Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! :Bakhurst
Steve, Commentary interleaved with your commentary and citations. [note I do not comment on every citation, some responses cover more than one citation]. Sorry, I've included very few citations here. I'm in the middle of writing and somewhat pressed for time. Still the opportunity to try out the ideas in the paper in this response is much appreciated. - Original Message - From: "Steve Gabosch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx and thethinkers he inspired" Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 4:16 Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! :Bakhurst Victor, I spent a little time reviewing Ilyenkov's article "The Concept of the Ideal" (available on MIA ), and the notes I published on xmca about it last year. Below, I have copied paragraphs 66 - 90 from EVI's 142-paragraph essay. I don't find your comments today about ideality and materiality consistent with Ilyenkov's theory as I interpret it. Even were I to somehow convince you of that, it still would not necessarily make Bakhurst right, of course. I notice that one big problem with Bakhurst's presentation in his chapter on the concept of the ideal is he does not focus on or even mention how Ilyenkov's concept of the ideal is a generalization of the labor theory of value to all human activity. In fact, he does not mention the labor theory of value at all. As I think about it, this avoidance of the most important argument by Ilyenkov considerably weakens his presentation. But as I say, I don't think the real issue is Bakhurst's comprehension of Ilyenkov's theory of the ideal. I think the real issue is Ilyenkov's theory itself, whether it can flow from the labor theory of value, and how does it apply. As I see it, the key concept in this regard that Ilyenkov offers is that just as Marx discovered how social relations can be "embodied" into things in the form of commodities - through the incorporation of abstract labor into the value-form - so too, Marxists can explain that social relations are embodied in all cultural objects - through the incorporation of meaningful cultural activity into the ideal form. The social relations are not embodied in a particular coat or in a particular bale of linen. These are material objects whose concreteness are beyond the capacity of human conceptualisation. After all a particular linen coat may have been made by an apprentice and taken twice as long to produce than a similar coat made by a master tailor. The linen coats and bales of linen cloth referred to by Marx are not actual material coats and cloths but an abstract representation of them. And that's not all. Labour value itself is not a description of physical and sensual labour activity but of abstract labour. Labour from which all concrete relations have been abstracted out but for labour time or the average time necessary to produce a particular object. It does not take into account whether the labourer was weakened by starvation, was preoccupied with whether he could pay next months rent, or couldn't find whetstone to sharpen his scissors. The 'thing' Marx is referring to is not the physical sensual thing as it comes off the production line, but the abstract idea of the thing as it is manifested in the consciousness of the labourer, his boss, the salesman who sells it and the purchaser who buys it. A commodity is not a physical sensual object but a concept of objects, objects abstracted into things to be bought and sold and that's it. Ilyenkov explains that plain materialists and idealists alike make the error of viewing the boundary between the material and the ideal as being the world of the inside versus that of the outside of each individual human head. In contrast, he argues that according to dialectical materialism, ideality and materiality must be distinguished in terms of the composition of each object - both the composition of the physical attributes, which of course are the sources of its materiality, and the composition of its social origins and social context, which are the sources of its ideality - just as Marx analyzed the composition of the commodity. According to Ilyenkov's theory, objects within the human cultural realm objectively possess both materiality and ideality, just as commodities in a market economy possess both concrete and abstract labor, possess both use-value and exchange-value. This is not, by the way, Ilyenkov's invention, but the essence of Marx's critique of Feuerbach in Ad Feuerbach and of Lenin's critique of Plekhanov in the Conspectus. The boundary between ideal and real is objective, external to the subjective consciousness of the individual. So how do we account for the objectivity of the ideal if it is as an object manifested only in subjective consciousness? That's the whole point of the dialectical unity of the objective image in consciousness and the material representation of this object in material symbolic expression of the
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! :Bakhurst
This is refreshing after wasting my time reading Rorty's worthless crap. Have you published anything on these subjects? Also, it seems a thoroughgoing analysis of Popper's 3-worlds schema is in order. The Soviets criticized Popper, but not in sufficient detail, it seems. At 01:41 PM 6/17/2005 +0200, Victor wrote: Steve, Commentary interleaved with your commentary and citations. [note I do not comment on every citation, some responses cover more than one citation]. Sorry, I've included very few citations here. I'm in the middle of writing and somewhat pressed for time. Still the opportunity to try out the ideas in the paper in this response is much appreciated. ... ___ 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] O, Dialectics! :Bakhurst
Ilyenkov explains that plain materialists and idealists alike make the > error of viewing the boundary between the material and the ideal as being > the world of the inside versus that of the outside of each individual > human head. In contrast, he argues that according to dialectical > materialism, ideality and materiality must be distinguished in terms of > the composition of each object - both the composition of the physical > attributes, which of course are the sources of its materiality, and the > composition of its social origins and social context, which are the > sources of its ideality - ^ CB: This distinction between inside and outside of the individual's head is what I was getting at in saying all psychology is social psychology. ^ just as Marx analyzed the composition of the > commodity. According to Ilyenkov's theory, objects within the human > cultural realm objectively possess both materiality and ideality, just as > commodities in a market economy possess both concrete and abstract labor, > possess both use-value and exchange-value. This is not, by the way, Ilyenkov's invention, but the essence of Marx's critique of Feuerbach in Ad Feuerbach and of Lenin's critique of Plekhanov in the Conspectus. The boundary between ideal and real is objective, external to the subjective consciousness of the individual. CB: Perhaps from Marx's practical-critical activity, the "practical" corresponds to Ilyenkov's "material" and the "critical" corresponds to Ilyenkov's "ideal" ___ 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! :Bakhurst
CB I recall a lecturer on S. Freud that asserted and successfully demonstrated that psychoanalysis is a social psychology. 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: Friday, June 17, 2005 21:58 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! :Bakhurst Ilyenkov explains that plain materialists and idealists alike make the error of viewing the boundary between the material and the ideal as being the world of the inside versus that of the outside of each individual human head. In contrast, he argues that according to dialectical materialism, ideality and materiality must be distinguished in terms of the composition of each object - both the composition of the physical attributes, which of course are the sources of its materiality, and the composition of its social origins and social context, which are the sources of its ideality - ^ CB: This distinction between inside and outside of the individual's head is what I was getting at in saying all psychology is social psychology. ^ just as Marx analyzed the composition of the commodity. According to Ilyenkov's theory, objects within the human cultural realm objectively possess both materiality and ideality, just as commodities in a market economy possess both concrete and abstract labor, possess both use-value and exchange-value. This is not, by the way, Ilyenkov's invention, but the essence of Marx's critique of Feuerbach in Ad Feuerbach and of Lenin's critique of Plekhanov in the Conspectus. The boundary between ideal and real is objective, external to the subjective consciousness of the individual. CB: Perhaps from Marx's practical-critical activity, the "practical" corresponds to Ilyenkov's "material" and the "critical" corresponds to Ilyenkov's "ideal" ___ 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! :Bakhurst
Yeah I'm writing it up now. Oudeyis - Original Message - From: "Ralph Dumain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 18:55 Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! :Bakhurst This is refreshing after wasting my time reading Rorty's worthless crap. Have you published anything on these subjects? Also, it seems a thoroughgoing analysis of Popper's 3-worlds schema is in order. The Soviets criticized Popper, but not in sufficient detail, it seems. At 01:41 PM 6/17/2005 +0200, Victor wrote: Steve, Commentary interleaved with your commentary and citations. [note I do not comment on every citation, some responses cover more than one citation]. Sorry, I've included very few citations here. I'm in the middle of writing and somewhat pressed for time. Still the opportunity to try out the ideas in the paper in this response is much appreciated. ... ___ 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
