Marx-Engles Reader

  1. The Jay
    The Jay
    I say we start with this one.
  2. Mr. Natural
    Mr. Natural
    LiquidState, I'm an old fart, albeit a deeply radical old fart, and I find computers to be the devil's spawn. I assume I'm now set up to participate in discussions and am awaiting further instructions. The M-E Reader is an excellent, comprehensive source for such discussions, and good on you for getting something going.
  3. RedMarxist
    I suggest we start(I'm as of now using the Portable Karl Marx, not the ME reader) with the good old fashioned Communist Manifesto. I'm up for reading it for the third time again.
  4. u.s.red
    u.s.red
    i have kamenka's portable karl marx
  5. Mr. Natural
    Mr. Natural
    LiquidState chose the Preface to the Critique of Political Economy as the first reading, which is generally considered to be Marx's definitive presentation of historical materialism. I assume the Portable Marx as well as the M-E Reader has this, and so no problem?

    I'll also assume we can choose appropriately and continue to use both books.

    Now I'll do my homework.
  6. The Jay
    The Jay
    I have no objections, at least until RedMarxist gets his copy in the mail. Did everyone subscribe to this discussion yet?
  7. Grenzer
    Grenzer
    Yup, I'm in. So what are we going to start with, the manifesto or Critique of Political Economy?
  8. The Jay
    The Jay
    The first reading will be the preface to the Critique of Political Economy, as suggested by Mr. Natural. We will start discussing it on thursday if there are no objections, ready? GO!
  9. Mr. Natural
    Mr. Natural
    I assume that by appearing here, I have "subscribed to the discussion." I also want to note that it was LiquidState who suggested the first 25 pages of the M-E Reader for our discussion--the preface to the Contribution To The Critique of Political Economy. I'm game for anything and appreciate the opportunity for focused discussions of Marxism, but the Preface is an excellent beginning.
  10. The Jay
    The Jay
    Two days until the first discussion everybody.
  11. Mr. Natural
    Mr. Natural
    It's Thursday morning and I expected to find some posts in this forum. I'm new to computers and Revleft, though, and am not sure I'm doing this right.

    Is posting in this forum the manner in which we conduct our discussion? If so, are we just waiting for someone to start? Again if so, I'll post a brief reflection on historical materialism if this well help.

    What's up, LiquidState? And thanks again for your enthusiasm and getting this going.
  12. The Jay
    The Jay
    No problem, and yes we'll be posting in this forum. Why don't you start?
  13. The Jay
    The Jay
    It seems like the early Marx was concerned with the rigidness of philosophical systems in that they only pertain to themselves while making criticisms of the previous systems. Marx appears to me to be thinking of re-orientating the goal of philosophy towards applying it to volatile, changing conditions present in the real world through criticism. I can only assume that this is his basis for his later dialectical materialism.

    I agree that whenever philosophy interacts with the real world, both are changed. Philosophy realizes it's (partial or otherwise) incompatibility with the world in general and the world is changed by philosophy.

    I wonder if this foundation for dialectical materialism is what prompted Che to say something along the lines of, "First I studied, now I act."
  14. The Jay
    The Jay
    Also I think it's worth noting that in his Contribution to the Critique of Hegel, Marx seems to be much more in favor of working from empirical evidence to build a rational philosophy of the real world; in other words, evidence based ethics. Not knowing Hegel, Marx is the first philosopher I've read to advocate such. Utilitarianism comes close, but it's not the same.
  15. The Jay
    The Jay
    Was Marx dis advocating the state being "more than the sum of its parts"? By that I mean, when he was describing the state as consisting of the family and civil society was he for or against statehood here? When he was discussing sovereignty did he mean that the term was merely a condition of an organised system of human management?
  16. Mr. Natural
    Mr. Natural
    While I was composing my post, LiquidState (hence LS) got off three bullets. I'll respond to them tomorrow. I hope my post isn't too long or convoluted. Gimme feedback; this old dog can learn new tricks.

    I need to identify myself as a "red-green revolutionary." The "red" refers to Marxism, of course. The "green" comes from the new sciences of organizational relations, which begin with evolution and include the new physics, cosmology, cybernetics, chaos theory, and, most important, systems-complexity science.

    The significance of these new sciences of organization is that they verify the organization of the Marxist materialist dialectic and communism. So Marxism is, indeed, scientific, but I can find almost no reds who work with this new science. And Marxism cannot get organized. Coincidence?

    Now to the reading, pages 1-25 of the Marx-Engels Reader. Surely a good starting point is Marx's concise statement of historical materialism, pages 4-5. Engels, in his eulogy at Marx's graveside, stated that Marx's two revelations were historical materialism and his discovery and analysis of surplus value--the motor of capitalism. (See Reader, p. 681)

    Prior to historical materialism, life and society had commonly been seen to be a collection of things and events. Stuff happened, but as separate events.

    Life and historical materialism, however, are material, systemic processes: dynamically interdependent wholes created by and composed of dynamically interdependent wholes. There is no separate life. Think of a living body that is composed of other living bodies (cells and organs). Think of a communist society created by and composed of various individuals who come together in common purpose.

    Historical materialism accurately presents human social systems as living, material, systemic process. It understands people to be natural beings who must consciously produce their means of existence. We humans, unlike all other animals, must consciously create the ecosystems--the habitats--within which we live.

    And we haven't known how. Marxism is Marx's and Engels' attempt to resolve this existential contradiction. This ignorance of essential ecological, organizational relations has resulted in a series of alien socio-economic systems, culminating in our current capitalist end game, and so we must now learn to consciously design and produce the dynamically interdependent, ecological relations the other animals automatically enjoy. The rest of life inherently possesses the "ecological mind" the human species must develop.

    Marx's historical materialism understands humanity and socity to be based in material conditions of existence, and that the way we produce our lives conditions all social forms. Historical materialism then emphasizes that we do not start from scratch, but are born into and thus think and act within the institutions and values of the pre-existing system. This is the recipe for the capitalist mindfuck that envelops all of us.

    The new sciences show that all living systems are a product of their "economic" engagement with life. Their doing is their being. Thus an anteater's "economic" anatomy (its organized body) is what it is and what it does. An anteater's body is its economic system. A skunk is organized differently with different parts and makes its living differently.

    The upshot of this is that our human socio-economic organization determines in general the sort of people and society we are, and as we are born into this system, we almost blindly accept its values and practices.

    My red-green best
  17. The Jay
    The Jay
    I absolutely agree with that, but what do you think of his "Hegel talk" of the state being an infinite ideal. I didn't quite understand all of that since I haven't read Hegel yet.
  18. Mr. Natural
    Mr. Natural
    LS, I haven't read Hegel, either, save for various passages I come across in my relentless studies. I rely on trusted secondary sources who have waded the Hegelian swamp for the rest of us.

    However, please give a quick but careful reading to "Discovering Hegel," pages 7-8 of Reader, which is Marx's letter to his father, written 6 years before his "Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right." Clearly, Hegel blew Marx's mind.

    What happened? My evaluation is that the Hegelian dialectic, contained within Hegel's philosophy of internal relations, enabled Marx to suddenly see and feel life and society as organic, systemic process. Life and society suddenly "came alive" to Marx. Marx turned Hegel's abstracted idealism on its head and glimpsed/grasped the world--natural and human--as a dynamic, organic whole rooted in material relations.

    Most Western Marxists either dismiss the idea of a natural materialist dialectic or confine its application to history and society. But this divorces humanity from nature.

    Marx and Engels adamantly oppose splitting human affairs from natural, material relations. Indeed, their concept of communism is organized as is a cell or a body or an ecosystem. Communism is natural, and the new sciences of organization affirm this.

    It is a mark of the genius of Hegel and Marx that their philosphy has now been confirmed by science. The reading, "Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right" expresses Marx's developing historical materialism, which roots social forms such as the state in material, grassroots, democratic relations. Life and communism are democratic, as the new sciences (which everyone avoids) prove.

    Now I'll get to your bullets from yesterday.
  19. Apoi_Viitor
    When is the next reading do? I read the aforementioned section, but I've always found Marx's philosophical writings to be incomprehensible. Whenever I see a large chunks of writing littered with terms like essence, dialectic, totality, subjective, objective, etc. I tune out. Luckily I find Marx's other works much more lucid and clear, so I'll actually have something to say regarding the next reading.
  20. Mr. Natural
    Mr. Natural
    Apoi Viitor, But what about Marx's concise statement of historical materialism, pages 4-5. It is very clear and important and devoid of those philosophical terms you dislike.

    Philosophy departments are perhaps the most degraded of all in current academia. They don't even attempt to engage important issues, and they wallow in their ever-so-special jargon.
  21. Mr. Natural
    Mr. Natural
    LS, Here are my rather disorganized responses to some points you made yesterday.

    You wrote of Marx reorienting philosophy towards its application in the real, volatile world through radical criticism, and noted, "I can only assume that this is his basis for his later dialectical materialism." I agree, although I believe my earlier post shows that Marx gained a dialectical understanding of life and society and history (historical materialism) from his earliest encounters with Hegel's "craggy melody." Marx's radical social criticism was enabled by the dialectic, which investigates and reveals life's "volatile, changing conditions."

    I'm an admirer of Che Guevara, although I doubt he came into contact with the dialectic. There are several excellent biographies of Che. I'm always interested in a person's character and psychology, and it seems that Che came down with life-threatening asthma attacks at the age of six or so, and for the rest of his life he had to fight a daily war to get up an keep going. Each day he won that war. He was one hell of a romantic, revolutionary warrior.

    I think a better way of describing Marx's "evidence based ethics" might be "dialectical, material ethics." He used dialectical concepts to understand the organization, motion, and development of the material and social (which is also material) world.

    I believe Marx was just turning Hegel's concept of the state on its head and establishing its roots in the family and civil society. I believe "sovereignty" is simply in reference to the control of the state, which, in communism, would be rooted in civil society. Note Marx's constant use of the term "democracy." Marx was one hell of a radical democrat!

    Enough! My dog and I must head into the woods for our afternoon hike. My red-green best.
  22. Grenzer
    Grenzer
    Good job noting Marx's focus on empirical evidence. This is the basis of the material aspect of Marxism. He basically came up with the idea of applying the emphasis on the material(materialism) to Hegel's dialectic. It seems to be a no brainer that this is what is now called Dialectical Materialism, though Marx never used that phrase for it.

    Interesting you should bring up ethics. I can't quite remember where I read it, but I seem to recall Marx postulating that ethics are a reflection of the dominant mode of production. What has defined ethics in society has changed as the economic system has changed. I believe that if you look at the historical development of society that this will be found to be true.
  23. The Jay
    The Jay
    Thanks everyone for participating! I think that we should talk over the next three sections next Thursday, if there are no objections. Hope your hike went well Mr. Natural.
  24. Mr. Natural
    Mr. Natural
    LiquidState, My hike went fine, thanks, and so will today's. Many people have asked me to take a hike, and I'm obliging them.

    BUT: What are these next three sections? I'm confused, a condition that comes naturally to Mr. Natural.
  25. The Jay
    The Jay
    Haha, well I think that The Jewish question merits a gander, as well as the Introduction to the Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. That would be pages 26-66. Since there was some confusion, how about we hold the discussion on Saturday instead of Thursday, if anything to give more time to prepare questions on what will be a controversial essay, the one on the Jewish Question.
  26. Apoi_Viitor
    Apoi Viitor, But what about Marx's concise statement of historical materialism, pages 4-5. It is very clear and important and devoid of those philosophical terms you dislike.
    I agree. One point I was going to bring up but forgot too, came from page 5.

    "No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself."

    I had previously thought that the idea that socialism would be realized in the most industrialized economies first was a menshevik interpretation of Marx. Am I misreading the quote, or where the mensheviks right in this instance?
  27. The Jay
    The Jay
    I think that they interpreted Marx correctly, as the more industrialized economies would most likely be the most proletarianized as well. That is not to say that revolution could not happen in a less developed nation, at least that's my opinion.
  28. Apoi_Viitor
    Yeh but the way Marx phrases is it, it seems that revolution can not occur in a country less developed.
  29. mrmikhail
    Yeh but the way Marx phrases is it, it seems that revolution can not occur in a country less developed.
    This much is very correct, the way communism is codified by Marx can only come of an already industrialised capitalist nation. Lenin took these ideas of Marx and turned them into something that could actually be possible in a lesser industrial state (and Mao attempted in an un-industrialised state)
  30. Mr. Natural
    Mr. Natural
    One of the great ironies of history is that socialist revolution has only come to power in countries where socialism was unrealizable. In such countries where the economy is underdeveloped, you wind up using people as capital (and cattle). Mao's China was/is an excellent example of this.

    Saturday sounds fine.
12