Re: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
Ralph, I see that Steve didn't respond directly to your question concerning these quotes from Ilyenkov. Maybe I can help. - Original Message - From: "Ralph Dumain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 5:42 Subject: Spam: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! I do not understand the meaning of the three quotes from Ilyenkov. At 02:03 PM 5/30/2005 -0700, Steve Gabosch wrote: ... from my 1977 Progress edition, which I was lucky to get through the internet last year. I corrected a couple scanning errors from the MIA version. Copied from: http://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/essays/essay8.htm from page 283: "A consistently materialist conception of thought, of course, alters the approach to the key problems of logic in a cardinal way, in particular to interpretation of the nature of logical categories. Marx and Engels established above all that [the] external world was not given to the individual as it was in itself simply and directly in his contemplation, but only in the course of its being altered by man: and that both the contemplating man himself and the world contemplated were products of history." I addressed most of this question in my message to CB (04/06): "Of course objectivity reality exists, but we have to realize that what Marx, Lenin and other intelligent Marxists like Ilyenkov meant by objective reality is not reality contemplated by some totally uninvolved philosophical being. Just the reverse is true objective reality is only known through what Lenin calls "revolutionary practice", the transformation of one object into another through labour. It is only when we know how and under what conditions (including of course our own activities) an object becomes something else that we cognize its real character. This is as true of the child knocking about a gewgaw hanging over his crib as it is for the physicist smashing atoms". Note that objective reality is here not a property of pristine nature or nature external to human intervention. Reality for Marx, Engels and Lenin a product of the activities of man in, on and with nature. All that needs be added here is the fairly obvious observation that the child knocking about the gewgaw and the gewgaw hanging over his crib are products of history. from page 285: "Psychological analysis of the act of reflexion of the external world in the individual head therefore cannot be the means of developing logic. The individual thinks only insofar as he has already mastered the general (logical) determinations historically moulded before him and completely independently of him. And psychology as a science does not investigate the development of human culture or civilisation, rightly considering it a premise independent of the individual." All this passage means is that logic (the logical categories of thought as developed by Hegel and adopted and modified by Marx and Engels) cannot be explained as the cogitive activity of the individual writ large. Men learn to be logical from their elders and coworkers and only thinks in those logical categories he's succeeded in learning from others ( the results of Vygotsky's research on language learning appear to confirm this). The individual does not invent logical method himself, it was invented long before he was born and naturally he was unable to participate in its formation. For this reason psychology makes no significant contribution to the development of human culture. from page 286-287: "In labour (production) man makes one object of nature act on another object of the same nature in accordance with their own properties and laws of existence. Marx and Engels showed that the logical forms of man's action were the consequences (reflection) of real laws of human actions on objects, i.e. of practice in all its scope and development, laws that are independent of any thinking. Practice understood materialistically, appeared as a process in whose movement each object involved in it functioned (behaved) in accordance with its own laws, bringing its own form and measure to light in the changes taking place in it." This is the most important of the three citations. It makes the point that in making one object of nature act upon another object of nature in the process of producing some useful object men must design their activities to take into account the properties and laws that govern the results of their actions on the materials and on the interaction between the materials enforced by human action. Thus if you use a ten kilo sledge to break a basalt boulder your focus of strength to lift it, your lifting the hammer head to just the right height, your letting it swing at the precise point of weakness in the boulder relying on the springiness of the sledge handle and the glassy surface of the rock and of course the exact structure of the rock (laid down when the rock was still molten and the tiny
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
Of course objectivity reality exists, but we have to realize that what Marx, Lenin and other intelligent Marxists like Ilyenkov meant by objective reality is not reality contemplated by some totally uninvolved philosophical being. Just the reverse is true objective reality is only known through what Lenin calls "revolutionary practice", the transformation of one object into another through labour. It is only when we know how and under what conditions (including of course our own activities) an object becomes something else that we cognize its real character. This is as true of the child knocking about a gewgaw hanging over his crib as it is for the physicist smashing atoms. There is virtually no aspect of human knowledge (not human activity) that is truly a priori. Oudeyis - Original Message - From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx andthe thinkers he inspired'" Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 22:48 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! How about objective reality exists ( Lenin's definition of materialism in _Materialism and Empirio-Criticism_) and we only know objective reality through practice , or our interaction with it beyond contemplation ( First and Second Theses on Feuerbach). Lenin formulated the idea of objective reality in contrast with Berkeleyian idealism and solopsism. In other words, we can't shape or make the world through our thoughts. So far in human history, our interaction with it causes us to make the generalization that objective reality is dialectical. I call this generalization an _a posteriori_ ( to distinguish it from _a priori_, or without experience)presumption ( as in law, a presumption that can be rebutted by future experience, but for now we hold as true like an axiom in math). Charles Oudeyis: Steve, Well, now I know what comes after the . First paragraph: Oudeyis is saying nothing about what nature is, but rather is writing that whatever understandings man has of nature are a function primarily of his active interaction (his labour) with the natural conditions of his existence. The difference between knowing what nature is (i.e. its essential being or "nature" if you will) and having a working knowledge of world conditions is all the difference between the treatment of nature in Marxist and classical materialist theory. Now then, the only part of nature humanity can know is that part of it with which he has some sort of contact, and at least for Marxism, the only part of nature about which man can develop theories of practice is that which he can or has changed in some fashion. When it comes to explaining the practical foundation scientific cosmology we argue that the theories regarding the behaviour of huge masses of material over barely conceivable periods of time and spatial dimensions are projections based more often as not on experimentation with some of the very smallest of the universe's components; atoms, quarks, and so on). Anyway, its hard to imagine how men would know things about which they have absolutely no experience and how they would know how things work without a working experience with them or with things like them. Divine revelation perhaps? Finally, there is no doubt that nature must also include that which is beyond the observed and acted upon and that its existence is important for the creation of a materialist ideology. There are three ways the "unknown" makes itself felt in material human experience: 1.The fact that human practice and the science that represents it in thought is open ended or, better yet, appears to have no outward limits is a clear indication of the existence of more to nature than that which is treated by our current state of knowledge and practice. 2. The classic observations by Marx in the first chapter of German Ideology (1845) and the Critique of Hegelian Philosophy (1844) that the physical and sensual interface between man a nature in human labour is far more concrete than can ever be represented by even the most developed dialectics. The rational representation of men's activity in the world is then an inherently uncompletable task. 3. Hegel in his discussion of being makes the point that the logical formula A = A has no demonstrable correspondence with actual experience; diversity is an inherent property of identity (Andy B. presents a pretty thorough discussion on this in his The Meaning of Hegel, Chapter iv section, " Diversity(essential Identity )" ). The whole basis of all rational activity, all dialectics, conscious and unconscious, deliberated and automatic, is the unity between the essential transitoriness of experienced moments and the determination of identities; qualities, quantities, measure and all the other things we have to "know" to develop a working model of the world. It's the unity of logical categorization and the essential temporality of immediate
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
True, hunters and gatherers do not raise their own food, but they do produce instruments that enhance if not enable the effectivity of their subsistence activity. Developed hunting and gathering practice appears often to be accompanied by collecting strategies that encourage the preservation of their food sources, such as never killing nursing young or pregnant game and taking care to leave some of the preferred plants in the ground to guarantee next year's crop. Most proto or near humans exhibit some instrument enabled activity, some of it quite complex. Try ant fishing with a bit of grass (a narrow fresh green leaf is best) as do the Chimpanzees. Clearly, the earliest forms of tool assisted activity precede humanities emergence, men's special relations to tool making and use being more a matter of its high significance for his life activity rather than in its simple presence in a creature's repertoire of activities. By the way, the key word in hunting and gathering is "gathering". To gather means to collect a quantity of whatever is to be gathered and to take it home to enjoy later at the family meal. Very little can be carried home in two closed fists. One may need not make a basket to collect greens, but they should be arranged in a bundle so that a few leaves can hold much more than a pair of hands. Stems twisted to make string or even simple knots may well have been the first tools, but tools they are. Oudeyis - Original Message - From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx andthe thinkers he inspired'" Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 22:11 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! Steve Gabosch quotes: Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organisation. By producing their means of subsistence men are indirectly producing their actual material life. ^ CB: Actually this isn't quite true. The first human modes of production are termed "hunting and gathering" because humans do not produce their own subsistence, but rather gather what nature has produced without human intervention. , so to speak. That doesn't happen until tens of thousands of years after the origin of the human species with horticulture, farming and domestication of animals. I'm not sure what implication this has for our dialectics and nature discussion What distinguishes humans from other animials is culture, language and methods of passing on experiences from one generation to the next. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
Did some further checking in MIA and you're quite correct, even when Marx discusses ancient astrology it, he treats it as a practical solution to a human problem, i.e. as a cosmic calendar, compass and clock. From the point of view of Historical materialism the importance of science, even theoretical science is its role in the realization of practical human needs. The only other imaginable value of natural science for historical materialism is the development of more concrete understandings of those physical, chemical and organic processes that can be shown to have important consequences for the development of human activity and particularly of human social activity. Oudeyis - Original Message - From: "Ralph Dumain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 11:25 Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! Well, if you got my point (2), the rest shouldn't be so mysterious. M&E openly admit they're not going to tackle directly either the natural sciences as an intellectual enterprise or their objects of study (laws of nature). At the same time they admit that's part of the picture, though they are specifically beginning their studies from the standpoint of historical materialism. That's a pretty damn important point, esp. for those who would make claims about Marx's attitude to science. As I recall, at that stage, Marx only really considers science as something that plays a role in industry--man's advanced interchange with nature. Science as an intellectual activity in itself, as theorizing, method, or research, is not part of the picture at this time. Hence, M&E do not turn their attention to the philosophy of the natural sciences. I'll add to that: when Marx makes remarks criticizing prior materialism, this belongs to the history of philosophy, not actual modern science. Discussing Epicurus and Democritus or the French materialists is not engaging with science. I'll add also, that a philosophy of nature is not a philosophy of science, if a perspective on scientific methodology as a means of understanding nature is not included in it. BTW, Marx's early writings (vol. 1) includes some outline of Hegel's philosophy of nature. But I don't really know how Marx may have used Hegel's PN. Does anyone know something I don't? At 12:06 AM 5/30/2005 -0700, Steve Gabosch wrote: Steve responds to a post from Ralph: Ralph: on 5/29/2005 at 12:48 PM Ralph explained, referring to the passage from M&E copied below: ... Note that M&E state that natural preconditions antedate historical analysis, but they are not going to delve into them at this point. Two conclusions follow: (1) Nature is not merely a social category for Marx as some claim; (2) Marx doesn't take the trouble at this point to investigate natural science and especially not its objective correlate as an activity in itself, since the question at hand is the organization of man's practical interaction with nature in conjunction with social organization. But doesn"t practical interaction include natural scientific research, methodology, and theory? It must, of course, ... Steve: I am with Ralph so far, but I am puzzled by where Ralph goes next: Ralph: ... but note that Marx is onto the direct, practical transformation of nature as it applies to material production and not that aspect of it that deals with specialized scientific activity. Note the plural references to physical preconditions--nature in general and human physiology in particular--that are acknowledged as preconditions and then set aside. Do you see the distinction here? Steve: To be honest, I don't get what point Ralph is trying to make yet, so I guess I have to answer: no - I don't yet see the distinction being made here - sorry! Ralph, if you would be so kind as to explain this distinction ... - Steve ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
Sorry, Had a major technical breakdown. About the only thing of Marx's early writings that relates to science is his 1844 Critique of Hegelian Philosophy (At the end of the article he devotes about a page and a half to discussion the movement from Logic to Nature in Hegel's Encyclopaedia of Logic. It isn't much but small as it is it's sharp). Oudeyis - Original Message - From: "Ralph Dumain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 11:25 Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! Well, if you got my point (2), the rest shouldn't be so mysterious. M&E openly admit they're not going to tackle directly either the natural sciences as an intellectual enterprise or their objects of study (laws of nature). At the same time they admit that's part of the picture, though they are specifically beginning their studies from the standpoint of historical materialism. That's a pretty damn important point, esp. for those who would make claims about Marx's attitude to science. As I recall, at that stage, Marx only really considers science as something that plays a role in industry--man's advanced interchange with nature. Science as an intellectual activity in itself, as theorizing, method, or research, is not part of the picture at this time. Hence, M&E do not turn their attention to the philosophy of the natural sciences. I'll add to that: when Marx makes remarks criticizing prior materialism, this belongs to the history of philosophy, not actual modern science. Discussing Epicurus and Democritus or the French materialists is not engaging with science. I'll add also, that a philosophy of nature is not a philosophy of science, if a perspective on scientific methodology as a means of understanding nature is not included in it. BTW, Marx's early writings (vol. 1) includes some outline of Hegel's philosophy of nature. But I don't really know how Marx may have used Hegel's PN. Does anyone know something I don't? At 12:06 AM 5/30/2005 -0700, Steve Gabosch wrote: Steve responds to a post from Ralph: Ralph: on 5/29/2005 at 12:48 PM Ralph explained, referring to the passage from M&E copied below: ... Note that M&E state that natural preconditions antedate historical analysis, but they are not going to delve into them at this point. Two conclusions follow: (1) Nature is not merely a social category for Marx as some claim; (2) Marx doesn't take the trouble at this point to investigate natural science and especially not its objective correlate as an activity in itself, since the question at hand is the organization of man's practical interaction with nature in conjunction with social organization. But doesn"t practical interaction include natural scientific research, methodology, and theory? It must, of course, ... Steve: I am with Ralph so far, but I am puzzled by where Ralph goes next: Ralph: ... but note that Marx is onto the direct, practical transformation of nature as it applies to material production and not that aspect of it that deals with specialized scientific activity. Note the plural references to physical preconditions--nature in general and human physiology in particular--that are acknowledged as preconditions and then set aside. Do you see the distinction here? Steve: To be honest, I don't get what point Ralph is trying to make yet, so I guess I have to answer: no - I don't yet see the distinction being made here - sorry! Ralph, if you would be so kind as to explain this distinction ... - Steve ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Labor Theory of Human Origins was:O, Dialectics!
This particular discussion has moved in a different direction from investigating dialectics per se, and could be considered in part to be about the labor theory of the origins of humanity. In a way, we having been using the terms "production" and "labor" synonymously in our recent dialogues. But the concept of labor - and how it is different from animal activity - is in my opinion the key that unlocks the puzzle of how humanity originated and what it means to be human. I think Charles is entirely correct in going back to Marx, especially his most advanced work, _Capital_, to look for a dialectical materialist analysis of labor. I also basically agree with his insistence that it is the *social* dimension of labor that differentiates what humans do from all other species. However, since most animals are also "social," a deeper inquiry is needed. More very good discussion of these issues can be found in George Novack's essay "The Labor Theory of the Origins of Humanity," contained in his collection _Humanism and Socialism_ (1973). Novack is what I would call a Marxist continuist, meaning, he consciously continues in the tradition of Marx and Engels, and advocates a continuation of the fundamental concepts of Marxist doctrine. He returns to this labor theory theme many times in his writings, such as in his "Long View of History" contained in his collection _Understanding History_ (1972). Another Marxist continuist relevant to this issue of the origins of humanity is Evelyn Reed, who wrote numerous essays and books on Marxist anthropology in the '50's, '60's and '70's that also relied heavily on Marx and Engels. Her collection _Sexism and Science_ (1978) includes several of these essays. She also wrote a good introduction to _The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State_ by Engels in a 1972 Pathfinder Press edition. This edition also contains the Engels essay "The Part Played By Labor in the Transition from Ape to Human," written in 1876 but not published until 1896, a year after his death. All of these books are in print and available from Pathfinder Press. BTW, for those unfamiliar with these writers, both were leaders of the US Socialist Workers Party and were longtime partners until Reed's death in 1979. I encourage Charles to incorporate these writings in his studies about the origins of humanity. - Steve ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Cosby want to hide his dirty linen
> About a year ago Bill Cosby was reported in all the American press outlets > and media for 'scolding' the 'lower socioeconomic class of Blacks', for > lack of moral values and not speaking proper English, as the cause of > their own massive unemployment and high prison proportions, going so far > as to justify the cops killing a Black teenager, wearing his hat on > backward and wearing their pants on their backsides, for stealing a pound > cake: that the kid had it coming. > Endorsing his attacking the counter-culture of Black working class youth, > Cosby has 'won' praise from editorials ranging from traditional Negro > weekly publications of the Black bourgeoisie wannabe "Black Anglo-Saxons", > to the conservative racists in American publications, to the Economist > published in England on behalf of the English bourgeoisie. > In the 2004 July 10th-16th issue of the Economist, the editorial on the > United States has a cartoon of Cosby as a school teacher standing next to > a black board with his right hand on his hip and left hand finger pointing > to the words on the blackboard which states: TODAY'S LESSON: GETTING YOUR > ACT TOGETHER. The article goes on to state: > "Bill Cosby has had it up to here with black street culture" -- going on > to quote Cosby having said: " ' Your dirty laundry gets out of school at > 2.30pm every day, its cursing and calling each other nigger' ... They > think they're hip. They can't read; nor can they write. They're laughing > and giggling, and their going nowhere...You can't be a doctor with that > kind of crap coming out of your mouth.'" > Well, Cosby didn't accuse the Black youth of rape - which is precisely > what Cosby is standing trial for! > Cosby defended his attacks on the Black youth in the hood, saying it's > time to speak the truth in public and rejected the criticism that Blacks > shouldn't 'air their dirty linen in public'. Well, now that his ass and > the shit in his pants is exposed to the public, his attorneys are arguing > on his behalf for a gag order to prevent his rape victims from airing his > dirty linen in public! > Lil Joe > ===- > No gag order in Cosby sexual assault case > June 03, 2005 4:55 PM EDT > PHILADELPHIA, Jun 03, 2005 (United Press International via COMTEX) -- > There'll be no gag order in the Bill Cosby sexual assault case -- at least > for now. > A federal judge in Philadelphia refused to block anyone involved in the > case from talking about it. But, U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno > warned the lawyers they would face his wrath, in the form of fines or > disciplinary action, if the case turns into a "media circus," the > Philadelphia Daily News said Friday. > The civil suit against Cosby was brought by Andrea Constand, 31, a > Canadian and former director of operations for women's basketball at > Temple University. > Constand contends that while alone with the entertainer in his suburban > Philadelphia home in January 2004, Cosby gave her some type of knockout > drug and then sexually assaulted her. > Court papers said 13 other women may be called to testify at trial "to > details of alleged similar incidents of sexual assaults involving" Cosby. > Copyright 2005 by United Press International. > ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
[Marxism-Thaxis] Emerging worker centered anti-capitalist Left in German and French politics?
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1595658,00.html 26.05.2005 A Threat From the Left for Schröder? Lafontaine left Schröder's government in 1999 Oskar Lafontaine, ex-chairman of Germany's Social Democrats, has left the party to support a possible new left-wing alliance to challenge Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's center-left government in the upcoming election. Long the bane of Schröder's political life, Lafontaine has played the leftist gadfly since petulantly quitting as finance minister in 1999. Having flirted with the idea of leaving the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and he clearly felt the time was right after the chancellor decided to bring forward the next general election for this fall. Lafontaine has consistently attacked Schröder's so-called Agenda 2010, a package of unpopular welfare cuts and labor market reforms dubbed Hartz IV that slashed unemployment benefits. "I have always said that if my party went into the election with Agenda 2010 and Hartz IV, I couldn't support it anymore," Lafontaine said on German television. "The decision has now been made." After abandoning the SPD, Lafontaine immediate went about trying to forge a new political home for himself. He has proposed an alliance between the eastern German Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS) and a new western left-wing party calling itself Election Alternative (WASG). Trailing the conservatives Already trailing the conservative opposition, a new threat from the left could seriously jeopardize Schröder's re-election chances this autumn as it could siphon off support from disgruntled trade unionists and left-wing hardliners in the SPD. After 39 years as a Social Democrat, the charismatic Lafontaine could possibly draw many people to the banner of any new party. "Such an alliance would be a clear challenge and one that I don't underestimate," said SPD Chairman Franz Müntefering. The SPD is still reeling from the crushing defeat in last Sunday’s election in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, once a regional stronghold for the Social Democrats. Schröder felt he had no choice but to bring the general election scheduled for autumn 2006 forward by a year after the conservatives won the poll. Professor Jürgen Falter, a political scientist at the University of Mainz, said a potential left-wing coalition could try to combine Lafontaine's popularity with that of the PDS' former leader Gregor Gysi to build a pan-German far-left party. "With people like Oskar Lafontaine and perhaps Gregor Gysi as the respective candidates for western and eastern Germany, the party will very likely get past the five percent parliamentary hurdle," Falter told DW-RADIO. PDS unsure The leadership of the PDS, which rose from the ashes of East Germany's former communist party, is uncertain there is enough time to try to merge the two parties. However, PDS Chairman Lothar Bisky on Wednesday said he still thought a united leftist party would was a good idea. "It would possibly provide a great lift for the left overall," said in an interview with WDR television. Regardless of how successful the hard left is at combining their election efforts, it could force the SPD to swing away from the political center. Recent attacks by Müntefering on supposedly unbridled capitalist principles could return in campaign rhetoric. That could placate several high-profile SPD left-wingers, who, for the moment, appear prepared to stay in the party and fight for it to turn away from Schröder's reform course. DW staff (mry) = The Year of the Locust The insect metaphor is finding plenty of resonance in German media A senior politician sparked the current debate on capitalism in Germany by comparing foreign investors to a plague of locusts. But some say the use of such populist rhetoric masks a deep-seated aversion to capitalism. The hum started in April, when SPD party secretary Franz Müntefering unleashed a stream of rhetoric likening foreign investors to a swarm of insects. "Some financial investors spare no thought for the people whose jobs they destroy," he told the mass-circulation tabloid Bild. "They remain anonymous, have no face, fall like a plague of locusts over our companies, devour everything, then fly on to the next one." Since then, the droning buzz has grown ever louder: locusts, everywhere. A giant locust and the Union Jack flag superimposed on the Frankfurt stock exchange in Bild. An insect with a Yankee Doodle hat and the headline "US Companies in Germany
[Marxism-Thaxis] FW: RE O! Dialectics
Lil Joe: Rather Idealistic, Charles. ^ CB: I think not. Idealism/materialism doesn't really arise as an issue until the occurrence of class divided societies and the antagonism between mental and physical labor. See rest of response to Steve. The question of what defines humans from their primate ancestors is not a question of idealism vs materialism. ^ Lil Joe: Here, Charles, I think we have a major disagreement as far as Marxian materialism is concerned. Marx never wrote of 'materialism' and 'idealism' as a discussion outside the context of the materialist conception of history. "First Premises of Materialist Method: The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstraction can only be made in the imagination. They are the real individuals, their activity and the material conditions under which they live, both those which they find already existing and those produced by their activity. These premises can thus be verified in a purely empirical way." It was in this sense that M-E in German Ideology critiqued Idealism, which is a conception of humanity in contrast to their materialist philosophy of humanity, where they wrote: "Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organisation." What the bourgeois ideologists masquerading as cultural anthropologists and sociologists call "culture", Charles, is what Hegel called 'the Idea' objectified in politics, religion and philosophy manifested in civil society's systems of production and appropriation (exchange). The Idea -- whether you call it Culture, Self-Consciousness, Substance qua God, Man qua Subject, or Absolute as not just Substance but Subject as well -- it is Consciousness that is determinate, and that is what makes it Idealism. This is what Marx and Engels critiqued of both the Old Hegelians and the Young Hegelians: "The Old Hegelians had comprehended everything as soon as it was reduced to an Hegelian logical category. The Young Hegelians criticised everything by attributing to it religious conceptions or by pronouncing it a theological matter. The Young Hegelians are in agreement with the Old Hegelians in their belief in the rule of religion, of concepts, of a universal principle in the existing world. Only, the one party attacks this dominion as usurpation. while the other extols it as legitimate. / Since the Young Hegelians consider conceptions, thoughts, ideas, in fact all the products of consciousness, to which they attribute an independent existence, as the real chains of men (just as the Old Hegelians declared them the true bonds of human society) it is evident that the Young Hegelians have to fight only against these illusions of consciousness. Since, according to their fantasy, the relationships of men, all their doings, their chains and their limitations are products of their consciousness, the Young Hegelians logically put to men the moral postulate of exchanging their present consciousness for human, critical or egoistic consciousness, and thus of removing their limitations. This demand to change consciousness amounts to a demand to interpret reality in another way, i.e. to recognise it by means of another interpretation. The Young-Hegelian ideologists, in spite of their allegedly “world-shattering" statements, are the staunchest conservatives. " It was in opposition to the Idealist conception of history, that is of humanity, that Marx and Engels famous pronouncements concerning 'materialism' were stated in opposition to the Idealism both to the Old and the Young Hegelian dialecticians. The Idea that Marx and Engels stated their materialist idea based on empirical science: "In direct contrast to German philosophy which descends from heaven to earth, here we ascend from earth to heaven. That is to say, we do not set out from what men say, imagine, conceive, nor from men as narrated, thought of, imagined, conceived, in order to arrive at men in the flesh. We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process. The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life. In the first method of approach
