The necessity of the Revolution

[Trissy]

Okay...I was thinking this through in bed last night so sorry if I'm being a bit vague but it's a problem I couldn't resolve.

According to Dialectical materialism and economic determinism put forward by Marx, the revolution is a necessary stage in history right? But then the revolution depends on class consciousness. If the revolution depends on class conciousness then surely that makes the revolution contingent because the workers will not rise up until they become aware of the extent of their oppresion by the bourgeois. Class consciousness itself is not necessary either because it is dependant upon our environment and our awareness of it. If this is all true then can we deny the necessity of the revolution and say that instead it depends on an active choice by the majority of the workers? If this is the case then the revolutionary forces need to free from bad faith if they are ever to achieve the revolution, and as such make choices that will bring the revolution about, instead of just making choices thinking that the revolution will just occur one day.

As I said, this was just something I was pondering so I'm sure I made a stupid error somewhere. I was just wondering what everybody else thought.

[Daymare17]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 10:12 PM
Okay...I was thinking this through in bed last night so sorry if I'm being a bit vague but it's a problem I couldn't resolve.

According to Dialectical materialism and economic determinism put forward by Marx, the revolution is a necessary stage in history right? But then the revolution depends on class consciousness. If the revolution depends on class conciousness then surely that makes the revolution contingent because the workers will not rise up until they become aware of the extent of their oppresion by the bourgeois. Class consciousness itself is not necessary either because it is dependant upon our environment and our awareness of it. If this is all true then can we deny the necessity of the revolution and say that instead it depends on an active choice by the majority of the workers? If this is the case then the revolutionary forces need to free from bad faith if they are ever to achieve the revolution, and as such make choices that will bring the revolution about, instead of just making choices thinking that the revolution will just occur one day.

As I said, this was just something I was pondering so I'm sure I made a stupid error somewhere. I was just wondering what everybody else thought.
Well your main error lies in believing that Marxist is economic determinist. This is a common occurrence in the Stalinist school (not sure if you're a Stalinist)

"According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. More than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence, if someone twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that position into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure—political forms of the class struggle and its results, to wit: constitutions established by victorious classes after a successful battle, etc., judicial forms, and the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the participants, political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles, and in many cases predominate in determining their form." (Engels)

The only thing Marx discovered was that human beings are not absolutely free agents. This leaves plenty of room for the role of the subjective factor in history. Yes, capitalism will never end until the working class, conscious of its own role in history, puts an end to it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 12:12 AM
According to Dialectical materialism and economic determinism put forward by Marx, the revolution is a necessary stage in history right?
Yes necessary, but also inevitable due to class struggle.


But then the revolution depends on class consciousness.

Not necessarily. According to the Leninist paradigm working class people are unable to gain full class consciousness in the present day system, and therefore need an "enlightened" leadership to guide them.


If the revolution depends on class consciousness then surely that makes the revolution contingent because the workers will not rise up until they become aware of the extent of their oppression by the bourgeois.

It depends on what kind of revolution your looking to achieve. A Leninist revolution can quite easily be won and then succeed in so far as it creates a workers state, without the working class ever achieving class consciousness in the sense you are thinking.

Leninism advocates that the state must be maintained because the workers are unable to gain class consciousness, and that it is a "necessary" evil in order to suppress the bourgeoisie and create a classless society. Historically this ultimately leads to disaster. Human beings are able to gain the necessary understandings about their conditions, it has happened throughout history.

If you want to create a revolution, of which the goal is communism, the workers must become conscious of themselves as a class and lead themselves in smashing capitalism and the state from the beginning.


consciousness itself is not necessary either because it is dependant upon our environment and our awareness of it.

I don't understand this.


If this is all true then can we deny the necessity of the revolution and say that instead it depends on an active choice by the majority of the workers?

It is both of these things at the same time. It is necessary as a reaction to our material conditions but also depends on the working class understanding it is necessary in order then, to change it.


and as such make choices that will bring the revolution about, instead of just making choices thinking that the revolution will just occur one day.

There are movements and organisations which do this everyday on a continuous level; the point is trying to get more people to do it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 12:48 AM
The only thing Marx discovered was that human beings are not absolutely free agents.
But it could be argued from an existential point that humans are in fact free.


This leaves plenty of room for the role of the subjective factor in history.

?


Yes, capitalism will never end until the working class, conscious of its own role in history, puts an end to it.

Then this negates the need for a Leninist vangaurd.

[Daymare17]

But it could be argued from an existential point that humans are in fact free.

True but Existentialism is bollocks. I can "will" to fly but I can not fly. I can "will" to create socialism but unless the objective factors are favourable I can't do it. Case closed.


?

Objective factors in history are economics, etc. The subjective factor is the conscious intervention of human beings. Hope that made it clearer.


Then this negates the need for a Leninist vangaurd.

...According to the Leninist paradigm working class people are unable to gain full class consciousness in the present day system, and therefore need an "enlightened" leadership to guide them.

I see you are unfortunately taken in by bourgeois and Stalinist falsifications of Bolshevism.

The proletarian vanguard in the Leninist description means simply every politically conscious worker. In the revolution, the politically conscious workers must lead the backward workers - that much is obvious. However, the "vanguard" as an "intellectual elite" telling the workers to "suck eggs" is a complete distortion. Actually Lenin many times argued that they should kick out the intellectuals from the party and admit workers instead!

From Lenin And Trotsky - What They Really Stood For (http://www.marxist.com/LeninAndTrotsky/) - a book you should definitely read if you are interested in learning in depth about the differences between Leninism and Stalinism:

"Insofar as Monty Johnstone [CPGB leader] attempts to establish differences, he falls far short of the mark. With astounding self-assurance he takes Trotsky to task for his criticism of the idea, expressed in Lenin's What is to be Done?, that the working class, left to itself, was only capable of producing "a trade union consciousness", i.e. consciousness of the need to struggle for economic demands under capitalism. Monty Johnstone like the Communist Party leaders is apparently unaware that Lenin himself later repudiated this early formulation, which was an exaggeration that arose from his polemic against the Economists, a tendency which wished to confine the workers struggle to the level of purely economic demands. Referring to this Lenin explained that "the Economists bent the stick one way. In order to straighten the stick it was necessary to bend it the other way." Lenin was far from the view, found amongst the Stalinists, that the working class consists of so much putty to be moulded by the "intellectual" leadership as it pleases."


but also inevitable due to class struggle.

There's nothing inevitable about socialism. If the working class fails to take power, capitalism will reassert its position over the corpses of millions of workers, such as happened in the 1930s.

[Daymare17]

Again on the vanguard.

In the 1830's and 40's the British working class created the world's first working class party, the Chartist movement. It was revolutionary. They did it completely without "intellectual leadership". So much for the bourgeois-Stalinist "Leninist vanguard".

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 12:11 PM
True but Existentialism is bollocks. I can "will" to fly but I can not fly. I can "will" to create socialism but unless the objective factors are favourable I can't do it. Case closed.
Maybe i'm not qualified enough, but what has "willing" something got to do with existentialism?


Objective factors in history are economics, etc. The subjective factor is the conscious intervention of human beings. Hope that made it clearer.

Yes.


In the revolution, the politically conscious workers must lead the backward workers - that much is obvious.

How do you define leadership?


However, the "vanguard" as an "intellectual elite" telling the workers to "suck eggs" is a complete distortion. Actually Lenin many times argued that they should kick out the intellectuals from the party and admit workers instead!

What Lenin said and what he did are two different things. I am sure the theory is all very well, but in practice, or at least as we have seen so far, it creates material conditions which contradict its objective, so much so that you end up with the opposite of what you want.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 12:14 PM
In the 1830's and 40's the British working class created the world's first working class party, the Chartist movement. It was revolutionary. They did it completely without "intellectual leadership". So much for the bourgeois-Stalinist "Leninist vanguard".
What are you trying to prove?

[Louis Pio]

What Lenin said and what he did are two different things.

Well he made sure that workers came into leading positions of the party. That Stalin later got rid of them you can't blame on what he did.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 05:55 PM

Well he made sure that workers came into leading positions of the party. That Stalin later got rid of them you can't blame on what he did.
That's all noble, but what happens then is that these workers stop being workers and become members of a new ruling class, which because of the nature of the job they must do, it ultimatly isolates them from the working class.

Class Struggle Thread (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=25966&st=20)

[Daymare17]

Lenin always stressed that socialism could never be built in Russia. If the revolution remained isolated in that backward country, he explained, the Soviet power would be overthrown by internal reaction or imperialism. At the time Lenin thought isolation would end in the restoration of capitalism. As it happened the soviet power degenerated bureaucratically before it was overthrown. The success of the bureaucracy was not, as capitalists and anarchists claim, due to some original sin of Bolshevism, but because of the wearing out of the small working class. In fact Lenin argued in 1920 that there was no proletariat in Russia! So we had a bourgeois state not only without a bourgeoisie, but without a proletariat as well.

If the revolution had spread to Germany in the early 1920s, do you really think it would be impossible to implement Lenin's theses on proletarian democracy? With a cultured working class of about 30 million? Do you really think the revolution could have degenerated then TAT?

I'm not going to waste my time debating this, because we can argue endlessly. Instead I'm going to point you to a very interesting chapter.

http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/part2.html

[Trissy]

The only thing Marx discovered was that human beings are not absolutely free agents. This leaves plenty of room for the role of the subjective factor in history
Okay, well in responce to the first part of your responce, then I grant you that there could be other factors at play beyond mere economic ones that the materialist might highlight. What I would deny (as an Existentialist) is that we are not absolutely free. It's a topic I find myself frequently commenting on in the philosophy forum.


According to the Leninist paradigm working class people are unable to gain full class consciousness in the present day system, and therefore need an "enlightened" leadership to guide them
I'm not too hot on the topic of Marxist-Leninism but from the view of a standard Marxism doesn't the revolution depend upon class consciousness? If that were the case then could we from that state that their is nothing inevitable and necessary about the revolution due to it being dependant on class consciousness?

Oh...and why does Lenin think that the workers cannot become fully aware of the oppresion? I've not read any of his writings but from what I hear of his policies and views I occasionally get a vision of him as a Messianic figure. Christ's dying words were supposedly 'forgive them Lord, they know not what they do' after all...


It depends on what kind of revolution your looking to achieve. A Leninist revolution can quite easily be won and then succeed in so far as it creates a workers state, without the working class ever achieving class consciousness in the sense you are thinking
I'm not sure I agree with a Leninist revolution for the main reason that I don't think the workers will rise up in a modern society until they realise what they are rising up for. If a revolution is to succeed then I think it requires workers who are commited to the struggle and who have true fire in their hearts...a fire that can only be sparked by a realisation of what the situation around them is. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink...


Leninism advocates that the state must be maintained because the workers are unable to gain class consciousness, and that it is a "necessary" evil in order to suppress the bourgeoisie and create a classless society. Historically this ultimately leads to disaster. Human beings are able to gain the necessary understandings about their conditions, it has happened throughout history
Indeed it does strike me as disasterous. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely as someone once said (the name has slipped my mind at the moment). Uneasy is the head that wears the crown... :lol: how many more annoying sayings can I stick in this post???


If you want to create a revolution, of which the goal is communism, the workers must become conscious of themselves as a class and lead themselves in smashing capitalism and the state from the beginning
In which case I argue that the revolution in not necessary, but rather contigent. I depends on other things to come about.


I don't understand this
Class consciousness is not necessary because it doesn't have to happen. I don't have to become conscious. My environment effects my class consciousness as do a lot of other things. If people don't make me aware of the failings in Capitalism and of the class struggle then I won't necessarily become aware of it. If the revolution depends on this class consciousness then it is not a necessary revolution either. We cannot sit back and hope that circumstances change and bring about class consciousness and then revolution. The revolution doesn't have to occur because class consciousness doesn't have to occur. We must choose are actions wisely in order to make them occur. Ergo revolution is dependant upon choices...it is not a necessary event.


It is both of these things at the same time. It is necessary as a reaction to our material conditions but also depends on the working class understanding it is necessary in order then, to change it
But if my material conditions are slightly satisfactory or I am not aware of how well off other people are then I won't become aware of the scale of my oppresion. I have to become aware and then realise what this means.


There are movements and organisations which do this everyday on a continuous level; the point is trying to get more people to do it
Indeed. We must continue to take the message to the people.


True but Existentialism is bollocks
You've still failed to say why. You posted an article which didn't say why and then left it at that. All the article did was throw around accusations and provide no evidence to back any of them up. The article could be used as evidence that the only thing bollocks is itself.


I can "will" to fly but I can not fly.
You're talking out of your ass here I think. Existentialism holds that Consciousness is not made up of matter and so is free because it is not determined by laws that apply to matter. Your body is made of matter and so is subject to physical laws. You have misunderstood the definition of freedom entirely and so miss the whole point of Existentialism. You need to examine it's roots if you are to understand it. I cannot fly because my body is determined by the physical laws on earth. I can choose to try and fly though because my consciousness is free to make choices.


I can "will" to create socialism but unless the objective factors are favourable I can't do it. Case closed
More bollocks. I can choose to act in certain ways that I believe will bring socialism about. My choices determine what type of person I am. Human nature does not exist and I am free to choose who I am through the actions I take. Someone is not a socialist by nature or because they choose to call themselves a socialist. They are a socialist because they choose to act in a certain way that corresponds to socialism and it's goals. Your understanding of Existentialism is dire so I don't think you're in a fit position to say 'case closed'.

[Louis Pio]

According to the Leninist paradigm working class people are unable to gain full class consciousness in the present day system, and therefore need an "enlightened" leadership to guide them

If your talking about what Lenin said in his polemic against the economists, he later admitted he had bend the stick to far and that it was a mistake,
Still most people choose always to bring this up, probably because it suits their own agenda more than honesty would.

[Daymare17]

You're talking out of your ass here I think. Existentialism holds that Consciousness is not made up of matter and so is free because it is not determined by laws that apply to matter. Your body is made of matter and so is subject to physical laws.

If consciousness is not made of matter then what is it made of? Ether? Soul? Bollocks perhaps?

Human consciousness is a function of the sum of the electric impulses between neurons in the human brain. It arises over millions of years, as unconscious mammals, themselves a product of billions of years of evolution, are forced by circumstances to make tools. Hit you over the head with a baseball bat: consciousness ceases. Sad to say, your idealistic fetish is no more exempt to physical laws than is the unconscious matter from which it arises.


What I would deny (as an Existentialist) is that we are not absolutely free.

...I cannot fly because my body is determined by the physical laws on earth. I can choose to try and fly though because my consciousness is free to make choices.

This amounts to idealist delirium at the frontiers of subjective power, fata morgana in the desert of the possibilities in reality open to the individual. Further underlining the point that Existentialism is the pathetic fantasy of an isolated and powerless intellectual. Cold shouldered by reality, the petty bourgeois individualist seeks solace in the ethereal and ideal embrace of his own "consciousness":

"Poor me, I cannot do anything to influence the real world! My existence is governed by hostile and uncharted forces that are completely out of my control! What shall i do?! I have it! My consciousness is free to make choices! I don't care that my consciousness has next to no influence on reality! I feel important now! I feel powerful! Thank you, Sartre! Thank you!"


Someone is not a socialist by nature or because they choose to call themselves a socialist. They are a socialist because they choose to act in a certain way that corresponds to socialism and it's goals.

The logical continuation would be: "They can be a socialist independent of their background, their upbringing, their material interests." Why don't you go agitate for socialism in the Freemason lodge then?


My choices determine what type of person I am. Human nature does not exist and I am free to choose who I am through the actions I take.

I'm sure the starving street urchins in Brazil would be happy to know that they can now, thanks to the genius of Existentialism, get rich simply by taking the appropriate "actions". I'm sure the rich would be equally happy that you explained this to the street urchins.

[Trissy]

If consciousness is not made of matter then what is it made of? Ether? Soul? Bollocks perhaps?
It is not for me to speculate on what consciousness consists of beyond saying that it is not matter. I cannot be conscious of consciousness itself, my consciousness is always of something. Consciousness always points to something other then itself.

May I remind you that Physicists tell us that the Universe is made of most of anti-matter and yet we don't know where this anti-matter is. Scoff all you like and tell me that the brain has to be the mind but don't be surprised if I scoff back. Ether? Bollocks? Anti-matter? I don't frankly care. Existentialism deals with phenomena, not noumena. If Kantian thinkers and Materialist honestly are arrogant enough to believe they can ever know the 'real world' then let them waste their lives...


Human consciousness is a function of the sum of the electric impulses between neurons in the human brain. It arises over millions of years, as unconscious mammals, themselves a product of billions of years of evolution, are forced by circumstances to make tools. Hit you over the head with a baseball bat: consciousness ceases.
All that proves is that consciousness and the brain are linked somehow, it does not tell us how. I can pass electricity through vast amounts of matter but I have yet to see someone make it conscious. Have you?


Sad to say, your idealistic fetish is no more exempt to physical laws than is the unconscious matter from which it arises
Of course you like to tell yourself that. Of course you want to deflect all responsibility for your actions away from yourself. Why wouldn't you? Responsibility is the heavy price of freedom, so if you want to shift the blame from yourself then of course you're willing to sacrafice your freedom. 'It's not my fault that my life is this way! I am a mere product of a causal chain set in motion millenia ago'. If that helps you sleep at night then so be it. It does not make it any more true though.


This amounts to idealist delirium at the frontiers of subjective power, fata morgana in the desert of the possibilities in reality open to the individual
An accusation of idealist delerium from someone who dreams of reaching the noumenal world? Ha ha ha! :lol:


Further underlining the point that Existentialism is the pathetic fantasy of an isolated and powerless intellectual. Cold shouldered by reality, the petty bourgeois individualist seeks solace in the ethereal and ideal embrace of his own "consciousness":
Of course you want to believe that only the person interested in phenomena has been cold shouldered by reality. It hurts all metaphysicians to admit that they are no closer to reality then you and I. It's an embaressment to admit that perhaps reality is beyond them too. I laugh at people like Plato, Kant and the religious who so hate what they see, that they want to disapear to the beyond. A desire to transcend phenomena is little more then a sign of weakness.


Poor me, I cannot do anything to influence the real world!
But the 'real' world is beyond everyone. What we deal with is phenomena. Like it or not, we can influence the phenomenological world.

'Poor me, I am a slave to noumena. I am a ship caught in a storm. I am nothing more then Will. Allow me to deny life, and then maybe soon I shall return to the noumenal world whereever it may be'


My existence is governed by hostile and uncharted forces that are completely out of my control! What shall i do?!
Aren't these your lines? They sure sound like them...

'What can I do? Nothing...I am the mere victim in a tragedy that I did not write. All I can do is survive the best I can, and then curse existence for making me a puppet in this way. I am not to blame. I cannot be to blame. It is not me....it is human nature, it is the laws of nature, it is the work of God or the Will...anything...it is anything but me...I am innocent through and through'


My consciousness is free to make choices! I don't care that my consciousness has next to no influence on reality! I feel important now! I feel powerful! Thank you, Sartre! Thank you!
'I am not free. I cannot be free. All I am is matter, mere matter! I am not important...I am worthless. I control nothing but am controled. I am not responsible for my sorry state, I am merely a hero who endures his tragic existence. I feel powerful despite my weakness! Thank you Plato! Thank you Kant! Thank you Schophenhaer! Thank you Science! Thank you Skinner! Thank you Jesus and your rabble!


The logical continuation would be: "They can be a socialist independent of their background, their upbringing, their material interests." Why don't you go agitate for socialism in the Freemason lodge then?
There is no reason why a Freemason cannot be a socialist. It's only by using the pathetic excuses to excuse there responsibility and live in bad faith that prevents them. Pathetic excuses and bad faith that you spread by the bucket load.


I'm sure the starving street urchins in Brazil would be happy to know that they can now, thanks to the genius of Existentialism, get rich simply by taking the appropriate "actions". I'm sure the rich would be equally happy that you explained this to the street urchins
If you had your way then all these street urchins would do is pray for salvation. The rich would be happy with that and so would you. Anything as long as you don't have to take responsibility for your choices

[redstar2000]

If the revolution depends on class consciousness then surely that makes the revolution contingent because the workers will not rise up until they become aware of the extent of their oppression by the bourgeois. Class consciousness itself is not necessary either because it is dependent upon our environment and our awareness of it. If this is all true then can we deny the necessity of the revolution and say that instead it depends on an active choice by the majority of the workers?

If Marx was right, both the "environment" and the "awareness of it" will inevitably arise as a derivative of the normal functioning of capitalism itself.

So revolution is a "conscious choice" but it is one that will be made in circumstances that make it the only rational choice...most likely the complete inability of capitalism to continue to function at all.

When approached by a hungry lion, you "choose" to climb the nearby tree...even if you have a fear of heights.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Daymare17]

As could be expected, the idealist quack reacts to materialist dialectics with the usual thirteen-a-dozen arguments against the most vulgar and deterministic, predominantly Stalinist, anti-Marxist materialism, proving that he has not made the least effort to try and comprehend his opponent's views.

Laughable. Together with Engels I disproved economic determinism in my very first post in this thread, and still, you cannot find better arguments than accusing me of... economic determinism! Just look at these remarkable statements:


Of course you like to tell yourself that. Of course you want to deflect all responsibility for your actions away from yourself. Why wouldn't you? Responsibility is the heavy price of freedom, so if you want to shift the blame from yourself then of course you're willing to sacrafice your freedom. 'It's not my fault that my life is this way! I am a mere product of a causal chain set in motion millenia ago'. If that helps you sleep at night then so be it. It does not make it any more true though.

'Poor me, I am a slave to noumena. I am a ship caught in a storm. I am nothing more then Will. Allow me to deny life, and then maybe soon I shall return to the noumenal world whereever it may be'

'What can I do? Nothing...I am the mere victim in a tragedy that I did not write. All I can do is survive the best I can, and then curse existence for making me a puppet in this way. I am not to blame. I cannot be to blame. It is not me....it is human nature, it is the laws of nature, it is the work of God or the Will...anything...it is anything but me...I am innocent through and through'

'I am not free. I cannot be free. All I am is matter, mere matter! I am not important...I am worthless. I control nothing but am controled. I am not responsible for my sorry state, I am merely a hero who endures his tragic existence. I feel powerful despite my weakness! Thank you Plato! Thank you Kant! Thank you Schophenhaer! Thank you Science! Thank you Skinner! Thank you Jesus and your rabble!

Now compare this idealist knee-jerk-reaction to what Engels said 110 years ago, and which I reproduced:

"According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. More than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence, if someone twists this into saying that the economic element [or 'a causal chain set in motion millenia ago'] is the only determining one, he transforms that position into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure—political forms of the class struggle and its results, to wit: constitutions established by victorious classes after a successful battle, etc., judicial forms, and the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the participants, political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles, and in many cases predominate in determining their form."

There goes your basis for accusing Marxism of reducing everything to 'objective forces'. You don't know Marxism at all, you only know the Stalinist caricature.

Stalinist ideology represents the interests of the privileged bureaucracy that rises above the economic base of a workers' state and forms an instrument of totalitarian repression of the working class. Insofar as these bureaucracies were forced to use Marxism, the ideology which serves the historic interest of the working class, as the basis of their own ideology, it was only natural that they would pervert it to serve their own ends. Hence fatalism, in the form of economic determinism, was injected in Marxism. The individual, according to the bureaucracy, is dominated by objective forces and can have no influence on history. In steps the 'party', that is, the bureaucracy, which is above mistakes, and is the emanation of the revolutionary idea in history. Through the theoretic material that they have produced, these bureaucracies have transmitted their infected ideas to their co-thinkers in the Western countries. I presume that's where you got your ideas about Marxism from. Lose them; in all its flavours, Stalinism is only a disgraceful parody. Learn about Marxist philosophy from Reason In Revolt (http://www.marxist.com/rircontents.asp)


But the 'real' world is beyond everyone. What we deal with is phenomena. Like it or not, we can influence the phenomenological world.

The notion of the 'noumenal world', or to use a more understandable expression, 'the world of ideas', is based simply on a false understanding of the nature of abstraction. We can imagine a 'tree' in our mind, and if we want to have any hope of thinking efficiently we will do so. But in reality there is no such thing as a 'tree'; there is only pine, oak, etc., more specifically, old, withered, snowy pine with 53 branches etc. An abstract, that is, an "ideal", "noumenal" tree arises in the human mind as the sum total of all concrete, "phenomenological", if you will, trees, stripped of their particular features. The primitive philosopher, encountering this phenomenon and not knowing its true nature, naturally puts this strange wonder, the abstract thing, on a pedestal. There is the source of the 'world of ideas' of all the Kants, Platos, and their plagiarists the Existentialists.

The mind is based on matter, not vice versa as idealists imagine. In fact, the mind doesn't deserve to be even considered to be on an equal footing with matter, since it is only a facet of matter in the same league as trees, cars etc..


There is no reason why a Freemason cannot be a socialist. It's only by using the pathetic excuses to excuse there responsibility and live in bad faith that prevents them. Pathetic excuses and bad faith that you spread by the bucket load.

Intentionally or not, you misunderstood my point. To put it another way: why don't you knock on Rupert Murdoch's door and explain to him the virtues of socialism? He should have no less reason to become a socialist than the average alienated worker.


If you had your way then all these street urchins would do is pray for salvation. The rich would be happy with that and so would you. Anything as long as you don't have to take responsibility for your choices

Are you nuts? This is absurd! I would tell them to trust only themselves, organise them, teach them to fight for their rights, not dull them with opiums of either the religious or Existentialist-CAPITALIST "free will"/"your own fault" brand.


May I remind you that Physicists tell us that the Universe is made of most of anti-matter and yet we don't know where this anti-matter is. Scoff all you like and tell me that the brain has to be the mind but don't be surprised if I scoff back. Ether? Bollocks? Anti-matter? I don't frankly care. Existentialism deals with phenomena, not noumena. If Kantian thinkers and Materialist honestly are arrogant enough to believe they can ever know the 'real world' then let them waste their lives...

The whole of science is based on two assumptions:

1) The world exists separate from us.
2) We can understand this world.

Of course we are very far from arriving at a complete understanding of objective truth, i.e. the universe. It is also unlikely that we will ever get that far. But what fool wouldn't recognize that our objective knowledge is greater than it was 200 years ago? The history of human thought is precisely the progression from primitive thought full of holes, towards more complete forms of thought that correspond more closely with reality, through successive approximations.

If we can only know for sure our immediate, personal impressions, 'phenomena' as you call it, the logical conclusion is that if we close our eyes the world disappears. Thus, in truth, only 'I' exist. Despite all complaints you will not escape the solipsist trap without realizing the possibility of objective thought.

Obviously these ideal, noumenal forms, by consequence of their ideal and unchanging nature, existed not only before the first man and the first mind appeared on Earth, but before the evolution of the solar system. So when did they arise? The only logical conclusion is this: God created earth, man and the noumenon, at the beginning of time. Religion bites idealism in the ass at every juncture.

Marxism, along with the march of history, pounds it into everybody's heads the undeniable truth: subjective free will is limited by objective circumstances. Existentialism insists like a desperate and pathetic man: "Sure, we aren't absolutely free. But we can still THINK that we are absolutely free. So, in a way, we ARE absolutely free...I THINK!"

[Trissy]

As could be expected, the idealist quack reacts to materialist dialectics with the usual thirteen-a-dozen arguments against the most vulgar and deterministic, predominantly Stalinist, anti-Marxist materialism, proving that he has not made the least effort to try and comprehend his opponent's views
:lol:

I'm sorry. This just amuses me on a number of different levels....

Firstly, I understand where you are coming from and I have read your posts. I just happen to disagree with your view of Existentialism. I just find it odd that you can hold certain veiws about it when if you read 'Existentialism and humanism' you'll see that Sartre clearly defends Existentialism against some of these very points.

Secondly, I am not an Idealist in the strictest and strongest sense. I acknowledge the difference between the phenomenal world and the noumenal world. I also admit that I view consciousness as not being made of matter. But I am not an Idealist in the sense that Plato was an idealist, nor in the way that Berkeley was an Idealist.


Laughable. Together with Engels I disproved economic determinism in my very first post in this thread, and still, you cannot find better arguments than accusing me of... economic determinism! Just look at these remarkable statements:
:lol:

Only a simple interpretation of what I wrote could lead you to say that when I spoke of determinism, I spoke only of economic determinism. There are many different types of determinism at play, and if one states that the mind is the brain then these come into play. Economic determinism is one type of determinism. Others include sociological determinism, psychological determinism, mechanical determinism, biological determinism, etc, etc. When I speak of determinism in relation to materialism then I speak predominately about the latter three. Now please revise your view of my statements accordingly...


Now compare this idealist knee-jerk-reaction to what Engels said 110 years ago, and which I reproduced:

"According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. More than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence, if someone twists this into saying that the economic element [or 'a causal chain set in motion millennia ago'] is the only determining one, he transforms that position into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure—political forms of the class struggle and its results, to wit: constitutions established by victorious classes after a successful battle, etc., judicial forms, and the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the participants, political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles, and in many cases predominate in determining their form."

See my last comment boyo...


There goes your basis for accusing Marxism of reducing everything to 'objective forces'. You don't know Marxism at all, you only know the Stalinist caricature
No. I accuse Marxism of being mistaken if it believes that the revolution is necessary. I think that it must be chosen, and this all centres on the issue of consciousness and freedom to chose. If the brain is the mind, then it is subject to physical laws and so determined by some of the forms of determinism mentioned above. If that is the case then we are merely slaves to causal chains. I deny that the mind is the brain, and so deny that we are slaves to the world and to causality. Hence I think that the revolution is contingent.

As for Stalinism, I could not care less. I am addressing dialectical materialism and the view that the revolution (and hence a Communist society) is a necessary stage in history. I desire to bring about a Communist society, but I can still question the theories, and whether or not it is necessary. I can admit that economical determinism is not the only type of determinism at play without destroying the basis of my argument. My argument centres on dialectical materialism and the view that the revolution HAS to happen.


Hence fatalism, in the form of economic determinism, was injected in Marxism
Materialists that hold deterministic (or fatalistic as you put it) views need not be economic determinists as I have pointed out. I am arguing against pure materialism because I am not strictly a materialist and historically it has gone hand in hand with determinism. Libertarian materialists are a rare breed.


I presume that's where you got your ideas about Marxism from. Lose them; in all its flavours, Stalinism is only a disgraceful parody. Learn about Marxist philosophy from Reason In Revolt

Then you are mistaken. I got my ideas about Marxism by reading about it. I understand Stalinism and Marxism, and I understand the differences. I also remember the role of Dialectics in Marxism, and how he developed this from Hegel. I have admitted that economic determinism is not the sole factor in Marxist thinking. What you have failed to show is how Marx's Dialectic can say that a Communist society is necessary without resorting to determinism of some sort. A Libertarian approach would lead us to see it as contingent surely...?


The notion of the 'noumenal world', or to use a more understandable expression, 'the world of ideas', is based simply on a false understanding of the nature of abstraction. We can imagine a 'tree' in our mind, and if we want to have any hope of thinking efficiently we will do so. But in reality there is no such thing as a 'tree'; there is only pine, oak, etc., more specifically, old, withered, snowy pine with 53 branches etc. An abstract, that is, an "ideal", "noumenal" tree arises in the human mind as the sum total of all concrete, "phenomenological", if you will, trees, stripped of their particular features. The primitive philosopher, encountering this phenomenon and not knowing its true nature, naturally puts this strange wonder, the abstract thing, on a pedestal. There is the source of the 'world of ideas' of all the Kant’s, Plato’s, and their plagiarists the Existentialists.
I disagree with you definition of 'noumenal world'. If we are strictly speaking in Kantian terms then it is the 'world as it is', as opposed to the phenomenal world which is 'the world as it appears'. The noumenal world in this sense is the 'real world' and by that I mean existence independent of the observer. I care not for this world. I care about the phenomenal world, which is the world we experience through the senses...the world the Marxists wish to change. Materialism in this sense is interested in the noumenal world if it wishes to deny that we are free to choose (which is the position of the Existentialist). Freedom is a phenomenon, and it is this freedom that people like Sartre are interested in.


The mind is based on matter, not vice versa as idealists imagine. In fact, the mind doesn't deserve to be even considered to be on an equal footing with matter, since it is only a facet of matter in the same league as trees, cars etc..

As I have said, I admit there is a relationship between mind and matter. What I deny is that that the mind is subject to the same laws as matter. I deny psychological determinism, mechanical determinism, and biological determinism affect the mind. If you see the mind as matter, then I fail to see how you can claim any type of freedom. In which case you are nothing but a slave....


Are you nuts? This is absurd! I would tell them to trust only themselves, organise them, teach them to fight for their rights, not dull them with opiums of either the religious or Existentialist-CAPITALIST "free will"/"your own fault" brand.

But you have yet to explain how libertarian materialism can exist. Religious people deny their freedom through divine plan or through human nature, which is a similar result as a materialist must take (even if the materialist denies their freedom for different reasons).

You seem to misunderstand Existentialism if you think it tells people that their suffering is entirely their own fault. It tells them that they are responsible for the consequences of their own actions, which is subtly different. Their suffering is partly down to the actions of the Capitalists, and partly down to the fact that they are not grouping together and fighting the Capitalist. The worker cannot sit back and expect a Revolution to come to their rescue. Existentialism tells them that only through the actions they (and others) choose can they change their situation. It is not pessimistic in the slightest...on the contrary it is optimistic! Bad faith is the friend of the capitalist...Existentialism is the friend of Marxism!


The whole of science is based on two assumptions:

1) The world exists separate from us.
2) We can understand this world.

Of course we are very far from arriving at a complete understanding of objective truth, i.e. the universe. It is also unlikely that we will ever get that far. But what fool wouldn't recognize that our objective knowledge is greater than it was 200 years ago?
As a former believer in the absolute power of science I used to believe in objective knowledge. Now I hold a Kuhnian view of science and I deny we can ever be truly objective in science. Understanding the epistemological basis of science I have come to realise that there is no 'TRUTH' we can stand on as such. Science can help us but we can never KNOW something for sure. I see science as better then religion by far...but at the end of the day it saddens me to find that it also relies on faith to begin with (even if that faith is more productive then religion). Like Russell with his examination of Maths, this has caused me to look elsewhere for my truths...


The history of human thought is precisely the progression from primitive thought full of holes, towards more complete forms of thought that correspond more closely with reality, through successive approximations.

Our thought has evolved I admit. What I deny is that we are a step closer to truth. There is a gap between mankind and truth. All our 'knowledge' does is evolve to assist survival.


If we can only know for sure our immediate, personal impressions, 'phenomena' as you call it, the logical conclusion is that if we close our eyes the world disappears. Thus, in truth, only 'I' exist. Despite all complaints you will not escape the solipsist trap without realizing the possibility of objective thought
No...that would be if we followed Berkeley's extreme form of Idealism. I see the world as phenomena and I can believe in a world beyond it. I do not need to embark on the course of Cartesian doubt if I don't believe I can ever arrive at objective knowledge. I can believe in the Cogito, and through Existentialism I can assume the existence of others through Phenomenology ontology. I have no need to fall into nihilism through the trapdoor of solipsism.


Obviously these ideal, noumenal forms, by consequence of their ideal and unchanging nature, existed not only before the first man and the first mind appeared on Earth, but before the evolution of the solar system. So when did they arise? The only logical conclusion is this: God created earth, man and the noumenon, at the beginning of time. Religion bites idealism in the ass at every juncture
I expressed my disagreement with your view of noumena earlier.

As for Berkeley and his 'esse est percipi' leading to God then I admit that he is valid to make such a dodgy argument. But then we can say that his argument falls flat because I never directly perceive God and hence he does not exist unless he perceives himself. If that were an argument then it would be as dubious as the famous Cartesian circle.

Plus we have no need to suppose that a noumenal world needs a creator. A Materialist would claim that matter could equally be a necessary being and so the Universe could have existed forever. Anyway...this argument is leading to religion. I have no desire to continue it because I'll just end up quoting Hume's arguments a lot.


Marxism, along with the march of history, pounds it into everybody's heads the undeniable truth: subjective free will is limited by objective circumstances. Existentialism insists like a desperate and pathetic man: "Sure, we aren't absolutely free. But we can still THINK that we are absolutely free. So, in a way, we ARE absolutely free...I THINK!"
ha ha ha...you could do with a dose of Nietzsche in your system! :lol:

I have no reason why people are scared of subjectivity, or the fact that we cannot attain objective knowledge. Why do you want objective knowledge I cry! It is a sign of weakness....a desire to cover one's argument in concrete and make them strong enough to smash one's enemies. Existentialism is positive because it insists that consciousness is free. At the heart of this debate, I continue to see a great distrust of Existentialism in your arguments. I feel you're too quick to pull the trigger on it before you've heard what it has to say, and understood what it means.

[Daymare17]

How about Murdoch?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 01:15 AM
How about Murdoch?
You've been had mate ;)

[Trissy]

How about Murdoch?
Despite all his wealth and power there is no reason that Mr.Murdoch cannot become a socialist. I admit that this is unlikely but it is not impossible. He is not compelled to be a Capitalist. He freely chooses actions which make him one. Existentialism does not make out that he is just as likely to become a socialist, rather that he is free to do so. Existentialism admits that things influence of conscious choices. What it denies is that it determines them. His environment will influence him, but at the end of the day the choice is his. He freely chooses his path in life.

There have been members of the aristocracy who have joined the ranks and given up what they have for the cause. Tony Benn was an MP in Bristol and he gave up his peerage. Bertrand Russell also came from a quite well off background. I'm sure there are others but these two immediately spring to mind.