Well, this had to be done at some moment...

But seriously, can we explain what the link between Communism and materialism is (or, reversely, the link between capitalism and idealism)?

And do we really know what materialism is?

Must have something to do with matter? In this case, can we explain what matter is?

Luís Henrique

Dunno, want to read some Spinoza... could say... "materialism is the belief that there is one type of thing that needs no other thing to exist, and that this thing obeys the laws of physics". About to read Allen Wood (second time iirc ), he thinks better described as naturalism... Sorry to be little help!

And this one existing thing would be matter?

In this case, what is vacuum, or does vacuum not exist?

Luís Henrique

Erm, different definitions of matter?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

Perhaps it is better to ask what is "physic ( do not know what this means)". One could not argue that a vacuum is not physical, and it is not the case that physic has been dephysiced.

Its sound slightly as if you are talking old philosophy of science... have studied this, but it was a long time ago

LH, we have countless thousands of words in ordinary language that can account for the material nature of the world around us.

Materialism is against the belief that there exists things that cannot be seen, heard, tasted, or otherwise detected by scientific means.

It is against, such things as ghosts and fairies, and the more obvious "Gods".

Materialism is against the supernatural, the "spiritual".


But, contrary to what some around here might say, you do not have to be a materialist and wish for a communistic society.

It is plausible for a communistic society to exist around a common conception of God for example. No one said you had to be rational to be a communist, and a quick look around here (the site) should show how true that statement is.

Being a materialist is probably essential to being a proper Marxist however. But Marxism is the only sort of communism.

Materialism encompasses a lot of assumptions - the prime one being that there is an objective material reality which is independent of human perception; a secondary, but important proposition is that this objective reality can be accessed and understood via human perception and thinking.

From a Marxist point of view (i.e. Historical Materialism) the main proposition is that the course of human life is partly the result of the objective circumstances in which people find themselves. However, despite Marx beginning his analysis with humanity's relationship to nature, Historical Materialism is really concerned with man's relationship to man and the way this is conditioned by social forces which exist independently of individual will.

In other words, people create society by forming definite relations which then take on an objective, material force and compell individuals to act in specific ways. Humans are both the creators of society and the creatures of society.

The materialist dialectic (as a mode of analysis) is important in order to demonstrate the relationship between human action and the objective circumstances. It enables us to appreciate both the constraining elements of social forces and the creative capacity of human social action as elements within a mediating totality. This is what makes Marxist materialism an indispensible tool of revolutionary action and theory.

That's my understanding of it, anyway.

Yet, we do believe that matter is made of atoms? Atoms that were never seen, heard, tasted? In this case, "otherwise detected by scientific means" becomes of much importance; can we define what "scientific means" are?

I am "against" capitalism, and the reason I am against capitalism is that capitalism is, in my opinion, very much real. Should I be against fairies and gods for the same reason, or there is a different reason we should oppose them?

Yet, this is the most common belief here. Some even propose that non-materialists be restricted. Where does this idea come from, and why do you think it is wrong?

Luís Henrique

So, objective reality exists independently of human perception, but it can only be acessed by human perception (and thinking... but this does not change the problem, since objective reality also exists independently from human thinking). So, we really don't know if objective reality exists independently of human perception, we just assume it... what kind of assumption is this? An act of faith, a logical extrapolation...?

Hm, this is important... one would say that matter opposes some kind of resistance to human action? Or am I misreading you?

Well, this definitely smells dialectics. Would you say that dialectics is necessary in a materialist approach of human societies, or this is just a particular branch of materialism?

So you would say that while someone can be a communist without being a materialist, only a materialist approach would be able to transform society into Communism?

Luís Henrique

Well, Marx argues that the test of our thinking is how far it is proved in practice. I'd suggest that science has produced enough practical evidence to suggest this key assumption is a reasonable one.

Of course, at a very basic and obvious level, material reality provides resistance, or sets real limits, to the actions of humans. For instance, a woman without legs will not walk no matter how much she wants to. Similarly, a stone age culture will never put men on the moon, no matter how much they may desire it.

Yes, it reeks of it, doesn't it? That's why I can't accept Rosa's dismissal of dialectical thinking. Although i want to emphasise that dialectics only make sense to me if it's located within the realm of society, not nature. Marxism is a theory of society not a theory of the natural world.

Absolutely. Combined with a political realism.

Z:

I am glad you mentioned that, since the last 130 years of almost total failure refutes dialectics.

Only if you think that Historical Materialism tells us that social change is the result of theorists imposing their theory on the world.

And I know you don't.

Rosa,

What’s with the obsession to smash dialectics? As far as I understand your politics, you are a Leninist, although you think his philosophy is 4th rate. Nevertheless, you support his positions on imperialism, political organisation, etc. So either you must think:

(a) a dialectical analysis played no part in Lenin’s theory and practice and hence he arrived at correct conclusions; or

(b) he did apply dialectics and was just lucky that he got things right.

If it’s (a), then what’s the problem? Obviously even Lenin didn’t take the dialectic seriously (and we could extend that to the SWP(UK) who’s line you support despite it’s nominal attachment to dialectics) and therefore, dialectics is a mere conceit that has no real impact on the revolutionary movement. In which case, you're wasting an awful lot of your time and could be putting your big brain to better use for the worker's movement.

I agree, but am also tempted to point out that this implies "knowledge" is a bidirectional road. Our assumptions about reality must be shaped in a way that can be tested against reality, otherwise they remain idle. As such, the "reality" we are able to know isn't "reality in itself", but reality as it reacts when manipulated by actions directed by our knowledge. Am I forcing this interpretation?

And this "resistance" also applies to knowledge?

For instance, when we look at sky, we see the sun circling around the earth. We know that this is false, that the earth rotates around itself, causing that impression. But your stone age culture cannot deal practically with that; for all they know, the sun circles the earth - and some stone age visionary who maintains the opposite view isn't a scientist with a better grasp of reality, but just a speculative - or mystical - thinker. Is that right?

This raises an important issue. To which extent "society" is detached from the "natural world"? And why different laws would apply to society, as compared to nature?

Now, see the following. You have been proposing a theory of interaction between men, and between man and the natural world. But does this theory require a monistic approach, in which man and its society stem from nature (which seems to me what we would call "materialism"), as opposed to a dualist approach (see, for instance, your position above, in which you limit "dialectics" to social world), or even a reverse monist approach (in which the "objective" reality is considered a product of mind)?

In other words, "political realism" is dependent on epistemological or onthological materialism, or even positively correlated to it? (We seem to have seen a lot of political irrealism attached to professed materialism; the converse seems rare, but would it be impossible?)

Luís Henrique

I think that your interpretation is particularly apposite to social reality, which is a secondary form of reality (in other words, man-made, not nature-made) and necessarily more contingent on patterns of human action and interaction. This is why I insist on seeing Marxism as a social theory, not a meta-theory of nature.

If Marx had wanted otherwise, he would have abandoned philosophy for biology. But he he didn't, he became a political economist.

So in answer to this question:

Yes, society obeys different laws to nature. The main reason being that, unlike nature, society is produced by conscious, more or less self-directed beings. Capitalism isn't created by nature (although it occupies a particular productive relationship to it), it's created by human interaction, where the scope for human freedom is determined by specific property relations.

It is a totalising system in so far as it seeks to explain the connectivity between nature, society and humans. However, I believe it is stretched to breaking point if it's used to explain the internal workings of nature itself.

To argue that because society depends upon nature (which it surely does), it must operate in the same way is unnecessary - unless your monism argues that all things which arise out of nature behave in the same way (water and starlings, for instance).

Z:

We have been over this; if (a big 'if', I grant you) I am right and this mystical theory has been the biggest subjective reason why Marxism has suffered long term failure, then few things are more important.

Newton used some dodgy Neoplatonic ideas (mixed in with some even dodgier Hermetic notions -- drawn out of the same cesspit from which Hegel dredged his own concepts) to derive his theory of universal gravitation etc.

His theory is pretty successful, but the mysticism is crap.

So, we can reject the mysticism, but accept the science.

Same with Lenin.

Its effects are all negative, hence the tone and persistence of my attacks on it.

I have no practical problem with doing this, and in fact, much prefer it to the attempts to "enforce" dialectics on nature, that can easily end in a Lysenkoist quagmire.

But, theorically, it should be pointed that, since man is part of nature, its interactions with nature aren't purely externalist. The dicotomy between natural and cultural cannot be as abrupt as the dicotomy between natural and "spiritual" or supernatural.

Agreed. Now, this introduces a new dimension into our analysis, doesn't it? "Consciousness" is something that seems, a) to be entirely natural; and b) ultimately irreducible to nature. Now, how can something that stems entirely out from nature be ultimately irreducible to nature? If there is a solution for this problem (let's, carefully, not label it a contradiction), it seems to beg for a new concept that would make a proper mediation, isn't it? What could it be?

Marx says that the difference between the worse architect and the best bee is that the architect puts himself to work with a plan; that human activity is finalistic. Now, it comes to mind that much of human activity isn't really finalistic; the behaviour of men in the construction of capitalism seems to resemble "nature" a lot, in that the final results aren't planned at all.

I see; it certainly is a possible approach. But it still looks, to me at least, to hide some degree of inconsistency (as pointed above, im my first paragraph in this post).

Agreed, but to the effect that we should consider that "dialectics" arise at the moment in which "counsciousness" arises (instead, for instance, of the moment in which life arises, or molecular organisation) I still think that we would need a more precise definition of "counciousness" and a theory of why it inaugurates such new onthological stage (or would it be just an epistemological one?).

Luís Henrique

Rosa:

I think that the discussion on Lenin and his ability to derive a correct political practice from a mystical pseudo-theory is ongoing on the other thread; this is the reason I am not addressing your latest post here.

Luís Henrique

Luis,

Of course. In fact not only is our relationship with the external environment important but also our biological condition - we are a species of animal in nature; the result of a long-standing evolutionary process. However, we're distinctive in that we rarely act on instinct - we act consciously and rationally upon nature rather than act because of our nature. This means that there isn't a direct relationship between nature and culture; otherwise our societies would reflect an easily known human nature.

One of the chief proposals of Historical Materialism is that human society needs to be understood historically. From here, I'd argue (very unoriginally) that culture is more a product of history than nature.

Why isn't it reducible to nature? It's the result of having a big brain. Many other species have consciousness (they know when they're hungry, they know when they smell prey, they know when the wind blows and moves a twig in the forest, etc.); what they lack is 'self-consciousness' and a theory of mind.

In terms of how Marx bridged the gap between external reality and subjective mind, he introduced the concept of sensuous human practice. It follows that his concern about our relationship to nature is not with how nature acts upon us, but on how we act upon it and transform both it and ourselves.

It's quite interesting to think about how our increased mastery over nature, and the societies that we create as a consequence of that, becomes part of our evolutionary journey. For instance, I believe there's evidence that the agricultural revolution over 8,000 years ago was followed by genetic changes as people began to establish larger settlements and increase the complexity of their interaction. It seems that the more complex our societies become, the smarter we get.

Yes, the architect builds it in his imagination before building it in the real world. Again, no other species can perform this trick. I'm not sure what you mean by 'finalistic', but obviously capitalism is an open-ended system, the result of billions of finalistic decisions made by individual capitalists which are not consciously connected to a plan but motivated by their own narrow self-interest - sometimes acting as a class; but often not. That's one of the reasons we want rid of it. But it also demonstrates the complexity of social reality - and yes, it would perhaps be more useful using nature and evolution as a metaphor for society rather than the architects plan.

No, I think it arises when humans begin to act self-consciously upon nature and forge societies.

I'm not too clear on the meaning of your last statement.

LH; yes well I'll leave you two to exchange mystical pleasantries.