[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

It would seem that Engels agrees with you:https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/letters/94_01_25.htm

Quote:

So it is not, as people try here and there conveniently to imagine, that the economic position produces an automatic effect. Men make their history themselves, only in given surroundings which condition it and on the basis of actual relations already existing, among which the economic relations, however much they may be influenced by the other political and ideological ones, are still ultimately the decisive ones, forming the red thread which runs through them and alone leads to understanding.

and by economic conditions:

Quote:

Thus the entire technique of production and transport is here included. According to our conception this technique also determines the method of exchange and, further, the division of products, and with it, after the dissolution of tribal society, the division into classes also and hence the relations of lordship and servitude and with them the state, politics, law, etc.

[my bold]So, why didn't Engels (and he, not Marx, is the formulator of the concept) call this the 'idealist-materialist conception of history'?As I've said before, when Engels says 'economic', he contrasts the concept with 'political and ideological', and so assumes that 'economic' is outside of 'ideas'.That's why Engels (not Marx) introduced the concept of the 'materialist conception of history'.So, not only does Engels not agree with me, YMS, but he doesn't agree with Marx, either.Marx never, ever, says that 'economic relations' (ie. outside of politics and ideology) are 'ultimately decisive'.Engels does, and the Leninists followed.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

If one thinks 'material conditions' means human 'ideas and practice' determining, we have no problems.

 

If what I'm saying has clicked, Vin, I'm very happy!The key political consequence of this, is that what 'material conditions' ARE, can be VOTED upon.Thus, 'material conditions' are within the democratic control of the proletariat.If 'material conditions' don't contain ideas/consciousness, then they just 'are', and can't be changed by voting.Marx wanted the proletariat to change 'material conditions', but Engels put the kibosh on that, because for Engels 'material conditions' were outside of consciousness, and he believed that these 'material conditions' (which he called 'economics', too) were the final determinant of our lives.So, for Engels, the 'active side' was 'matter'.For Marx, the 'active side' was human consciousness, engaged in practice, changing their world.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Ecept that the key texts are the ones they both authored, or put their names to, like the German ideology:

Quote:

The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production.

and of course:

Quote:

Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life. In the first method of approach the starting-point is consciousness taken as the living individual; in the second method, which conforms to real life, it is the real living individuals themselves, and consciousness is considered solely as their consciousness.

[my bold]

Yes, 'material conditions', 'life' and 'real life' are both ideal and material.That's the whole point, YMS – Engels thought Marx meant that 'material' meant simply 'matter', rather than both 'ideas' and 'material'.When Marx writes 'material', he's talking about 'human production'.When Engels writes 'material', he's (often) talking about 'matter'.This mistake of Engels', his fundamental misunderstanding of what Marx meant, has had tremendous consequences, all politically bad.If one thinks 'material conditions' means human 'ideas and practice' determining, we have no problems.Put simply, humans ideas can change the world.But, if one thinks 'material conditions' means 'matter' (specifically, something outside of human IDEAS), then one misunderstands Marx.Put simply, it's waiting for the rocks to tell us. And since 'rocks don't talk', the party arguing this has to pretend to the class that the party knows what the rocks are saying. Thus the party arguing the Engels' line has to have a 'consciousness' that the proletariat clearly doesn't have. I'm a worker, and I've never heard a rock talk.This is the disastrous political result of Engels' philosophical mistake – he seems to have realised it as a political mistake, at the end of his life, when Marx was already dead, but Engels never seemed to be able to realise that the 'bad politics' flowed from HIS philosophical misreading of Marx, and couldn't be undone by transferring its effects to the very distant 'final' cause, which never actually came.Engels had to reject 'matter' as a cause, but he didn't realise that.Whilst 'matter' determines, humans are powerless.Where parties have the special consciousness required to read the 'material conditions' for us workers, the proletariat remains powerless.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

… the economic base ultimately asserts itself. …a vindication of Marx and Engels.

No, I've shown, Vin, that the notion of 'ultimate economic base' is Engels' own formulation, and not Marx's.Marx never talks about 'ultimate' causes. He talks about human 'production' – this is always ideal-material, because humans are both being and conscious.The belief that there is something outside of humans that 'ultimately asserts itself' (like, for example, 'material conditions') can't be found in Marx's work.

Vin wrote:

Engels was right.

That's an opinion that I don't share, Vin.It can be shown that Engels differs from Marx on the issues of 'matter' and 'material' 'final causes', and Engels' views contradict Marx's, and so one can think Engels 'wrong', but still think Marx 'right'.The two were independent thinkers, not the mythical unity 'Marx-Engels', of Leninist and Maoist imagination.

[LBird]

Since this thread seems to have gone quite comradely, and seems to have generated more light than heat, for a pleasant change, I though that I’d spell out why Engels contradicts himself, as an aid especially to robbo’s request.

Engels, Bloch letter, wrote:

…the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase….the various elements of the superstructure — political forms of the class struggle and its results, to wit: constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc., juridical forms, and even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the participants, political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas — also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form….Marx and I are ourselves partly to blame for the fact that the younger people sometimes lay more stress on the economic side than is due to it.

[my bold]Here we have the Engels who echoes Marx. The ‘ultimate determining element’ is ‘production’. It’s obvious to all that human ‘production’, being social, involves both ideas and materiality, in equal measure. He admits that ‘more stress’ is laid ‘on the economic side than is due to it’.Fine. Engels argues for Marx’s idealism-materialism.But… wait…Engels then goes on to throw away, once again, Marx’s notion of human ‘production’ (theory and practice, plans and product, human social and historical creativity), and reverts to the ‘economic’ as ‘ultimately decisive’, and specifically says that ‘human minds’ do not play ‘the decisive one’.

Engels, Bloch letter, wrote:

We make our history ourselves, but, in the first place, under very definite assumptions and conditions. Among these the economic ones are ultimately decisive. But the political ones, etc., and indeed even the traditions which haunt human minds also play a part, although not the decisive one.

[my bold]Engels seems to assume that ‘matter’, ‘material’, ‘economic’ and ‘production’ are all entirely equivalent terms.He can’t see that ‘matter/material’ is ‘material’, but that ‘economic/production’ is ‘ideal-material’.His use of ‘economic’ excludes ‘mind’, and so he thinks that the term is equivalent to ‘material’, something to do with ‘matter’, to the exclusion of ‘mind’.I know that this quote from the Bloch letter is often quoted by Marxists to prove that Engels agreed with Marx about ‘ideas’, and I think that this was how robbo (and Dave?) intended it to be taken.But, in fact, any critical reading of it, shows that Engels reverts to ‘materialism’ and the finality of the ‘economic’. This is not taken from Marx, but is an invention all of Fred’s own.The ‘ultimate determining’ factor is human production (idealism-materialism), not the ‘economic’ (materialism).Engels was himself confused, and has proceeded to confuse Communists since.It's time to put this right, comrades, and arm the proletariat with a theory that actually puts the proletariat in democratic control, and forget about 'the rocks of material conditions' telling us what to do, and stop baffling future generations of workers with the nonsense of Engels' so-called 'materialism'.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

For the reason hinted at, I think, in the Bloch letter – it was called the materialist conception of history to redress the balance somewhat in the light of the predominately idealist conceptions of history making the rounds at the time.

Yes, that was the reason: to redress the balance of simple idealist history.But, as Engels belatedly admitted, it was a huge political mistake to redress by emphasising their view as simple materialist history.For one, that wasn't true: as I've shown on this thread with a quote from Marx in the EPM, Marx was actually engaged in idealist-materialist history. And secondly, Engels' failure to recognise the philosophical difference, later led to political problems of the sort that led Marx to declare 'All I know is that I'm not a Marxist!', when confronted with so-called 'materialist' accounts.

robbo203 wrote:

Whether or not "materialist conception of history" is the right phrase or an inappropriate description –  I am sympathetic to the latter conclusion – the main point is that at least in the hands of Marx (and Engels despite what you say) it does not  preclude consciousness and  the role of ideas in history at all.

I'm happy that you can see that it is an 'inappropriate description' (I'd rather say 'complete nonsense', but I'll leave it be, for now).But, once again, you're not reading what I write about Engels. I keep saying that both Marx and Engels stress the centrality of ideas in history – the problem is, Engels also says the complete opposite (which Marx doesn't), that 'material' (or, even worse, 'matter') is the 'final' determinant. Engels could never see the difference, as the Bloch letter shows, even when he was trying to make amends!Either one subscribes to being/consciousness, subject/object, ideal/material, theory/practice, as both being equally necessary to produce knowledge, or one subscribes to one being the 'basis' of the other.Those two positions are completely opposed, and the latter leads either to 'materialism' (where 'being' is stressed as the basis) or to 'idealism' (where 'consciousness' is stressed as the basis).Marx, coming from the German Idealist tradition of Kant and Hegel, was clear that the 'active side' of human knowledge production had been stressed by the idealists, and took great care to preserve their insight (of course, also incorporating French and British Materialism, too, as the 'practice' counterpart to 'theory').

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

None of this has anything to do with the assertion that ideas are not part of our material existence. 

Since no-one, to my recollection, has made that 'assertion', Vin, I'm not sure why you feel the need to argue against it.

Vin wrote:

Both base and superstructure are 'ideas'. We enter into relations independent of our will.

Yes,"Both base and superstructure are 'ideas' "."We enter into relations independent of our will."The relations into which we enter are 'base and superstructure' ie, as you say, 'ideas'.Thus, 'ideas' determine our 'will'. Not the 'material'.Simple. As Marx argued, social production determines our ideas. Social production is both ideal and material, because 'theory and practice', being social and producing things, requires both ideas and material. The world is both being and consciousness, both ideal and material.Why the hell Engels kept on about 'matter', perhaps we'll never know.

[LBird]

Dave, I think that robbo has already quoted the Bloch letter.Engels did his best to remedy the 'materialist' rubbish that he'd inadvertently instigated, without the awareness at that time of where it would politically lead, and tried to redress.Did he do enough? In my opinion, no.He still hangs onto phrases like 'finally' and 'as necessary', 'ultimately decisive', 'last resort', and so completely undermines the rest of his argument in the letter.Unless we accept Marx's 'idealism-materialism', and argue that both ideas and the 'economic' are 'ultimate', 'final', 'last resort', etc., we'll still be here in another hundred years, patiently waiting for the 'necessary'.Whilst any mention of 'ideas' is condemned as 'idealism', we'll be led by those who claim to 'talk to the rocks'.Like most workers who join those parties that argue that, and soon leave when they realise that 'democracy' is a myth to the party, I'll still say 'no thanks'.I want a world in which workers' conscious production is the 'final' arbiter, not the fuckin' rocks.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

So, if it involves 'ideas', why not call it the 'idealist-materialist conception of history'? Why do you continue, against the drift of your posts on this very thread, which, I agree, continuously stress the role of ideas and consciousness, to use the term 'materialist'?

I didint invent the term.  I am just  saying what the expression "materialist conception of history " signifies and it does not signify what you think its does.  Its does not preclude consciousness and a role for ideas

[my bold]So, WHY call it the 'materialist'?I agree that, not only does Marx's 'conception' of history 'not preclude consciousness and a role for ideas', but argue also that 'consciousness and ideas' play a central role in 'theory and practice'.If the 'term' doesn't have any significance, why not call it the 'chocolate conception of history'?No, most workers seeing, for the first time, the word 'material' attached to Marx's concept, naturally think that it's something basically to do with 'material' things.Then, when they meet the Religious Materialists, who tell them that 'idealism' is an evil best avoided, the die is cast.For over 100 years, workers have been brainwashed into believing that 'ideas' are 'material', and that 'material conditions' determine 'ideas'.Lambs to the Leninist slaughter. The 'ideas' are then kept safely away from workers, and an elite provide the 'consciousness'.Let's face it, there are even 'socialists' on this very site who won't have workers electing 'truth'. So much for the democratic control of production.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

I think you are too hung up on the fomality of labels.  In no way does a materialist conception of history preclude a role for ideas as I explained.

So, if it involves 'ideas', why not call it the 'idealist-materialist conception of history'? Why do you continue, against the drift of your posts on this very thread, which, I agree, continuously stress the role of ideas and consciousness, to use the term 'materialist'?Aren't you the 'formal' one?I'll quite happily ditch 'materialist conception', 'idealist conception' and 'idealist-materialist conception', if we can get away from the Engelsian myth that Marx was a 'materialist'.But, whilst the Religious Materialists continue to insist, following Engels, that Marx was a 'materialist', we're compelled to argue about these 'labels'.The sooner we get to 'theory and practice', and away from 'materialism', the better for all concerned.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

 I agree with Alison Assister , an ex SPGBer, that " Marx’s materialism should not be seen as philosophical materialism’ (Alison Assiter "Philosophical Materialism or the Materialist Conception of History", Radical Philosophy, 23 (Winter 1979). 

I've read Alison's article (it was provided to me by a comrade from here), and I think that she is too influenced by Engels, and fails to see the differences between them.She still refers to 'Marx's materialism' (p. 20), and so clearly doesn't understand that Marx was an 'idealist-materialist'. She then refers to 'his materialist conception of history'. This is Engels' term, not Marx's. Marx merely referred to 'our conception'. I've given all the relevent quotes, previously.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

…we have the problems of: 1. Pursuing this objective under the current conditions or keeping it on the shelf until the establishment of socialism? 2. Deciding whether or not this objective is fundamentally necessary to the revolutionary process in its initial stages?

In answer to 1., if we see building socialism as a process, in which our activity now prefigures what we'll have in socialism, then we have to pursue it under capitalism. Unless there is a critical alternative to capitalism, then capitalism will remain the only alternative.I think the response to 1. also answers 2., too.Whilst markets, individualism and so-called 'objective science' remain unquestioned, the bourgeoisie will retain the upper hand.Unless one believes in the bourgeois myth that the 'material conditions' talk to us, of course…… but the belief in that myth will determine different answers being given to your two questions, Brian. I don't believe in that myth. It is the Leninist myth.

[LBird]

Since we've looked at Marx's Theses on Feuerbach many times to prove his 'idealism-materialism', here's another quote from Charlie:

Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts (CW3, p. 336), wrote:

Here we see how consistent naturalism or humanism is distinct from both idealism and materialism, and constitutes at the same time the unifying truth of both.

[my bold/italics]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/hegel.htmMarx wasn't a 'materialist'.If we have to give a name to his 'philosophy', it makes much more sense to term it 'idealism-materialism', rather than the obviously one-sided 'materialism'. In fact, if one-sidedness is acceptable, it makes just as much sense to claim that 'Marx is an idealist'.No, he is neither simply an 'idealist' nor simply a 'materialist'.He unifies both in an ideology of 'theory and practice' (what I would describe as 'idealism-materialism', if we are to locate it in its context of the terms then used).The 'belief' that 'Marx was a materialist' (in the sense 'material' is commonly understood, ie. 'matter') comes from Engels.Later, Engels went even further, and claimed that there were only two ways of seeing the world, 'idealism' which was bad, and 'materialism', which was good. This was simply a return to pre-Marxian 'mechanical materialism', in which 'matter' is the 'basis' of all things.As robbo has shown, above, Engels at the end of his life, after Marx's death, seemed to finally be realising where his amateur philosophising was heading, in politics, and wished to backtrack from it, as many of his later letters show (see Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence).Owl of Minerva stuff, eh?

[LBird]

robbo, go back and read some of the numerous threads in which I've discussed these things with you and others, and provided copious evidence.To be truthful, I've been caught out before by the Religious Materialists, and spent hours, days and weeks 'providing evidence', explanation and discussion, but the RM-ers will not engage.If you hold the belief that Marx was a 'materialist', nothing I write here for you will shake your faith. Sorry, but you're going to have to do the work, this time.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

Yes, robbo, Engels did write that, amongst other things that contradicted it. He was confused.But, even given what you've quoted, the Religious Materialists still insist that 'consciousness' can be reduced to 'matter'.'Matter' was a hobbyhorse of Engels, not of Marx.

I'm not convinced that Engels is quite the reductionist you make him out to be.  Where is your evidence?  His later writings, like the quote I provided seem, if anything, to provide good evidence of an anti reductionist  position. 

I know that you're not convinced, robbo, and you won't accept the evidence that I've provided time and again, that show two things:1. Engels can be quoted to support either position;2. Some of Engels' formulations were not shared by Marx.Further, I have shown that Marx, too, was often sloppy in his use of terms, and can be read at times to be agreeing with Engels' mistaken views, that contradict Engels' correct views.Really, to get to the bottom of this, as I've said before, we need to decide what we think is necessary for us to build for socialism (and by this, I mean 'the democratic control of production'), in the form of our ideas about 'science', 'knowledge' and 'truth'.As you have shown, Engels can be quoted to show that mind can't be reduced to matter, but unfortunately he can also be quoted to support the very opposite. That very opposite, just so happens, by pure coincidence [/sarcasm], to be the view held by bourgeois science at its most powerful and influential when Engels was trying to teach himself about 'science'.The fact that Marx had already shown that 'positivism' was philosophically untenable (and which then also became apparent to those physicists in the 20th century who cared to think about it, like Einstein and Bohr), completely missed Engels.The shortest way to get to the root of this is to realise that Marx didn't reject 'idealism', which Engels did do, and then build upon that realisation.But… I've said all this before, and you apparently remain convinced that Marx was a 'materialist', which, if true, would lead us to Hawking's stance.Simply, that belief is the end of any attempt to build for the democratic control of production.We remain the slaves to the thinking of our 'betters', the 'priest-physicists', who 'explain' in 'Latin-maths', and the vast majority simply place their trust, rather than actively engage and change their world, both ideal and material.Only the other week, in The Guardian, Brian Cox said that physicists are merely plumbers.http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/14/brian-cox-interview-royal-societyBut, the Religious Materialists still insist that 'science tells us' and that we should listen to physicists like Hawking.In fact, 'plumbing' is not an authority to be quoted as a final say, the supposed clinching argument, and the 'plumber' Hawking is talking out of his arse. Leave him alone with his mud pies, and let us get on with building for socialism.We have to question the current faith in 'plumbing', as so many contemporary 'plumbers', like Cox, Rovelli and Smolin, do already, and as so many 'plumbers' like Einstein have been doing for nearly a century now.

[Author]

Posts