Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Historical Materialism

xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2014 1:04:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Background and Information on Historical Materialism

"Historical materialism is a methodological approach to the study of society, economics, and history first articulated by Karl Marx (1818"1883) as the materialist conception of history. It is a theory of socioeconomic development according to which changes in material conditions (technology and productive capacity) are the primary influence on how society and the economy are organised.

Historical materialism looks for the causes of developments and changes in human society in the means by which humans collectively produce the necessities of life. Social classes and the relationship between them, plus the political structures and ways of thinking in society, are founded on and reflect contemporary economic activity

Historical materialism started from a fundamental underlying reality of human existence: that in order for human beings to survive and continue existence from generation to generation, it is necessary for them to produce and reproduce the material requirements of life. Marx then extended this premise by asserting the importance of the fact that, in order to carry out production and exchange, people have to enter into very definite social relations, most fundamentally "production relations".


Thoughts

Marx proposed that society will evolve, most fundamentally production relations. For example, in Ancient society there were slaves and slave owners. During feudalism there was nobility and serfs. In Capitalism there is the capitalist class and the working class. I propose that as human nature evolves for the better, that is we become increasingly selfless and knowledgeable of actions that create good or bad consequences, production relations will increasingly evolve to be more socially based than individually based.

Marx proposed a theory of how society will evolve: Ancient society, Feudalism, Capitalsm, Socialism, and finally Communism. Of course, it is more than likely it wouldn't go so cleanly, that is that there will be regressions and failures, but that eventually society would evolve to this point.

Do you all agree with this? Is this even a good way for humanity to evolve? What are the flaws in what Marx has proposed? What do you like about this idea? Any and all thoughts are welcome.

Also, as a Conservative who has only just begun researching this out of limited knowledge and curiosity, I am definitely welcome to any Liberal, socialist, communist correcting me on anything I may have misrepresented.
Nolite Timere
Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 6:35:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
As an anarchist, I have partial agreement with Marx when it comes to historical materialism. I personally think that society will eventually evolve into a final communist phase. However, I don't think that a transitional stage into socialism would be necessary. Nor do I think his analysis of history encompasses all forms of oppression that can bring social change.

Mostly, he focuses on economic sources of oppression that bring change (technology, productive forces, economic class-division, etc.). When, in reality, social change can also come from fighting against other social, religious, and ideological forms of oppression (nationalism, patriarchy, homophobia, racism, religious supremacy, etc.).

The transition from feudalism to capitalism, for example, was indeed fueled by need of productive forces which lead to the rise of technology. Such as the invention of mass means of production, like factories, which would be owned by a wealthy capitalist who delivers wages to workers who provide labor (these wages of course not equaling the value of the labor provided).

However, a transition from capitalism into communism would most likely not be driven by productive forces (since wealthy capitalists will rig the state in order to ensure that the institution of capitalism survives, since it is within their class interests to do so.). If anything, it would be driven by a social need to rise against illegitimate authority. It doesn't make any sense to try to wait around and think the economy will simply drive towards communism when it is rigged by capitalists.

As for a transitional period between capitalism and communism, it is silly to think that a period of transition would be needed to root out bourgeois mentality when this transitional period maintains bourgeois elements. A period like that would only maintain the development of bourgeois traits within society. Kropotkin outlines this in his article, "Are we Good Enough?"[1].

1- http://sovversiva.wordpress.com...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2014 7:55:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/20/2014 10:50:23 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
I am disappointed no one has posted here yet.

The Fool: One of the problems, are the materialist assumptions. Marx never argues for that in his philosophy, but takes it as a precept. There are non-material goods like honor, social acceptance, mental health and general well-being, which drive social evolution forward, as well.

The Marxist view, presupposes a very selfish, cold, and immoral perception of people in general. And from this, it allows for the justification of equally immoral acts, which we have seen as a result of the ideology.
But I would argue, and I think successfully, that people are good in nature, and that immorality and injustice for the most part derived from ignorance, miscommunication, and Rational error.

What would it be to have all the material goods in the world and not have other good people to enjoy it with?
Life without other people, is not worth living.

It might not sound like much of refutation, to Marxism, but it is in so far as material production is simply just not enough in itself.. For there are many rich people, who have committed suicide at one time or another.

Against The Ideologist
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2014 5:03:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/19/2014 1:04:18 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Background and Information on Historical Materialism

"Historical materialism is a methodological approach to the study of society, economics, and history first articulated by Karl Marx (1818"1883) as the materialist conception of history. It is a theory of socioeconomic development according to which changes in material conditions (technology and productive capacity) are the primary influence on how society and the economy are organised.

Historical materialism looks for the causes of developments and changes in human society in the means by which humans collectively produce the necessities of life. Social classes and the relationship between them, plus the political structures and ways of thinking in society, are founded on and reflect contemporary economic activity

Historical materialism started from a fundamental underlying reality of human existence: that in order for human beings to survive and continue existence from generation to generation, it is necessary for them to produce and reproduce the material requirements of life. Marx then extended this premise by asserting the importance of the fact that, in order to carry out production and exchange, people have to enter into very definite social relations, most fundamentally "production relations".


Thoughts

Marx proposed that society will evolve, most fundamentally production relations. For example, in Ancient society there were slaves and slave owners. During feudalism there was nobility and serfs. In Capitalism there is the capitalist class and the working class. I propose that as human nature evolves for the better, that is we become increasingly selfless and knowledgeable of actions that create good or bad consequences, production relations will increasingly evolve to be more socially based than individually based.

Could you expand on what you mean by this? "as human nature evolves for the better"- You believe this is taking place, necessarily takes place, could take place?

Marx proposed a theory of how society will evolve: Ancient society, Feudalism, Capitalsm, Socialism, and finally Communism. Of course, it is more than likely it wouldn't go so cleanly, that is that there will be regressions and failures, but that eventually society would evolve to this point.


Do you all agree with this? Is this even a good way for humanity to evolve? What are the flaws in what Marx has proposed? What do you like about this idea? Any and all thoughts are welcome.

Historical materialism is something which most contemporary Marxists don't favor. I'd say it hasn't really been taken too seriously since pre- WW11. The rise of literature on the construction of subjectivity by postMarxists (Althusser, Gramsci, Foucault, Deleuze, Butler, Zizek, Badiou, etc.) from the 1960's to today, along with Neo-Marxist (and later postmodernist) focus on the 'culture industry' and changes in signification (Benjamin, Adorno, Horkheimer, etc.) bring into question many of the premises which Marx laid down. Many points have been brought up. That capitalism is largely reproduced in symbolic signification rather than physical labor, that the superstructure predicates the construction of mass subjectivity, that capitalism may be reproduced even in our own personal interactions with one another, that the very idea of historical materialism itself is one constructed out of a subjectivity conditioned by capitalist society, etc.

I dunno. I don't see much use of the idea in relation to one's contemporary understanding of and engagement with late capitalism. At least not in the first world.

Also, as a Conservative who has only just begun researching this out of limited knowledge and curiosity, I am definitely welcome to any Liberal, socialist, communist correcting me on anything I may have misrepresented.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2014 9:35:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/3/2014 5:03:11 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 7/19/2014 1:04:18 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Background and Information on Historical Materialism

"Historical materialism is a methodological approach to the study of society, economics, and history first articulated by Karl Marx (1818"1883) as the materialist conception of history. It is a theory of socioeconomic development according to which changes in material conditions (technology and productive capacity) are the primary influence on how society and the economy are organised.

Historical materialism looks for the causes of developments and changes in human society in the means by which humans collectively produce the necessities of life. Social classes and the relationship between them, plus the political structures and ways of thinking in society, are founded on and reflect contemporary economic activity

Historical materialism started from a fundamental underlying reality of human existence: that in order for human beings to survive and continue existence from generation to generation, it is necessary for them to produce and reproduce the material requirements of life. Marx then extended this premise by asserting the importance of the fact that, in order to carry out production and exchange, people have to enter into very definite social relations, most fundamentally "production relations".


Thoughts

Marx proposed that society will evolve, most fundamentally production relations. For example, in Ancient society there were slaves and slave owners. During feudalism there was nobility and serfs. In Capitalism there is the capitalist class and the working class. I propose that as human nature evolves for the better, that is we become increasingly selfless and knowledgeable of actions that create good or bad consequences, production relations will increasingly evolve to be more socially based than individually based.

Could you expand on what you mean by this? "as human nature evolves for the better"- You believe this is taking place, necessarily takes place, could take place?

I think humans are increasingly becoming altruistic. That society is taking a turn from being focused on self and increasingly being focused on the community. This may also be due to an influx of goods. I don't believe it necessarily takes place, but I believe that as economic systems are successful and provide and influx of goods, people will become increasingly altruistic. Once a man realizes he has a lot, he is much more willing to share what he has.

Marx proposed a theory of how society will evolve: Ancient society, Feudalism, Capitalsm, Socialism, and finally Communism. Of course, it is more than likely it wouldn't go so cleanly, that is that there will be regressions and failures, but that eventually society would evolve to this point.


Do you all agree with this? Is this even a good way for humanity to evolve? What are the flaws in what Marx has proposed? What do you like about this idea? Any and all thoughts are welcome.

Historical materialism is something which most contemporary Marxists don't favor. I'd say it hasn't really been taken too seriously since pre- WW11. The rise of literature on the construction of subjectivity by postMarxists (Althusser, Gramsci, Foucault, Deleuze, Butler, Zizek, Badiou, etc.) from the 1960's to today, along with Neo-Marxist (and later postmodernist) focus on the 'culture industry' and changes in signification (Benjamin, Adorno, Horkheimer, etc.) bring into question many of the premises which Marx laid down. Many points have been brought up. That capitalism is largely reproduced in symbolic signification rather than physical labor, that the superstructure predicates the construction of mass subjectivity, that capitalism may be reproduced even in our own personal interactions with one another, that the very idea of historical materialism itself is one constructed out of a subjectivity conditioned by capitalist society, etc.

I dunno. I don't see much use of the idea in relation to one's contemporary understanding of and engagement with late capitalism. At least not in the first world.

Also, as a Conservative who has only just begun researching this out of limited knowledge and curiosity, I am definitely welcome to any Liberal, socialist, communist correcting me on anything I may have misrepresented.
Nolite Timere
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 3:27:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/3/2014 9:35:03 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/3/2014 5:03:11 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 7/19/2014 1:04:18 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

Marx proposed that society will evolve, most fundamentally production relations. For example, in Ancient society there were slaves and slave owners. During feudalism there was nobility and serfs. In Capitalism there is the capitalist class and the working class. I propose that as human nature evolves for the better, that is we become increasingly selfless and knowledgeable of actions that create good or bad consequences, production relations will increasingly evolve to be more socially based than individually based.

Could you expand on what you mean by this? "as human nature evolves for the better"- You believe this is taking place, necessarily takes place, could take place?

I think humans are increasingly becoming altruistic. That society is taking a turn from being focused on self and increasingly being focused on the community. This may also be due to an influx of goods. I don't believe it necessarily takes place, but I believe that as economic systems are successful and provide and influx of goods, people will become increasingly altruistic. Once a man realizes he has a lot, he is much more willing to share what he has.

I don't really believe this at all. I think our collective subjectivity has been generally becoming more individualistic but with an influx of pseudo-collective thinking (i.e., "buying green", recycling, liberal humanitarianism, etc.- practices and ideologies which textually proclaim concern for the collective good while substantially failing to either better material conditions for the marginalized or combating the destructive effects [both material and cultural] of late capitalism). I'd be interested in why you think we (collectively) are more altruistic and what this would have to do with Marx since he argued that such a superstructural shift in subjectivity was reductive to the economic base and thus wouldn't begin to develop until after we'd moved past capitalism. What yer saying seems like a neutered, inside out version of what Marx was.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 4:10:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 3:27:55 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 8/3/2014 9:35:03 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/3/2014 5:03:11 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 7/19/2014 1:04:18 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

Marx proposed that society will evolve, most fundamentally production relations. For example, in Ancient society there were slaves and slave owners. During feudalism there was nobility and serfs. In Capitalism there is the capitalist class and the working class. I propose that as human nature evolves for the better, that is we become increasingly selfless and knowledgeable of actions that create good or bad consequences, production relations will increasingly evolve to be more socially based than individually based.

Could you expand on what you mean by this? "as human nature evolves for the better"- You believe this is taking place, necessarily takes place, could take place?

I think humans are increasingly becoming altruistic. That society is taking a turn from being focused on self and increasingly being focused on the community. This may also be due to an influx of goods. I don't believe it necessarily takes place, but I believe that as economic systems are successful and provide and influx of goods, people will become increasingly altruistic. Once a man realizes he has a lot, he is much more willing to share what he has.

I don't really believe this at all. I think our collective subjectivity has been generally becoming more individualistic but with an influx of pseudo-collective thinking (i.e., "buying green", recycling, liberal humanitarianism, etc.- practices and ideologies which textually proclaim concern for the collective good while substantially failing to either better material conditions for the marginalized or combating the destructive effects [both material and cultural] of late capitalism). I'd be interested in why you think we (collectively) are more altruistic and what this would have to do with Marx since he argued that such a superstructural shift in subjectivity was reductive to the economic base and thus wouldn't begin to develop until after we'd moved past capitalism. What yer saying seems like a neutered, inside out version of what Marx was.

My thought process is pretty simple. I think that altruism corresponds with both socialism and communism. Since there has been a push for socialism in developed countries, I conclude that altruism is becoming prominent among these developed countries. This of course is only true if socialism comes into existence via democracy. As someone completely unfamiliar with Marxism, I have no idea how such a notion corresponds with it.
Nolite Timere
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 4:58:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 4:10:32 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/4/2014 3:27:55 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 8/3/2014 9:35:03 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/3/2014 5:03:11 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 7/19/2014 1:04:18 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

Marx proposed that society will evolve, most fundamentally production relations. For example, in Ancient society there were slaves and slave owners. During feudalism there was nobility and serfs. In Capitalism there is the capitalist class and the working class. I propose that as human nature evolves for the better, that is we become increasingly selfless and knowledgeable of actions that create good or bad consequences, production relations will increasingly evolve to be more socially based than individually based.

Could you expand on what you mean by this? "as human nature evolves for the better"- You believe this is taking place, necessarily takes place, could take place?

I think humans are increasingly becoming altruistic. That society is taking a turn from being focused on self and increasingly being focused on the community. This may also be due to an influx of goods. I don't believe it necessarily takes place, but I believe that as economic systems are successful and provide and influx of goods, people will become increasingly altruistic. Once a man realizes he has a lot, he is much more willing to share what he has.

I don't really believe this at all. I think our collective subjectivity has been generally becoming more individualistic but with an influx of pseudo-collective thinking (i.e., "buying green", recycling, liberal humanitarianism, etc.- practices and ideologies which textually proclaim concern for the collective good while substantially failing to either better material conditions for the marginalized or combating the destructive effects [both material and cultural] of late capitalism). I'd be interested in why you think we (collectively) are more altruistic and what this would have to do with Marx since he argued that such a superstructural shift in subjectivity was reductive to the economic base and thus wouldn't begin to develop until after we'd moved past capitalism. What yer saying seems like a neutered, inside out version of what Marx was.

My thought process is pretty simple. I think that altruism corresponds with both socialism and communism. Since there has been a push for socialism in developed countries, I conclude that altruism is becoming prominent among these developed countries.

I think that's a radically optimistic assumption. Most people in developed counties are social liberals. That is, they believe in a controlled and regulated market with a high level of taxation and a variety of social services. This is distinct from radical leftist ideals such as socialism, communism, or anarchism which are not only anti-capitalist but are largely critical of the state form with a commitment to a revolutionary tradition. But this socially liberal tradition is (as I mentioned earlier) not really a materialist ideal. It's a system of rituals, practices, and significations that pay tribute to leftist notions of egalitarianism, liberty, fairness, etc. while still retaining the economic backdrop of neoliberal capitalism. It's a discourse which navigates the contemporary superstructural plane in the first world but it's entirely (or largely) separated from the economic realities faced by the marginalized remainders which are unable to be economically assimilated, it ignores the systematic regularity of poverty and the like, and glosses over the real ways in which first world nations and economies (specifically the U.S.) militarily and economically dominate and exploit other nations. Sure lots of middle class white people complain about the effects of the war on drugs on inner city black people or they might buy goods that are "fair trade", but the systematic affects of the system are ones which are either ignored or justified just the same.

This of course is only true if socialism comes into existence via democracy. As someone completely unfamiliar with Marxism, I have no idea how such a notion corresponds with it.

Depends on what you mean by democracy. If you mean parliamentary democracy as a system of regulated elections amongst candidates with no clear interest in actions other than administration of an already-existent system or moderate reform within the boundaries of what that system makes possible than nah it doesn't jive with Marxism. But democracy as a system of horizontal and egalitarian control of resources and daily life than yeah that's kinda what we're going for.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 1:02:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 4:58:18 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 8/4/2014 4:10:32 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/4/2014 3:27:55 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 8/3/2014 9:35:03 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/3/2014 5:03:11 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 7/19/2014 1:04:18 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

Marx proposed that society will evolve, most fundamentally production relations. For example, in Ancient society there were slaves and slave owners. During feudalism there was nobility and serfs. In Capitalism there is the capitalist class and the working class. I propose that as human nature evolves for the better, that is we become increasingly selfless and knowledgeable of actions that create good or bad consequences, production relations will increasingly evolve to be more socially based than individually based.

Could you expand on what you mean by this? "as human nature evolves for the better"- You believe this is taking place, necessarily takes place, could take place?

I think humans are increasingly becoming altruistic. That society is taking a turn from being focused on self and increasingly being focused on the community. This may also be due to an influx of goods. I don't believe it necessarily takes place, but I believe that as economic systems are successful and provide and influx of goods, people will become increasingly altruistic. Once a man realizes he has a lot, he is much more willing to share what he has.

I don't really believe this at all. I think our collective subjectivity has been generally becoming more individualistic but with an influx of pseudo-collective thinking (i.e., "buying green", recycling, liberal humanitarianism, etc.- practices and ideologies which textually proclaim concern for the collective good while substantially failing to either better material conditions for the marginalized or combating the destructive effects [both material and cultural] of late capitalism). I'd be interested in why you think we (collectively) are more altruistic and what this would have to do with Marx since he argued that such a superstructural shift in subjectivity was reductive to the economic base and thus wouldn't begin to develop until after we'd moved past capitalism. What yer saying seems like a neutered, inside out version of what Marx was.

My thought process is pretty simple. I think that altruism corresponds with both socialism and communism. Since there has been a push for socialism in developed countries, I conclude that altruism is becoming prominent among these developed countries.

I think that's a radically optimistic assumption. Most people in developed counties are social liberals. That is, they believe in a controlled and regulated market with a high level of taxation and a variety of social services.
This is distinct from radical leftist ideals such as socialism, communism, or anarchism which are not only anti-capitalist but are largely critical of the state form with a commitment to a revolutionary tradition. But this socially liberal tradition is (as I mentioned earlier) not really a materialist ideal. It's a system of rituals, practices, and significations that pay tribute to leftist notions of egalitarianism, liberty, fairness, etc. while still retaining the economic backdrop of neoliberal capitalism. It's a discourse which navigates the contemporary superstructural plane in the first world but it's entirely (or largely) separated from the economic realities faced by the marginalized remainders which are unable to be economically assimilated, it ignores the systematic regularity of poverty and the like, and glosses over the real ways in which first world nations and economies (specifically the U.S.) militarily and economically dominate and exploit other nations. Sure lots of middle class white people complain about the effects of the war on drugs on inner city black people or they might buy goods that are "fair trade", but the systematic affects of the system are ones which are either ignored or justified just the same.

This of course is only true if socialism comes into existence via democracy. As someone completely unfamiliar with Marxism, I have no idea how such a notion corresponds with it.

Depends on what you mean by democracy. If you mean parliamentary democracy as a system of regulated elections amongst candidates with no clear interest in actions other than administration of an already-existent system or moderate reform within the boundaries of what that system makes possible than nah it doesn't jive with Marxism. But democracy as a system of horizontal and egalitarian control of resources and daily life than yeah that's kinda what we're going for.

I'm just going to go ahead and chalk this all up as a learning experience.
Nolite Timere
Material_Girl
Posts: 264
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2014 11:50:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I am a historical materialist and I don't think social evolution has anything to do with "human nature," because I don't believe that human nature exists. There is no fixed, basic human behaviour, since our animal instincts can easily be overriden, and behaviour changes according to the environment. What drives social evolution is the natural adaptation of production relations to the naturally ever-changing economic circumstances, which in turn brings about changes in the way that humans act. Socialism/communism (they're the same thing unless you're a Leninist) won't be brought about by increasing altruism, it will increase altruism once it's been brought about, by being an environment that is conducive to and encourages altruistic behaviour.

I would actually argue that society is actually becoming less altruistic as the ruling class is becoming less altruistic and the mindset of any given society is that of its ruling class. The more inequality increases and wealth, and therefore power, is directed at the small group of people at the top of the social hierarchy, the more egotistical they become and the more egotistical behaviour becomes a means to "success." And the type of European "socialism," referred to in this thread is just Keynesianism, and has nothing to do with altruism - it's a method of dealing with the countless economic problems that arise from laissez-faire capitalism. This is an example of the way that changes in systems occur and new systems are created not because of some evolution in human nature, but as a response to economic conditions.

The way I interpret historical materialism is that, through the culmination of class struggle in a revolution, a new system is created which is more fair and equal than the last. This system is perfect at first, but over time, as power becomes concentrated in the hands of fewer, more tyrannical people through an increasingly bureaucratic process and the economic system is rigged and gradually loses its ability to work efficiently, it decays. Eventually, those oppressed by the system become so desperate that they revolt, and this results in a system change and, so far, in a new ruling class.
http://commissaress.wordpress.com...

Political Compass
Economic Left: -10.00
Social Libertarian: -7.13

Yes, I am an evil godless commie.
Material_Girl
Posts: 264
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2014 1:18:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/29/2014 7:55:44 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/20/2014 10:50:23 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
I am disappointed no one has posted here yet.

The Fool: One of the problems, are the materialist assumptions. Marx never argues for that in his philosophy, but takes it as a precept. There are non-material goods like honor, social acceptance, mental health and general well-being, which drive social evolution forward, as well.

And where do you think these non-material goods come from? They're all caused, fundamentally, by material events, social organisation and the relation between society and the individual. Social evolution is complex, but cancels down to the process of class struggle, since all social evolution has been so far is the emergence of new ruling classes through some section of an oppressed class breaking through and establishing a system that benefits them. What I don't understand about the idealist perception is the notion that ideas just come out of nowhere, without any social or economic conditions causing them to come about - to me, everything has a material basis.

The Marxist view, presupposes a very selfish, cold, and immoral perception of people in general. And from this, it allows for the justification of equally immoral acts, which we have seen as a result of the ideology.

No - the Marxist view is that the nature of people changes according to material circumstance, not that people are inherently selfish, and in fact we think the latter belief is religious mysticism and a way to excuse horrors like slavery on the grounds that "it's natural." We don't presuppose anything about people in general, because the way people behave cannot be abstracted from the social context of their behaviour. And Stalinism, which was the ideology of the states in which the immoral acts you're referring to were committed, is a ridiculous perversion of Marxism dreamt up by a dictator who would say and do anything for power. True communism, as a co-operative society based in solidarity and direct democracy, should actually encourage moral acts.

But I would argue, and I think successfully, that people are good in nature, and that immorality and injustice for the most part derived from ignorance, miscommunication, and Rational error.

Really? I'm all for the belief that people aren't inherently bad, buuut...this is stretching it a bit. If people were good in nature and injustice was just on account of people not being perfect in nature, injustice wouldn't be as rampant as it is, and we wouldn't have an economic system as based in selfishness as capitalism. Social evolution would've taken completely different turns if the ruling class used their natural goodness and actually treated their subordinates fairly.

What would it be to have all the material goods in the world and not have other good people to enjoy it with?
Life without other people, is not worth living.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. I agree with this, and of course, Marxists are collectivists and want to abolish private ownership of material goods.

It might not sound like much of refutation, to Marxism, but it is in so far as material production is simply just not enough in itself.. For there are many rich people, who have committed suicide at one time or another.

Obviously social evolution is a lot more complex than just changes in the relations of production, but these material changes are the basis of social evolution and also the basis of any change in the prevailing mindset of a given society. Materialists aren't saying that "money buys you happiness," or anything like that at all, but we would argue that the cases of rich people committing suicide relate to their being rich and the social pressures that come with that in some way.

Against The Ideologist

http://commissaress.wordpress.com...

Political Compass
Economic Left: -10.00
Social Libertarian: -7.13

Yes, I am an evil godless commie.