[STUDY GROUP] Socialism: Utopian and Scientific - Thread 1

[xnj]

I'm very enthusiastic about the study group idea, especially because I read this work recently and took some notes. Since it's time to start the discussion, and there haven't been any other posts yet, I hope no one minds if I kick it off.

As NovelGentry said in his introductory post, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Friedrich Engels can be found in its entirety here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/.

I guess I'll go ahead and summarize the first section to get it rolling. It's located here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...top/int-mat.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/int-mat.htm).

++++++++++++
"1892 English Edition Introduction [General Introduction and the History of Materialism]"

A Summary Attempt

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific is one of the most popular introductions to Marxism. At the time Engels wrote this introduction, this short pamphlet had been translated into 10 European languages, even more than the Communist Manifesto and Capital.

The pamphlet is made up of three chapters excerpted from a longer book written by Engels called, Mr. Duhring's 'Revolution in Science' (also known as Anti-Duhring). The book was written to respond to this guy Karl Eugen Duhring, who had written several volumes attacking Marx's ideas within German Socialist circles. Duhring's attack gave Engels the chance to bring the Marxist worldview into a comprehensive form in Anti-Duhring.

One of Marx's ideas explained in the pamphlet is historical materialism. But, because many people in Britain objected to the philosophy of materialism, Engels tried to remind them of its history. Philosophical materialism was developed by 17th century British thinkers, specifically Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke. The French materialism of the 18th century was built on the groundwork laid by these British thinkers.

While many in the British public rejected materialism, they were okay with agnosticism. Engels showed, however, that agnostics were just "shamefaced" materialists. Agnostics accepted that the natural world obeyed certain laws and that there were no divine interventions from outside, agreeing with the materialist view. They agreed that matter and motion (energy) couldn't be created or destroyed. Therefore, when they claimed to "not know" whether there was a God or Supreme Being, after already expelling it from their conception of the world, they were contradicting themselves.

Agnostics also agreed that all knowledge came from the human senses. But, they said that it's not possible to know whether our senses are right. Engels explained that we can determine whether or not our senses are right. The way is through human action: "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." When we interact with the material world and change it, we're able to confirm or reject the perceptions of our senses.

Near the end, Engels gave a succinct definition of historical materialism that's worth quoting:

historical materialism = ". . . that view of the course of history which seeks the ultimate cause and the great moving power of all important historic events in the economic development of society, in the changes in the modes of production and exchange, in the consequent division of society into distinct classes, and in the struggles of these classes against one another."

The next section will explain the religous feelings of the English middle classes.

[Severian]

Thanks for kicking things off.

Engels refers to "highest organic substances, the albuminous bodies" at one point. FYI, albumen is an old-fashioned term for protein. Might be interesting to look at that paragraph is light of later scientific developments. Certainly its true that there's nothing mysterious about organic chemicals anymore. Nor do scientists, anymore, rely on any theory of a life force beyond some extremely complex chemical reactions. On the other hand, chemically synthesizing life would involve a lot more than just synthesizing proteins.

I thought the "divide the history of industrial production since the Middle Ages" was one of the meatier bits in this section - with its 3 stages: guild handicraft, manufacture with division of labor, and industry with powered machinery. Anybody have any comments or questions on that?

[Lamanov]

Yes, exaclty. :D
It was the English materialism which had a very fertile ground in France, where it aquired a revolutionary character which played a great role in the history of the revolution, which revolutionised thought itself in decades to come.

What remained back home however, this "shamefaced materialism" [agnosticim] is what survived from the great begining of the neo-materialism set up by the English. I would say it maintained becuase it wasn't in direct oposition to religious views which held hostage the whole middle-class inteligentsia in England in that time. Infact, I have to notice, solipsism which blossomed in England is purely an idealist version of agnosticim... subjective idealist that is.

[workersunity]

i was very confused when he was talking about materialism and athiesm/agnosticism and such, other than that i saw where he was coming from

[Severian]

What's the confusion? We're all here to help each other understand it.

Seems to me materialism includes atheism - there is no god or supernatural, the world is understood in terms of material, natural causes.

Agnoticism says we don't know if there's a god or not, we don't know if we perceive the material world accurately, we don't know a lot of stuff. Engels pointed out that for all practical purposes, they might as well go ahead and be materialists.

[coda]

The reference about Bacon, though it does not say in this text, is referring to Francis Bacon, father of the emperical scientific method -- not Roger Bacon, the empericist Franciscan Monk.

A general definition of materialism would be: concrete physical realities based on observation or experience using an empericial scientific method *the criteria used to make the obeservation are the five senses. If it can't be felt, touched, seen, heard, smelt, it does not exist in a materialialist context. Please, anyone else add to this or make it clearer.

[xnj]

Thanks for the explanation of "albuminous bodies," Severian. I'm not sure what to think about the division of industrial production into three periods. What does it mean?

Maybe one trend that can seen is the steady disempowerment of the individual worker. During the handicraft period, he had the knowledge to make entire products in his own little workshop. Under manufacture, this knowledge is taken away from him and concentrated in the hands of the boss, who implements a division of labor in his factory. Now, the worker only knows how to make one small part of a whole product. Eventually, under modern industry, all knowledge is transferred to the machinery owned by the boss.

++++++

For people confused with the part on agnosticism and materialism, these definitions from the MIA encyclopedia might be useful:

Agnosticism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/a/g.htm#agnosticism)
Materialism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/a.htm#materialism)

++++++

One more thing, I think Engels' emphasis on human action is important. Understanding the world requires taking action and changing the world, not just sitting in isolation and thinking. Seems like this was also the point Marx was making in his famous quote from Theses on Feuerbach: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it."

Mao wrote a whole essay on this subject called On Practice. I don't think it'd be objectionable to people who don't like Mao to quote a bit here, since it's just a restatement of Engels in different words. Might be helpful for anyone struggling with the concept:

"Marxists hold that man's social practice alone is the criterion of the truth of his knowledge of the external world. What actually happens is that man's knowledge is verified only when he achieves the anticipated results in the process of social practice (material production, class struggle or scientific experiment). If a man wants to succeed in his work, that is, to achieve the anticipated results, he must bring his ideas into correspondence with the laws of the objective external world; if they do not correspond, he will fail in his practice. . . . The truth of any knowledge or theory is determined not by subjective feelings, but by objective results in social practice." - On Practice (http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/OP37.html)

[coda]

<<Maybe one trend that can seen is the steady disempowerment of the individual worker. During the handicraft period, he had the knowledge to make entire products in his own little workshop. Under manufacture, this knowledge is taken away from him and concentrated in the hands of the boss, who implements a division of labor in his factory. Now, the worker only knows how to make one small part of a whole product. Eventually, under modern industry, all knowledge is transferred to the machinery owned by the boss.>>

Yes.
also, with the invention of the steam engine there was a further transference of labor from the serf&#39;s allowed to keep or sell a net taxable produce after giving the landowner a cut; to the machine-laborer, exclusively selling labor power to the urban production-owner, with the added disempowerment of know-how to produce their own goods.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 10:14 AM
Maybe one trend that can seen is the steady disempowerment of the individual worker.
Yes, and reduction in skill. I agree with what Indigo&#39;s said also.

It&#39;s also an increase in productivity of labor, though, which makes possible (not inevitable) improvement in conditions of life.

One thing open to misinterpretation: the handicraft worker owning his own shop wasn&#39;t a worker in the modern sense. On the contrary, he was often a small employer. Guilds are sometimes compared to unions but IMO this is a misunderstanding since they were mostly employers&#39; associations.

It&#39;s been 2 days, should we start a thread for the next section?

[NovelGentry]

Let me begin by stating I&#39;m very happy to see that this thread got jumpstarted and the study group is something of a "success" -- at least for now. Even though I have absolutely no right to be, particularly because it is you guys who made it happen in the end, not myself, due to other committments now, I must say I do feel proud. I feel that somehow not all has been lost at revolutionary left from the original study group thread which has, either directly or indirectly, contributed to my estrangement from this board. With that said, I would just like to comment on one point which has been made.


One more thing, I think Engels&#39; emphasis on human action is important. Understanding the world requires taking action and changing the world, not just sitting in isolation and thinking. Seems like this was also the point Marx was making in his famous quote from Theses on Feuerbach: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.

There is a book called "MARX: A Very Short Introduction." I would recommend any "very short introduction" book, as they are all of extremely high quality and a good introduction to any subject. The book is quite interesting in itself, even for someone who has already read a great deal of Marx, and it will certainly help with your insight on the works of Marx (and of course Engels) in the future.

Anyway, as the book points out, and what has seemingly been done here, is that there is a common misunderstanding as to what this quote means. I will quote the book&#39;s section on this particular statement in full as to not leave anything out:


The eleventh thesis on Feuerbach is engraved on Marx&#39;s tombstone in Highgate Cemetary. It reads: &#39;The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is, to change it&#39; (T 158). This is generally read as a statement to the effect that philosophy is unimportant; revolutionary activity is what matters. It means nothing of the sort. What Marx is saying is that the problems of philosophy cannot be solved by passive interpretation of the world as it is, but only by remoulding the world to resolve the philosophical contradiction inherent in it. It is to solve philosophical problems that we must change the world.

The reason this differentiation is so important is because it is extremely telling of what Marx and Engels did when they ripped apart the arguments of their contemporaries, critiquing Saint Max and Feuerbah alike.

The problem with their contemporaries was that all of their philosophy upheld glaring contradictions. If indeed the contradiction was to ever be that the given philosophers did not "practice what they preached," then one could easily find his contemporaries, and arguably Engels too, in something of a contradiction to this. But as the author of this short introduction points out only sentences earlier, "For Marx the unity of theory and practice meant the resolution of theoretical problems by practical activity. It is an idea which makes little sense outside the context of a materialist transformation of Hegel&#39;s philosophy of the world."

Quite accurately the author is pointing out the contextual agreement of Marx&#39;s philosophy with his later interpretation. That is to say, Hegel&#39;s philosophy of dialectics is primarily concerned with overcoming these contradictory forces -- Marx&#39;s solution to overcoming them was not founded in philosophy, but in real life. That is what the quote is saying, and that is the key differentiation between Marx&#39;s active materialist outlook, and the more passive outlook of someone like Feuerbach.

[xnj]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 05:53 PM
also, with the invention of the steam engine there was a further transference of labor from the serf&#39;s allowed to keep or sell a net taxable produce after giving the landowner a cut; to the machine-laborer, exclusively selling labor power to the urban production-owner, with the added disempowerment of know-how to produce their own goods.
I&#39;m confused about this. How did the steam engine relate to the transference of labor from the serf to the machine-laborer? (Also, when you say "transference of labor," do you mean that lots of serfs became machine-laborers?)

NovelGentry&#39;s post on the eleventh thesis and philosophical contradictions went completely over my head. :unsure:

I think we should move onto the next section soon. Does someone else want to start the thread and summarize the reading this time? It&#39;s always helpful to have a summary to begin with. If no one else wants to do it, I guess I could make another attempt. Anyone?

[Lamanov]

Sure... If there&#39;s no objection I could do it. ^_^
Let&#39;s say - in 48 hours starting now

:hammer: :cool:

[edited - correction, not 24 but 48 h]

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Sounds good to me. I haven&#39;t posted on this topic but that&#39;s because you guys pretty much covered everything.

[coda]

<< I&#39;m confused about this. How did the steam engine relate to the transference of labor from the serf to the machine-laborer? (Also, when you say "transference of labor," do you mean that lots of serfs became machine-laborers?)>>

well, in part with the advent of the steam engine transforming and modernizing manufacturing and the impact in the way of the Industrial Revolution; the areas of Europe still under feudalism , i.e. primarily Russia, having a serf based economy heavily on agricuture, textile, metal industries; the Industrial Revolution swiftly made feudalism in those parts obsolete. Tsar Alexander II freed the serfs in 1861 in favor of industrial modernization and also after continuous rebellions and uprising against the landowners, so Russia had the last vestiges of feudalism to go. But, basically I mean the end of the serf-slave labor economies transferred to the slave wage labor economies&#33; :)

I always think it&#39;s interesting that the word "landlord" is still in use derived from that nasty practice of feudalism.

I am also ready to go on to the next part&#33;

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 10:14 AM
One more thing, I think Engels&#39; emphasis on human action is important. Understanding the world requires taking action and changing the world, not just sitting in isolation and thinking. Seems like this was also the point Marx was making in his famous quote from Theses on Feuerbach: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.
Y&#39;know, I&#39;ve read this booklet more than once before, and seen that quote from Feuerbach, and never really got that. Maybe &#39;cause I haven&#39;t really studied and discussed the booklet like this before. Nice to see I can still learn more from it.

There&#39;s a couple of practical things I&#39;ve known which know seem like applications of that philosophical point...for example, the right tactics for a particular concrete situation can only be figured out by people actively participating in a struggle. Other people coming along and wanting to help...probably can help best by contributing something other than advice. Until you&#39;ve really become part of it.

What else? You can only really learn a skill by practicing it.

[xnj]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 08:17 PM
There&#39;s a couple of practical things I&#39;ve known which know seem like applications of that philosophical point...for example, the right tactics for a particular concrete situation can only be figured out by people actively participating in a struggle. Other people coming along and wanting to help...probably can help best by contributing something other than advice. Until you&#39;ve really become part of it.

What else? You can only really learn a skill by practicing it.
Good points. It&#39;s interesting how often your first point is lost on fellow leftists in imperialist countries. Many offer unsolicited advice to revolutionaries in colonial and semicolonial countries on how to wage their struggles, based on elementary Marxist concepts and the most superficial knowledge of the particulars of the situation (sometimes without even being able to understand the language).

I think Marx/Engels&#39; point on human action could be interpreted on an even more basic level though, beyond politics to epistemology...

Like, using Engels&#39; example, how do we confirm that a cup of pudding really exists? Passively looking at it might help, but ultimately the way to confirm its existence is to take action and eat it&#33; The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Kinda silly :lol:

[Severian]

Well, yeah. I meant those were some political implications of the epistemology.

Yer right that&#39;s an example of useless tactical advice...it operates within the same country as well, for example radicals who on their first visit to a picket line feel they can tell people how to win a strike. That can be a difficult temptation to resist, actually.