Results 1 to 15 of 15
Materialism
I was reading Bertrand Russell's book today, where he was writing about Marx, he said "Marx was a materialist, but not of the traditional sort". Then he goes on to explain about how Marx's materialism requires a relationship between subject and object, rather than just observation of the object.
I actually had never even thought to consider how 'materialism' in the communist sense relates to materialism in the more common sense. But it got me thinking.
Communists are often talking about 'material conditions'. So maybe it would be interesting to hone in on a definition of it.
To me, 'materialism' is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism .
Is this kind of materialism much different to Marxian 'historical' materialism?
The term has been used differently by different political philosophers, philosophers and politicians. So we can end up getting into bizarre comparative debates that don't make sense because the two terms aren't really referring to the same thing.
Marxism is materialist in that it was an observation of the material conditions which result from existing property relations.
"How you cling to your purity, young man! How afraid you are to soil your hands! All right, stay pure! What good will it do? Why did you join us? Purity is an idea for a yogi or a monk. You intellectuals and Bourgeois anarchists use it as a pretext for doing nothing. To do nothing, to remain motionless, arms at your sides, wearing kids gloves. Well, I have dirty hands. Right up to the elbows. I've plunged them in the filth and blood. But what do you hope? Do you think you'll govern innocently?"-Jean-Paul Sartre
Marx's approach to history and sociology is materialist because it considers the various aspects of human societies (ideology, morals, culture, legal institutions, etc.) a consequence of the relations people estabilish to produce the material necessities of life (from the basics of food, clothes and housing to more complex goods and services).
Russell's quote refers to Marx's view described in the Theses on Feuerbach, which is a criticism of the Young Hegelians and their "contemplative" and "abstract" materialism. They saw themselves as external, impartial observers who analyzed and tried understanding men and their "essence" as if they all were speaking about the same abstract 'individual' (which Marx considered a form of mysticism), ignoring the specific historical and social context they live in.
Dunno whether he can be considered an eliminativist. That goes beyond my knowledge and/or will right now.
We want to live without dead time.
Thanks for the replies.
Marx is a very nuanced thinker.
Perhaps the trouble I have understanding his brand of materialism is because I don't understand Hegel that well..
To me, Marxian materialism is basically a subjectivist theory; because 'reality' is seen as not what it is, but rather a product of the economic circumstances of society. The means of production are what define our perception?
I understand this best as a technological view of soccial science. i.e., the prevailing technology define our subjective perception, and there is no such thing as an objective interpretation of the world.
So, just trying to extrapolate this to our times .. computers and iPods would be the objects fashioning our subjective views of the world? It would seem to me that computer programs are what most influences the economy / social relationships now, and probably more into the future.
Thoughts?
Not quite. In Marxist theory, society is an objective, material reality, determined by the mode of production (which includes technological advances). This is no more subjectivist than the statement that, for example, the shape of a crystal is determined by the structure of its unit cell.
Not understanding this part. If material reality is determined by the mode of production, or anything, it is subjective, is it not? To say it is 'determined' implies to me that it is subjective.
No, because the mode of production is not a subjective phenomenon - it exits as an external power over those who's relations it shapes. In various places Marx indicates that although human beings are the creators of their society they are also the creatures of that society. This is why it is important to view Marxism as a dialectical theory where there is interplay between the agency of people and the structures of the society their agency produces, reproduces and transforms.
"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past."
"Events have their own logic, even when human beings do not." - Rosa Luxemburg
"There are decades when nothing happens; and there are weeks when decades happen." - Lenin
Yeah I can see how the modes of production are objective. I.e., hammers and engines and computers are all quantifiable objects. It's how these things have any constructive influence on perception that I don't understand. I mean clearly Marx doesn't hold that axiomatic things like Euclidean geometry are affected by whether grain is harvested by a slave or a mechanical harvester. So what can you say is the 'scope' of what is constructed my material relations? Is it just the way humans interact with one another? Like our general attitudes to life and aptitudes?
How does it imply that? As I said, the shape of a crystal is determined, among other things, by the structure of the unit cell of that crystal, but that doesn't make crystals "subjective", whatever that might mean. And I don't know how "perception" (most people, it seems to me, use that term haphazardly) ties into this; society is not perception but the objectively existing collection of bodies in motion.
The structure of a crystal is static, or its structure only changes at geological pace. Human beings are dynamic, because you know, they have brains. I can see how the ability to understand a crystal's structure could be influenced by the available technology, like microscopes vrs cracking it apart with a hammer?
Not really; crystals grow, conduct electricity, melt, regelate, and so on. This objection might sound pedantic, and perhaps it is, but it seems to me that you are trying to posit some sort of dichotomy between an allegedly static nature and dynamic human society - but there is nothing static about nature.
You seem to be confusing two things - the manner in which material conditions influence our theoretical framework, and the manner in which material conditions determine the structure and tendencies in a given society. This conflation probably rests on the assumption that social relations are the result of conscious, planned acts of humans - but this is an assumption Marxism, in general, denies. To Marxists, social being precedes consciousness, and ideology is a reflection of the material conditions rather than the motor of historical change.Originally Posted by liberlict
O.K. So which of these, theoretical framework, or structure and tendencies of a society, is the most important? I'm interpreting you as saying the Marxist focus is on the latter?
I mean a dichotomy between life and inanimate objects. If things produce social relationships, then a crystal wont produce more than 1 kind of reality. Because it doesn't change. Means and modes of production do change, which I understand as the basis of historical materialism; That social phenomena are produced by means and modes of production (technology).
Last edited by liberlict; 2nd July 2013 at 11:53.
The mode of production includes the means of production but also the relations of production which are also objective in that they are independent of individual will. Marx puts it like this:
A really good treatment of these issues can be found in Franz Jakubowski's Ideology and Superstructure in Historical Materialism
"Events have their own logic, even when human beings do not." - Rosa Luxemburg
"There are decades when nothing happens; and there are weeks when decades happen." - Lenin
