Question

[CubaSocialista]

This is for people who've extensively studied Marx.

I think Marxist Humanism and Marxist Structuralism do not conflict, despite the antihumanist arguments of Louis Althusser, who was a Structuralist. Then again, Althusser was also beyond unstable mentally; he killed his wife in the 1980's.

[ComradeRed]

What's the questions? :huh:

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 06:10 AM
What's the questions? :huh:
he wants to show off his majestic erudition

[CubaSocialista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 06:10 AM
What's the questions? :huh:
Do marxist structuralism and marxist humanism conflict?

[Hegemonicretribution]

I am off to bed, so cannot get into this now...I have moved the thread to theory for now, although it may well turn out to be more suited for philosophy...which I agree it is

[EusebioScrib]

Do marxist structuralism and marxist humanism conflict?

Man, I unno wtf you jus said :blink:

[Vanguard1917]

James Heartfield touches on some of this in his book 'Death of the Subject' Explained. An extract from the book:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/...field-james.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/heartfield-james.htm)

[red_che]

I think Marxist Humanism and Marxist Structuralism do not conflict

Bro, I am not well-versed with Marxist humanist or structuralist, and I guess I am more disrupted by these other trends on Marxism. They make Marxism confusing what it really is. :)

[BobKKKindle$]

Dude....ThE Revolution does not belong in the pages of Das Kapital..or Party Policy Commoitees - the Revolution belongs to us all man! It lies in our hearts! Being a revolutionary does not mean knowing about different schools of Marxism and Sociology, or using expressions like "Dialectical Materialism" and "Labour theory of value" in everyday speech...its about being willing to give it all to overthrow the system!

Yeah, no offence, but you are just trying to show off your knowledge

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by CubaSocialista+Jun 11 2006, 01:04 PM--> (CubaSocialista @ Jun 11 2006, 01:04 PM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 06:10 AM
What's the questions? :huh:
Do marxist structuralism and marxist humanism conflict? [/b]

The names themselves incline to a possible answer: the human dimension versus the universal structure.

Read some Sartre on structuralism (I guess you can find something in his introduction to the Critique da la raison dialectique -- I've got an impression from this text that they do conflict pretty much), and, of course, read Dunayevskaya.

P.S: This belongs in the philosophy forum.

[Hit The North]

No, structural marxism and humanist marxism should not be conflictual with each other. Unfortunately, the way in which they developed as intellectual traditions in Western Marxism they assumed an antagonistic relationship. Such are the conventions of European academia!

But really, the theoretical dilemma was summed up succinctly by Marx when he observed that men make history but not under circumstances of their choosing.
In other words it's the agency/determination dualism which haunts all social theory.

Structrual marxism and humanist marxism represent the two sides of a marxist analysis. The former focuses on the structural determinants of social reality, whilst the latter concentrates on the human agency that is required to revolutionize social reality.

The argument between the two traditions is really about causal primacy.

The special claim that Marx and Engels made was that their version of the dialectic resolved the problem of primacy.

But I'll let Rosa tell you why that is crap ;)

[CCCPneubauten]

I am a noob at Structuralism. Isn't this an anarchist type thing?

[Vanguard1917]

The former focuses on the structural determinants of social reality, whilst the latter concentrates on the human agency that is required to revolutionize social reality.

The argument between the two traditions is really about causal primacy.

The special claim that Marx and Engels made was that their version of the dialectic resolved the problem of primacy.

Exactly: the dialectical relationship between human agency and 'objective conditions'. Neither has 'primacy': one is inseparable from the other.

[Hegemonicretribution]

FFS, My reply to this was just lost...

Anyway, I had an exam question today that linked almost perfectly to this discussion, and to be honest it was a bit of a gift ;)

I suppose if you are looking for the answers of "theorists" then I agree with Citizen Zero.

Personally I don't see that there need to be much of a conflict when you think more fully about what each theory would imply for real world action. For all intents and purposes you could act as a humanistic Marxist within structural Marxism if you really wanted to.

Marxist humanism can stand alone in my opinion, but if you are willing to go through the intellectual masturbation necessary, then you can reconcile it with most purely intellectual positions.

[gilhyle]

Structuralism and Humanism do conflict - in the sense that Kantianism and Hegelianism conflict they conflict in their metatheory of what theory achieves.

Nor is the debate really about causality, that is an intermediate point in the debate. The debate is really about morality - the structuralist view leads to relativism, the humanist view to absolutism in morality. Remember always the differing political agendas of Althusser and Sartre.

But what is striking about both is that neither is a Marxist position - both are alternatives within the eclecticism of the dominant ideology.

Nor does it resolve the matter to adopt a neutral holism which gives priority neither to objective nor subjective causality. That is just a cop out.

Marxism is not a humanism and Marxism is not a structuralism and whether its the humanism of Sartre or the structuralism of Althusser you are advocating, or some hybrid sci-fi offspring of the two ......what you are advocating is made up of a range of propositions never proposed, defended or deferred to by Karl Marx....

[Hit The North]

Why does humanism lead to a moral absolutism?

[gilhyle]

Humanism is based on the idea that human subjectivity is an intrinsically valuable thing constituting an inviolable standard that we should all respect in our choices of action.

[Having summarised so crudely I now also invite formally corrections of my crudity to cover myself against charges of ignorance]

[Faceless]

Gilhyle if I may I would like to try and expand on what you said a little, although my knowledge of althusser is very much limited and I'd appreciate it if people would correct me where I make a mistake.

Unless I am very much mistaken, and I may well be, Althusser tried to distinguish between the work of the young marx (humanist?) and the "mature" marx (structuralist?). Wasn't Sartre supposed to have lost the argument? I don't know. Anyway, as I understand it the young Marx was concerned very much with the idea of alienation. That in a society dominated by commodity production, the product of a person is alien to them. Your work is not your life but is your means to obtain the necessities of life. People are alienated from the products of their labour. When a person becomes consumer they do not recognise the product they consume as being of their own hand because their labour is only one more commodity, it ceased to be theirs long ago. And I believe Althusser suggested that the early Marx (and the likes of Sartre?) are contrasting this alienation against some "natural", "better", form of society, a non-alienated society presumably being this "natural" form of human production. I presume this is the absolute morality of the humanists.

As for the structuralists, they are only concerned with the objective analysis of society marx made in his later works such as capital. Presumably this is what you mean by lending themselves to moral relativism?

Small question, do the structuralists concern themselves with reification and commodity fetishism?

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 08:17 PM


Small question, do the structuralists concern themselves with reification and commodity fetishism?
I cant claim to be as knowledgeable on structuralism as I should be - its also a long time ago since I read it.

My memory is that for Althusser reification exists, but we exist entirely within the reified state - thus there is no capacity for our social condition to clash with any inherent trans-historical human subjectivity; arguably in this claim Althusser is consistent with Marx's mature work - but it would be much harder to support the idea that that claim (in the work of the mature Marx) is based on a 'break' with the analysis in the 1844 manuscripts, rather it is an elaboration of what is set out there.

The complication here is that the humanists (arguably) misinterpret the 1844 manuscripts and ALthusser builds his concept of a break on the acceptance of their misinterpretation : probably more the interpretation of Henri Lefebvre than Sartre if we are being historically accurate.

[hoopla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 08:17 PM
Presumably this is what you mean by lending themselves to moral relativism?

Erm, I may have read that Althusser was an anti-humanist.

Can anyone tell me what on earth is the point in decentring man, unless its out of some kind of animal rights gaia urge?

[gilhyle]

I think your question is very legitimate, but the answer is pretty fundamental:

The point of 'decentering man' as you call it is to come up with a political programme which is practical within the social structure we must operate within - it is the basis of the transition from utopian socialism. Its the basis of Marxism : although far from being the universal approach of socialists.

In Althusser's case his theory served his attempt to bring the French CP back to what he thought was a realistic, practical kind of political programme (a programme he never articulated very well - cos he would have got kicked out of the CP if he did !).

[jasmine]

Althusser may have been mentally unstable but he certainly had a point. Anybody who works for a living is waiting for Friday (TFIF etc.). It's called wishing your life away. The problem is that this alienation leaves people feeling helpless. The product of your labour (these days often intangible) may never even be seen. We live awaiting our own deaths as a release from the pointless monotony of our lives. This will not be overcome by economic militancy. Of course workers should be paid more but there is absolutely no connection between a strike and socialist society. None at all. The experience of the last 100 years is that there is a moral (please do not immediately reject the term) need for socialism but no objective need (capitalism survives and grows stronger). Do we have the mode of production we deserve?

[Faceless]

It may well be the fact that i am reading this thread at 1.24 am that is blocking my mind, but what do you mean by "decentering" Althusser hoopla?

gilhyle, I have some questions/remarks to help my understanding. I read about Lefebvre today in "The Lipstick traces" which I am reading. It very much has a pro-situationist slant and although I am enjoying the book I would make a lot of criticisms of it. Am I right in thinking that Lefebvre was a French Communist who turned situationist of a kind and subsequently rejected the party and embraced an idea of "moments" which are spontaneous creations; moments which presumably as moments are independent of their past and history? Somewhere in there there is a question about situationists and a marxist position on them as these ideas seem abhorent to materialist dialectics; or I have completely misread the situation when it comes to situationists. Any clarification you can throw my way appreciated. And also what would Sartre's position have been to Lefebvre and co.?

[Chrysalis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 04:07 PM

But what is striking about both is that neither is a Marxist position - both are alternatives within the eclecticism of the dominant ideology.

Marxism is not a humanism and Marxism is not a structuralism and whether its the humanism of Sartre or the structuralism of Althusser you are advocating, or some hybrid sci-fi offspring of the two ......what you are advocating is made up of a range of propositions never proposed, defended or deferred to by Karl Marx....
This is when Ockham's razor can do its utility.

Let's do away with Humanism and structuralism concerns and dwell on this: the conditions that would make way for marxist revolution are determined. It is just a matter of time. It's almost like, people just have to wait and see. Whether we study marxism or not, shit will happen. Marxism is not about morality, love of humanity, universal rights, and equalizing the status of all people. Marxism is a description of the conditions now and the conditions of the future of all the people, their creations, their ideas or ideologies.

The principle of simplicity.

[hoopla]

It may well be the fact that i am reading this thread at 1.24 am that is blocking my mind, but what do you mean by "decentering" Althusser hoopla?
Remove man from a position of power/authority. Decentre man not Althusser.


The point of 'decentering man' as you call it is to come up with a political programme which is practical within the social structure we must operate withinGood aswer, but I don't see whats utopian about humanism myself. Aren't we the proletariat the rightful heirs of the enlightenmnt and humanism etc.

[Faceless]

the conditions that would make way for marxist revolution are determined. It is just a matter of time. It's almost like, people just have to wait and see. Whether we study marxism or not, shit will happen. Marxism is not about morality, love of humanity, universal rights, and equalizing the status of all people. Marxism is a description of the conditions now and the conditions of the future of all the people, their creations, their ideas or ideologies.

I would agree with some aspects of your post but I have to disagree with a few things, though it's probably more of a matter of how you phrased your post.

I would agree that it is very much a matter of time as the objective circumstances leads inevitably to the falling rate of profit, overproduction, crises etc. However, it would be wrong to be complacent about the future and consider communism to be "in the bag" so to speak. The choice capitalism puts before us is very much limited to socialism or barbarism. Socialism, the liberation of the proletariat as the condition for the liberation of humanity, but barbarism if imperialism takes its course without decisive intervention by the proletariat. War, famine and a total regression are very possible.

As individuals you may be right, my contribution may prove less than significant, however it will not be without revolutionary ideas and leadership that the proletariat will defeat the bourgeoisie. Time and again the individual has proven decisive as revolutions have been won and betrayed through history. It may be a matter of time but sooner rather than later.

And I think to some extent marxism is about morality although marxists make clear that their morality is a class morality and is not ahistorical. See, the beauty about marxism is that it not only explains the limits, of what can be known, but also determines who can have that knowledge. It is only because I share the interests of the proletariat that I am a marxist. It is why the bourgeoisie, inspite of the excellence of the minds of political economy could not breed a scientist brilliant enough to see the true laws of capitalist development.

And one final criticism I would make of your phrasing that "Marxism is a description of the conditions now and the conditions of the future of all the people, their creations, their ideas or ideologies" is that I see it more as a tool by which to come to an understanding of the various institutions of history and is not a fully packaged tool for the description of everything but is a tool to help us in our empirical scientific research of history and to place the facts we find in a correct context.