Marxism as 'Eschatology'. [Archive]

'Discourse Unlimited'

11th June 2005, 17:57

You see, I get the sense that this "new man" you mean is in fact "real man". Men, without the unneccessary baggage of exploitation and oppression, therefore, able to fully fulfil themselves in the social and economic world.

Oh, absolutely! This is precisely the point that Marx and Engels make! Since the "dawn of time" (the so-called 'first appropriation'), man has been alienated from the means of production, as division of labour increasingly separates mental exertion from the physical. After the revolution, as you suggest, men (and women) will be fully able to reach their potential - hence the "salvational" tone of much Marxist literature.

I have to say that I don't have much confidence in notions of communism as "heaven" inhabited by "new men" indistinguishable from "angels".

I think, perhaps, that you've missed the point... I wasn't trying to link Marxism to Religion - though I realise that attempts have been made at this. Rather, I was trying to suggest that the Marxist definition of time is fully "eschatological". Of course, the Judeo-Christian tradition (as well as many other world religions) shares this conception of time...

"But we humans are a contentious species and I expect communism will simply change what we squabble over...and make new history out of."

"Communism, Thats when real history will begin..."

Do you think so? If every (current) struggle can be seen in terms of "class interest", what is there to squabble over? And if not - well, what does that mean for the futire of Marxism?

redstar2000

11th June 2005, 20:02

Originally posted by 'Discourse Unlimited'
Do you think so? If every (current) struggle can be seen in terms of "class interest", what is there to squabble over?

I have absolutely no idea!

In 3215, we discover a world inhabited by an intelligent species that has reached the technological level of 20th century Earth. A furious controversy erupts over what to do about this.

In 3850, it becomes clear that we have the technology to "terra-form" any substantial chunk of rock we please...should we?

In 4621, the proposal to dismantle Jupiter for raw materials is on the agenda. How would you vote?

In 5277, the key discovery that guarantees immortality is made...what shall we do about that?

There are so many possibilities that we have no way to anticipate.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Monty Cantsin

12th June 2005, 02:37

Originally posted by 'Discourse Unlimited'@Jun 10 2005, 07:37 PM

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

The Communist Manifesto, page one. A bold statement of intent, with the obvious implication being that "cometh the revolution" and the establishment of a classless society... History ends. And with it, of course, disappears all economic repression. A 'New Man' is created from the ashes of the old, etc. etc.

i dont know if anyways pointed this out yet but people always put Marx's theory of history down to class struggle Well if you read that sentence you notice a parameter, class societies. so class struggle is just one manifestation of the force of history.

I tend to think that Max webber which his idea of the continued rationalisation of societies wouldn’t be far off from Marx ideas on the process of history. It’s just that Marx got obscured and misinterpreted all over the place.

JC1

12th June 2005, 02:44

i dont know if anyways pointed this out yet but people always put Marx's theory of history down to class struggle Well if you read that sentence you notice a parameter, class societies. so class struggle is just one manifestation of the force of history.

Yes. In Barbism , Savagray , ect it was external and geograhic factors that pushed history along. In Class Society , it was class. In Post-Class society, I imagine that Psycological factors will push history forward.

'Discourse Unlimited'

13th June 2005, 01:14

I tend to think that Max webber which his idea of the continued rationalisation of societies wouldn’t be far off from Marx ideas on the process of history. It’s just that Marx got obscured and misinterpreted all over the place.

Marx's conception of the process of history is what I was trying to get at. Whether he adds the parameter of class society or not, his view suggests a "beginning" and an "end" to all that is... His ideology, in my opinion, is eschatological. Now, I don't know much about Max Weber - but his idea of the "continued rationalisation of societies" sounds similar.

Integral to both these theories is the idea that humanity must somehow improve itself; we are going from "bad" to "good", from "unjust" to "just", from "tyranny" towards "freedom"... And there are many who have argued that this line of thinking is a product of Enlightenment thought - the so-called age of reason.

What do people think about this?

redstar2000

13th June 2005, 02:42

Originally posted by 'Discourse Unlimited'
Integral to both these theories is the idea that humanity must somehow improve itself; we are going from "bad" to "good", from "unjust" to "just", from "tyranny" towards "freedom"... And there are many who have argued that this line of thinking is a product of Enlightenment thought - the so-called age of reason.

Yes, I think that people first discerned these kinds of "trends" in the course of human history during the "Age of Reason"...and Marxism is, in the political-economic sphere, a kind of culmination of the "Enlightenment".

That seems ok with me...but there are a lot of people who don't like it at all. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

'Discourse Unlimited'

13th June 2005, 04:10

Yes, I think that people first discerned these kinds of "trends" in the course of human history during the "Age of Reason"...and Marxism is, in the political-economic sphere, a kind of culmination of the "Enlightenment".

That seems ok with me...but there are a lot of people who don't like it at all. :lol:

Yes - postmodernists, for instance! I can guess what you might think of their critique of Marxism... But how about explaining why? To me, it appears rather difficult to refute.

I think one of the main accusations levelled against Marx (-ist thought) is that he himself was a product of the times in which he lived. The obsession with reason, progress and rules in nature - which led Charles Darwin to formulate his masterpiece "The Origin of the Species" - also affected the world-view of Karl Marx. He then combined a revolutionary philosophy with an intensely idealistic desire to see the world "changed" and came up with a solution that seemed to work...

Is this fair?

Monty Cantsin

13th June 2005, 06:22

Marx's conception of the process of history is what I was trying to get at. Whether he adds the parameter of class society or not, his view suggests a "beginning" and an "end" to all that is... His ideology, in my opinion, is eschatological.

The process of history is rooted within our Human nature which is a evolutionary element which some have tagged as a “universality of condition” rather then a pre-determined nature (the early Sartre). So the history of societies and civilizations is just the Marco expression of the totality of individuals within, and what are we as human beings trying to do? To fulfil our needs and wants. The continued rationalisation of societies is the development of structures and relations that serve human ends, when a structure is no longer needed because the pre-condition of its need is no longer there it should be removed and society transformed. Class struggle is just one manifestation of this drive for rationalisation and development to fulfil human ends, the French revolution liberalised domestic markets leaving behind the old tax system which artificially restricted exchange of goods which kept in place feudal modes of production which were less productive then capitalistic modes. So the French revolution ushered in progressive changes. Now the process of class society and class struggle has a begging, when humanity found it more rational to organise societies along the lines of a division of labour. And the process of class struggle when capitalist institutions are rationalised into post-capitalists institutions that better suit human ends. The process of development and rationalisation will continue on, modernity is an unfinished project but the process of history will take a different form.

I think one of the main accusations levelled against Marx (-ist thought) is that he himself was a product of the times in which he lived.

I think Marxists say that openly it would be quite anti-Marxist to not do so. Now I’d talk about the post-modern critique of Marx if I knew who you were talking about because there isn’t really a school called post-modernism or what we in the west call post-structuralism though in France the epicentre of the intellectual tradition they just call it structuralism (the current thinkers are just a second wave).

redstar2000

13th June 2005, 12:59

People seem to mean a wide variety of things by "post-modernism" and, in addition, I am by no means well read in that field -- the stuff I've run into seems quite obscurantist.

But "pomo" apparently posits that all possible "meta-narratives" are inherently subjective...and, hence, false.

There is no "order" in history. Social reality in any significant sense is "unknowable" and, consequently, unchangeable in any coherent, purposeful way. "Progress" is a "meaningless concept".

I must leave to others a more profound critique of this nonsense (if others wish to be bothered). To my "vulgar Marxist" mind, this pomo stuff is just an ideological reflection of the fact that the bourgeoisie have become thoroughly reactionary with the passing of time.

No wonder that so many of them are "taking up the cross and following you-know-who" these days.

Or plunging into the pre-capitalist muck with Leo Strauss.

It's a funny thing. The Enlightenment and all that followed from it has provoked continuous and tenacious opposition ever since...and yet nothing seems to be able to more than temporarily halt its spread.

The use of human reason to understand and change the world appears so addictive that no ideological "rehab" program, secular or superstitious, seems to be able to overcome it.

I suspect that there's not a place in the world today, no matter how backward, that there aren't at least a few people asking the question: does X make sense?

A deadly dagger at the heart of unreason. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

'Discourse Unlimited'

13th June 2005, 15:21

Now I’d talk about the post-modern critique of Marx if I knew who you were talking about because there isn’t really a school called post-modernism or what we in the west call post-structuralism though in France the epicentre of the intellectual tradition they just call it structuralism (the current thinkers are just a second wave).

I realise that 'postmodernism' is a vague and unsatisfactory term. I meant to refer to the 'post-structuralist' school of thought which has, I believe, criticised Marx's theory - as well as all "grand narratives".

I must leave to others a more profound critique of this nonsense (if others wish to be bothered). To my "vulgar Marxist" mind, this pomo stuff is just an ideological reflection of the fact that the bourgeoisie have become thoroughly reactionary with the passing of time.

Here's another quote, from Ernst Breisach's book, 'On the Future of History':

... a large segment of Marxist scholars have rejected any postmodern influence. For them, postmodernism represented a decadent bourgeois phenomenon tied to the late stages of capitalism. They doubted that any significant concessions could be made without destroying the Marxist theory of history. [My italics]

It seems to me that this is an accurate reflection of your attitude, RedStar. And of others, whom I've tried to talk to about this issue. I think it is unwise to refuse to engage in debate... Else, you open yourself up to the accusation that you're refuting theories on authority, rather than "by reason". (The behaviour of a reactionary, no doubt!) Now, I've called myself a Marxist for a long time - and I'd like to see 'postmodernism' defeated. But I think we can do better than calling it "nonsense" and moving on! :)

One key issue, for me, is the 'postmodern' view of the world as one of unending change; a "fluid world" in which there is no place for "binary oppositions" and "rigid determinism". This all links back to the eschatological nature of Marxism...

redstar2000

14th June 2005, 03:37

Originally posted by 'Discourse Unlimited'
I think it is unwise to refuse to engage in debate... Else, you open yourself up to the accusation that you're refuting theories on authority, rather than "by reason".

Yes, I probably do "open myself up to that accusation"...but it's the same accusation that "intelligent design" partisans raise against evolutionists.

They are furious that science won't take creationism "seriously" and discuss it in scientific journals.

I simply find it beyond me to take postmodernism seriously...it seems to me to be a secular version of the medieval "unknowable mind of God".

If we were to concede that the universe is unknowable and that all our conceptions of objective reality are mere subjective conceits, then what's left?

All attempts to understand anything become hobbies that serve only to fill the hours between birth and death.

*yawns*

Just thinking about that outlook makes me want to take a nap! :lol:

One key issue, for me, is the 'postmodern' view of the world as one of unending change; a "fluid world" in which there is no place for "binary oppositions" and "rigid determinism".

Well, I think "dialectics" is crap and I have no particular problem with the idea of a "fluid world" of "unending change".

But fluids flow in channels...they don't just wander around at random.

Their behavior is, in fact, rigidly determined by the laws of physics.

The "laws of history" are obviously much more probabilistic and perhaps even semi-chaotic...nevertheless, if (1) nature is orderly and can be understood by human reason, and (2) humans and their societies are part of nature, then it follows that the evolution of human societies must likewise be subject to "laws" or at least coherent regularities which can also be understood by human reason.

Either of those premises may be challenged, of course, but I've never run into one that made sense.

Nor do I ever expect to. If something comes along to "supersede Marxism", it will be a paradigm that makes better sense of human societies than Marxism does.

Scientifically speaking, the possibility can't be ruled out...but I'm not holding my breath. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

'Discourse Unlimited'

14th June 2005, 10:19

... I have no particular problem with the idea of a "fluid world" of "unending change".

But fluids flow in channels...they don't just wander around at random.

Their behavior is, in fact, rigidly determined by the laws of physics.

This is a very 'Marxist' view - one that I was trying to challenge! The book I quoted earlier, 'On the Future of History', has this to say:

"The economic determination of life was attacked as a simplification that forced change into predetermined channels - an inappropriate stabilisation of the fluid world."

Trying to order the world is futile (according to postmodernists). Although I expect they might point out that wanting to order the world - wanting to make sense of it all - is a 'hangover' from the Enlightenment era. (So by default, you're part of the hangover. Sorry. :P ) Now, I'm no 'Creationist'. But I will concede that Evolution, as a theory, has some holes in it... Which may have been ignored by Darwin, or even missed, as he made sure that his preconceived notions of laws and rules applied to the natural world. I think the same criticism could apply to Marx.

He formulated a theory, THEN looked back into the past for his "evidence". Marxist history is self-referential; it proves its own arguments. Invent the idea of class struggle, and you can suddenly see class struggles everywhere - yet in "reality", they may not exist...

I think these ideas are worth considering.

redstar2000

14th June 2005, 14:24

The economic determination of life was attacked as a simplification that forced change into predetermined channels - an inappropriate stabilisation of the fluid world.

Well, that's just a really lousy metaphor.

Fluids are not "forced into channels" except by gravity. Channels exist whether we know about them or not...we don't "invent" them, we discover them.

Change may be orderly or semi-chaotic or entirely chaotic...but "stabilization" of change seems likewise to be an inappropriate metaphor. You might use it in an argument against "dialectics"...but there are much better arguments against that crap.

Humans must, in some fashion, compel nature to yield up the means for continued existence and reproduction. Unlike all other forms of life, humans innovate different ways to do that. Those ways, whatever they might be, constrain the possible social relationships that might exist.

They are...channels that, in turn, tend to impose an order on change itself.

The Hellenic Age had everything it needed to industrialize...except a material incentive. With an abundance of slaves, there was no "channel" for "steam-powered toys" to become steam engines.

Trying to order the world is futile (according to postmodernists). Although I expect they might point out that wanting to order the world - wanting to make sense of it all - is a 'hangover' from the Enlightenment era.

Yes, I understand this is their view...I just cannot take it seriously.

I can't see any usefulness to their view beyond their next paycheck or, perhaps, royalty check.

And, of course, whatever small amount their principled inertia contributes in the way of intellectual legitimacy to the prevailing social order (which is why they get those checks).

Far from being "ashamed" of the Enlightenment, I am proud to acknowledge the role they played in making me possible.

But I will concede that Evolution, as a theory, has some holes in it... Which may have been ignored by Darwin, or even missed, as he made sure that his preconceived notions of laws and rules applied to the natural world. I think the same criticism could apply to Marx.

Evolution has no "holes" in it that are not, in principle, "fillable".

Marxism also has "problems" that people are trying to "solve".

The pomo criticism suggests that since our scientific knowledge is always incomplete, therefore it is not "really knowledge" at all.

Horseshit!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

'Discourse Unlimited'

14th June 2005, 23:16

The Hellenic Age had everything it needed to industrialize...except a material incentive. With an abundance of slaves, there was no "channel" for "steam-powered toys" to become steam engines.

Yes, I see your point. And I agree. I think a broad conception of the "class struggle" is a very valid framework within which to study history and human behaviour... Marxist analysis is useful, and "works" - in some cases. (I realise that this qualification is probably the ultimate 'heresy' to an ardent Marxist...) But it is not the only historial method available, and it is by no means best suited to every case.

This is why, I believe, rigid Marxism deserves to be attacked for "forcing change" into "predetermined channels". The metaphor isn't lousy at all. (Besides, a SuperSoaker doesn't work because of gravity; unless I'm very much mistaken, I apply the force required to 'push' water out of the tank and onto my 'target'!!) If we assume that there are an infinite number of available "channels" (representing different ideologies, belief systems, methodologies etc.), then Marx's assertion that all change can effectively be explained in terms of the class struggle DOES confer primacy on the "economic channel"!

I can't see any usefulness to their view beyond their next paycheck or, perhaps, royalty check.

And, of course, whatever small amount their principled inertia contributes in the way of intellectual legitimacy to the prevailing social order (which is why they get those checks).

Again, this is because you're "stuck" (willingly, it seems) in the Age of Reason 'rut'! :) You tend to assume that all knowledge MUST be 'real', 'true', 'useful' and MUST serve a progressive purpose; presumably, any 'legitimate' world-view also has to offer a "way forwards" - which needs to be defined according to laws, etc. etc... Coincidentally, follow the logic and we end up adopting a Marxist stance! The system has become "self-referential" and "self-fulfilling"; a closed loop. Much like 'religion'!

(I actually think postmodernism damages the 'status-quo'. It's not a legitimising influence at all... At least, I've not seen it that way!)

Elect Marx

14th June 2005, 23:32

Originally posted by 'Discourse Unlimited'@Jun 10 2005, 01:37 PM
The Communist Manifesto, page one. A bold statement of intent, with the obvious implication being that "cometh the revolution" and the establishment of a classless society... History ends.
Why do you say that?

If I say to this point; people have been alive; does that mean people will be dead?

And with it, of course, disappears all economic repression. A 'New Man' is created from the ashes of the old, etc. etc.

Right, except for the fact the Marx wasn't a critical mass follower; did you for get about a little overwhelmingly significant theoretic stage called the dictatorship of the proletariat?

So, is it fair to see 'Marxism' in an eschatological sense? I have my own thoughts on this, but I'd like to hear yours! Discuss! :)

From what I've seen in this initial argument; NO. This appears to be confused rhetoric.

'Discourse Unlimited'

14th June 2005, 23:46

If I say to this point; people have been alive; does that mean people will be dead?

I have no idea what you're talking about... :S

Right, except for the fact the Marx wasn't a critical mass follower; did you forget about a little overwhelmingly significant theoretic stage called the dictatorship of the proletariat?

That's irrelevant in this argument.

This appears to be confused rhetoric.

Go and read: 'From Darkness to Light...' (One of the books I mentioned.) It's not 'confused' at all - in fact, you might learn something. How about that? I just wanted to know how the members of 'RevolutionaryLeft' responded to his theories!

Elect Marx

14th June 2005, 23:58

Originally posted by 'Discourse Unlimited'@Jun 14 2005, 04:46 PM

If I say to this point; people have been alive; does that mean people will be dead?

I have no idea what you're talking about... :S
I was drawing you a parallel. Because Marx says class struggle has been the past history has no bearing on the existence of history itself but a part of history.

Right, except for the fact the Marx wasn't a critical mass follower; did you forget about a little overwhelmingly significant theoretic stage called the dictatorship of the proletariat?

That's irrelevant in this argument.

No; it isn't. Care to prove your argument or do you just want to make unjustified statements? Obviously I disagree for a reason; so what did you accomplish?

This appears to be confused rhetoric.

Go and read: 'From Darkness to Light...' (One of the books I mentioned.) It's not 'confused' at all - in fact, you might learn something. How about that? I just wanted to know how the members of 'RevolutionaryLeft' responded to his theories!

Perhaps so, but from your statement; I see no point and you haven't really proved anything to the contrary. This is how I respond, with irrationality and pointless exclamation!

'Discourse Unlimited'

15th June 2005, 01:57

"If I say to this point; people have been alive; does that mean people will be dead?"

I was drawing you a parallel. Because Marx says class struggle has been the past history has no bearing on the existence of history itself but a part of history.

I'm sorry, I still don't really know what you're getting at... Maybe the fault is mine, but could you please insert some grammatical breaks (commas would be nice) somewhere, so I can try to unravel your sentence? I'm not just being pedantic - I honestly don't understand you. :(

No; it isn't. Care to prove your argument or do you just want to make unjustified statements? Obviously I disagree for a reason; so what did you accomplish?

Fine. Whether there is a transitory phase (the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat') or not, we still end up with "Communism". (I hope! :P ) So, if I was to suggest something along the lines of: "When Communism is achieved, X happens" - then the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is irrelevant. Ok?

Perhaps so, but from your statement; I see no point and you haven't really proved anything to the contrary. This is how I respond, with irrationality and pointless exclamation!

You're being unnecessarily awkward, comrade '313C7 iVi4RX'. Your name makes more sense than you do. Again, I don't really know what "[my] statement" is, or was. Can I assume that you meant "Marxism as Eschatology"? If so - read the damn thread. We've sort-of progressed (aha!) from "Marxism as Eschatology" to a discussion of postmodernism, which is closely linked to the former... Care to offer any new insights into the matter, or would you rather continue your dance in the 'quagmire' of incomprehensibilty? ;) (Sorry!)

Monty Cantsin

15th June 2005, 02:26

this letter of Marx's is of particurlar interest to this conversation, -

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...7/11/russia.htm

redstar2000

15th June 2005, 02:50

Originally posted by Monty [email protected] 14 2005, 08:26 PM
this letter of Marx's is of particurlar interest to this conversation, -

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...7/11/russia.htm
404 Error -- File Not Found.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

redstar2000

15th June 2005, 03:37

Originally posted by 'Ultimate Discourse'
But [Marxism] is not the only historical method available, and it is by no means best suited to every case.

Is it not a matter of what you are trying to explain? The micro-details of history, it seems to me, are explained as well by random chance as by any other explanation. Marxism is concerned with "big questions" -- macrohistory, as it were.

What "other methods" are available?

And useful?

If we assume that there are an infinite number of available "channels" (representing different ideologies, belief systems, methodologies etc.), then Marx's assertion that all change can effectively be explained in terms of the class struggle DOES confer primacy on the "economic channel"!

If "we assume"...but why should we make that assumption?

It's one of the theorems of chaos theory that the outcome of chaotic phenomena are heavily dependent on initial conditions...a small difference at the beginning leads to a huge difference at the end.

But is history genuinely chaotic? I don't think it is...at the macro-level.

The micro-causes of events may indeed be potentially infinite in number, but most of those events cancel each other out in the course of time while the macro-causes continue to operate and make their impact felt no matter what.

You tend to assume that all knowledge MUST be 'real', 'true', 'useful' and MUST serve a progressive purpose; presumably, any 'legitimate' world-view also has to offer a "way forwards" - which needs to be defined according to laws, etc. etc... Coincidentally, follow the logic and we end up adopting a Marxist stance! The system has become "self-referential" and "self-fulfilling"; a closed loop. Much like 'religion'!

Marxism does not rely on supernatural "causes", so the religion analogy does not apply.

But as to "the closed loop", yeah, I don't have any particular problem with that. Every scientific paradigm is "a closed loop" in that sense -- and paradigms are overthrown when objective data "breaks the loop".

Suppose humans "suddenly decided", for example, to restore medieval Christianity and social conditions typical of the medieval era. If that could actually happen and did happen, then Marxism would be decisively refuted.

It would be a case of "consciousness determining being" as well as a deliberately chosen regressive way of life. Marxism says that can't happen outside the realm of catastrophe.

Catastrophes do happen, of course. The ones which we are most familiar with are ruinous military defeats and biological pandemics...which can temporarily "play hell" with Marx's "laws". Many a civilization that "should" have evolved into capitalism and better "didn't make it" because of one or both of those catastrophes.

But one finally did make it...and it would take something really massive to throw it backwards -- global nuclear war, an incoming asteroid, etc. The chances are not zero...but I think they are very small and actually getting smaller. (We are, for example, mapping all the "near-Earth objects" that might cause us potential future problems.)

I actually think postmodernism damages the 'status-quo'. It's not a legitimising influence at all... At least, I've not seen it that way!

In what way does post-modernism "damage" the status quo?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Elect Marx

15th June 2005, 09:15

Originally posted by 'Discourse Unlimited'@Jun 14 2005, 06:57 PM

"If I say to this point; people have been alive; does that mean people will be dead?"

I was drawing you a parallel. Marx saying class struggle has been the past history has no bearing on the existence of history itself but a part of history.

I'm sorry, I still don't really know what you're getting at... Maybe the fault is mine, but could you please insert some grammatical breaks (commas would be nice) somewhere, so I can try to unravel your sentence? I'm not just being pedantic - I honestly don't understand you. :(
Sorry; I did write that rather poorly.

Okay... when Marx makes a statement of history pertaining to class struggle, I see no reason to conclude that history will "end," from what he is saying (before or after the D of P).

No; it isn't. Care to prove your argument or do you just want to make unjustified statements? Obviously I disagree for a reason; so what did you accomplish?

Fine. Whether there is a transitory phase (the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat') or not, we still end up with "Communism". (I hope! :P ) So, if I was to suggest something along the lines of: "When Communism is achieved, X happens" - then the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is irrelevant. Ok?

No; not okay, this is only the beginning of our discussion :P
That makes Marxism no more eschatological than the ideological justification for the industrial revolution or any real restructuring of society.

2. A belief or a doctrine concerning the ultimate or final things, such as death, the destiny of humanity, the Second Coming, or the Last Judgment.

The point is that communism is a theoretical final stage of social development and so this does not mean the end of society, history, "destiny" or anything of the sort. Now for the "ultimate" point; communism is again the "ultimate" stage and so a classification of society and not society itself, not some static culture like the Nazi's "Reich"

So the "eschatological" attributes of Marxism are simply in relation to classification.

Perhaps so, but from your statement; I see no point and you haven't really proved anything to the contrary. This is how I respond, with irrationality and pointless exclamation!

You're being unnecessarily awkward, comrade '313C7 iVi4RX'. Your name makes more sense than you do.

Maybe so (I could say the same of you) but is this some sort of cheap shot at my name or am I reading into this too much?

Again, I don't really know what "[my] statement" is, or was. Can I assume that you meant "Marxism as Eschatology"? If so - read the damn thread.

Sure; why not? Could you tell me why I would read the entire thread if I find your initial point to be invalid and I see that no one has addressed it as such?
You may find my method odd but I tend to start from the beginning. I will likely read into the thread more but why would I complicate this discussion that by admittance, you are not completely following? I suggest you clam down; the only conflict thus far is due to your agitation and I don't see why we couldn't discuss this matter rationally.

We've sort-of progressed (aha!) from "Marxism as Eschatology" to a discussion of postmodernism, which is closely linked to the former... Care to offer any new insights into the matter, or would you rather continue your dance in the 'quagmire' of incomprehensibilty? ;) (Sorry!)

Maybe we can address that next but for now; lets dance comrade :P

'Discourse Unlimited'

15th June 2005, 13:43

404 Error -- File Not Found.

Me too... :-/

Is it not a matter of what you are trying to explain? The micro-details of history, it seems to me, are explained as well by random chance as by any other explanation. Marxism is concerned with "big questions" -- macrohistory, as it were.

What "other methods" are available?

And useful?

Well, there ARE other methods available... I hope you wouldn't consider ALL history that was written before Marx utterly irrelevant! What I really meant (and I apologise for using the wrong words etc.) is that there are other categories of analysis. 'Class' is one factor we can isolate when looking at the past - so is 'religion', for instance, or 'gender'.

It doesn't matter that 'religion' is based on superstition. It has played an enormous part in the shaping of the modern world, thus remains 'valid' as a category. 'Language' is another important issue. And I suppose it's the interplay of all these factors that forms and shapes the world - or, our 'reality'.

But is history genuinely chaotic? I don't think it is...at the macro-level.

The micro-causes of events may indeed be potentially infinite in number, but most of those events cancel each other out in the course of time while the macro-causes continue to operate and make their impact felt no matter what.

Does macro-history exist? Are there any "grand theories" that (attempt to) dictate the patterns of our lives? I can think of a few which have 'cropped up', so to speak, in history. Religion, again - with God as the ultimate arbiter of all. (It doesn't matter that it is based on 'superstition'. Marxism is based on its own 'superstition', in that it invented its own legitimation!) Now we've replaced God with the mysteries of economics... Yet Marxists still claim to hold the 'Ultimate Truth'! I tend to think that these "certaintist theories" (a term used in postmodern discourse, I believe) are outdated, and inapplicable to the "fluid world" in which we live.

In what way does post-modernism "damage" the status quo?

By refusing to legitimise their rule. Anything that doesn't support 'the way things are' necessarily causes damage. I mean, if someone decided to become an anti-consumer (that is, avoiding the purchase of anything non-essential), he/she isn't actively damaging capitalism - but passively, he/she's undermining the foundations on which it is built!

Okay... when Marx makes a statement of history pertaining to class struggle, I see no reason to conclude that history will "end," from what he is saying (before or after the D of P).

What I meant was, if Marx suggests that history is the unfolding story of class struggle, when there are no classes (or only one - the victorious proletariat), 'history' in this sense will cease to be. It's a fairly well-established argument, and not my own. I mean, I read it in a book; I merely wished to use it as a springboard, to 'bounce' onto a 'higher plane' of discussion!

That makes Marxism no more eschatological than the ideological justification for the industrial revolution or any real restructuring of society.

But the industrial revolution never claimed to be "eschatological" in nature - nor did the other doctrines to which you refer! The 'progressive' (liberal) school of thought doesn't posit an end to class-struggle, in Marx's terms... So 'history' continues! You can say "it's better than it was" - and that may be true. But you can't really say that this viewpoint is "eschatological"...

The point is that communism is a theoretical final stage of social development and so this does not mean the end of society, history, "destiny" or anything of the sort. Now for the "ultimate" point; communism is again the "ultimate" stage and so a classification of society and not society itself, not some static culture like the Nazi's "Reich".

Call it (i.e. 'Communism') what you will. The fact remains - 'Communism' is classless society. History is class struggle. (The gospel according to Marx...) The two are incompatible! 'Communism' in its pure form is not a classification of society; it is society.

"You're being unnecessarily awkward, comrade '313C7 iVi4RX'. Your name makes more sense than you do."

Maybe so (I could say the same of you) but is this some sort of cheap shot at my name or am I reading into this too much?

Hahaha! Don't fret, comrade! I was tekkin't' piss in a friendly way; nothing more! :D Let us dance, indeed! (Though I prefer the 'slough' of uncertainty to the 'quagmire' of incomprehensibility... :P )

redstar2000

15th June 2005, 15:02

Originally posted by 'Discourse Unlimited'
What I really meant (and I apologise for using the wrong words, etc.) is that there are other categories of analysis. 'Class' is one factor we can isolate when looking at the past - so is 'religion', for instance, or 'gender'.

To be sure...but what do those other categories reveal?

Take the category of religion, for example, since critics of Marxism often use it to attack the base/superstructure model.

People appear to do things from "religious motives"...often things that are very energy-consuming, time-consuming, resource-consuming, etc. -- like fighting crusades, building cathedrals, or hunting down and executing witches and heretics in large numbers.

Are these activities a case of "consciousness determining being"?

Marxist and even non-Marxist historians influenced by Marx have looked for the "economic motives" that might lie beneath the "religious motives"...and found them!

In great profusion.

Religion turns out not to be a simple case of mere human ignorance and superstition; it really is a racket!

Even building a cathedral turned out to be a business proposition. If your cathedral was taller than others nearby, your town gained prestige...with commerce to follow. If you could acquire some "relics" (saints' bones) for your cathedral, then pilgrims would come...and spend money. You might even acquire a bishop, an archbishop or a cardinal...more money flowing into the local economy.

Modern cities build elaborate sports stadiums not because they truly "love sports" but because stadiums attract more money than they cost to build.

Medieval Christians built cathedrals for the same reason.

'Language' is another important issue.

Quite so...but I don't see how one could write a "history of language" without reference to the social context that the language evolved to reflect.

I'm sure you're aware that there were hundreds of words peculiar to feudalism...almost all of which have been utterly forgotten (except by historians of the medieval period). Those words were once necessary and even vital for the precise descriptions of rights and obligations in medieval law and custom.

Once those rights and obligations passed away or were abolished, the words themselves were no longer useful...and "withered away".

I tend to think that these "certaintist theories" (a term used in postmodern discourse, I believe) are outdated, and inapplicable to the "fluid world" in which we live.

Your choice.

Abstinence from certainty as a matter of principle does have one advantage: you are never surprised by anything that happens. You really can't rule out much of anything.

People could spontaneously revive medieval Christianity and serfdom. :o

By refusing to legitimise their rule. Anything that doesn't support 'the way things are' necessarily causes damage.

Well, it's true that post-modernism is not a suitable tool for specifically bolstering the legitimacy of the existing order.

But since it also refuses to bolster the legitimacy of any opposition to that order, what remains is rather "weak" in my opinion.

Almost indistinguishable from irrelevant.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

'Discourse Unlimited'

15th June 2005, 20:58

Marxist and even non-Marxist historians influenced by Marx have looked for the "economic motives" that might lie beneath the "religious motives"...and found them!

In great profusion.

Oh, they most certainly have. But it's a 'miracle', don't you think, that these (economic) motives were only revealed after Marx wrote his masterworks! You see, I think all historians look at the past with their own prejudices and ideas, of "how it was" and "how it ought to be", firmly in their minds. And if you subscribe to an ideology that can definitively state: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles", then you're bound to 'unearth' these struggles in your excavation of the past!

Personally, I do think that religion has sometimes been used as cover for the exploitation of the people. But I think it is foolish to suggest that this is true in every case. The German Reformation, for instance - if you read the Marxist analysis of this momentous 'event', then glance at the relevant sources for a moment, you'll realise what nonsense the 'disciples' of Marx have been spouting. 'The Peasant War in Germany', by Frederick Engels, no less (and available here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/peasant-war-germany/)), is a brilliant example of how a scholar can read backwards into the past and confer upon 'events' an order that never existed!

Quite so...but I don't see how one could write a "history of language" without reference to the social context that the language evolved to reflect.

Again, your emphasis (not surprisingly) is on the "social context". You see language only as a reflection of "social context" - itself inseperable from economics. (If I've misinterpreted you, feel free to shout and yell; then correct me! :P ) But there's a whole school of thought that would argue the reverse. I can't explain it too well, but the key concept is that 'words' do not correspond directly to 'reality' - there are loads of literary theorists out there, waiting to be read! :)

Well, it's true that post-modernism is not a suitable tool for specifically bolstering the legitimacy of the existing order.

But since it also refuses to bolster the legitimacy of any opposition to that order, what remains is rather "weak" in my opinion.

Almost indistinguishable from irrelevant.

Postmodernist thought is, I suppose, "weak" - in that it demolishes all 'certainty'. I think that may be one reason why it has struggled to gain support outside 'academia'... People like certainties; they feel safe, if there are 'absolutes' to fall back on. But to me, that seems awfully [i]reactionary[i]!!

Anyway, it certainly isn't irrelevant. You can easily frame an opposition movement within the (loose) framework of postmodernism - it'll just be one 'discourse' among many, that's all. [I remember you (RedStar) saying, somewhere (maybe it was even in this thread!), that humans would inevitably find other things to argue about after the abolition of classes...] A "fluid world" is all there is - I hope Marxists can escape the confines of a rigid eschatological system and come to realise this! :D

Elect Marx

15th June 2005, 21:18

Originally posted by 'Discourse Unlimited'@Jun 15 2005, 06:43 AM

Okay... when Marx makes a statement of history pertaining to class struggle, I see no reason to conclude that history will "end," from what he is saying (before or after the D of P).

What I meant was, if Marx suggests that history is the unfolding story of class struggle, when there are no classes (or only one - the victorious proletariat), 'history' in this sense will cease to be. It's a fairly well-established argument, and not my own.
Where does he say that and in what context? This IS "in this sense," and as such just seems to be rather arbitrary; like I said, when did Marx ever say anything about history ending? It seems you are using Marx's expression to examine history to define Marxism in a completely unrelated field.

I mean, I read it in a book; I merely wished to use it as a springboard, to 'bounce' onto a 'higher plane' of discussion!

So concede the point and we will "spring" into further discussion or prove your point :P

That makes Marxism no more eschatological than the ideological justification for the industrial revolution or any real restructuring of society.

But the industrial revolution never claimed to be "eschatological" in nature - nor did the other doctrines to which you refer!

Now they have to make claim to this!? (not by definition!) Then just point out where Marx made claim to it.

The 'progressive' (liberal) school of thought doesn't posit an end to class-struggle, in Marx's terms... So 'history' continues! You can say "it's better than it was" - and that may be true. But you can't really say that this viewpoint is "eschatological"...

What? Does an end to class-struggle make Marxist theory eschatological?
You are making too many thought "jumps," you haven't explain how you got here and so this statement is hardly coherent. This just seems out of place...

The point is that communism is a theoretical final stage of social development and so this does not mean the end of society, history, "destiny" or anything of the sort. Now for the "ultimate" point; communism is again the "ultimate" stage and so a classification of society and not society itself, not some static culture like the Nazi's "Reich".

Call it (i.e. 'Communism') what you will. The fact remains - 'Communism' is classless society. History is class struggle. (The gospel according to Marx...) The two are incompatible! 'Communism' in its pure form is not a classification of society; it is society.

This is just absurd and semantic. Yes; a truck is a type of vehicle and though it is a vehicle, it is still a TYPE of vehicle. Like I said; communism is not static... could you address my points?

"You're being unnecessarily awkward, comrade '313C7 iVi4RX'. Your name makes more sense than you do."

Maybe so (I could say the same of you) but is this some sort of cheap shot at my name or am I reading into this too much?

Hahaha! Don't fret, comrade! I was tekkin't' piss in a friendly way; nothing more! :D Let us dance, indeed! (Though I prefer the 'slough' of uncertainty to the 'quagmire' of incomprehensibility... :P )

Good, but you may need dancing lessons :P Revenge! :lol:

'Discourse Unlimited'

16th June 2005, 00:58

Where does he say that and in what context?

Oh, come on! I mentioned that in my very first post!! You must be doing this deliberately... (Read the damn thread!) Because I pity you, I'll reprint my exact words from earlier, a mere seven lines from the top of the first page:

"The Communist Manifesto, page one."

I'm not going to sit here and explain the "context" in which 'The Communist Manifesto' was written. All I will say is that the sentence appears at the very start of Marx's ground-breaking piece - read it, for heavens sake! :)

[1.] What? Does an end to class-struggle make Marxist theory eschatological?
[2.] You are making too many thought "jumps," you haven't explain how you got here and so this statement is hardly coherent.

[3.] This is just absurd and semantic ... could you address my points?

1. YES. Yes, it does.
2. There are very few "thought jumps" involved. You might be a great dancer, but your athletic prowess is sadly lacking!
3. The "argument" is NOT absurd. Engage with it - don't just dismiss it.

Re-read the definition of "eschatological". Make sure to note where I placed the italics. Take a look at Igor Halfin's book. (Remember to breathe.) Now, study Marx's analysis of history - turn to your copy of 'the good book' (T.C.M.) for inspiration. Think about things; think some more, then reconsider.

THEN you can actually join this discussion in a 'productive' fashion! Agh!

redstar2000

16th June 2005, 02:45

Originally posted by 'Discourse Unlimited'
But it's a 'miracle', don't you think, that these (economic) motives were only revealed after Marx wrote his masterworks! You see, I think all historians look at the past with their own prejudices and ideas, of "how it was" and "how it ought to be", firmly in their minds. And if you subscribe to an ideology that can definitively state: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles", then you're bound to 'unearth' these struggles in your excavation of the past!

No "miracle". Whenever we construct a new instrument for examining reality, new discoveries are inevitable.

In some cases, the effects are dramatic. Astronomy, for example, is "instrument-driven" to a very high degree...when new telescopes come on line, new phenomena are routinely discovered.

Prior to Marx, historians looked at the past very superficially. If some guy in the 11th century said he was fighting for "the greater glory of God", they dutifully wrote that down in their books.

It never occurred to them that their subject might have very different motives entirely.

They took everything at "face value"...something that no reputable historian would do now. (Popular histories still frequently suffer from that error.)

To be sure, historians look at the past through the eyes of the present...there's no other way to write history short of a working "time-machine". They attempt to re-construct what really happened on the basis of partial and sometimes misleading evidence.

Like evolutionists, historians must try to "fill in the gaps" in the evidence with the most plausible assumptions that they can make...assumptions invariably shaped by modern views, like Marxism.

It's a tough job! And "absolute certainty" is hard to come by.

But aside from a handful of reactionaries (both religious and secular), I don't think anyone wants to go back to pre-Marxist hagiography.

The German Reformation, for instance - if you read the Marxist analysis of this momentous 'event', then glance at the relevant sources for a moment, you'll realise what nonsense the 'disciples' of Marx have been spouting.

Oh? Well, it's "not my field" so I can't really comment on the "relevant sources".

But do you really imagine that the German princes would have supported Martin Luther in the absence of economic motives?

It seems highly probable to me that Luther would never have amounted to anything more than a minor league heretic (of which there was a very large number in late medieval/early renaissance times)...without the support of the German princes.

Who had excellent reasons of their own to resist the insatiable financial demands of the corrupted papacy.

Luther was a "useful heretic" with a useful heresy...to the lords of Germany.

(He was also a vicious bastard in his own right, by the way. His writings in opposition to the peasant rebellion and his virulent anti-semitism are some of the most revealing documents in the history of Christianity.)

I can't explain it too well, but the key concept is that 'words' do not correspond directly to 'reality' - there are loads of literary theorists out there, waiting to be read!

I think you have to do better than this to arouse my curiosity. There are likely tens of thousands of books that I could read and learn from, with thousands more published every year.

It saddens me enormously that I will never live long enough to read even a tiny fraction of what I wish I could. :(

But those are the breaks. To really master an appreciable portion of human knowledge now, we would require life-spans measured in millennia...and that still seems a while off.

People like certainties; they feel safe, if there are 'absolutes' to fall back on.

True...but I see nothing "reactionary" in principle about that if the certainties are valid ones.

Consider an animal's life...it is almost totally governed by chance. It lives or dies depending almost entirely on circumstance.

When modern humans evolved, we started trying to reduce the impact of chance on our lives. For a very long time, our "certainties" were, in fact, just chance under a different name.

But when we finally learned how to do real science, the realm of chance began retreating. We could start to say with real confidence that "this is true"...because it was true.

Now, our science is still quite primitive; what we don't know far exceeds what we do know. Chance is still "in control" of our lives to a degree that would be really alarming if we thought about it seriously.

So mostly we don't think about it seriously...except when the opportunity arises to reduce the element of chance a little more. We seize such opportunities with alacrity...even though many of them are still not real opportunities at all (astrology, fortune tellers, "good luck" charms, etc.).

But there are real opportunities to reduce the impact of chance and, if we are sensible, we take advantage of them...or as many of them as we can.

Some reactionaries are very upset with our general "risk-averse" outlook. It leads to, among other things, contempt for the "martial virtues".

Communism, of course, would be an enormous blow to the "laws of chance" -- a society in which no one would ever worry about economic survival is so difficult for us to imagine now that people mostly reject it as "utopian".

We've never had anything like that before; it "boggles the mind".

But when you stop and think about it, it's hard to avoid concluding that communism or something very much like it is inevitable...an obvious next step towards reducing the role of chance ("the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune") in our lives.

A minority of humans do express a marked preference for betting the "long odds"...most of us happily settle for the sure bet!

You can easily frame an opposition movement within the (loose) framework of postmodernism - it'll just be one 'discourse' among many, that's all...A "fluid world" is all there is - I hope Marxists can escape the confines of a rigid eschatological system and come to realise this!

Far be it from me to underestimate the verbal ingenuity of the post-modern academic -- no doubt they could come up with "something".

But few would be able to read it and even fewer would be able to understand it.

I don't imagine that any Marxists will even be interested.

Sorry.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

'Discourse Unlimited'

16th June 2005, 15:08

No "miracle". Whenever we construct a new instrument for examining reality, new discoveries are inevitable.
---
[Historians] attempt to re-construct what really happened on the basis of partial and sometimes misleading evidence.

(Incidentally, attempting to reconstruct history according to 'what really happened' - "Wie es eigentlich gewesen ist" - was the mantra adopted by the German historian Leopold von Ranke. Revolutionary in his time (the early-mid nineteenth century), to be sure, but now considered 'reactionary' by all in the profession...)

I fully realise that the development of Marxist analysis opened up new ways of looking at the past - and hence, the possibilty (or rather, inevitablity) of new 'discoveries'. My point was simply that Marx's methods, applicable though they are in many cases, have been overused; also, that there is a tendency to assume that everything can and will be explained in these terms - so 'research' is neglected, and Marxist interpretation applied regardless of the "evidence"!

"Filling in the gaps" becomes a matter of asking: 'What would Marx do?' This is damaging and counterproductive - and happens all too frequently!

[1.] Oh? Well, it's "not my field"...

[2.] But do you really imagine that the German princes would have supported Martin Luther in the absence of economic motives?

1. Evidently! ;)
2. The "German Princes", as you say, supported Luther... Except for the ones that didn't. Which, as it turns out, was most of them! City rulers supported Luther - and then, city rulers remained loyal to Catholicism. Over the centuries, hundreds of thousands of men and women have acted contrary to their material / economic interests to die for a cause which they believed was just. (I'm still talking about the Reformation and its effects...) This is why, in my view, Marxist historians should stop trying to dictate to people what their interests were!

Luther himself was a fascinating character! His opposition to the peasant rebellion (I'm guessing that you've read "Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants" - Luther's rant against the revolt. But what about his earlier "Admonition to Peace"?) is wholly understandable, in the context of the times...

It saddens me enormously that I will never live long enough to read even a tiny fraction of what I wish I could. :(

A thoroughly admirable sentiment. :)
I find it surprising, then, that you're willing to dismiss the entire postmodernist school of thought without so much as a token effort to "know" it! :P

True...but I see nothing "reactionary" in principle about that if the certainties are valid ones.

As far as I'm aware, 'religion' has not yet been disproved... (Nor has Marxism - and neither have been verified!) And it remains "valid" for many millions of 'souls'. Besides, who defines "valid"? We're back into the "self-referential loop" again; Marxism is valid for Marxists, just as Buddhism is valid for Buddhists!

I think you're right to say that humans try "to reduce the impact of chance on [their] lives". Though I remain unconvinced that this is a 'good thing'! Throughout history, marvelous innovation has occasionaly been the result of some sort of a struggle. If there isn't enough food to eat, you can starve, or think of a way out of the problem - perhaps increasing yields somehow, or experimenting with alternative sources of nourishment. A primitive example, I know. But eliminate the problem altogether, and you eliminate the possibility of positive change.

'Certainties' or 'absolutes' of any kind tend to restrain the potential of a society (or an ideology) to develop - in my view.

(The "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" are themselves a literary construct! Metaphors upon metaphors, and such like... What was Shakespeare's relation to the means of production, anyway?)

Oh, and when I referred to "opposition movements" - it CAN be done! You can even reconcile Marxism (well - the social justice and economic oppression dialogues; just lose the determinism and all that jazz!) with postmodernism, in a sense. In fact, the 'core' of postmodernist academics "started out" as Marxists. There is every possibility of winning 'converts'! :P

redstar2000

16th June 2005, 16:22

Originally posted by 'Discourse Unlimited'
My point was simply that Marx's methods, applicable though they are in many cases, have been overused; also, that there is a tendency to assume that everything can and will be explained in these terms - so 'research' is neglected, and Marxist interpretation applied regardless of the "evidence"!

I'm not sure how to respond to that. If a "Marxist" writes "bad history", then criticize it just like you'd criticize a bad bourgeois historian.

If "research is neglected" in some field, then you must either do that research yourself or ask that others do it for you.

Theoretical Marxists are no different from other scientists -- if a certain area of study, in their opinion, lacks "interesting problems", then they'll just ignore it.

"Filling in the gaps" becomes a matter of asking: 'What would Marx do?' This is damaging and counterproductive - and happens all too frequently!

I disagree. In the absence of direct evidence, asking oneself how Marx would "fill that gap" is a potentially very fruitful question...perhaps suggesting indirect evidence that might be searched for.

It's always legitimate, of course, just to say "I don't know" and leave the problem for future research.

Over the centuries, hundreds of thousands of men and women have acted contrary to their material / economic interests to die for a cause which they believed was just. (I'm still talking about the Reformation and its effects...)

This is part of a much larger question in Marxist historiography.

What is the relationship between perceived material interest and actual material interest?

Why do people "get it right" very quickly in some circumstances and take a century or even several centuries to grasp their real material interests in other circumstances?

I don't know!

The only conclusion that I can draw from the available evidence is that "sooner or later", they do "get it right".

Material reality prevails...but often takes a ridiculous amount of time to do so.

I find it surprising, then, that you're willing to dismiss the entire postmodernist school of thought without so much as a token effort to "know" it!

I have made a "token effort"...and that seemed sufficient.

As far as I'm aware, 'religion' has not yet been disproved...

I'm disappointed in you. :(

After more than three centuries of organized investigation of the real world (science) yielding nary a trace of reliable evidence for the "existence" of the "supernatural" (much less one that is "inhabited"), I cannot imagine anything that has been more clearly and definitively disproved.

The only people who still dispute this are believers (who reject science as a matter of principle) and the few remaining agnostics (who insist on infinite negative evidence against all possible religions).

There's no such thing as the "supernatural" -- the question is settled from the standpoint of rational thinking.

It is sad to note that some 85% of the world's population is not yet rational on this subject...but progress is being made.

I've even seen it happen on this board. :)

Besides, who defines "valid"? We're back into the "self-referential loop" again; Marxism is valid for Marxists, just as Buddhism is valid for Buddhists!

Which paradigm is most useful in explaining social reality?

Marxism "works" -- Buddhism is just mindless babble completely lacking in any objective evidence for its validity.

But eliminate the problem altogether, and you eliminate the possibility of positive change.

If it were possible to eliminate all misfortunes due to chance, then there would be no perceived "need" for further "positive changes".

I think we're quite a distance away from that. :lol:

What was Shakespeare's relation to the means of production, anyway?

He was in the entertainment business...a proto-bourgeois, as it were. Today, he'd no doubt be writing and producing "blockbuster" movies.

Like Star Wars.

In fact, the 'core' of postmodernist academics "started out" as Marxists.

They've come a long way, baby.

I think it unlikely they'll ever find their way back.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

'Discourse Unlimited'

16th June 2005, 21:41

"Once more unto the breach..." As they say. :P

[1.] ... If a "Marxist" writes "bad history", then criticize it just like you'd criticize a bad bourgeois historian.

[2.] If "research is neglected" in some field, then you must either do that research yourself or ask that others do it for you.

[3.] ... In the absence of direct evidence, asking oneself how Marx would "fill that gap" is a potentially very fruitful question...perhaps suggesting indirect evidence that might be searched for.

[4.] It's always legitimate, of course, just to say "I don't know" and leave the problem for future research.

1. The trouble with this, is that said Marxist historian can fall back on the idea that his thesis is based on LAWS... Then you just end up debating whether the historian in question has mistakenly applied those laws - when, in actual fact, it is the laws themselves that are 'at fault'!

2 / 3. The point I was making here is that Marxists tend to "fill in the gaps" by assuming that economic factors determined particular 'events'. The study of causation becomes a matter of routine; evidence is not needed - or is sometimes ignored - since "we're bound to reach the same conclusion anyhow"! This is why I think Marxism has certain underlying faults which are also associated with religion - though the specifics are totally different, of course. When Marxist analysis is called into question, the 'easy option' is to say: "It's LAW! It's SCIENCE! Quiet, fool!" (Just as Bible-bashers utter the magic: "God's will!")

4. Marxists don't do this. "If we falter..." (We are lost!)

This is part of a much larger question in Marxist historiography.

What is the relationship between perceived material interest and actual material interest?

You could, of course, just accept the existence of a 'spiritual interest'... It'd solve a lot of problems, and (satisfactorily) answer many questions! But it might rival economic determinism, and we can't have that, can we? :P

I'm disappointed in you. :(

After more than three centuries of organized investigation of the real world (science) yielding nary a trace of reliable evidence for the "existence" of the "supernatural" (much less one that is "inhabited"), I cannot imagine anything that has been more clearly and definitively disproved.

Hahaha! I've been 'lowered a peg', eh? Well, I'm sure I was fairly near the floor in the first place! :D

(Naturally, you totally ignored the suggestion that Marxist 'science' has yet to be 'proved'...) I totally and utterly agree that there is no reliable evidence for the existence of God(s). After all, proof negates faith. Then again, postmodernists deny ALL truth - and with good reason! Nothing has ever been proved - and nothing ever will be (though that doesn't stop people from claiming to have found "the ultimate answer" to the "ultimate questions").

Newtonian mechanics proved that certain immutable laws govern the way physical bodies interact... Resultant Force = Mass x acceleration; F = Ma. You know the others!

Then along comes Einstein and changes everything: "You've got it all wrong chaps - try E = M.c^2 instead!" Repeat with 'new' theories, each one purporting to be 'the right way' ad infinitum...

Theories (by your book) CAN be [i]disproved[i], however. If I invent the equation a+a = 3a, we can certainly observe that this is 'incorrect' - do you think this can be applied to 'religion'? Or Marxism, for that matter!

Which paradigm is most useful in explaining social reality?

Marxism "works" -- Buddhism is just mindless babble completely lacking in any objective evidence for its validity.

I'm disappointed in you! :D

Marxism is oh-so-useful at explaining the history of class struggle... 'Religion' is excellent at fulfilling spiritual functions. And Spaghetti Bolognese is the best solution (of the three) when faced with the 'reality' of hunger! You're spinning in circles yourself, RedStar. "Buddhism" may lack any 'objective evidence' - when evidence is defined on your terms. Just as "Marxism" cannot be empirically verified or studied outside the loop of its own (too rigid) terminology and methods!

If it were possible to eliminate all misfortunes due to chance, then there would be no perceived "need" for further "positive changes".

I think we're quite a distance away from that. :lol:

So, to conclude, 'static reality' is... inevitable?

redstar2000

17th June 2005, 01:28

Originally posted by 'Discourse Unlimited'
The trouble with this, is that said Marxist historian can fall back on the idea that his thesis is based on LAWS.

Not if his "evidence" is wrong or inadequate. Granted that I have a high opinion of Marxist scholarship in general, that doesn't mean that I or any Marxist just swallows uncritically anything written by anyone who invokes "the holy name".

That would be..."unMarxist".

The point I was making here is that Marxists tend to "fill in the gaps" by assuming that economic factors determined particular 'events'. The study of causation becomes a matter of routine; evidence is not needed - or is sometimes ignored - since "we're bound to reach the same conclusion anyhow"!

Let's assume for the sake of argument that your indictment is justified. What then?

Should Marxism be abandoned? Or should shoddy Marxist "scholarship" be abandoned?

There is something of a similar controversy in cosmological circles these days...and the growling is becoming noticeable. Persistent efforts to discover empirical evidence for string theory have come up empty -- yet string theory is taught in many university physics departments as "truth" and that physical evidence is "only a matter of time and ingenuity". Now some physicists are starting to complain (loudly!) about the string theory paradigm biasing a whole generation of cosmologists...closing off innovation and imagination.

String theory is an elegant mathematical truth...but may not correspond to physical reality at all.

String theorists may be brilliant mathematicians...and bad physicists.

Some (perhaps many) Marxists may have a sound grasp of Marxist theory...and yet be poor historians.

Marxists don't do this. "If we falter..." (We are lost!)

Well, I do! With some frequency.

I don't feel "lost". I just wish I were equipped with the time, energy, and imagination to learn more.

You could, of course, just accept the existence of a 'spiritual interest'.

I do accept it...but I want to know where it comes from?

Are humans born with "a spiritual interest"? Obviously not. It's something that many humans acquire in the course of growing up. Why is that?

In whose material interests is it that "spiritual interests" exist and are perpetuated? Because we know there's really no such thing, why are people persuaded that there is?

Just to say that so-and-so sacrificed his life "for the greater glory of god" doesn't really explain anything. It's based on the assumption that human motivations "fall out of the sky" more or less randomly.

That doesn't make any sense.

This would not disturb the tranquility of a post-modernist, of course. To him, nothing makes any sense.

Nothing has ever been proved - and nothing ever will be (though that doesn't stop people from claiming to have found "the ultimate answer" to the "ultimate questions").

And tomorrow morning, the sun will rise in the west. :lol:

I confess frankly that I fail to see the appeal of this doctrine -- the certainty that "nothing is certain".

I suspect, in fact, post-modernism is just agnosticism carried out to its ultimate absurdity.

Agnostics act like atheists although they claim verbally that "no one knows" whether or not there are gods.

Post-modernists behave as if there are quite a large number of certainties...even though they verbally profess that such things don't and can't really exist.

Agnosticism and post-modernism are not meant to be taken seriously...they are an intellectual's amusements, a game of words never meant to be applied in practice.

Nothing wrong with that...unless someone makes the big mistake of taking them seriously and trying to act as if they were really "true" after all.

A clever theist can rather easily paint a consistent agnostic into a very tight corner...where the agnostic is compelled by the logic of his principled uncertainty to tolerate any practice in the name of religion, no matter how horrendous.

The post-modernist is in the same boat as the agnostic -- one of the early fathers of de-constructionism started out writing anti-semitic articles in Nazi-occupied Belgium.

After all, he must have "reasoned", Nazism is "valid for Nazis" and I need a paycheck, so...why not?

Newtonian mechanics proved that certain immutable laws govern the way physical bodies interact... Resultant Force = Mass x acceleration; F = Ma. You know the others!

Then along comes Einstein and changes everything: "You've got it all wrong chaps - try E = M.c^2 instead!" Repeat with 'new' theories, each one purporting to be 'the right way' ad infinitum...

Well, not exactly. You see, if you apply Einstein's new theory to masses and forces operating far below the speed of light, you end up with results just about identical to Newton's.

You could say that "Newton's laws", while not really laws after all, are a special case of Einstein's laws.

Einstein's whole conception of space-time is very different from Newton's...it is in better correspondence with objective reality that Newton's conception. It explains everything that Newton explained and much more besides.

This places a very heavy burden on the "next new theory"...it must explain everything that Newton explained and everything that Einstein explained and still more than that!

Otherwise, no one would be interested.

'Religion' is excellent at fulfilling spiritual functions.

What's a "spiritual function"? Where does it come from? How would we distinguish a "spiritual function" from a "non-spiritual" function? What is "fulfillment" in this context?

I am hungry, I eat, I become satisfied. I am poor and powerless, I rebel, I become prosperous and autonomous.

Any one who watches me can see this for themselves, can easily identify with the process and understand its outcome.

But what in the world is a "spiritual need"? How would the observer identify it or its fulfillment? How would you tell the difference between a person whose "spiritual needs" had really been "fulfilled" and someone who was just faking it to gull you out of your money?

So, to conclude, 'static reality' is... inevitable?

If we were able to completely negate the element of chance in human life, then we might choose to be "static".

On the other hand, stasis might become boring...and we might well choose to deliberately randomize some parts of our lives for our own amusement.

Just as we do now...whenever we can make sure that none of the random results will be harmful to us.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Monty Cantsin

17th June 2005, 07:03

the conversation as I see it is a conversation about the enlightenment and philosophy in that tradition(Marxism) and philosophy that wishes to replace or turn back the enlightenment(post-structuralism). The enlightenment philosophy believes in development and the evolutionary nature of things and the ability of people to change themselves and their institutions for the better. The counter enlightenment talks of the fluidity of the totality but has a static functionalist sociology and rejects any talk of development and progression. Also with their scepticism of development of progression their philosophy doesn’t really add anything new it’s a revamp of a hogpog of different philosophies (Structuralism, Existentialism, situationism and so forth). The postmodernist have given certain concepts for explaining different factors such as the notion of meta-narratives but that amounts to the Marxist notions of false consciousness and ideological hegemony.

Now if we look at historiography now it’s all pretty much “Marxian” without being Marxist. There are the revisionist historians such as Alfred Cobban who write on the history of France but they don’t offer any new explanation of history but try and discount the French revolution as a capitalist revolution, basing this on the fact that the capitalist class didn’t make up the majority of the national assembly, now for me that pretty weak reasoning.

'Discourse Unlimited'

17th June 2005, 16:57

Should Marxism be abandoned? Or should shoddy Marxist "scholarship" be abandoned?

No, not at all - only the notion that Marxism can and will be able to explain every human interaction in terms of material interests. It just doesn't work like that! The 'Neoclassical' school of economics runs into similar problems; a key assumption is that all men and women act rationally, all the time, to maximise their individual gain... 'Neoclassical' economic history has fallen on it's face, several times, by relying on these 'truths'!

I do accept it ['spiritual interest']... but I want to know where it comes from?

That was predicatable. ;) However, I would argue that a distinct 'spiritual interest' exists independently of any sort of 'economic interest'. Of course, once you accept this, there's nothing to stop the two 'interests' engaging with each other - I am well aware of the 'traditional' Marxist stance (the priesthood and clergy oppress the laity etc.), and it is very valid in many cases.

I confess frankly that I fail to see the appeal of this doctrine -- the certainty that "nothing is certain".

Damn, we're judging doctrines on their personal appeal now? Well, that does it. I am now an avid supporter of the 'doctrine of me' - "I am the Alpha and the Omega", I am the locus, the nexus of the entire universe! 'Reality' exists because I make it so!! Such an ego-centric view would most likely "appeal" to many people, if they could believe it. (Having said that, it remains nightmarish to myself!)

Why does Marxism 'appeal' to you, RedStar?

Well, not exactly. You see, if you apply Einstein's new theory to masses and forces operating far below the speed of light, you end up with results just about identical to Newton's.

This, I know. Newton's equations are useful in everyday situations. But 'up the ante', as it were, and you're stuck! Even Einstein's theories only achieve close approximations to what we may call 'reality'.

I could be pedantic, and ask you to define "law" - then see if any of these concepts even come close. But there's not much point!

But what in the world is a "spiritual need"? How would the observer identify it or its fulfillment? How would you tell the difference between a person whose "spiritual needs" had really been "fulfilled" and someone who was just faking it to gull you out of your money?

How do you identify the fulfillment of 'political' or 'economic' needs? When your founding fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, do you think they believed in "freedom"? Of course - freedom on their terms!!

If I were a Christian, Muslim, fish, or whatever, I would identify the fulfillment of my "spiritual needs" in accordance with the tenets of my chosen religion. I think that there is a genuine moment of ecstasy, when you contemplate the 'spiritual liberation' your faith has brought you - compare that with the freedom afforded by the victory of the proletariat, and I think many will express a preference for the former!! How can you tell someone, in these circumstances, that they are "unfulfilled", "unfree", or even "enslaved"?

The counter enlightenment talks of the fluidity of the totality but has a static functionalist sociology and rejects any talk of development and progression.

That's not the impression I have received. I'll admit, you're probably more 'widely read' in this subject that I am - however, I always thought that 'society' (the "totality") was comprised of people; and so if 'society' is to be regarded as "fluid", then its constituent parts must also display "fluidity"... Plus, there's the whole argument that the human mind itself is engaged in a struggle between the desire for 'continuity' and 'change'.

Now if we look at historiography now it’s all pretty much “Marxian” without being Marxist.

I couldn't disagree more! The 'Marxist school', and 'Marx's methods' are under fire from all sides - and in trying to 'defend the faith', Marxist historians are either taking a stand and emphasising the brilliance of the 'traditional ways' (then getting demolished within academia); or they are making more and more concessions to rivals - 'surviving', just about, but with a Marxism so 'watered down' as to be virtually unrecognisable!

Marx's honour guard will spill their blood in the defence of their fallen idol, until they are no more; whereupon, the postmodernists will cry "huzzah" and go off to debate the non-existence of the universe over a sticky bun and some tea. :P :D

redstar2000

17th June 2005, 17:59

Originally posted by 'Discourse Unlimited'
No, not at all - only the notion that Marxism can and will be able to explain every human interaction in terms of material interests. It just doesn't work like that!

No, I don't think any Marxist would make such a claim. What we seek to do is explain "the big stuff"...the trivia may or may not be explainable in Marxist terms -- I don't really care much one way or the other.

However, I would argue that a distinct 'spiritual interest' exists independently of any sort of 'economic interest'.

On what grounds? That "spiritual people" claim it is so?

Since I have no evidence that their claims are anything more than self-interested "marketing", why should I take them seriously?

Damn, we're judging doctrines on their personal appeal now?

Actually, what I said is that I fail to grasp the appeal of "certainty about uncertainty" -- that is, the reasons that one might find such a doctrine to be an attractive or compelling "description" of the real world.

You clearly do find post-modernism attractive...but you have failed to effectively convey what the "appeal" might be.

Ok, "everything is uncertain"...now what?

Why does Marxism 'appeal' to you, RedStar?

Because it provides effective tools for understanding the world and changing it. I wish those tools were even more effective than they've proven thus far...but everybody else's "tool kit" is empty.

If I were a Christian, Muslim, fish, or whatever, I would identify the fulfillment of my "spiritual needs" in accordance with the tenets of my chosen religion. I think that there is a genuine moment of ecstasy, when you contemplate the 'spiritual liberation' your faith has brought you...

Maybe there is, maybe there isn't.

How would you tell?

Objectively, I mean.

...compare that with the freedom afforded by the victory of the proletariat, and I think many will express a preference for the former!!

No doubt...but scientific truth is not decided by plebiscite or, for that matter, by an "ecstasy-meter".

The 'Marxist school', and 'Marx's methods' are under fire from all sides - and in trying to 'defend the faith', Marxist historians are either taking a stand and emphasising the brilliance of the 'traditional ways' (then getting demolished within academia); or they are making more and more concessions to rivals - 'surviving', just about, but with a Marxism so 'watered down' as to be virtually unrecognisable!

This sounds like a neo-conservative's wet-dream. I rather doubt if it's true...but hell, in academia, who knows?

The competition for tenured positions is so frenzied that people will probably say anything these days to get their ticket punched.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

'Discourse Unlimited'

17th June 2005, 21:42

No, I don't think any Marxist would make such a claim. What we seek to do is explain "the big stuff"...the trivia may or may not be explainable in Marxist terms -- I don't really care much one way or the other.

"The big stuff" - economics (specifically, Marxist economics), right? Of course, that's what a Marxist would say! Please, can you at least acknowledge my point here? All I'm saying is that what you regard as "trivia" may in fact form the foundations of another persons existence...

The orthadox Marxist position is that material conditions - economics (the relation to the means of production...) - dictates 'reality', right? So naturally, Marxists will either try to force any 'other considerations' to conform to their model (suggesting that they are, in fact, disguised economic factors), or deny their existence. The same is true of other 'dogmatic' ideologies.

Since I have no evidence that their claims are anything more than self-interested "marketing", why should I take them seriously?

Oh, and Marxists don't have any self-interest involved here? Of course they do! Plus, as I've said, there is no evidence either way - proving or disproving Marxism!

You clearly do find post-modernism attractive...but you have failed to effectively convey what the "appeal" might be.

Ok, "everything is uncertain"...now what?

As I say, I used to be a fairly 'certain' Marxist. I don't think I'm necessarily a 'postmodernist' (though the term itself is weak, as somebody pointed out earlier), even if I do subscribe to certain of their key ideas... The shift towards 'other' schools of thought was partly a reaction against 'dogmatic' Marxism - from what I've studied, economic determinism just doesn't work, in so many cases. Cultural history, the history of gender, the influence of the "spiritual" - these are valid, too, and cannot (adequately) be explained as a function of economics.

I also love what postmodernists have done with 'language'. Words, and the ways in which they are used (and abused), are of great interest to me - again, the Marxian analysis is unsatisfactory.

Postmodernism (at least, on my terms) offers a view of the world in which there are infinite (or, 'unlimited...' :) ) discourses competing with each other for recognition; nothing is "set in stone", to employ a popular cliche - and from what I've seen 'in history', this appears to be correct. It is 'true' that "everything is uncertain"! How's that for a paradox? :)

If I'm honest (and I am; how about that?), I also have a deep distrust of all authority - which inevitably applies to 'certainties' (it feels like I'm being told how to think, if you know what I mean!). I suppose I don't like the idea of a rigid world, that can only be changed according to the vision of a chap who lived 150 years ago! If I could escape time, and look around; I'd see mountains crumbling into dust, forests advancing and retreating over the land like the ebb and flow of the tides (a touch of the old 'romanticism'), and human civilisation itself - eventually - imploding. The only constant is change!

Pretty reactionary, huh? :D (After all, you seem to use that word to describe ANYone who doesn't share your scientifio-rationalo-Marxian(o) worldview!)

... scientific truth is not decided by plebiscite or, for that matter, by an "ecstasy-meter".

And I suppose that in these 'knowledge factories', where people will after all "say anything to get their tickets punched", scientific truth is never 'influenced' by a little bribe here, or a personal vendetta there, is it? :P

'Scientific truth' can be manufactured, like anything else.

redstar2000

18th June 2005, 02:09

Originally posted by 'Discourse Unlimited'
All I'm saying is that what you regard as "trivia" may in fact form the foundations of another person's existence...

I don't dispute that point; I just think it is, indeed, trivial.

Marxism is a science of "large numbers" of people over "large periods of time". It's not normally applied to isolated individuals and, when it is, the results are "mixed"...to put it charitably.

In political life, some Marxists will attempt to explain an individual's political outlook directly from their class position and experience. Sometimes that works; sometimes it doesn't.

Some poor nutball wandering through the streets babbling to himself about how he's "Jesus" returned and no one will listen...is not amenable to a Marxist analysis.

The orthodox Marxist position is that material conditions - economics (the relation to the means of production...) - dictates 'reality', right? So naturally, Marxists will either try to force any 'other considerations' to conform to their model (suggesting that they are, in fact, disguised economic factors), or deny their existence.

Well...the "good Marxist" is not supposed to just "suggest" that "other considerations" reflect "disguised economic factors", s/he's supposed to demonstrate that.

You are free to find the "demonstration" unconvincing, of course; bourgeois critics of Marxism raise the charge of "forcing" the evidence to fit the theory with some frequency.

I remain unconvinced of the validity of their criticisms (usually) because I distrust the source. They have not only been known to ignore the evidence in serious controversies but even to fake it.

Oh, and Marxists don't have any self-interest involved here?

Of course we do! I never denied that. It's in our direct interests to discredit superstition whenever we can.

But plenty of people who are not Marxists have investigated "spiritualist" claims...and exposed an almost infinite series of charlatans while never finding a case of "the real thing".

Rational people "uncontaminated" with "Marxist dogma" have come to the same conclusion we have...it's all fake!

As I say, I used to be a fairly 'certain' Marxist. I don't think I'm necessarily a 'postmodernist' (though the term itself is weak, as somebody pointed out earlier), even if I do subscribe to certain of their key ideas... The shift towards 'other' schools of thought was partly a reaction against 'dogmatic' Marxism - from what I've studied, economic determinism just doesn't work, in so many cases. Cultural history, the history of gender, the influence of the "spiritual" - these are valid, too, and cannot (adequately) be explained as a function of economics.

Well, those are value judgments, it seems to me. If you find a Marxist explanation of a given phenomenon "inadequate"...then you find it inadequate and go searching for "better" explanations.

Good hunting!

And be sure to show us a trophy or two if you succeed to your own satisfaction.

Postmodernism (at least, on my terms) offers a view of the world in which there are infinite (or, 'unlimited'...) discourses competing with each other for recognition; nothing is "set in stone", to employ a popular cliche - and from what I've seen 'in history', this appears to be correct.

De gustabus non disputandum est.

To me, this babble of competing discourses -- with no way to ever resolve, not even in principle, which one or which ones might be correct -- is no improvement on the furious barking of dogs.

It forces the historian back to the level of the 14th or 15th century "collector of curiosities".

But if that's what you want...

If I'm honest (and I am; how about that?), I also have a deep distrust of all authority - which inevitably applies to 'certainties' (it feels like I'm being told how to think, if you know what I mean!).

What I deeply resent about authority is not its attempts to tell me "how to think" so much as it is the attempts to pass off lies under the guise of "truth".

And, moreover, lies that turn out to conceal material self-interest.

I value Marx a great deal because not only did he expose a large number of such self-interested lies but he also taught me how to spot them "on my own".

A truly priceless gift.

The only constant is change!

Something you and Marx agree on.

After all, you seem to use that word [reactionary] to describe ANYone who doesn't share your scientifio-rationalo-Marxian(o) worldview!

I do use that word a lot -- it seems most appropriate in a wide variety of circumstances these days.

I think we do live in a period of reaction -- the American Empire triumphant and the world submerged beneath an ocean of superstition and folly.

This is all-too-frequently reflected in many of the posts on this board.

I think things will improve...but this is going to be a long arduous century.

And I suppose that in these 'knowledge factories', where people will after all "say anything to get their tickets punched", scientific truth is never 'influenced' by a little bribe here, or a personal vendetta there, is it?

It certainly is! We have to be especially skeptical of that guy in a white lab coat with horn-rim glasses carrying a clipboard...what he says may well be true but even he will lie if the price is right.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Monty Cantsin

18th June 2005, 04:37

Letter from Marx to Editor of the Otyecestvenniye Zapisky
[Notes on the Fatherland]

The author of the article Karl Marx Before the Tribunal of M. Shukovsky is evidently a clever man and if, in my account of primitive accumulation, he had found a single passage to support his conclusions he would have quoted it. In the absence of any such passage he finds himself obliged to seize upon an hors d'oeuvre, a sort of polemic against a Russian “literary man,” published in the postscript of the first German edition of Capital. What is my complaint against this writer there? That he discovered the Russian commune not in Russia but in the book written by Haxthausen, Prussian Counsellor of State, and that in his hands the Russian commune only serves as an argument to prove that rotten old Europe will be regenerated by the victory of pan-Slavism. My estimate of this writer may be right or it may be wrong, but it cannot in any case furnish a clue to my views regarding the efforts “of Russians to find a path of development for their country which will be different from that which Western Europe pursued and still pursues,” etc.

In the postcript to the second German edition of Capital – which the author of the article on M. Shukovsky knows, because he quotes it – I speak of “a great Russian critic and man of learning” with the high consideration he deserves. In his remarkable articles this writer has dealt with the question whether, as her liberal economists maintain, Russia must begin by destroying la commune rurale (the village commune) in order to pass to the capitalist regime, or whether, on the contrary, she can without experiencing the tortures of this regime appropriate all its fruits by developing ses propres donnees historiques [the particular historic conditions already given her]. He pronounces in favour of this latter solution. And my honourable critic would have had at least as much reason for inferring from my consideration for this “great Russian critic and man of learning” that I shared his views on the question, as for concluding from my polemic against the “literary man” and Pan-Slavist that I rejected them.

To conclude, as I am not fond of leaving “something to be guessed,” I will come straight to the point. In order that I might be qualified to estimate the economic development in Russia to-day, I learnt Russian and then for many years studied the official publications and others bearing on this subject. I have arrived at this conclusion: If Russia, continues to pursue the path she has followed since 1861, she will lose the finest chance ever offered by history to a nation, in order to undergo all the fatal vicissitudes of the capitalist regime.

II

The chapter on primitive accumulation does not pretend to do more than trace the path by which, in Western Europe, the capitalist order of economy emerged from the womb of the feudal order of economy. It therefore describes the historic movement which by divorcing the producers from their means of production converts them into wage earners (proletarians in the modern sense of the word) while it converts into capitalists those who hold the means of production in possession. In that history, “all revolutions are epoch-making which serve as levers for the advancement of the capitalist class in course of formation; above all those which, after stripping great masses of men of their traditional means of production and subsistence, suddenly fling them on to the labour market. But the basis of this whole development is the expropriation of the cultivators.

“This has not yet been radically accomplished except in England....but all the countries of Western Europe are going through the same movement,” etc. (Capital, French Edition, 1879, p. 315). At the end of the chapter the historic tendency of production is summed up thus: That it itself begets its own negation with the inexorability which governs the metamorphoses of nature; that it has itself created the elements of a new economic order, by giving the greatest impulse at once to the productive forces of social labour and to the integral development of every individual producer; that capitalist property, resting as it actually does already on a form of collective production, cannot do other than transform itself into social property. At this point I have not furnished any proof, for the good reason that this statement is itself nothing else than the short summary of long developments previously given in the chapters on capitalist production.

Now what application to Russia can my critic make of this historical sketch? Only this: If Russia is tending to become a capitalist nation after the example of the Western European countries, and during the last years she has been taking a lot of trouble in this direction – she will not succeed without having first transformed a good part of her peasants into proletarians; and after that, once taken to the bosom of the capitalist regime, she will experience its pitiless laws like other profane peoples. That is all. But that is not enough for my critic. He feels himself obliged to metamorphose my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into an historico-philosophic theory of the marche generale [general path] imposed by fate upon every people, whatever the historic circumstances in which it finds itself, in order that it may ultimately arrive at the form of economy which will ensure, together with the greatest expansion of the productive powers of social labour, the most complete development of man. But I beg his pardon. (He is both honouring and shaming me too much.) Let us take an example.

In several parts of Capital I allude to the fate which overtook the plebeians of ancient Rome. They were originally free peasants, each cultivating his own piece of land on his own account. In the course of Roman history they were expropriated. The same movement which divorced them from their means of production and subsistence involved the formation not only of big landed property but also of big money capital. And so one fine morning there were to be found on the one hand free men, stripped of everything except their labour power, and on the other, in order to exploit this labour, those who held all the acquired wealth in possession. What happened? The Roman proletarians became, not wage labourers but a mob of do-nothings more abject than the former “poor whites” in the southern country of the United States, and alongside of them there developed a mode of production which was not capitalist but dependent upon slavery. Thus events strikingly analogous but taking place in different historic surroundings led to totally different results. By studying each of these forms of evolution separately and then comparing them one can easily find the clue to this phenomenon, but one will never arrive there by the universal passport of a general historico-philosophical theory, the supreme virtue of which consists in being super-historical.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...7/11/russia.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/11/russia.htm)

that's the letter i posted the link to before...for some reason the link somtimes doesnt work, maybe it's the particular server i'm linking from. anyways i think you'll find that interesting.

Monty Cantsin

18th June 2005, 04:53

That's not the impression I have received. I'll admit, you're probably more 'widely read' in this subject that I am - however, I always thought that 'society' (the "totality") was comprised of people; and so if 'society' is to be regarded as "fluid", then its constituent parts must also display "fluidity"... Plus, there's the whole argument that the human mind itself is engaged in a struggle between the desire for 'continuity' and 'change'.

I was thinking primarily of the philosopher Foucault when I made the claim of the static functionalist sociology which is true but it’s a simplification. Foucault explained (and I agree) that to examine society (it Marx’s terms the totality sum of human interaction and relaction.) we had to start at the micro level with the individual and the power relations and so forth this relations he thought are fluid and ever changing. But he thought on the macro level no change was possible because he thought that all changes on a micro level cancel themselves out. Like with quantum mechanics physicist don’t understand the underlying principles in which things work so they put it down to entropy and anything can happen but the reason why we have macro laws is because the odd changes that defy the macro laws are cancelled out. Thus Foucault on a macro level see things as structuralist and static. If you find a copy of this essential works volume one ‘ethics’ there’s a section were he takes a very absurdist view upon change saying that no amount of knowledge could change society and then he corrects himself saying that strictly that’s not true but his just very pessimistic about everything. If you want to understand post-structuralism you’ll have to read up on or Claude Lévi-Strauss actually works. But anyways Levi-Strauss structuralism which according to him to it’s inspiration from Marx took societies to be a structure of rather stable and static that reproduced itself in each new generation(this is a rather anti-humanist view because it emphasises institutions control over humans rather then the other way around). Post-structuralist are pretty similar but instead they add in doubt.

I couldn't disagree more! The 'Marxist school', and 'Marx's methods' are under fire from all sides - and in trying to 'defend the faith', Marxist historians are either taking a stand and emphasising the brilliance of the 'traditional ways' (then getting demolished within academia); or they are making more and more concessions to rivals - 'surviving', just about, but with a Marxism so 'watered down' as to be virtually unrecognisable!

Marx's honour guard will spill their blood in the defence of their fallen idol, until they are no more; whereupon, the postmodernists will cry "huzzah" and go off to debate the non-existence of the universe over a sticky bun and some tea.

As I explain there has been a revisionist historiography and a neo-revisionist (which from my understanding are closer to the Marxist interpretation of history then the revisionists) but they don’t seem to add much to the mix. And I don’t really know what happens within the USA but here in Australia all the university professors I know or know of are Marxist, not that’s really a valid argument to totalities but it’s just a local personal observation.

The orthadox Marxist position is that material conditions - economics (the relation to the means of production...) - dictates 'reality', right?

As I explain there has been a revisionist historiography and a neo-revisionist (which from my understanding are closer to the Marxist interpretation of history then the revisionists) but they don’t seem to add much to the mix. And I don’t really know what happens within the USA but here in Australia all the university professors I know or know of are Marxist, not that’s really a valid argument to totalities but it’s just a local personal observation.

The orthadox Marxist position is that material conditions - economics (the relation to the means of production...) - dictates 'reality', right?

Wrong you’re taking a reductionist view of Marx’s theories and observations. The second international and by extension largely the third international took a positivist economic determinist interpretation of Marxism. But it’s not the real Marx didn’t believe in absolute determinism of any kind and he didn’t believe in historical determinism. The above letter illiterates that but you should also look at –

7 December 1867 – Marx to Engels, where he criticises himself and his mistakes in capital.

http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/wo...rs/67_12_07.htm (http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1867/letters/67_12_07.htm)

Marx criticism of mechanical materialism or old materialism which his often been charged as. - The Holy Family Chapter VI 3)

http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/wo...ly/ch06_3_d.htm (http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1845/holy-family/ch06_3_d.htm)

The economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844, the theses on Feuerbach….
But for sources that sum along of it up look at theses few sources.

Cyril Smith’s How the ‘Marxist’ berried Marx.

http://marxists.anu.edu.au/reference/archi...enni/smith2.htm (http://marxists.anu.edu.au/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/millenni/smith2.htm)

Marxism and Philosophy by Karl Korsch

http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/korsch/...-philosophy.htm (http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/korsch/1923/marxism-philosophy.htm)

there’s heaps more to look at particular of Marx himself but also Cyril Smith – oh also this is a good source.

Marx myths and legends –
http://marxmyths.org/index.shtml

redstar2000

18th June 2005, 15:34

Originally posted by Karl Marx+--> (Karl Marx)They were originally free peasants, each cultivating his own piece of land on his own account. In the course of Roman history they were expropriated. The same movement which divorced them from their means of production and subsistence involved the formation not only of big landed property but also of big money capital. And so one fine morning there were to be found on the one hand free men, stripped of everything except their labour power, and on the other, in order to exploit this labour, those who held all the acquired wealth in possession. What happened? The Roman proletarians became, not wage labourers but a mob of do-nothings more abject than the former “poor whites” in the southern country of the United States, and alongside of them there developed a mode of production which was not capitalist but dependent upon slavery. Thus events strikingly analogous but taking place in different historic surroundings led to totally different results.[/b]

I rarely get the opportunity to...um, disagree with Marx, but I don't think this is very well argued.

Picking out one aspect of a historical situation and pointing out how "analogous" it is to a later one violates his own insistence on the "totality" of the picture. It would be a very "vulgar" Marxist indeed who said: "Peasants have been dispossessed of their lands...they can only become urban wage-laborers"...without any consideration of the means of production at all.

The reason that Roman proletarians did not become wage-laborers is because there was no bourgeoisie to hire them. There was indeed a significant merchant/trader class in late republican and early imperial times...but they did not own or aspire to own manufacturing facilities. In fact, the only really significant "factories" of Roman times were devoted to the manufacture of arms -- they were owned by the government and mostly employed slave labor.

Successful merchants/traders moved into the Roman aristocracy by purchasing estates and equipping them with slaves.

Nor was the Roman proletariat necessarily "abject"...they were frequently rebellious under the republic and later succeeded or nearly succeeded on a number of occasions in overthrowing particular emperors. They did engage in class struggle, but they never became a genuinely revolutionary class or sought power for themselves after the inception of empire.

In fact, they were so different in character from modern wage-workers that it really is unfortunate, in my opinion, that Marx chose to use the name "proletariat" for the modern working class...it doesn't really "fit" well at all.

Karl Marx
If Russia, continues to pursue the path she has followed since 1861, she will lose the finest chance ever offered by history to a nation, in order to undergo all the fatal vicissitudes of the capitalist regime.

Marx, in my view, had something of a "soft spot" for Russia; it was the first country where Capital enjoyed a genuinely enthusiastic response among the tiny intellectual circles there. (Bakunin's translation must have been a pretty good one.)

Consequently, I think Marx sells his own theory "short" in this comment. I don't think there was ever any chance that Russia could "avoid" the "fatal vicissitudes of the capitalist regime".

Or, in broad outline, any other pre-capitalist society. The rise of capitalism in each country may be relatively humane or brutally harsh, may be convoluted or straightforward, may be quite slow or relatively rapid, etc. Specific circumstances can have a significant effect on the details of social change.

But Marx would have to trash his own work if he were to seriously argue that the development of industrial production does "not" necessarily demand the corresponding rise of a capitalist class and a working class.

Indeed, he would have to retreat to a kind of "post-modernist" position that, well, "anything can happen".

That's no good.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Monty Cantsin

19th June 2005, 04:11

i dont know enough about roman social and economic history that i couldnt reply to the frist point if i wanted to. on the second point i agree with you but it opens up the question about where marx was headed Intellectually, I’ve read that he stoped preparing capital to work on a book about factious capital.

but i thought that letter was quite good because of this quote -

Thus events strikingly analogous but taking place in different historic surroundings led to totally different results. By studying each of these forms of evolution separately and then comparing them one can easily find the clue to this phenomenon, but one will never arrive there by the universal passport of a general historico-philosophical theory, the supreme virtue of which consists in being super-historical.

edit: i posed this thread in philosophy which has relevence to the post modern debate-

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36766

'Discourse Unlimited'

19th June 2005, 15:28

De gust[i]bus non disputandum est.

Hahaha, I quite agree! Though, my "taste" for postmodernism seems to irritate you beyond belief! :P

Anyway, where were we? Spinning (and arguing) in circles, I think... And enjoyable though this is, I have exam answers to write - so I'll 'eject myself' from this (fascinating) discussion, after making a couple of final points.

[RedStar:] Marxism is a science of "large numbers" of people over "large periods of time"...

[Monty Cantsin:] ...but the reason why we have macro laws is because the odd changes that defy the macro laws are cancelled out. Thus Foucault on a macro level see things as structuralist and static.

This is another gripe of mine - the overbearing focus on the "macro" level. I think this is another unwanted inheritance from the Enlightenment era - the desire to comprehend the "universal significance" of life and the universe; the belief that "everything" can and ought to be known... Hence, the development of science and history towards this end. 'Grand narratives', seeking to offer models by which we can interpret the "totality" of human consciousness, ignore so-called "historical accidents" at their peril!

Some poor nutball wandering through the streets babbling to himself about how he's "Jesus" returned and no one will listen...is not amenable to a Marxist analysis.

Well what about the "poor nutball", wandering around Galilee about 2000 years ago (give or take a kick in the teeth), claiming to be the Son of God? I am willing to bet that you don't believe in the possibility that Jesus was the Son of God; that goes without saying. But I, for one, am convinced that Jesus - whoever [H]e was - existed. He lived, breathed, ate, drank and died (even if he was not subsequently resurrected) millenia ago; yet [H]is influence throughout history has been enormous!

Undoubtedly, 'Christianity' has been used be various people for their own ends. But this "historical accident" has affected so much - is it really feasible to 'preach' about the insignificance of the individual?

What I deeply resent about authority is not its attempts to tell me "how to think" so much as it is the attempts to pass off lies under the guise of "truth".

And, moreover, lies that turn out to conceal material self-interest.

Oh, I agree. Absolutely. Well put.

Incidentally, do you think Lenin conned the Soviets into supporting his Bolshevik party? Were his (often outrageous) claims justified? Or was he hiding a material self-interest of his own? And Stalin - why did he pursue power?

If there are multiple theories regarding "how to proceed" in the event of a revolution, who's right? Who has correctly interpreted the 'reality' of material conditions? Who is the 'judge' of all this? Or do you let things run themselves, and hope that the immutable laws of determinism just "sort it out" for a population of 6,500,000,000?

Cyril Smith’s How the ‘Marxist’ berried Marx.

:D I'm sorry, I couldn't resist!
Karlberries and Engelberries? The "fruits" of the Rationalist seed planted in the seventeenth century, no doubt!

redstar2000

19th June 2005, 18:22

Originally posted by 'Discourse Unlimited'
This is another gripe of mine - the overbearing focus on the "macro" level. I think this is another unwanted inheritance from the Enlightenment era - the desire to comprehend the "universal significance" of life and the universe; the belief that "everything" can and ought to be known... Hence, the development of science and history towards this end. 'Grand narratives', seeking to offer models by which we can interpret the "totality" of human consciousness, ignore so-called "historical accidents" at their peril!

It's a risk we have to take. History at the "micro-level" does seem utterly chaotic as far as we can tell...there doesn't seem to be anything of substance to learn there. It's like looking at a painting under a microscope...you will see many interesting things but you won't see a painting.

I further agree with you that accidents can, on occasion, attain temporary "macro-significance". The premature death of a reforming emperor in China delayed capitalism there for five centuries.

Future historians might well argue that Lenin and his heirs gave at least a century of additional life to capitalism and maybe more.

Well what about the "poor nutball", wandering around Galilee about 2000 years ago (give or take a kick in the teeth), claiming to be the Son of God? I am willing to bet that you don't believe in the possibility that Jesus was the Son of God; that goes without saying. But I, for one, am convinced that Jesus - whoever [H]e was - existed. He lived, breathed, ate, drank and died (even if he was not subsequently resurrected) millennia ago; yet [H]is influence throughout history has been enormous!

This is, as I'm sure you know, a question fraught with many difficulties.

First of all, we lack any significant contemporary evidence of Jesus's existence at all. The initial evidence for "what he taught" comes from the authentic letters of Saulos of Tarsus (known to the gullible as "Saint Paul") which were written 20 or more years after the death of "Jesus".

I am inclined to accept Jesus's historical reality...as a rather simple-minded country preacher who really disliked "big city Judaism" and its theological complexities. "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand!" is probably as close as we can come to "what Jesus really taught".

Christian doctrine, on the other hand, comes from Saulos and his followers and may or may not accurately reflect the views of the Nazarene. The "influence" of which you speak really belongs to Saulos.

This was indeed an "accident"...Christianity arose in common with quite a number of mystical religions in the Roman Empire and it was by no means inevitable that Christianity would "win out" over its rivals. Indeed, in the first couple of centuries of the "Christian era", Judaism enjoyed considerable appeal among educated Romans and were it not for the rite of circumcision, might well have become the religion of Constantine or one of the other late emperors.

But this "historical accident" has affected so much - is it really feasible to 'preach' about the insignificance of the individual?

I think that if "by magic" you could remove all the world's major religious figures of the past, you'd discover that a whole set of new ones would have replaced them. Doctrines might be different...even very different. But the social role of religion would have been the same.

That part doesn't change...ever.

Incidentally, do you think Lenin conned the Soviets into supporting his Bolshevik party?

Yes.

Or was he hiding a material self-interest of his own? And Stalin - why did he pursue power?

Well, remember my caution...trying to apply Marxist analysis to individuals yields very mixed results.

My guess is that when Lenin returned to Petrograd in the spring of 1917, he was very disappointed in the performance of his comrades up to that point...concluding that "only he himself" could really be relied on to "get it right". And while he never concentrated "all power" in his own hands, he seemed to develop a pretty firm grip on the leading role within the party.

Stalin, by contemporary reports, was a rather modest fellow in the early days...willing to take on a lot of bureaucratic "shit work" that other, more "famous", Bolsheviks thought "beneath them". After Lenin's death, Stalin must have looked around and said to himself something like: "Hey, I'm the guy that's really holding this whole fucking project together...so why shouldn't I be Lenin's heir and rightful successor?".

If there are multiple theories regarding "how to proceed" in the event of a revolution, who's right? Who has correctly interpreted the 'reality' of material conditions? Who is the 'judge' of all this?

Like all real controversies, your questions can only be answered by argument and evidence.

In the long run, experience will tell "who is right".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif