L.B. Neill
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
‘ That there are universal laws of motion in physics and of evolution in biology may be conceded, but it is more contentious to say that there are entirely equivalent laws of motion or evolution in human society.’
Wez, ALB,
The general principles that can be observed in biology, in organisms, their physical ‘force’ differ from the social life (reproductions of givens, and transformations). It is contentious. It need not be contentious though. Human evolution in consciousness does not have that same physical properties that nature has- nature will do as nature does well before we could cognise it. At present, human consciousness is the force applied to insist on our ‘taken for granted’ understanding of social production- so it is subject to change.
Human consciousness can change and try to understand the natural world, use a microscope to break it down into atoms. But that is it. The thing is, it means we can consciously change the social, the societal. And yes:
We will probably get stick from the other sides as well, eg from those who think that there is no end (aim) of history or who think that the laws of physics are human-made too as well as those who think that the dialectics applies to nature as well as human thought.
There is a conscious aim and end to history in the social, the societal (an end to the class struggle), the end to hierarchical divisions in economic political.
The human made laws of physics are that: the best approximations to describe them according to know-how at that time. If we try to apply our will on nature, a dialectic will, or some idealism- nature will counter that, and ignore our mere postulations- rolling right on as it has done. Thing is it points to the societal as being malleable, neuro-plastics, and subject to change in human thinking- the pragmatic and deliberate end to the class struggle… and nature will continue on as usual, ignoble to all our epochs.
It is a subtle shift, but not breaking with Marx, just a correction according to social change agency.
It is not anti intellectual nor anti Marx. It is a reboot. No matter the course: ‘stick happens’.
I was also a hardcore Leninists and I recognized that I was mistaken too.
… and:
that many Leftists claim to be socialists and Marxists
Thing is:
The lesson for me is to maintain Marxism as Marxism and Socialism as Socialism- else it can morph into Leninism or an other type of state capitalism coupling the State with Capital ownership. Dominant narratives conjoining its countering ones. Socialist modes get consumed with State based Capitalist modes?
The real argument is over whether or not it extends outside the field of human thinking and decision-making. Is it something more than “a form of logic”? Does it apply within (for want of a better term) “Nature”?
ALB,
Note to self: it seems I concur that when using semiotic/sign theory, or even dialectics , that it is best to keep it centred on the mental/linguistic activity of society- it is a sociology of language.
Internal meanings applied to the material can go into a pataphysics… with rocks containing an idealism “I am a rock”: So the rock told me! It would create fixed unities of meaning with ideal forms existing in the ether- communicating its essence to us: A little Platonic… Now I lost my track!! The material world of nature does indeed have its independent force, and our thinking will not shape those laws (make the Sun orbit the Earth, no)- but we can put it to use once we have the idea to turn wood into a chair!
Be safe and stay well if you are in lockdown,
L.B
Libmarxist- I originally drafted a reply, but realised AJ posted one with a link more to the point than mine.
I know you ask a question- but I have one for you.
It is based on your choice of name.
Why libmarxist? In the spirit of anthropology: what is ‘lib’ to you and what is ‘marxist’?
That way, I can contextualise your question better: but the answer needs what you believe or value- other than your questions of others.
LB, On our many varying roads and differing paths to understanding, we acquire much baggage upon our backs and some we are reluctant to shed, even though they are now a cumbersome and unnecessary burden.
… Allan… The reason for how heavy I feel when I wrestle- lifting so much weight.
It has been a treat to read Marx (writer to reader). And it has made me feel lighter, lifting a weight from the vast opinions after Marx,.. Getting back to basics is great…
I do find social science fun. Like Wez finds Dialectics fun. The nerd in me I embrace. The Marx in me, I see the purpose… I should do an inventory of what is not needed in my backpack.
MS
For some leftist groups, Marx organizing principles is the Gotha Program, and this is not true. Marx never created a blueprint of the pos capitalist society
We live in a World of change and movement. We do not have a blueprint.. and to fix one, insist on one, will create havoc on any future in socialist Society- controlling it before it can come into being. Interpretation is only Technique. And many of us have that in spades!
Right now I am celebrating my re-discovery of Marx as writer. Me as reader. And it is a great and light place to be. I can see my house from here 🙂
understand the world without the dialectic is like trying to board a moving train whilst blindfolded
Wez and MS, Marx writings circulate. The texts find their way into many signifying practices in many disciplines, and include dialectical modes of thought, semiotics, worker local wisdoms and meaning making practices of many kinds. This diversity in interpretation shows its health- if interpretation rigidity occurs, it becomes… controlled, sedimented, uni-vocal, near vanguardism.
The fact that we have that richness, means it is a flourishing field of discourse (open to integrate old and new interpretive practices- with a common goal.
I use semiotic and discourse theory, a child of dialectics in some ways… and the broad range of comments in this thread show socialism incorporates many practices in the science of meaning:
“There is no royal road to science, and only those who
do not dread the fatiguing climb of its steep paths have a chance of gaining its luminous summits.” (Capital, 1872)We are using many tools- as thought systems are that: a technology… an instrument.
We can engage in many roads of interpretive practice, and what unites it is the articles of understanding, the organising principle.
Sometimes reading Marx for Marx is also akin to our debates with one another, listening to vibrant ways of : a chance of gaining its luminous summits.
And yet we thank them…
And yet socialism has found expression with them…
And it could have come into being in many ways… The road to socialism…
And with/without, a difference is being promoted, ending oppression…
And yet a Utopian worker is born and becomes conscious of that history to come…
And here we are… making socialism speak, no matter the ‘Royal road to science’…
🙂
Wez and MS,
There are heterogenous processes at work in Marx narratives, and from what I have read so far-, that it seems known and familiar. As Robbo said, that the post modern is conversations with Hegel in some way. something newer can be made know.
I appreciate thesis/antithesis continuously generating syntheses…
However, reading Marx in and of Marx has been somewhat really helpful- good for a first reading, and then redouble in a closer analytical second read.
You see I had learned Marxian ideas from secondary sources in social science: views on what Marx wrote- or ‘their’ take on its utility. Reading Marx as a primary text is so much more informative and flexible… Marx for his time… and hermeneutic for ours.
That said we may all have our critique, and that is what makes it more robust- reading the ideas of others, differing and yet the same!
I am currently reading Material Basis of Society,
Once I let go of reading with a post Structural filter, traced back to a naturalist and science centre of meaning, it just flowed.
I am appreciative of your advice!
Capital must be read and studied as it was written, as a treatise in Political Economy
I think I was reading it through critical theory, so better to read as it is: a treatise… now that reduces the complication… thanks, I overthink things- I think!
LBird- I am mindful of absolutes- and thanks, will keep up the discoveries… just when I thought I had reached the know-how… more to learn…
Be safe
In Derrida’s later years, he saw the legal forms as being deconstructive- but the essence of justice as not- as justice was yet to come into being. It is yet to arrive.
I do not want to go knee deep, but YMS, you are right- the emergent-or dominant idea is pragmatic of the newly power sharing class.
LBird,
It boils down to a point- and then that point requires more boiling.
That is because it is ever changing, never limiting.
We can’t vote what reality is- but observe it, and then decide what to do with the findings.
I had a discovery today, helped by YMS.
I see your point on ‘social producer’ over “individual”. Understand.
I was conveying the ruling elite’s fixity of meaning; and a meaning that would be challenged by the class interests of the worker. Negating what they say, and then moving ever forward.
We just need that extra forward, in simple terms.
“German liberals operating under conditions of absolutism found a philosophy ready to hand. Hegel celebrated the Prussian state, trying to marry liberal individualism and monarchy.”
Got it Young Master Smeet.
The historical conditions- the incremental negation- the self and the monarch. The penny dropped from such a height, and hit. Well aimed. and only took me a few hundred years.
We do not need to move forward on our masters coat tails- but make our own coats… and share them.
But that is the thing.
We need to consciously make a change, and it impacts across the bio-psycho-social.
Yet the material seems fixed by dominant ruling classes- I know it is not fixed, but to many it feels fixed. I am not going anywhere near we make our own reality here, not at all. But I am saying, Marx saw that things are not fixed at all, but subject to ongoing change- and anyone who tries to limit it, control its progression, is an oppressor of sorts. And try to:
“to glorify the existing state of things.”
I know from hydraulic theory in social science that drilling down into the fixed state of the personality sees people as a state of being fixed- yet in other theories, we are changing, ever moving forward.
So we need to glorify change and the material/ and mental forces of change- and end the class struggle consciously.
