Marxism and Objectivity.

[Oswy]

On what foundation does Marxism claim itself able to objectively analyse human society and history where other philosophical and social theories are understood as subjective and subject to the distorting influence of capitalism?

In other words, how can we as Marxists defend our understanding of the way the world works as free from ideological falsehoods if we can't deny our existence is within the very mode of production which we claim produce such falsehoods?

Even simpler; how can we challenge the non-Marxist who claims we are unable to demonstrate that our understanding isn't just another false understanding?

[IronColumn]

Because historical materialism is rooted in real material conditions of exploitation, and in real historic events. The 20th century saw the most revolutions in history, and it's no coincidence this was also the bloodiest and most capitalistic era. We'll see what happens in the 21st. But of course this understanding is not purely "objective", it is at the same time a subjective understanding that one need to change our current history and the working class is the only class capable of doing that. Correspondingly the detached "objectivism" of the bourgeoisie is really only an expression of their unwillingness to see a system which benefits them change.

[renegadoe]

On what foundation does Marxism claim itself able to objectively analyse human society and history where other philosophical and social theories are understood as subjective and subject to the distorting influence of capitalism?

The important development to thought that Marx contributed was the understanding that there is no such thing as objective consciousness or analysis: rather, Marxism demonstrates how our consciousness is shaped and determined by our objective, material conditions - namely, our class. This is retroactively applicable (e.g., Adam Smith's theories were representative of the rising merchant class in England), and continually applicable today. But the important thing is that historical materialism denies the philosophical notion of "man in his natural state", or an "objective" definition of human nature - instead, there are only humans who exist within certain material conditions, largely determined by the technological capabilities of their respective eras, but also defined by their place within their greater social construct.


In other words, how can we as Marxists defend our understanding of the way the world works as free from ideological falsehoods if we can't deny our existence is within the very mode of production which we claim produce such falsehoods?

Today, the only people who claim all metanarratives to be "false constructs" are postmodernists. These fools are the contemporary equivalents of those who justified pure subjectivity as the "unknowable mind of god" - they are, fundamentally, an idealist tendency who choose to ignore the real world.

The thing is, because Marxism is a materialist metanarrative, its assertions are only as good as they are accurately reflected in the real world. Here is the root of the claim by Marx and Engels that theirs was a "scientific socialism". And I feel this claim has been vindicated by history - Marxism has repeatedly provided explanations that seem to be backed by the way things actually work. For example, Bill Gates recently gave a speech arguing for a "kinder capitalism" (obviously bullshit), but in it he reaffirmed the position that capitalism's single fundamental operation is the exploitation of surplus-value from the labor-power of others. And he'd know better than any contemporary capitalist!

The point is, our analysis is repeatedly supported by the material evidence, and the capitalists themselves take Marxist economics to heart. It's a common occurrence that bourgeois economists, the serious ones, have abandoned the autistic explanations of "supply-and-demand" and "value based on use" that are so divorced from reality, in favor of Marxist analyses in all but words!

[MarxSchmarx]

Marx never claimed his "ideology" to be independent of the prevailing mode of production.

Marxism is internally consistent, whereas bourgeois ideologies are not. Marx did not see his work as "independent" of the class struggle, and clearly understood that his analysis and proscriptions were unique to capitalist society.

Hence, renegadoe is correct in nothing that:


Marxism demonstrates how our consciousness is shaped and determined by our objective, material conditions - namely, our class.

In particular, the attractiveness of Marxist analysis is shaped by our class experiences.