" which sustains the appearance is a false one! It is for precisely this reason why the prevailing positivist and empiricist vulgarity of bourgeois sciences has been so predisposed to mysticism, and religious poison, because observable reality goes beyond that which is quantifiable, or "empirically" observable, and there is no way around this. Because theoretically this observable reality is impossible to scientifically articulate for the positivist, it is left to the dogs of superstition and ideology.

Imagine if scientific discovery actually took this course - if we weren't able to make such great findings in biology and geology, the "appearance" of a god, the "apparency" of humans being traced to Adam and eve, the "apparent" nature of the Earths age being as it is said in the bible, and so on. You need to justify a particular appearance scientifically. That's the point.

[what you're arguing against is the notion that nothing actually exists beyond the intricacies of what we know of the universe -]

Beyond your incomprehensible use of ''intricscies', no, this is not what I'm saying at all.

[That is akin to saying that nothing exists beyond what we already empirically know,]

Not that, either.

[ in the context of how I'm saying identifiable universe... identifiable unknown]

In the philosophical tradition of Wittgenstein, 'universe' designates all that can be factually said, or identified- "Die Welt is all was der Fall ist..." In this sense, unknown causes to observed effects are not within said 'universe' because they are not identified.

OTH, in the astrophysical usage, 'universe' designates all the space within the framework of the cosmic background radiation because the limits of the universe is what the Big Bang radiation bounced off of .

OTH, your daffy-nition seems to mean "both all known facts and all contingencies of unknown cause".

So you've derived your Marxo-education from the Jesuit interpretation of Empirio-Criticism?

[dark energy: The rest of the energy simply appears out of empty space[this is still an identifiable unknown. Meaning, we know something is there, we just haven't identified its particularities. We still, however have identified that ]

First, no, the extra energy within the neutron is not 'dark energy'. You're off by exp 125.

Like your 'intricacies', 'particularities' conjures up Leninoid 'science' in which research is a simple matter of getting closer measurements, or 'approximations', as written in your holy text.

Real science, however, admits that there exists countless examples of mysteries called 'effect without known cause'. To this end, doing some sort of epistemological gymnastics in calling lack of known cause 'identifiable unknowns' is worse than laughable.

[The society of spectacle has defiled the sciences]

Debord was writing about the capitalist accumulation of images. To this extent, yes, I agree that tossing people into outer space is a 'spectacle'.

Yet the community of physicists and astronomers have consistently denounced this project as both wasteful and dangerous. For one-eighth the cost, unmanned projectiles can retrieve far more info..

[And certainly with regard to matter, one makes the difference between metaphysical matter and matter as such, i.e. signifying the common thread of all that exists]

This is unclear by your use of 'ie': so are you defining 'metaphysical matter' as all that both presently and potentially exists, yet unknown? if so, i would say that you've described the working premise of all scientists, whose research is ostensibly directed towards discovering the 'potential matter' which offers causal explanations to known matter lacking cause.

Fine. But who ever seriously doubted that, ultimately, some form of matter causes everything. Excepting the causing of the Big Bang, of course.

[as far as "dialectical materialism" is concerned, the interchangeability between energy and matter either qualifies energy as a form of matter, or energy simply as a measurement of the movement of matter.]

My strong suggestion, then, is to run like hell from DM and never look back. Energy is not matter because it's composed of massless photons. The mystery here is how you derive a massless E from M. Long story.

No what's unique about Spec Rel is that, unlike the Newtonian that it supplanted, E=MC^2, unlike F=MA, is not merely a derivative, or an 'analytic'. as it were. E's are the Quanta, or reduced Planck units.

And yes, Leninist-Stalinist science fought this tooth and nail until the later gave in to Landau, who patiently explained to the nomenclatura that 'dekadent boorgeois vesternn science vas buildink beeg bomp vit new quantum stuffs.

[because our social relationships to each other are grounded in real relationships to survival - it then follows that our brains and thoughts conform to this.]

SJ Gould wrote that this is a false, just-so tale of how evolution works. The fact is that our brain can be said to be over-adapted in potentially harmful ways. Gould's term, btw, was 'spandrels'.

[reducing our thoughts to MERE neurological processes in-themselves is vulgar and nonsensical, even from a theoretical standpoint]

Although i really don't know what 'mere' is supposed to mean--with or without the caps-- what i can say is that 'theoretical' is not the issue. Rather, associating causal properties to neurons is what neurology does.

[many psychologists have already been able to root our thoughts, and the like, to communication and language. What you say ignores the dimension of social reality of which our "brain activity" composes a mere part of. In fact psychoanalytic theory from Lacan to its various employments by Marxists (Althusser, Badiau) and his followers deal precisely with that. Because this is outside of the domain of "empirical" science]

Yes, all psychologists would agree that thoughts are linked to communication and language. And yes, I attended several of Lacan's seminars, and I am indeed familiar with al;thusser (sympa) and Badiou (not). My own prof was Deleuze, who tried to instruct Badiou, but failed miserably. Alas.

What's important about Lacan is his demonstration that social relations of production play into the super ego, thereby initiating a struggle for psychic space with the id.

I also took courses under H Laborit. To this end, you're foolishly ignorant to think that your 'Gang of 3' have not admitted that psychoanalytic speculation is merely a palliative,or cover-story, for the fact that neurology hasn't answered the larger questions. Well, to a certain extent, Laborit did.

It's also worthy to note that Freud himself called his theories metaphorical blankets, and that, hopefully, one day soon the real answers will appear within neurology,or his trained profession, btw.

As for yourself, it's obvious that your own cover-story for scientific ignorance is called 'Marxo-paranoia.

[Rafiq]

Tell me, who the fuck are you to completely ignore the bulk of my responses as though it's self evident that I'm wrong? I've responded to you very thoroughly and with great care. Now - let me be absolutely clear, no one gives a fuck about your credentials, because no one knows you. You're on an internet forum. Either quit being dismissive, or stop pretending like you're qualified to partake in this discussion.



Then Marxism self-entitles itself to define what science is. As Koliakowski wrote, this is intellectual fascism at its worse.

I have said this before - there are rebuttals that are so ridiculous, so infantile and idiotic that I could not even dare prepare myself beforehand to address them - and this is something I usually do, in consideration of the possible responses I could get. Literally, in writing that Marxism "does not concern a set of hypotheses that have to be confirmed", I contemplated the possibility that you were going to say something along the lines of "then how can it make pretenses to any validity whatsoever if it doesn't care about the scientific method"? Not content with merely demonstrating your inability to understand the point at hand, you go deliberately out of your way to make a total ass out of yourself, prattling of "intellectual fascism". Fascism is not a word you can so loosely throw around to designate rigidity or dogmatism - these are things which had preceded fascism for a long fucking time. Save us, Qbill, we all know what a spineless liberal you are - there's no need to abuse words which are clearly beyond you (The clarity stems from the fact that apparently now Fascism was owed to the power of culture...). The fact of the matter is that no, this is not what was meant - in fact the CONTRARY is true - when I say that Marxism does not amount to hypotheses which have to be demonstrated as true, this only demonstrates the fluidity of Marxist theory. Marxism does not say "this is true" and we have to test this - FROM Marxism we can posit explanations for various phenomena and subject them to scientific criteria - but Marxism as a whole, the assertion that history amounts to the reproduction and production of living beings, the designation of social processes to science itself is not a hypothesis, but a negation of the last domain of spirituality and reactionary metaphysics, the logical conclusion of BOURGEOIS science, the spirit of the enlightenment that bourgeois ideology cannot sustain. That was my point with regard to biology - Darwin did not have to prove that the study of animals, or their various changes - the act of subjecting natural history to scientific qualifications was "true" or "false". The point being that the discoveries wrought out were a result of definite implicit theoretical qualifications set forth which simply could not be questioned. Think mathematics - how does one "prove" mathematics? You cannot. The question, inevitably leads us to whether or not we can be sure that such paradigms actually correspond to reality - but what this ignores is that they are precisely wrought out from attempting to understand reality, they cannot be false because knowing that reality is knowable is an axiom.

What are the most bitter of opponents to the theoretical tradition of Marxism? What do they posit? That humans are "too complex" and other such cack, that humans cannot be subject to "whole science" because they possess "volition" or whatever you want or that some kind of mystical historic developments render a theory which might have been true once now invalid. For someone so keen on using religious analogies, this is akin to the Catholic church denouncing humanists for heresy, it is an insistence to ignorance. Now with regard to your point about whole science, this would otherwise be a rather innocent and banal propitiation - we don't know everything about human behavior, or its particularities, in order to subject them to whole science. But the fact that we can talk about this ignorance suggests that the possibility that we can is there. Furthermore, the implications drawn from this otherwise innocent assertion are undoubtedly nothing short of an insistence toward ignorance, a re-gurgitation of the same ideological drivel we should all be too familiar with by now - that this gap of mystery should be left untouched, or that it is somehow permanently, irrevocably constitutive of the existence of humanity. The point was that the scienticity of Marxism is whole with regard to the definite theoretical framework it concerns. Point being, the first instances of scientific astronomy (i.e. Kepler) and biology (Leuwenhoek or Swammerdem or whatever the fuck you want) posited the definite theoretical framework that, for example - with regard to the former, that astronomy could be understood desperately from astrology and so on. That was my point - and it is not I who devised it, it is present among even bourgeois qualifications for science like the Duhem-Quine thesis.

Recognizing that reptiles and birds have a common ancestry, or coming to that conclusion, was not possible without the confirming hypothesis which were unique to an already pre-supposed definite theoretical framework. This is why Popper called it a metaphysical research program - Darwin made an assessment which wasn't falsifiable, based on first hand observation of this or that, and built up upon it through scientific means (PRECISELY how historical materialism was built by Marx and Engels, the countless days spent studying history and so forth). The history of scientific discovery as a whole, or more precisely paradigm shifts in science (like quantum physics) if one examines it closely, completely negates vulgar bourgeois empiricist methodology, which knit-picks characteristics of early science which were contingent upon vast ideological, political and social conditions. What you're desperately ignoring is that these presumptions were built on opposition to ruling ideas - opposition to metaphysics, to religion - THIS is how science as a whole was born, through the ability to think outside of ruling ideas (as a result of the rise of a new ruling class contender).


Within the realm of cultural anthropology, many of us used Marxist concepts as hypotheses, to be tested. A good example of this would be the self-identity and demands put upon women in Islamic countries.

Another would be the hypotheses of class interests that brought about naziism in Germany where culture, ostensibly carried far more by the brain than the rectal cavity, had existed for hundreds of years prior to industrialization.


What are you actually suggesting? Did you actually ignore the entirety of my post? The point is that this rests upon an ignorance of the forces which made this part of ruling culture - you ignorantly and passively assume that these customs have their basis in centuries old cultural patterns but, and I don't like to bring anything personal here - from personal experience this is entirely false. The fact of the matter is that the demands put on women in Islamic countries are wholly owed to not only social processes, but social processes unique to modernity and globalization (or a reaction to it). As I said before, decades ago the centers of modernization, the urban centers, were not religious - and strong bourgeois-nationalist movements existed which were 'progressive' in nature as literal substitutions for Islamism. The Arab terrorists of the 60's and early 70's were not Muslim fanatics, but secular leftists. So this hypothesis has not been tested correctly at the very least - its answer is implicit in the false question that it posits. Of course the particularities are important, appearances are important - Islamism would after all not be possible without the history of Islam in the near east. But it is not determined by it. Let me be clear in my question - what "Marxist" concepts can be tested in the manner you describe? Popper's criticism is more accurate, even if wrong - Marxism can't be falsified because the premise of Marxism, that these things, social processes, can be subject for critical and scientific evaluation, is not a hypothesis but the logical conclusion of scientific methodology otherwise hindered by ruling ideology. The place of women in Muslim countries, solely owed to the rise of political Islam as a means of addressing certain social grievances, and antagonisms - of which were accelerated through globalization and equally the collapse of the international Left, does have a totalizing effect. The question is simple - why has Muslim culture been able to endure in spite of globalization, beyond its own qualities? Are you so ridiculous as to posit that this question - SIMPLY cannot be answered?

If the answer violates the question - that it is because of the qualities of Muslim culture (its "power"), you have to explain why in the early 20th century Muslim culture wasn't comparatively that much of a problem in Turkey, or even the central Asian republics of the Soviet Union. No doubt it was a problem, as all old rural customs were including Christianity.

With regard to Germany, this is even more infinitely idiotic. I cannot even believe you're arguing this, as a matter of fact - firstly it ignores the simple fact that culture doesn't come from nowhere - my point - where did this culture originate from "hundreds of years" prior? Are you attempting to claim that German culture wasn't transformed through industrialization and modernization? because this is entirely idiotic. Now of course, certain particularities of German culture might have endured thousands of years, but these weren't "the same" timelessly - they endured because they possessed different connotations through different historic epochs. That's your "culture". The narrative, or the conclusion that we're supposed to draw from the "true" philosopher is that the Nazis became popular because they were able to encapsulate "German culture" in a way that had never been done before in history. But the fact of the matter is that German culture was not built upon its own self-reflection (or false sense of it) and its own masturbation. It was built, and wrought out through social relationships to production, and I don't think any honest person can come close to contesting this. Concerning your "German" culture, which apparently had primacy over class relations (Now the Nazis came to power for reasons external from class relations! Are you a FUCKING idiot? I mean, do you want to just admit it at this point? Many BOURGEOIS historians will not even claim such cack!) - why did the Nazis find it necessary thorought their entire existence to regularly respond to Bolshevism, or to convince its citizens that they'd be better off without it, even after the KPD was completely destroyed? During the war, why did the Nazis take such great steps to indoctrinate their soldiers, to pass policies, publish shit like this: http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/feldpost.htm, which were solely made to prevent the spread of Bolshevism organically in Germany? Why wasn't German "culture" in itself able to have primacy over class antagonisms when what would become the second world war was greatly accelerated because of the fact that unemployment had been so greatly reduced, that workers were implicitly undermining German capitalism (not in an organized means) which required a massive expansion and exportation of capital to the east?

The rise of Fascism in Germany, quite simply and in its whole entirety is owed to the various social antagonisms in Germany at the time. And if you're going to ignore all of that, then listen hear: You're repeating hte same mistake that all idealist philistines do, namely through claiming that wherever class consciousnesses does not reside, class is not an important factor. If classes are not OPENLY claiming that "We are classes, give us cake" - apparently this means that there is no class. For you, like any philistine, the apparent truth of Marxism is owed to the power of the Communist movement at a given time - if Communism is popular, then all the 'cack' about class and social relations becomes proportionally more true, but if it isn't, then it's less true. As understood by Marxists, however, ignorance of class is a pre-condition for the existence of class, and class interests can ONLY be fulfilled through things which on the surface appear to have nothing to do with class. It has never been otherwise for Marxists. The popularity of Nazism was owed to the unity forged between the rural, urban petite bourgeoisie and the bourgeois classes. The proletariat, with no affirmative class interest to begin with, can only express itself "as" the proletariat through its struggle either for temporal victories, or through the struggle to destroy itself as a class (to abolish classes). Any IDIOT with a semblance of an understanding of Nazism in Germany, and even in places where it might have been somewhat popular like Latvia, is that rather than having anything to do with some kind of stupid dichotomy between culture and class, it was owed to the fact that Nazism was a completely rational continuation of "ordinary life". Its existence was owed precisely to the fact that nothing changed, the Nazis were brutal hellhounds, but they were the brutal hellhounds of the innocence and banalities of everyday existence. That is what makes it unique.

Ultimately, Marxists are not concerned with making predictions. No one claimed that the proletariat will win every battle, or that grave defeats are impossible. If it were otherwise, than strategic and tactical competence, solid organization and political discipline would be unnecessary. But will is not only important, it is pivotal to the victory of the proletariat. The German Communists failed, and the near eastern Left failed. But the issues which they addressed, were still present, and it was precisely for that reason that phenomena like Fascism and Islamism have a basis in reality that isn't owed to "culture". So both of your hypotheses are complete bullshit.


our marxite fanatic demands that his particular belief system privileges itself to set its own standards. So i'm afraid that the 'stupid semantics' is all his.

In any case, the demand that Marxism, by claiming to be a science, must adhere to the accepted definition of 'science', is not semantics. Rasther, it's 'epistemology'.


Yes, and our "real" philosopher apparently wants to compare anything which doesn't respect or conform the disgusting hypocritical and degenerate postmodern relativism that has implicitly taken root in any pseudo-intellectual who is "open minded" Fascism. Well by all means, call me whatever you want - anything but a postmodernist who would in fact, by his own logic, not be able to privilege his own belief system over Fascism or Islamism. What a cowardly and spineless, hypocritical statement. As though Marxism is reducible to "his" or "her" particular belief system - this can't be "my" belief system if you have already accused me of being a devout fanatic ready to sacrifice his own individuality and means of critical thought for it - it has to be something beyond "me", clearly. The fact of the matter is that this utterly subjectivist epistemology, is a false one, as Althusser - who you claim to sympathize with, already went into great detail explaining - that the so-called problem of epistemology is NOT a problem at all, and that there are already theoretical qualifications of validation implicit in every means of knowing, OF WHICH can be addressed. And to be rather clear, no, this wasn't about whether Marxism was a science or not, but whether it was a "whole science". That is indeed semantics, because it depends on what you mean by this, a game I don't care to play. Marxism is indeed scientific, and that much has been demonstrated.


I do mind: the issue of free-will pre-dates Marx by a good 2000 years. So if Marxist theory(s) have a contribution, fine. But discussing Marxist theory (per thread) only touches upon free will as such.....


And yet the issue of astrology and other such cack pre-dates Marx by a good few thousand as well. What the fuck is your point? If you aren't aware of the fact that the past 500 years have completely rendered void the past 2000, and as Marx said, "all that is solid melts into air", you're profoundly ignorant of history. We can only approximate such issues of "free will" with regard to TODAY's controversies, we cannot place ourselves within the history of hte past 2000 years without somehow understanding their relationship to us now. So clearly the controversy about "free will" has fuck all to do with the past few thousand years, but as a concept its unique place among ideology today. And I requested we move the discussion because, as it happens, the discussion (if you want to call it that) DID simply turn into one about Marxism.



In the philosophical tradition of Wittgenstein, 'universe' designates all that can be factually said, or identified- "Die Welt is all was der Fall ist..." In this sense, unknown causes to observed effects are not within said 'universe' because they are not identified.

OTH, in the astrophysical usage, 'universe' designates all the space within the framework of the cosmic background radiation because the limits of the universe is what the Big Bang radiation bounced off of .

OTH, your daffy-nition seems to mean "both all known facts and all contingencies of unknown cause".

Yes, well when I said "in this context", I didn't say the context of how Wittgenstein was using it, did I? What the fuck do you hope to prove? You don't give yourself legitimacy by talking shit like this, Wittgensteins qualification for what constitutes the universe is absolutely meaningless in this context. The universe, within the context of metaphysics and philosophy, has amounted to everything that exists. The backdrop of argumentation wasn't an argument about what we can "really" call the universe, but the fact that the gap of what we don't know and don't know will never give us some kind of space outside of the universe, because if we discover this space, it will in effect be a part of the universe. That's why I said nothing exists outside of the universe - and I said the IDENTIFIABLE universe precisely in this manner, i.e. concerning that which we can in any meaningful sense qualify as part of existence, something we can know is there. I mean, I don't even follow your fucking argument - is it somehow supposed to be self-evident that you're correct? You don't even offer us any arguments, you claim that "many don't agree with you" and yet you fail to give us any reason why. The fact of the matter is that IF we qualify the universe under these terms, then of course that's correct - we don't know the causes of all observed effects of those causes, but the paradox arises when we recognize the fact that in knowing that there are real causes to observable effects, beyond the effects themselves (that allow us to call them effects in the first place), we make a DESIGNATION of reality itself - and yes, we IDENTIFY a reality! So even using Wittgenstein's logic, it doesn't work - this is still an identifiable universe because to know that there is a cause to a certain effect, which we don't know yet, is to identify a relationship. Anyone familiar with the history of not simply physics, but science in general, which you desperately try to make us all believe you do, should know that there are things which we didn't even subject to having an actual cause beyond itself, or its own existence. So, this argument is refuted by your the infinite genius of our resident "true" philosopher how? By calling it a "daffy-nation", because - get it, it is how a dim wit would pronounce definition. Brilliant, Qbill!

[dark energy: The rest of the energy simply appears out of empty space[this is still an identifiable unknown. Meaning, we know something is there, we just haven't identified its particularities. We still, however have identified that ]


Real science, however, admits that there exists countless examples of mysteries called 'effect without known cause'. To this end, doing some sort of epistemological gymnastics in calling lack of known cause 'identifiable unknowns' is worse than laughable.


And I am so very glad to have made you laugh, meanwhile, on to the actual fucking argument, what you have posited is that this as invalid because

1) It has its origins in Lenin's empirio-criticism

2) It is opposed to "real science".

For someone who likes to make jokes of religiosity and dogmatism, you sure do speak the tongue of a Roman inquisitor - ALL of your fucking arguments are arguments by authority! This is why I'm doubtful you attended any of Lacan's seminars - sober at least. It's rather simple actually - if it is epistemological gymnastics calling something an "identifiable unknown" than it is equally epistemological gymnastics to call it an unidentiifable unknown, by its OWN qualifications. Speaking of gymnastics, however, it stands wholly ironic: the fact that you're doing nothing but playing with stupid semantical games. You should, otherwise have no problem with the reality of these being identifiable unknowns, but this gap of mystery, worshiped by the ignorant masses MUST remain. Why do we Leninists play such epistemological gymnastics, Qbill? Is it perhaps because we recognize that in claiming that there is something beyond the universe, linguistic, symbolic and rhetorical space for metaphysical spirituality and religion are opened up? Is it perhaps because we recognize that ALL of these pretenses to ignorance, of "real science" (bourgeois science, we might guess) are INSISTENCES upon ignorance, INSISTENCES upon the REPRODUCTION of mysteries to sustain ideological forces? After all, what was the crux of this debate about in the first place? Free will! A concept you OPENLY attempt to sustain, or, ahem, an *appearance because we are confronted with an "effect without a known cause". Well nice try, but if anything's laughable, it's your incessant attempt to sustain religious quackery, most likely subconsciously or tacitly, under the guise of "appearances" with such great passion. You dismiss any attempt to counter-act this by calling it "epistemological gymnastics", but what the fuck is this if not a bunch of muddied dick-waving? You can call ANYTHING this!

The fact of the matter is that Hegel was right - to be aware of a limitation is already to be beyond it.


Debord was writing about the capitalist accumulation of images. To this extent, yes, I agree that tossing people into outer space is a 'spectacle'.


Certainly, you didn't even read my fucking post. The existence of "spectacles" as you describe it, has existed long before the society of the spectacle. I'm tempted to even say that you've read a Wikipedia summarization of Debord at best. Don't fucking sit here and pretend like you've read debord - now I'm literally almost sure you're full of shit about having attended Lacan's seminars. Why the fuck do you do this? Can't you just say that you're rather unfamiliar with Debord, instead of making an ass out of yourself with some cheap ad hoc summarization one could very well pull out of their ass? There is nothing wrong with not being familiar with someone's works. The fact of the matter is that my point had nothing to do with the Mars one mission or whatever, but the fact that it has become profitable to make "science fun for ordinary people" (more like making science profitable by mas-media) - which basically amounts to mesmorizing them, inspiring them with awe and wonder and paving the ground for a new mysticism. This is partially why we've seen a degeneration of the sciences and the rise of new age cack. The goal of science stands at ODDS with mysticism, one can be astonished by a discovery, but the goal is to make it so that one is no longer mesmorized. We aren't freaking out about the fact that gravity is real, for example. There are countless examples of this, from the discovery channel to Cosmos. This is exactly where you derive your drivel - it is solely a postmodern phenomena, and before then, it was a cover for pseudo-religious apologia.


This is unclear by your use of 'ie': so are you defining 'metaphysical matter' as all that both presently and potentially exists, yet unknown?

No, not at all. Matter, as it was used by Marx and Engels, and various philosophers before them, simply amounted to all that exists, that nothing was outside of the physical. Quantum physics has not changed or challenged this, but merely wrought out a better understanding of reality or "matter" as such. That is why it is an impossibility for science to harm Marxism, because Marxism makes no grand metaphysical declarations about reality beyond recognizing our relationship to it:


Energy is not matter because it's composed of massless photons. The mystery here is how you derive a massless E from M. Long story.

And yes, Leninist-Stalinist science fought this tooth and nail until the later gave in to Landau, who patiently explained to the nomenclatura that 'dekadent boorgeois westernn science vas buildink beeg bomp vit des new quantum stuff.


First - I was referring to kinetic energy, which simply is measurement of movement, not radiant energy. In any case, there is no real, clear cut definition of matter. Matter, as dialectical materialism is concerned, as far as Marx, Engels and Lenin were concerned, did not concern mass but everything that existed physically. That's the point. So yes, energy can be understood as matter and as the measurement of the movement of matter, because the qualification for matter amounting to possessing "mass" doesn't even hold up. And I am unfamiliar with the particularities of the developments of quantum physics in the Soviet Union, needless to say I'm already skeptical of this stupid cliche narrative - I've heard it before, that the Soviets gave quantum physics a reluctant free pass for utilitarian purposes. It doesn't really add up, however, if one actually understands the relationship between ideology and "practicality" in the Soviet Union - one would expect they would at least try to account for it, in other words. In any case, I'll take your word for it - what the fuck is this supposed to actually mean in relation to the argument at hand? The "nomenclatura" could have very well believed whatever they liked, the fact of the matter is that even someone who consistently and dogmatically adheres to Lenin's materialism and empirio-criticism, which lays the foundations for the relationship between Marxism and science, that there can be no antagonism, they couldn't come to this conclusion. Even so, the formalization of Marxism in a society defined by its self-preservation in the midst of world developments which threatened its existence, was a rather predictable and obvious in the according conditions. The Soviets were also rather repulsed by the cultural developments in the west, the counter-culture, gay rights and so on - which is why the KPRF in Russia today is incredibly socially conservative. Does that, however, signify that Marxism is inherently socially conservative? An evaluation not even of Marx, but of the Bolshevik revolution and its immediate aftermath would lead one to the opposite conclusion. What this has to do with Lenin is beyond me, however.




SJ Gould wrote that this is false, just-so tale of how evolution works. The fact is that our brain can be said t be over-adapted in potentially harmful ways.


It can be over-adapted, or it has? Forgive me, but I'm not familiar with SJ Gould and it's beyond me how that name should mean fuck all to me. Stop arguing by authority and actually put forward an argument for fuck's sake - the fact of the matter is that you've literally skimmed over almost the entirety of mine, its substance and so on - like, am I literally just MET with this, after thoroughly explaining the relationship between neurology and the reality of which it reflects, that "SJ Gould argued our brain can be said to be over-adapted in potentially harmful ways"? In any case, if we take this for what it is at face value, what in effect is this supposed to mean? Our social relationships are grounded in our real relationships to survival, because we have a definite means of surviving - and in fact, we are talking right now over the computer. So whatever this magnitude of over-adaptability actually is, it in fact isn't so prominent as to render the human species extinct - unless nuclear war would constitute "over-adaptability" but that isn't the point. My argument wasn't that our survival is consciously placed as primary as an axiom (otherwise, we'd be living in Communism) but that our relationships to production, which define our various means of survival, in fact do. Are there social forces ready to wipe out the entirety of existence rather than give up their power? Yes! It's not even in such a cynical way - because their universe is defined by it, and for them, the collapse of capitalism would have meant the collapse of the universe.

You didn't need to cite SJ Gould, you could have said "What about suicide bombers" or "what about collective mass suicide" and so on. This doesn't amount to [B]anything. I said they are grounded in relationships to survival, which implies that our survival is still a factor. That doesn't meant that those precise relationships to survival cannot lead to the failure of survival. The overall point is that THOUGHTS cannot be reducible to neurology because they are grounded in language and in our social relationships to production, to each other - not simply to the brain, solely defined by its relationship to that which surrounds it, unto-itself. I have yet to see you come close to addressing this fact.


Although i really don't know what 'mere' is supposed to mean--with or without the caps-- what i can say is that 'theoretical' is not the issue. Rather, associating causal properties to neurons is what neurology does.


But your whole argument concerned the fact that free will is either free will, or it is wholly determined by neurological processes. I counter-acted this by saying that our thoughts, and therefore our choices, are owed to much deeper and much more vastly complex phenomena than the physical processes of the brain, which encapsulate a relationship to something else. So the fact that we don't know everything about neurology doesn't mean that humans are "too complex" to be subject to critical evaluation, but that the question is already false - it ignores the social dimension of thought and choice, which is a part of physical reality. This is something idealists will never come into term with - there is always a gap between "humans" and what is the object of scientific, unless it takes the form of a vulgar darwinism which itself has its basis in muddied ideological presumptions that don't make themselves bare and known to all.


I also took courses under H Laborit. To this end, you're foolishly ignorant to think that your 'Gang of 3' have not admitted that psychoanalytic speculation is merely a palliative,or cover-story, for the fact that neurology hasn't answered the larger questions. Well, to a certain extent, Laborit did.

There is no "gang of three", I merely cited a few examples and now apparently it's a contest of dick-waving which famous people we can name who agree with us. That wasn't my point. And what could neurology possibly answer if we can actually trace behavior, and phenomena to the symbolic order - to physical processes? Where have my "gang of three" admitted anything remotely similar to this? It literally just sounds like you're talking out of your ass. There are big questions unanswered by neurology, but this is akin to the question of how a chainsaw works exactly -we know what a chainsaw does, we know how it's used, when it's used and what it can do, we just don't know what goes on inside the chainsaw that make it possible (NOT determine it). It is however people who determine when it gets used and how it's used, not the internal processes. Likewise, neurology BY ITSELF can offer us NO answers (if one only knows how a chainsaw works, that leaves them absolutely ignorant of what it's used for, when it's used and why) but at the same time it's still important in understanding behavior, just not to the degree wherein the 'appearance' of free will endures.

[Qbill harris]

Several posts ago, Rafiq wrote , ['the qualifications for scienticity in Marxism do not concern a set of hypothesis which have to be confirmed.']

My response, in full, was, 'Then Marxism self-entitles itself to define what science is. As Koliakowski wrote, this is intellectual fascism at its worse'.

I agree with Kolia and stand by my statement. Moreover, the thrust of the entirety of Rafiq's rants is an attempt to demonstrate why Marxism should be entitled to so privilege itself.

To this end, I make no apologies for having dismissively not directly confronted his mass of marxology. Rather, my intent is to draw a sharp contrast between science as practiced and what a handful of philosophical lightweights demanded that, by virtue of being 'marxist', science should be.

So if the reader decides that the interests of human liberation necessitate rafiqism, so be it. But you must decide; so to speak. i'm putting the choice in your face-- without the F word.

[Althusser, Lacan, Badiou, Debord...]

Some of us went to college, and even obtained graduate degrees. Mine was in Paris, in the seventies. There, the four guys listed above were lingua franca.

In other words,if you were a student in the humanities, knowing what they said was rather basically important; they weren't the exotic plants that would otherwise be assumed in parts of amerika such as, say, fool-araby speaking Detroit.

So it seems as if Rafiq has blundered into a sucker- punch. 'Not that I really care any more about these people (including my own prof, Deleuze), it's just that my accidental background enables me to talk of them with ease.

More to the point, because I took a bit of neurosci, too, it's totally idiotic to write, as did Rafiq, that these, or any other philosophers/psychoanalysts would supersede hard scientific research.

But then again, i'll be happy to discuss them, as Rafiq did bring them up...

[ Marxism as a whole, the assertion that history amounts to the reproduction and production of living beings, the designation of social processes to science itself is not a hypothesis

This isn't Marxism. What's unique about the Marxian way of 'designating social processes to science' is the theory that the material process of production--said 'infrastructure'--causes the superstructure if ideas. This, indeed, can be tested as a hypotheses because it contains grounds of fallibility.

[Darwin did not have to prove that the study of animals, or their various changes - the act of subjecting natural history to scientific qualifications was "true" or "false". ]

Yes he did. 'Naturalism' even in its most general form was fought over for the entirety of Europe's history. That's because by basically saying that facts within nature explain nature, it denied the causal reference of god.

In brief, the naturalist argument took two strategies:
* Philosophically, by referencing the classical age, Aristotle in particular. This was done in Arabic, too, by the likes of Averoes and Avacennius.
** Strength of demonstration, in particular by Bacon's 'New Method', which showed how.

The last blow came with the application of the motor of Evolution, natural selection, to h.sapiens.

The late Gould, a famous biologist, is important for having warned us that most mutations are not adaptive. In this sense, you cannot say that we are biologically rigged up for optimal survival. All you can say is that one million years ago, our ancestor underwent mutations of bipedal- ism and pre-hensility. This enabled it to run with more endurance, see over the savannah grass, and to easily grasp small objects. The larger brain came later.

Brain size maxed out with h.neanderthalis, which required extra skull mass, which thereby limited its mobility and ability to migrate to warmer climates. Therefore, having a larger brain served as mal-adaptive when faced with competition from h.sapiens.

From this vignette, one can easily (hopefully!) grasp why it's prima facie absurd to assume evolutionary rigging for 'evolutionary-adaptive' behavior. Rather, it goes indirectly like this, as suggested by H. Laborit:
*Our species is naturally hyper-aggressive and individualist/selfish. sort of like cats.
** the development of mirror-cells (an altogether bizarre mutation), that took place with an enlarged brain as a prerequisite, enables us to pass on the experience of cooperation.

[because knowing that reality is knowable is an axiom.]

No, not by a long shot. At best, what we think we know is what we call 'reality'. Our best bet for reality being 'true' is the scientific method. Marxo-paranoids, oth, like the randites, assert what must be proven, ie the truth of our reality. It's curious how both parties employ the pretense of 'axiom'.

[Matter, as it was used by Marx and Engels, and various philosophers before them, simply amounted to all that exists, that nothing was outside of the physical. Quantum physics has not changed or challenged this]

No, matter always was spoken of as having substance by other philosophers, even the huille of Aristotle that Marx adapted for his own PhD. Again, quanta are massless. So if you want to personally include massless virtualities in your daffy-nition of matter, that's okay. For everyone else, however, who are not marxo-paranoid, the ultimate reductability of mass into masslessness is an interesting question.

[the fact that we don't know everything about neurology doesn't mean that humans are "too complex" to be subject to critical evaluation,]

Most of said 'critical evaluation is utter nonsense. That's why from both a coherentist/epistemology and an existential/ontology perspective, we're better off admitting and accepting free will than without.

[ I was referring to kinetic energy, which simply is measurement of movement, not radiant energy]

No. F for not knowing that all forms of energy are Planck units or quanta.

[So yes, energy can be understood as matter and as the measurement of the movement of matter,]

in the classical newtonian, yes. Welcome to the 18th century.

[THOUGHTS cannot be reducible to neurology because they are grounded in language and in our social relationships to production, to each other -

Language should be reductable to brain activity; that language is the carrier of though is not in question. Ultimately, social relationships are mental constructs, as is the knowledge we use in production.

[the qualification for matter amounting to possessing "mass" doesn't even hold up.]

Whatever. Just don't bother to try to learn physics.

[ I'm already skeptical of this stupid cliche narrative - I've heard it before, that the Soviets gave quantum physics a reluctant free pass for utilitarian purposes]

It's in the memoirs of both Sakharov and Landau.

Lastly, a word about Rafiq's abusive language and name-calling. First, while it might pass for accepted gutterspeak by the lumpen element of Cairo, Beirut, or Algiers, here in the USA such behavior is considered a prequel to physical violence.

It's likewise disfunctional in terms of the objective purpose of building a mass movement that will overthrow capitalism.

To this end, I'd suggest that the authorities would be doing humanity a favor by offering him a free vacation in Git-mo. Internet service can easily be extended into his cell, and perhaps a waterboarding or two would clean out his filthy mouth.

[Rafiq]

Once again, virtually nothing has been addressed, and that which HAS been addressed has been taken out of context, botched and abused. You're either a troll or intellectually dishonest.


Moreover, the thrust of the entirety of Rafiq's rants is an attempt to demonstrate why Marxism should be entitled to so privilege itself.

No, this is a superficial conclusion you yourself have drawn by the appearance of my posts, there is nothing within the actual substance or content of what I have said that even regards such a silly dichotomy. The fact fo the matter is that it doesn't matter as to whether Marxism should be entitled to anything - in fact you can call what I say whatever the fuck you want to - Marxism or otherwise. The points, and their substance, still stand. That's the fucking point.


This isn't Marxism. What's unique about the Marxian way of 'designating social processes to science' is the theory that the material process of production--said 'infrastructure'--causes the superstructure if ideas.


This is a conclusion drawn from what we have been enabled with from Marxism, and by itself it is superficial. Marxism is not formalist - there is no singular pre-supposition through which ALL further analysis is conducted. Are ideas the result of the material processes of production, in the last instance according to Marxists? Undoubtedly, yes, but Marxism simply isn't reducible to this.

[Darwin did not have to prove that the study of animals, or their various changes - the act of subjecting natural history to scientific qualifications was "true" or "false". ]


Yes he did.


What is profoundly idiotic about this failed attempt a rebuttal of yours is the fact that you've once again failed ot even come close to the point: My point was that Darwin didn't have to justify the scientific study of natural history from the standpoint of scientific discourse, not prevailing ideas in general. It is a given that the religious have, for the most part, lost the war for hegemony over legitimized truth and have been annihilated - despite the prevailing influence of religions today, a priest isn't going to give universal legitimacy, while this or that scientist will. Of course, science as we know it itself was something of a controversy on its very inception, but that was my point TO BEGIN WITH with regard to Kepler! Furthermore, "naturalism" as is being described did not exist before European history in any scientific form, whether in the Islamic golden age or antiquity. It's rather cute how you're attempting to construe a controversy a few centuries old as having some kind of timeless existence - the fact of the matter is that while the "philosophic" framework for western science can be seen to have proceeded western science, we look back on it as being part of a culminative history of science only because of the scientific revolution, which took from it some and left to it much. During antiquity, and to a minor extent even during the Islamic golden ages, there was no science as such, as the word is employed today. The greatest lie is that the Renessiance was a real renessiance - a continuation of classical thought. This is wrong - when classical texts were transcribed to the west, more was taken from them then the mere words, they were approximated to the prevailing conditions of the time. Scientific methodology did not proceed the scientific revolution because before then, there was no gap between, let's call it 'religion' and an understanding of reality.


*Our species is naturally hyper-aggressive and individualist/selfish. sort of like cats.
** the development of mirror-cells (an altogether bizarre mutation), that took place with an enlarged brain as a prerequisite, enables us to pass on the experience of cooperation.


And what a coincidence it is that the fetishization of the "individual" over the "collective" as a dichotomy did not appear on the face of the Earth until the past few hundred years at most in this manner. One wonders how humans survived 190,000 years of existence, through ice ages and through hunger, with apparently minimal biological predispositions to survival! In any case, this is entirely irrelevant and I had already addressed this if you even bothered to read my fucking post: The fact of the matter is that we survive today, and that our various different means of survival can be identified to have changed, and to have had an impact upon other domains of life. Likewise, the notion that our species is "naturally" hyper-aggressive and individualist or whatever you want doesn't have its basis in any evidence, empirical or otherwise. It is ideological, and what evidence we do have suggests that humans lived in relatively egalitarian societies without large scale conflict for 190,000 years. All the evidence we do have for large scale conflict between humans, which would confirm this theory, is after the discovery of agriculture and the beginning of what would later become the Neolithic revolution. So it is rather curious why it took over a hundred thousand years for humans to tap into what they, according to you, are already naturally predisposed to. Never mind that, however - even if hunter-gatherer societies were incredibly violent, when all evidence points the other way - this still wouldn't be definitive proof to back this up - how is this "natural"? Can we trace the exact physical or genetic causality between behaviors, and "nature"? We cannot. We can recognize, however, the immense complexity and social variation with regard to organization humans are capable of. You tell us that the development of mirror cells was a bizarre mutation from an evolutionary standpoint, and yet monkeys like the Macaque have them. Clearly, such a "bizarre" mutation proceeded humans by a very long time, and this "bizarre" feature, evidently, has had no bizarre expression among monkeys. Assuming they actually exist - there is absolutely nothing bizarre about the ability to replicate forms of behavior - with regard to survival, this is immensely beneficial in that it enables social complexity and the ability for groups to coordinate their means of survival collectively.

[because knowing that reality is knowable is an axiom.]


No, not by a long shot. At best, what we think we know is what we call 'reality'.


What's the point? The context was here: The question, inevitably leads us to whether or not we can be sure that such paradigms actually correspond to reality - but what this ignores is that they are precisely wrought out from attempting to understand reality, they cannot be false because knowing that reality is knowable is an axiom. So in fact, the point is simple: It is axiomatic that we know that a reality exists, and that this reality is knowable. Even if it doesn't correspond to the "real reality" (if you will), no one can make any assessment that comes close to this "real reality" which makes its postulated existence fallacious. We can only approximate reality insofar as our relationship to it permits us to. That is an axiom.

[Matter, as it was used by Marx and Engels, and various philosophers before them, simply amounted to all that exists, that nothing was outside of the physical. Quantum physics has not changed or challenged this]


No, matter always was spoken of as having substance by other philosophers, even the huille of Aristotle that Marx adapted for his own PhD.


That is because an understanding of what constitutes a "substance" was very limited during the time - the notion of "substance" constituting mass wasn't present, in fact, one could argue that energy has substance. And don't act like there is some kind of universal consensus on matter constituting mass, because there isn't. The notion, according to quantum physics, is entirely paradoxical. The notion that everything is made out of matter has not been discarded - we have simply discovered that matter is more complex than we had thought, and ironically perhaps in a way that is even more consistent with dialectical materialism - which after all posits that matter is always in motion, stressing its fluidity and so on.


Most of said 'critical evaluation is utter nonsense. That's why from both a coherentist/epistemology and an existential/ontology perspective, we're better off admitting and accepting free will than without.


So your argument amounts to: "This is nonsense, therefore free will is real". That's not an argument.


[THOUGHTS cannot be reducible to neurology because they are grounded in language and in our social relationships to production, to each other -


Language should be reductable to brain activity; that language is the carrier of though is not in question. Ultimately, social relationships are mental constructs, as is the knowledge we use in production.


For all the whining at the "fanaticism" which accuses you of idealism, it is beyond wonder how someone can argue that language is a result of brain activity and then distance themselves from identifying with idealism. Not only is it utterly wrong that social relationships are "mental constructs", it violent all forms of logic. Social relationships are no more mental constructs than survival instincts of the tiger. Is language measurable through brain activity? Yes. But it is not REDUCIBLE to it - language did not develop because of the development of brain activity, and any idiot can understand this - what you are implying is that human history is the history of the various patterns and changes of the brain, which we are to believe is an axiom for development, wherein all things are determined by it "in the last instance". This would require a detailed explanation as to why the brain "changes" when it does and why. If neurological processes are sufficient unto themselves, what are we left with? Ultimately, language describes a means of communication. Communication entails a social relationship, and social relationships to survival are the foundation of human survival - it is therefore out of mere logic that we come to the conclusion that it is the BRAIN which is a tool through which our real means of life are expressed - the brain developed precisely as a tool, as a reflective means of responding to the environment in a more complicated way. But even if we don't want to play these stupid games, and place no primacy on any of this, the fact of the matter is that social relationships, even if they are mental constructs, are not mental constructs at will. We therefore would be forced to critically examine why certain mental constructs exist, and what forces they are owed to - since we already know they aren't owed to themselves (i.e. humans don't "choose" their mental constructs). Social relationships constitute a definite material reality, no different than a jungle for the Ape, of which the brain responds and reflects. This is why humans are social animals, and this is why humans are able to transform nature, because our social relationships to our survival change.


Whatever. Just don't bother to try to learn physics.


And what a waste it was upon you. Am I wrong, Qbill?


It's in the memoirs of both Sakharov and Landau.


Sakharov would go on to become an anti-Communist, and I'm unsure of Landau. In any case, the memoirs of this or that individual with regard to narratives on the Soviet Union have proven themselves completely unreliable. It is unlike the Soviet state, which had to constantly justify itself TO itself, to engage in utilitarianism where it concerned ideologically sensitive considerations. The Soviets could be pragmatic, that the ends justified the means with regard to politics or military questions - but not something that would have undermined their understanding of the world. In any case, I don't know enough about it, it could be true - but it is highly irregular if it is.


gutterspeak by the lumpen element of Cairo, Beirut, or Algiers, here in the USA such behavior is considered a prequel to physical violence.

To this end, I'd suggest that the authorities would be doing humanity a favor by offering him a free vacation in Git-mo.

I had first decided to give a free pass on your overt chauvinism, but this isn't going to slide. Not because it bothers me particularly, but because this message board has definite standards in place wherein chauvinsim, especially of the personal variety, does not factor in. I don't think I need to give you the time to explain why Rafiq, who was born and raised in a predominantly white setting in the United States has anything to do with Cairo, Beirut or Algiers, and why the pinnacle of justice for Rafiq would be Guantanamo bay. I'm going to report you, plain and simple - we don't need people on this site appealing to "authorities" and speaking in the tongue of the enemy.

[Sinister Intents]

*Begins clapping* Great job, Rafiq. Essentially, can it not be said that almost all arguments and criticisms of Marxism come from reactionary, liberal/bourgeois, and petit bourgeois stand points? Not that specific criticism cannot be made of their proponents, but that today's Marxism, of certain individuals, is truly revolutionary and cannot be effectively counteracted because Marxism is based in reality? My biggest criticism of Marxism used to be: "Lol, ZOMG, that's statist logic, the key is to smash the state." When in reality the state is both tangible and intangible, and must be destroyed regardless, but that a mass workers' movement is necessary to usurp control and constitute a workers' state to maintain proletarian hegemony and carry the revolution forward, so that eventually all class distinctions disappear and thus the state disappears with it.

I'm probably not very strong in my Marxism, but I'm very convinced of it and I'm leaning towards orthodox Marxism and libertarian Marxism. I don't see any effective argumentation against Marxism, but definitely against the Leninist currents that arose from it.

[BIXX]

*Begins clapping* Great job, Rafiq. Essentially, can it not be said that almost all arguments and criticisms of Marxism come from reactionary, liberal/bourgeois, and petit bourgeois stand points? Not that specific criticism cannot be made of their proponents, but that today's Marxism, of certain individuals, is truly revolutionary and cannot be effectively counteracted because Marxism is based in reality? My biggest criticism of Marxism used to be: "Lol, ZOMG, that's statist logic, the key is to smash the state." When in reality the state is both tangible and intangible, and must be destroyed regardless, but that a mass workers' movement is necessary to usurp control and constitute a workers' state to maintain proletarian hegemony and carry the revolution forward, so that eventually all class distinctions disappear and thus the state disappears with it.

I'm probably not very strong in my Marxism, but I'm very convinced of it and I'm leaning towards orthodox Marxism and libertarian Marxism. I don't see any effective argumentation against Marxism, but definitely against the Leninist currents that arose from it.
Lol

Sure, almost all criticisms of Marxism come from a reactionary, liberal/bourgeois, petit bourgeois standpoint. Sure.

You still have to contend with those that do not stem from those viewpoints. Which, if I understood Qbill (I honestly only skimmed the thread so maybe I didn't) they used some hard scientific research to prove their point. I doubt that can be counted as "reactionary, liberal/bourgeois, and petit bourgeois" stand point.

[Rafiq]

Criticisms of Marxism as a whole have their origin, essentially, in ideological presumptions that don't allow themselves known in an argument - from the basis of all 'criticism' is an unknown known, that is, something that is designated and adhered to in action, but is not adhered to consciously in thought. Marxism designates a space of reality that would otherwise be designated by ideology (i.e. "Humans are too complex", "It's just human nature" or some other metaphysical explanation for our social dimension) and allows it to be critically evaluated scientifically.

That being said, meaningful criticisms of Marxism (or more specifically, Marxists) are very possible, but only from the pre-supposition of Marxism's foundations. Some of the most profound criticisms, for example, stem from post-Marxist currents.


You still have to contend with those that do not stem from those viewpoints. Which, if I understood Qbill (I honestly only skimmed the thread so maybe I didn't) they used some hard scientific research to prove their point. I doubt that can be counted as "reactionary, liberal/bourgeois, and petit bourgeois" stand point.


Well, let's evaluate this "scientific research". Qbill claimed that we aren't "biologically rigged for optimal survival", which had nothing to do with any argument regarding Marxism at hand. I claimed that the brain developed, and is used in approximation to our survival. That doesn't have to constitute optimal survival. Qbill, who utilizes "scientific research" claimed that while we can't really prove the existence of free will, we have to keep up the "appearance" because we don't know everything about neurology. I counter-acted this by saying that reducing our actions and decisions purely to neurology isn't going to serve as a coherent explanation for them - at best, studying neurological processes is going to allow us to understand how certain behaviors have a direct physical basis in being transcribed. But anyone familiar with biology should know that behavior is reflective - to environments, and with regard to social animals, to others socially. Our behaviors, so to speak, do have their basis in neurological processes, but they aren't reducible to them - without the externality, so to speak, nothing would be happening in the brain. He tried to counter-act this by saying that the brain isn't rigged for optimal survival, and can be "over-adaptive" in ways that is harmful to our existence. But I never claimed that the struggle for survival amounts to optimal survival, in fact, in the process of struggling to survive the opposite can be a consequence.

The second claim had nothing to do with scientific research at all, but a semantical argument regarding what constitutes "matter" and what doesn't, and what constitutes a universe. I claimed that a universe is simply everything that we can posit to exist, whether we know it or not - i.e. we know that dark matter exists, and that something is there that constitutes a part of our universe, hence a known uknown. Qbill said that this was 'epistemological gymnastics' without further elaboration, because his initial argument is that there are effects whose causality is not known. I didn't disagree with this, I simply said that while causality can be a mystery, it isn't a mystery that it is a mystery, that there is a causality in the first place which we don't know. There is therefore no room for the "appearance" of something like free will, or if you want - a god. So the fact that the possibility that we can know something, doesn't leave room for filling gaps with religious concepts that have never had any basis in scientific methodology, whose power isn't owed to the process of scientific inquiry, but to religion.

Regarding matter, he tried to counter-act my point that nothing exists outside of matter by saying that the mass-energy equivalence (or whatever) is proof that matter doesn't constitute everything. But that is a silly game of metaphysics - matter, as it was used with regard to dialectical materialism for Marx and Engels, never constituted something which "simply" has mass, and certainly, what constitutes matter doesn't have a universal consensus for precisely the fact that it is paradoxical to claim that matter amounts to the presence of mass, presciently because of the mass-energy equivalence. it is therefore logical to include energy into the criteria for what constitutes matter, and if not for 21st century physics, at the very least for transcribing what Marx and Engels meant regarding dialectical materialism for the natural world (especially Engel's metaphysical postulations).

So I could be wrong, placenta, and I could have missed something: But where is this "scientific research" that constitutes a real basis for a meaningful criticism of Marxism?