Commuists Against Oppression - Anybody else see an oxymoron?!

[other]

Finally, I think it's important to keep in mind that Marx's approach is in such a manner that you don't really grasp the depth of what he is saying without extensive study. The reason for this is because, instead of explaining something in terms of building blocks of information, starting at the ground and going up, like is common, he instead treats his subject as an indivisible whole, probing at it from different perspectives and different angles, sometimes analyzing a certain section in detail yet never fully isolating it from the whole itself.

This means that, based on the point he is attempting to make at the time, or the subject being studied/explained, he can use different words to mean the same thing, or same words to mean different things. This is why, for example, he can in his broader abstractions discuss the proletariat as a class, yet on the same page say "This organisation of the proletarians into a class..." (from the Manifesto, for convenience sake). Another good example of this is his usage of the word "value" for quite a few different concepts in Capital.

This is why he is generally so misunderstood by not only critics but supporters as well, and why there has been much confusion on his works.

That is very true, and I readily admit that I have certainly not read everything he wrote, but from what I have read of him, some of what he said has merit, but he also started with some basic flawed premises... and made overly grandiose assumptions as well.

Typical of most philosophers, really.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

you don't consider the "economic sphere" to include relations with other human beings? I took that as a given.

My point was that the sum total of what we experience both in our relations with our environment as well as our relation with other humans is what forms our consciousness. In other words, the economic base of society is part of that but it is not limited to that.

Or, "it is not our only our relationship to subsistence means that is deterministic, but other factors as well."

The central point is that he directly ties what an individual is to the individual's means of production. When discrepancies occur in means of production, then, distinctions occur amongst groups of people... The problem then, is that by tying what an individual is to means of production, then you are necessarily creating different classes of people, and marx further tied this to distribution of power in society.

There's a few issues with this.

First is with the "direct tying" of individuals (or, what "they are") to the "individual's means of production". Now, I'm guessing that when you say "what an individual is" you are referring to the formation of one's consciousness. Well, in that case, I don't see what the problem is here. The conditions in which we develop, including the mode(s) of production in existence, are a factor in the formation of our consciousness.

So I'm not really sure what you're disagreeing with here, as you first made this point yourself by saying that the economic base of society is a factor, but rather that it's not limited to that, which is what I am saying is Marx's position.

Second issue I have with this are these "discrepancies." I'm not sure what you mean by this. What do you mean by "discrepancies"? Marx posited that class society developed out of a number of factors, including but not limited to the increase in the division of labour. Clarify and I'll respond.

Third issue I have with this is "distinctions". I'm not sure what you mean by this word, either. It's a very vague word.

Fourth, nobody is "creating different classes of people". These developed historically.

I disagree that what people are, and the power they have, is determined by this. It is a factor in power in many cases, but not always and not the only one.

Nobody said that it was the only one, as I have already stated.

 

[other]

My point was that the sum total of what we experience both in our relations with our environment as well as our relation with other humans is what forms our consciousness. In other words, the economic base of society is part of that but it is not limited to that.

Or, "it is not our only our relationship to subsistence means that is deterministic, but other factors as well."

There's a few issues with this.

First is with the "direct tying" of individuals (or, what "they are") to the "individual's means of production". Now, I'm guessing that when you say "what an individual is" you are referring to the formation of one's consciousness. Well, in that case, I don't see what the problem is here. The conditions in which we develop, including the mode(s) of production in existence, are a factor in the formation of our consciousness.

So I'm not really sure what you're disagreeing with here, as you first made this point yourself by saying that the economic base of society is a factor, but rather that it's not limited to that, which is what I am saying is Marx's position.

Second issue I have with this are these "discrepancies." I'm not sure what you mean by this. What do you mean by "discrepancies"? Marx posited that class society developed out of a number of factors, including but not limited to the increase in the division of labour. Clarify and I'll respond.

Third issue I have with this is "distinctions". I'm not sure what you mean by this word, either. It's a very vague word.

Fourth, nobody is "creating different classes of people". These developed historically.



Nobody said that it was the only one, as I have already stated.

Well, in short, the difference in our view may be due to the very style of writing he used, which you mentioned earlier. In The German Ideology, for instance, he speaks of the development of the consciousness, subsistence means, production, population increase, and subsequent division of labor etcetc... but makes no mention of an subjective factors. So I'll have to ask where you are taking additional, and specifically subjective, factors in the formulation of your position on his philosophy. Where does his materialism allow for other, say idealistic, symbolic, rationalist, or whatever factors to have weight in his theory of society?

As far as "discrepancies, distinctions," I wasn't splitting hairs--and I also did not say he that he entirely was wrong in the formation (I said creation, not to imply his invention-- I just picked that word as origination) of classes, but that he was far from being completely correct. He ignored too much and gave them too much importance in his theory. And again, I'll have to ask you about those "other factors" you mention, I'm not familiar with his mention of them.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Well, in short, the difference in our view may be due to the very style of writing he used, which you mentioned earlier. In The German Ideology, for instance, he speaks of the development of the consciousness, subsistence means, production, population increase, and subsequent division of labor etcetc... but makes no mention of an subjective factors.

Right. The German Ideology is a very broad, abstract work, so you are correct. However, if you look at his actual historical studies, such as, for example, The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte or The Civil War in France you will find that he doesn't focus on the objective factor nearly as much, because his subject of inquiry is much different. Upon moving to such a subject the actions of men, the struggle of classes, becomes much more prominent.

So I'll have to ask where you are taking additional, and specifically subjective, factors in the formulation of your position on his philosophy. Where does his materialism allow for other, say idealistic, symbolic, rationalist, or whatever factors to have weight in his theory of society?

Unfortunately this is one of the most confusing and most debated subjects among Marxists, and the source of many conflicts among different academics, including non-Marxists. I have yet to find a sufficient work that succinctly sums this up in any simple way, as the relation between the two is incredibly complex. One cannot simply take a causative approach to this question, which is generally our way of understanding things.

I had something typed out, but you know what, I'll just let Plekhanov do the talking for me, as I just found this gem from trying to find some quotes:

In order to understand the historical views of Marx, we must recall the conclusions at which philosophy and social and historical science had arrived in the period immediately preceding his appearance. The French historians of the Restoration came as we know to the conclusion that “civil conditions,” “property relations,” constitute the basic foundation of the entire social order. We know also that the same conclusion was reached, in the person of Hegel, by idealist German philosophy – against its will, against its spirit, simply on account of the inadequacy and bankruptcy of the idealist explanation of history. Marx, who took over all the results of the scientific knowledge and philosophic thought of his age, completely agrees with the French historians and Hegel about the conclusion just mentioned. I became convinced, he said, that:

“legal relations as well as forms of state are to be grasped neither from themselves nor from the so-called general development of the human mind, but rather have their roots in the material conditions of life, the sum-total of which Hegel, following the example of the Englishmen and Frenchmen of the eighteenth century, combines under the name of ‘civil society,’ that, however, the anatomy of civil society is to be sought in political economy.”​

But on what does the economy of the given society depend? Neither the French historians, nor the Utopian Socialists, nor Hegel have been able to reply to this at all satisfactorily. All of them, directly or indirectly, referred to human nature. The great scientific service rendered by Marx lies in this, that he approached the question from the diametrically opposite side, and that he regarded man’s nature itself as the eternally changing result of historical progress, the cause of which lies outside man. In order to exist, man must support his organism, borrowing the substances he requires from the external nature surrounding him. This borrowing presupposes a certain action of man on that external nature. But, “acting on the external world, he changes his own nature.” In these few words is contained the essence of the whole historical theory of Marx, although naturally, taken by themselves, they do not provide an adequate understanding of it, and require explanations.

Source

Anyways, I'd highly recommend this book. It's very dated/contemporary, and so a lot of it is difficult to understand because he is basically addressing the work at others' writings on the subject, but it's probably the best exposition of the history of how this question has been dealt with from the Ancient Greeks up to Marx. And this is probably one of the most important questions philosophy could deal with.

 

[other]

Right. The German Ideology is a very broad, abstract work, so you are correct. However, if you look at his actual historical studies, such as, for example, The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte or The Civil War in France you will find that he doesn't focus on the objective factor nearly as much, because his subject of inquiry is much different. Upon moving to such a subject the actions of men, the struggle of classes, becomes much more prominent.

Unfortunately this is one of the most confusing and most debated subjects among Marxists, and the source of many conflicts among different academics, including non-Marxists. I have yet to find a sufficient work that succinctly sums this up in any simple way, as the relation between the two is incredibly complex. One cannot simply take a causative approach to this question, which is generally our way of understanding things.

Indeed there is lack of agreement, but it is these very additional factors that are key. In fact, Weber nailed him on this at the turn of the century. Additionally, anthropologists have demonstrated many cases in foraging societies that discredit marx's premises concerning the earliest steps in his argument (these less complex societies are easier to analyze critically for many reasons). For instance, high status (power as a functioning agency in societies without division of labor or classes) can arise independent of variation of or access to subsistence means, and this even carries over into more "advanced" societies as well.

I had something typed out, but you know what, I'll just let Plekhanov do the talking for me, as I just found this gem from trying to find some quotes:



Anyways, I'd highly recommend this book. It's very dated/contemporary, and so a lot of it is difficult to understand because he is basically addressing the work at others' writings on the subject, but it's probably the best exposition of the history of how this question has been dealt with from the Ancient Greeks up to Marx. And this is probably one of the most important questions philosophy could deal with.

Where I mentioned that there is some merit to his postulations earlier, this is it. He did transform philosophy and in doing so had a large part in the creation of all the social sciences as we recognize them today--and it is his application of materialism where idealism formerly held sway that did this.

But it is also important to recognize the limitations of his thory and mistakes he made in other areas, most notably, I'd say, in his predictive assumptions concerning historical progress on a macroscale. Empiricism has definite limits in its ability to satisfactorily describe reality, and marxism, as a branch from this tree is far from infallible. For one thing, I feel that human societies, interactions, history, and even economics are the product of far too many immesurable variables to allow for human philosophies to be accurate beyond a certain point, and even the "hard" sciences (despite their obvious utility) do little to explain reality very well (or very consistently) in all cases--as many particle physicists may attest. The world, and people, are to dynamic and chaotic--so in saying this I conclude that marxism certainly contributes some utility to our understanding of human behavior and culture, but it is far from being correct, reliably predictive of future events, or even being (prematurely, marx would say) set as a foundation for the establishment of a system of govermnent, in whatever variation.

To say the least, the results of the historical attempts to actually implement his philosophy (or some variation thereof) have all ended in disaster. All governments are a tradeoff, we have to settle for whatever flawed system works best according to our own sensibilities, and I can say that, in its practical implementation, systems steeped in marxist principles have all been deeply flawed.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Communism in theory is a hotbed of warm promises with any nastiness unmentioned. It can often sound rather intelligent, especially when the criticism of other people is hypocritically concerned.

But talk of it in practice unravels the whole darn thing:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...s-communism-doesnt-work-8.html#post1058977145

 

[Grant]

Communism in theory is a hotbed of warm promises with any nastiness unmentioned. It can often sound rather intelligent, especially when the criticism of other people is hypocritically concerned.

But talk of it in practice unravels the whole darn thing:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...s-communism-doesnt-work-8.html#post1058977145

The idea of Communism allows the quasi intellectuals an opportunity to debate how other people should live their lives, a fanciful element of power they don't otherwise have.

They see people more like ants than human beings, and thus dream of s system more resembling an ant farm than a living and vibrant society and culture. I think the only reason many of these buffoons adopted the cloak of communism was an effort to get laid. There could be no other rational explanation.