[Marxism-Thaxis] The Worst Mistake
Paddy Hackett Hi Charles Your last reply would suggest that you now share my view concerning the nature of humans. This view is that they form a constituent part of nature just as much as elephants, crows and chimps. This means that homo sapiens adds nothing qualitatively different to reality despite the enormous technology that he has produced. ^^ CB: I don't follow what you mean. Humans are a "constituent part of nature", but they are qualitatively different than other species in that they have transgenerational connections, symbolic connections to dead ancestors of the species. What are you referring to in my last post ? ^ Indeed this technology is essentially no different to nature itself. It may not even be as complex as much of nature especially its life forms. Just recall that despite computer technology humans are still not able to produce a product of the complexity of a squirrel. ^^^ CB: What exactly do you mean that humans are not able to produce a product of the complexity of a squirrel ? Your meaning is not clear. ^^ Recognition of this fact is highly significant. It means that the human species can no longer be conceived as a being distinct from nature containing some key feature -mind or soul-- that renders it qualitatively different from the world of animals. ^ CB: See above. Humans have symbols and transgrenerational symbols. This creates a qualitative difference from other animal species. No longer is there any valid basis for religion or Cartesian philosophy. CB: What do you mean "no longer" ? Atheism and dialectical materialism are over 150 years old. This is not a new discovery on your part. ^^ Now all description of man must be grounded in nature. This makes sense. ^^ CB: Yea, it makes sense , but you are a bit late. This is not a new thought you are having. ^^ If we were to claim that the human species is larger than nature then we would be logically compelled to provide a source that transcends nature as an explanation for the existence of human nature. CB: Nobody here is saying the humans species is larger than nature. I think you have the wrong list. ^^ Now this is superfluous. For years either in the form of traditional religion, philosophy and other ideological forms we were always brainwashed with the notion that humans transcend nature. ^ CB: Humans don't transcend nature. But by learning the laws of nature , humans gain certain freedom. The mastery of nature allows freedom. ^ Consequently we experienced humans as special. This left open lots of room for religion, magic, superstition and mysticism. This rendered an accurate and reliable description of the human species much more difficult. Such conditions, in many ways, assisted capitalist conditions. Failure to grasp the real nature of the human species investing it with transcendental powers helped obscure the real nature of the capitalist social system. Indeed the way in which capital appears actually tends to reinforce this illusion and thereby perpetuate capitalism. Given that the only thing that exists is nature --matter and energy-- there is no basis for attributing properties to man that transcend matter and energy. To argue that the human species transcends matter and energy it is necessary to introduce a feature that transcends them and is even their opposite. However in the absence of any scientific support for such a hypothesis it can only rely on an idealism which then justifies religion, mysticism and superstition. To realise this is not tantamount to denying that the species is a social tool-making species that engages in praxis. Indeed the very fact that humanity is limited by nature and can never transcend it means that the only way progress is achievable by it is by virtue of its possessing the aforementioned attributes. Traditionally the tendency has been the deification or mystification of the human species because of its achievements in the light of its being fixed in nature. Past inability to correctly explain human development prompted idealist descriptions. Social relations among humans is not something that separates humans off from other species. ^^^ CB: It is in the sense that humans have qualitatively different social relations than other species. We have social relations with dead ancestors. The original of this is kinship systems, in which the living generation organizes its social relations based on relations to dead ancestors. No other species have this quality of social relations. ^^^ ^^^ Indeed some animals, such as chimps, engage in social life. ^^^ CB: So, to bees and ants and ALL animals , because all animals have sex, which is social relations. If they don't have sex, they will die out. ^^^ However it is true that homo sapiens takes social relations to a new complex height. But this does not necessarily generate a bifurcation be
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] The Worst Mistake
Hi Charles Your last reply would suggest that you now share my view concerning the nature of humans. This view is that they form a constituent part of nature just as much as elephants, crows and chimps. This means that homo sapiens adds nothing qualitatively different to reality despite the enormous technology that he has produced. Indeed this technology is essentially no different to nature itself. It may not even be as complex as much of nature especially its life forms. Just recall that despite computer technology humans are still not able to produce a product of the complexity of a squirrel. Recognition of this fact is highly significant. It means that the human species can no longer be conceived as a being distinct from nature containing some key feature -mind or soul-- that renders it qualitatively different from the world of animals. No longer is there any valid basis for religion or Cartesian philosophy. Now all description of man must be grounded in nature. This makes sense. If we were to claim that the human species is larger than nature then we would be logically compelled to provide a source that transcends nature as an explanation for the existence of human nature. Now this is superfluous. For years either in the form of traditional religion, philosophy and other ideological forms we were always brainwashed with the notion that humans transcend nature. Consequently we experienced humans as special. This left open lots of room for religion, magic, superstition and mysticism. This rendered an accurate and reliable description of the human species much more difficult. Such conditions, in many ways, assisted capitalist conditions. Failure to grasp the real nature of the human species investing it with transcendental powers helped obscure the real nature of the capitalist social system. Indeed the way in which capital appears actually tends to reinforce this illusion and thereby perpetuate capitalism. Given that the only thing that exists is nature --matter and energy-- there is no basis for attributing properties to man that transcend matter and energy. To argue that the human species transcends matter and energy it is necessary to introduce a feature that transcends them and is even their opposite. However in the absence of any scientific support for such a hypothesis it can only rely on an idealism which then justifies religion, mysticism and superstition. To realise this is not tantamount to denying that the species is a social tool-making species that engages in praxis. Indeed the very fact that humanity is limited by nature and can never transcend it means that the only way progress is achievable by it is by virtue of its possessing the aforementioned attributes. Traditionally the tendency has been the deification or mystification of the human species because of its achievements in the light of its being fixed in nature. Past inability to correctly explain human development prompted idealist descriptions. Social relations among humans is not something that separates humans off from other species. Indeed some animals, such as chimps, engage in social life. However it is true that homo sapiens takes social relations to a new complex height. But this does not necessarily generate a bifurcation between humans and the animal kingdom. Even their tool making capacity is not said to be unique to the human species. We can never with certainty concluded that the human species was destined to develop from being proto human to fully human. Contingency, as Gould suggests, may have been a decisive factor in the unfolding of events. Given that it is now realised that the human species is just one other species it is possible for humans to eventually establish their real relation to nature in general and other animals in particular. This raises questions as to the way in hich animals are treated under capitalist conditions. Paddy Hackett ___ 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] The Worst Mistake
^ >>One of which I have just mentioned. For Darwin the evolution of consciousness is a product of a meaningless unconscious evolutionary process. Nature is a spontaneous production process that lacks intelligent design. This is proof that production is not necessarily conscious. This is proof that blind meaningless nature is intelligent capable of increasing complexity. The lack of purposive is purposive. The absence of intelligent design is the best form of design.<< <<>> Comment "The absence of intelligent design is the best form of design." 1. design 2. form of design 3. best form of design The entire basis of the above propositions begins on an incorrect premise and end on a dilemma. The premise: "Nature is a spontaneous production process that lacks intelligent design." CB is more correct, You position "intelligent" incorrectly because it is by definition a quality of our species. Nature of course is not a "spontaneous production process." Nature is a spontaneous metabolic process. Nature does not produce outside itself, therefore nature cannot express a production process. Man produces outside herself and this process is called alienated labor. Man is a metabolic process also and an aspect of nature. Nature in relationship to man/women is by definition complex or flows towards every greater complexity. There are two aspects of this ever greater complexity. The spontaneous metabolic process and the spontaneous metabolic process expressed as wo/man interactivity with the nature within and outside her. Complexity has meaning for man . . . not nature. Nature does not critique itself or analyze itself so concepts of intelligent design and NOT attributing this to nature, is just so much ideology. Consciousness of course arise on the basis of the metabolic process that is man as opposed to nature. Really. This is so because we are talking about nothing if we have not as a premise presupposed the existence of the species. Nature has an existence prior to the coming of man, but it takes man to create a history of and for nature. Nature has no intelligent or anti-intelligent design . . . much less "form of design" or "best form of design." Design is exactly what? Answer: "a spontaneous production process that lacks intelligent design. This is proof that production is not necessarily conscious." Production as species activity is not metabolic, although man is metabolic, as is natures spontaneous process of producing. NATURE DOES NOT PRODUCE OUTSIDE HERSELF. Waistline ___ 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] The Worst Mistake
Paddy Hackett Hi Charles Below is a rather hastily written reply to you last contribution. Sorry for the delay I have been otherwise engaged. ^^^ CB: No problem ^^^ Expressing a point of view is not the definition of idealism. To have posited language as opposed to point of view would have proven a better starting point. It is language rather than point of view which demarcates us from beasts. The point of view perspective is a rather narrow conception of epistemology. It effectively reduces epistemology to the abstract level of mere point of view. Scientific inquiry cannot be simply reduced to point of view. To do so is to reduce science to that of doxa. It means that Marx's Capital can have no more status than the point of view of any randomly chosen capitalist or worker. It means that the point of view of a fascist who claims that Hitler was right has necessaily the same status of a communist who describes Hitler as an extreme reactionary. As a point of view there is nothing to guarantee that your point of view offers any description of being. To guarantee this, what you call your point of view would have to possess more properties than that of point of view. ^ CB: The point of view I am expressing here does possess more properties than that of a point of view. It is not an my individual point of view, but rather the perspective of hundreds, thousands of people, tens of thousands of people, who have been scientists of society, Marxists etc. It is a social ,not only an individual's , point of view. One of the definitions of the objective is a social. The scientific (epistemological) canon of repeatability of results is based on this principle of the identity of the objective and the social. ^ ^^^ It may have been a point of view that the sun orbits the earth because of the way in which reality can appear (sun's rising and setting) or that the earth is flat. However that does not give these claims the equale weight to Galileo's conclusions on the subject. This is just the point I have been arguing against. The basis for what is understood as human progress or development cannot be validly based on an unestablished subjective notion (looking out for ourselves.) ^^^ CB: Looking out for OURselves, is not a subjective notion. It is social and objective. Social points of view are objective. I fundamentally disagree with you. Nothing human is alien to me. The definition of progress must be based on the impact on our species survival, species-being. ^^^ It must be based on a logically epistemologically and ontologically consistent premise bearing an inherently objective character. It must be falsfiable. CB: "It" is falsefiable. If our species doesn't survive, the practice being advocated is not progressive. My definition of "progress" produces a proposition that can be tested and falsified. X is not progressive if it causes species extinction. So, for the sake of argument, since I don't agree that Popper sets the standard of what is science, but for the sake of argument, my analysis does meet Popper's test of falsifiability. Marxism does too. If there are no communist revolutions, then a main Marxist proposition is falsified. There have been communist revolutions, so Marxism is not falsified. QED. Thus, I refute Popper's claim the Marxism doesn't meet Popper's test. Eat your heart out Popper. ^^^ Equallly to qualify as scientific Marxism must be falsifiable. It must endlessly seeking to prove its hypotheses wrong. CB: Popper is not the last word on what is scientific. Sorry. Marxism has a more advanced theory of knowledge ( epistemology) than Popper. See Theses on Feuerbach, Engels and Lenin before Popper even wrote. For Marxism, the test of theory is practice. How could the theory be tested if it doesn't have propositions that can be falsified by practice. Popper's epistemological idea is scholastic and defective. He doesn't focus on practice. Otherwise, he would have noticed that there was a Russian Revolution right at the time that he was airheadedly declaring that Marxism didn't propose any tests of its theories. He must not have read The Theses on Feuerbach, Engels and Lenin either. He was a bourgeois anti-Communist propagandists ^ However in general marxism does not do this. Instead it tends to present itself as proven true. CB: False. Marxism states generally that the TEST of theory is practice. To have a TEST , one must have a falsifiable proposition, otherwise, what would be tested ? ^ Many scientists entertain an opposite position Significantly the force driving these events has been both meaningless and unconscious. Consciousness is a result and not a sui generis of the course of nature. What produces consciousness cannot be produced by it. Consequently to suggest that a modest unestablished notion of humans 'obliged to look out for themselves' can serve as a driving force of the future being of man is not
Fw: [Marxism-Thaxis] The Worst Mistake
Hi Charles Below is a rather hastily written reply to you last contribution. Sorry for the delay I have been otherwise engaged. Expressing a point of view is not the definition of idealism. To have posited language as opposed to point of view would have proven a better starting point. It is language rather than point of view which demarcates us from beasts. The point of view perspective is a rather narrow conception of epistemology. It effectively reduces epistemology to the abstract level of mere point of view. Scientific inquiry cannot be simply reduced to point of view. To do so is to reduce science to that of doxa. It means that Marx's Capital can have no more status than the point of view of any randomly chosen capitalist or worker. It means that the point of view of a fascist who claims that Hitler was right has necessaily the same status of a communist who describes Hitler as an extreme reactionary. As a point of view there is nothing to guarantee that your point of view offers any description of being. To guarantee this, what you call your point of view would have to possess more properties than that of point of view. It may have been a point of view that the sun orbits the earth because of the way in which reality can appear (sun's rising and setting) or that the earth is flat. However that does not give these claims the equale weight to Galileo's conclusions on the subject. This is just the point I have been arguing against. The basis for what is understood as human progress or development cannot be validly based on an unestablished subjective notion (looking out for ourselves.) It must be based on a logically epistemologically and ontologically consistent premise bearing an inherently objective character. It must be falsfiable. Equallly to qualify as scientific Marxism must be falsifiable. It must endlessly seeking to prove its hypotheses wrong. However in general marxism does not do this. Instead it tends to present itself as proven true. Many scientists entertain an opposite position Significantly the force driving these events has been both meaningless and unconscious. Consciousness is a result and not a sui generis of the course of nature. What produces consciousness cannot be produced by it. Consequently to suggest that a modest unestablished notion of humans 'obliged to look out for themselves' can serve as a driving force of the future being of man is not a valid assumption. Mere opinion cannot legitimately claim that consciousness must be used to decide what progress is. Since yours is a mere opinion it can carry no more status than the opinion of a fascist or a Buddhist. Everything for you is reduced to mere opinion --mere subjectivity. Since for you "point of view" is all that anyone can express there exists no basis for truth or even validity. Each of us is then our own opinion. Consequently logically there can exist an endless multiplicity of individual worlds constitued by personal opinion. All opinions are equally valid so all correspondingly equally exist. The fascist, the Buddhist, the Roman Catholic and the communist are equally valid universes. This viewpoint constitutes an unestablished form of naive idealism. It is this problem that is also at the heart of the problems and ambiguities of marxism. It is these matters that need to be thrashed out and settled. Darwin's dangerous idea is that it irrefutably demonstrated that consciousness, and thereby god, is an unnecessary element in any objective outline of naturaldevelopment. Instead nature explains itself by just being --by evolving. It does not logically require you, me or Marx to explain it. In so far as consciousness exists it is a product of evolution. Therefore consciousness exists within nature. It cannot exist outside nature. There is no radical bifurcation between nature and consciousness. No matter how consciousness develops it is circumscribed within it. Consciousness can never transcend nature. To do so is to become god. The vast majority of species that possess consciousness have been still constrained by the laws of nature. Evolution by natural selection entailing the fittest of the survival persisted. Of course consciousness has affected our relationship with nature. This is because it is a product of evolution --a feature of evolution by natural selection. Consciousness must affect our relationship with nature because it is itself nature -a complex form of nature. And this is just the matter which I have been raising but which is may be escaping people. The matter is the character of the relationship of society to nature. The nature of this relationship has to be identified and outlined. If Darwin is correct then this raises certain problems for marxism. One of which I have just mentioned. For Darwin the evolution of consciousness is a product of a meaningless unconscious evolutionary process. Nature is a spontaneous production process that lacks intelligent design. This is proof that production is not
[Marxism-Thaxis] The Worst Mistake
Jim Farmelant It should be noted that the relationships between Marxism and Darwinism have come up for discussion on this list in the past. For example, see the following: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2002-February/017529. html http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2002-February/017537. html http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2002-February/017538. html http://www.mail-archive.com/marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu/msg00306.h Tml CB: Here's my comments from then Alan Carling's synopsis of *The Proof of the Pudding: Reason and Value in Social Evolution* Charles Brown marxism- Jim, I read this paper when you posted it on Marxmail. Thank you again. I think the answer to Carling's question in the following passage is , in part, that language, symbolic behavior, what cultural anthropologist generalize to culture, is a mechanism by which acquired characteristics can be inherited ( non-biologically of course). In other words , culture is a LaMarckian mechanism. It should be obvious why a LaMarckian mechanism would meet Carling's requirement that what he is looking for is an adaptive mechanism that is not a Darwinian selective mechanism. Culture or language and symbolling allow the experiences of one generation to be the basis for learning without going through the same hardknocks of experience for future generations. This is a much more rapid process than Darwinian selective adaption. Carling says on page 4: "But now the special explanatory puzzle presented by this case becomes clear. Given an overarching commitment to Darwinian explanations for the existence of all mental traits (modular and non-modular alike), how does it come about that it was in the genetic interest of proto-humans that certain of their behaviours (i.e. the ones governed by non-modular mental processes) were released from genetic control? Or, putting the puzzle in even more pointed terms: why did natural selection act so as to work genes out of a job? We are seeking, in short, a neo-Darwinian explanation for the non-applicability of neo-Darwinian sociobiology. It was noted above that the premise of this problem is the existence of some non-modular human mental traits, without the need to specify in detail which traits are modular and which are not.[7] But we also know enough to know that the principal traits at issue are those that involve language, meaning and reference. This focus on the means of symbolic communication reflects an emerging consensus about the central distinctiveness of the human species.[8] " Later in the essay Carling says: "But the existence of such consequences is a plausible contention, since, as Engels expressed the point, ideas are a material force. To drive the point home, imagine a proto-human world populated by egos and alters.[10] In this world, ego s thoughts and beliefs affect what ego does (including ego s speech acts), and what ego does or says affects what alter thinks and believes, and therefore what alter does, which has possible consequences for ego too. And the same goes not just for alter 1, but alters 2, 3 and 4. The emergence of symbolic communication thus allows the output of each brain to become an input to many other brains, and this creates a network of interaction effects. " CB:Here Carling addresses what I term the "expanded sociality" that symbolic use and language allows. However, the biggest expansion of sociality is that between generations in the non-genetic inheritance that culture allows. Seems to me that complexity theory's notion of self-organization is supported by things like crystal structure in rocks. It seems to be the principle of aesthetics in nature. A beautiful sunset is self-organizing. So, I agree with Carling that they can be a factor in a process but not a replacement for selection. However, symbolizing can include such aestheticsand therefore some culture has order in it which is not related to selection. Of course the following is controversial in that many believe that Marx and Engels etc. had already given their theory a "coherent theoretical statement". Perhaps it is better said that Cohen clarified things for himself , Carling and others. But isn't Marx's theory one of class struggle determinism, not technological determinism ? "It is widely agreed that the most significant event in the recent history of Marxist scholarship was the publication in 1978 of G.A.Cohen s Karl Marx s Theory of History: a Defence.[28] Two of the book s multiple achievements stand out in the present context. First, it was shown that the classical Marxist theory of history, as summarised most perspicaciously in Marx s 1859 Preface, can be given a coherent theoretical statement. This statement centred on the role played by the (technological) forces of production in either promoting or inhibiting the historical development of the (social) relations of production. The treatment was analytical in its mode of prese
[Marxism-Thaxis] The Worst Mistake
Paddy Hackett Paddy: This just gets to the heart of the matter: We should consider ourselves as the axis of development. We must look out for ourselves. But the above perspective is just a point of view --a subjectively conscious evaluation. ^^^ CB: Yes it is a point of view, but a point of view is all that any individual can express. Anything anybody says is a point of view. Everything you are saying on this thread is a point of view too. But expressing a point of view is not the definition of idealism. ^^ Paddy:It suggests that subjective consciousness determines our being. ^ CB: I beg to differ. I am not saying that my point of view determines being. I am making a description of being. I am expressing a point of view on being, but I am not saying that my point of view determines being; my point of view is _reporting_ on being which has been determined by other things than my point of view. ^^^ Paddy: This is just the point I have been arguing against. The basis for what is understood as human progress or development cannot be validly based on an unestablished subjective notion (looking out for ourselves.) It must be based on a logically epistemologically and ontologically consistent premise bearing an inherently objective character. It must be falsfiable. ^^ CB: "Progress" in something like the amount of energy captured by a society's technology or population size can be objectively measured. But the prior step of establishing these things as "progress" is not based on an objective standard. This means it must be testable as would appear to be the case with the physical sciences. Looking out for ourselves is not a testable perspective because of its ambiguous and subjective character. It is merely a moral prescript that suggests opinion or doxa rules --doxa as opposed to episteme. ^^ CB: Yes it is testable. The first objective , measurable, testible, falsifiable level is the question : Is your species extinct or not ? That's a falsifiable test of it. However, you are wrong that a moral prescript should not be established here. There is a non-objective step in deciding what is "progress". ^ Paddy:Your remarks also invoke the matter of neo-Darwinism in a more acute form. The diversity and development of life in all its form has been a product of natural selection. Incrementatl evolution has led to this rich diversity including forms of consciousness. ^^ CB: We favor punctuated equilibrium over incremental evolution. ^^ Significantly the force driving these events has been meaningless and unconscious. Consciousness is a result and not a sui generis of the course of nature. What produces consciousness cannot be produced by it. Consequently to suggest that a modest unestablished notion of humans 'obliged to look out for themselves' can serve as a driving force of the future being of man is not a valid assumption. ^ CB: You are confusing how humans got to having consciousness with what humans can do with consciousness after they have it. After we have consciousness, we can appropriately use it, actually must use it, to decide things like what is progress FOR US. Nature does not objectively decide for us what of all the things going on are progress for us. ^^ It is an unestablished form of naive idealism. It is this problem that is also at the heart of the problems and ambiguities of marxism. It is these matters that need to be thrashed out. Darwin's dangerous idea is that it irrefutably demonstrated that consciousness, and thereby god, is an unnecessary element in any objective outline of natural development. ^ CB: Yes, consciousness is an unnecessary element in _some_ objective outlines of natural development. For example, as far as we know planst don't have consciousness. But it is _in fact_ an aspect of some outlines of natural development. Human consciousness has impacted our relationship with nature and thereby our natural development. For example, our consciousness has been critical in many of our adaptations since we got consciousness. ^ Homo sapiens if a result of the ongoing process of evolution by natural selection. This means that the brain and its consciousness is inherently an evolutionary product of a universal production process. Production is not necessarily a consciously driven process as is mistakenly believed by some leftists. ^ CB: However, human production has been impacted by the fact that we have consciousness. Our production and labor _are_ conscious. We plan our labor before we perform it. Thereby our consciousness impacts our production. There are also unconscious aspects to our production as a whole, but that doesn't mean there is no consciousness in our production, or that consciousness does not play a critical role in our production. ^^^ One of the fundamental problems with marxism is its failure to grapple with the significance of Darw
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] The Worst Mistake
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 10:42:02 +0100 "Paddy Hackett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > CB: We can claim that we are the center of the universe FOR US, yes. > Consequently to suggest that a modest > unestablished notion of humans 'obliged to look out for themselves' > can > serve as a driving force of the future being of man is not a valid > assumption. It is an unestablished form of naive idealism. It is > this > problem that is also at the heart of the problems and ambiguities of > > marxism. It is these matters that need to be thrashed out. Darwin's > dangerous idea is that it irrefutably demonstrated that > consciousness, and > thereby god, is an unnecessary element in any objective outline of > natural > development. Homo sapiens if a result of the ongoing process of > evolution by > natural selection. This means that the brain and its consciousness > is > inherently an evolutionary product of a universal production > process. It should be noted that the relationships between Marxism and Darwinism have come up for discussion on this list in the past. For example, see the following: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2002-February/017529. html http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2002-February/017537. html http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2002-February/017538. html http://www.mail-archive.com/marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu/msg00306.h tml > Production is not necessarily a consciously driven process as is > mistakenly > believed by some leftists. One of the fundamental problems with > marxism is > its failure to grapple with the significance of Darwin and the > modern > synthesis. As a young marxist Darwin never featured much in the > studies and > discussions that engaged me in or out of college. Indeed Freud was > more of a > topical issue than was Darwin. This was largely because much of > marxism > lacked the confidence to engage with his Darwin's dangerous idea. > The > extent and depth of its subservisiveness unettled it. > > Paddy Hackett > > > ___ 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] The Worst Mistake
>>But the above perspective is just a point of view --a subjectively conscious evaluation. It suggests that subjective consciousness determines our being. This is just the point I have been arguing against. The basis for what is understood as human progress or development cannot be validly based on an unestablished subjective notion (looking out for ourselves.) It must be based on a logically epistemologically and ontologically consistent premise bearing an inherently objective character. It must be falsfiable. This means it must be testable as would appear to be the case with the physical sciences. << Comment I have followed this thread and its crossover on the Communist List, as well as Diamond's 1987 article and some of the following discussion on Pen-L. The author above states: >>The basis for what is understood as human progress or development cannot be validly based on an unestablished subjective notion (looking out for ourselves.)<< Here is the heart and lungs of the issue which the author presents and does not answer. Human progress has an objective quality and character that is measurable and verifiable in laboratory experiment and indisputable. Human process is the direct result of alienated labor or as Engels would put it, "the progressive accumulation of productive forces." The definition of human progress or progress as species activity is the accumulation of productive forces or the qualitative and quantitative expansion of the material power of production. That is the definition of progress. Here is the process that creates history and also defines history. History is the progressive accumulation of productive forces and this is the ABC of the materialist conception or approach to history. Whether one considers any given set of inventions or any given result of the expansion of the material power and the results of the scientific revolution "good" or "evil" is not really relevant to what constitutes "progress." Waistline ___ 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] The Worst Mistake
CB: We can claim that we are the center of the universe FOR US, yes. So, no the "Universe" doesn't "consider" us as the "apogee or axis of development", but WE should consider ourselves as the axis of development FOR US, all the while knowing that we are alone in that regard. If we don't look out for ourselves, the Universe is not going to do it, so we _have_ to focus on ourselves. Paddy: This just gets to the heart of the matter: We should consider ourselves as the axis of development. We must look out for ourselves. But the above perspective is just a point of view --a subjectively conscious evaluation. It suggests that subjective consciousness determines our being. This is just the point I have been arguing against. The basis for what is understood as human progress or development cannot be validly based on an unestablished subjective notion (looking out for ourselves.) It must be based on a logically epistemologically and ontologically consistent premise bearing an inherently objective character. It must be falsfiable. This means it must be testable as would appear to be the case with the physical sciences. Looking out for ourselves is not a testable perspective because of its ambiguous and subjective character. It is merely a moral prescript that suggests opinion or doxa rules --doxa as opposed to episteme. Your remarks also invoke the matter of neo-Darwinism in a more acute form. The diversity and development of life in all its form has been a product of natural selection. Incrementatl evolution has led to this rich diversity including forms of consciousness. Significantly the force driving these events has been meaningless and unconscious. Consciousness is a result and not a sui generis of the course of nature. What produces consciousness cannot be produced by it. Consequently to suggest that a modest unestablished notion of humans 'obliged to look out for themselves' can serve as a driving force of the future being of man is not a valid assumption. It is an unestablished form of naive idealism. It is this problem that is also at the heart of the problems and ambiguities of marxism. It is these matters that need to be thrashed out. Darwin's dangerous idea is that it irrefutably demonstrated that consciousness, and thereby god, is an unnecessary element in any objective outline of natural development. Homo sapiens if a result of the ongoing process of evolution by natural selection. This means that the brain and its consciousness is inherently an evolutionary product of a universal production process. Production is not necessarily a consciously driven process as is mistakenly believed by some leftists. One of the fundamental problems with marxism is its failure to grapple with the significance of Darwin and the modern synthesis. As a young marxist Darwin never featured much in the studies and discussions that engaged me in or out of college. Indeed Freud was more of a topical issue than was Darwin. This was largely because much of marxism lacked the confidence to engage with his Darwin's dangerous idea. The extent and depth of its subservisiveness unettled it. Paddy Hackett Paddy Hackett: Very interesting Charles. But where does that leave us? What is to be the politics --some form of animal rights or liberation movement? CB: I'd say the politics are to be Marxism. With a worldwide communist revolution, we can abolish and dispose of nukes, end war, etc. We may not make it , but the only possible way out of class exploitative society is the revolution that Marx, Engels , Lenin taught would be the end of class exploitative society. ^^ I am not saying it is actually wrong to suggest that the introduction of agriculture, as such, is not progressive. What I am concerned about is the basis for such a conclusion. It does not appear to me that marxism has presented a valid basis for concluding that agriculture constituted a step forward. ^ CB: It has turned out to be a step forward and a step backward. You know: contradiction. The step forward part is ability to feed more people. That's straight forward ok. But it has turned out to have serious sideeffects that aren't so good. Knowing what we know now, "we" can get rid of the backward aspects and keep the forward aspects. Trouble is most people and especially the curent ruling class, do not "know" what "we" "know". So, we face a serious challenge of saving the world. Anthropocentric foundations cannot be simply accepted as assumptions. And if they are to be made it must be made clear that they are being made and why. CB: Well, yea, but I'm not sure how this relates to what we are discussing here. I do think we have to be centered on ourselves as humans in many senses. "Anthropocentrism" is only an error if we take it to mean that the Universe or "God" have developed as if humans were the center of the Universe, that human are the center of the Universe, from the standpoint
[Marxism-Thaxis] The Worst Mistake
Paddy Hackett: Very interesting Charles. But where does that leave us? What is to be the politics --some form of animal rights or liberation movement? CB: I'd say the politics are to be Marxism. With a worldwide communist revolution, we can abolish and dispose of nukes, end war, etc. We may not make it , but the only possible way out of class exploitative society is the revolution that Marx, Engels , Lenin taught would be the end of class exploitative society. ^^ I am not saying it is actually wrong to suggest that the introduction of agriculture, as such, is not progressive. What I am concerned about is the basis for such a conclusion. It does not appear to me that marxism has presented a valid basis for concluding that agriculture constituted a step forward. ^ CB: It has turned out to be a step forward and a step backward. You know: contradiction. The step forward part is ability to feed more people. That's straight forward ok. But it has turned out to have serious sideeffects that aren't so good. Knowing what we know now, "we" can get rid of the backward aspects and keep the forward aspects. Trouble is most people and especially the curent ruling class, do not "know" what "we" "know". So, we face a serious challenge of saving the world. Anthropocentric foundations cannot be simply accepted as assumptions. And if they are to be made it must be made clear that they are being made and why. CB: Well, yea, but I'm not sure how this relates to what we are discussing here. I do think we have to be centered on ourselves as humans in many senses. "Anthropocentrism" is only an error if we take it to mean that the Universe or "God" have developed as if humans were the center of the Universe, that human are the center of the Universe, from the standpoint of the Universe itself , in some sense."God" is not anthropocentric. However, humans are rightly anthropocentric or focussed on preserving and taking care of themselves. ^ Can we with justificaion claim that humanity constitutes the apogee of development -or the axis of development. ^ CB: We can claim that we are the center of the universe FOR US, yes. So, no the "Universe" doesn't "consider" us as the "apogee or axis of development", but WE should consider ourselves as the axis of development FOR US, all the while knowing that we are alone in that regard. If we don't look out for ourselves, the Universe is not going to do it, so we _have_ to focus on ourselves. But even with that, we will probably go extinct eventually, when the sun burns out or so. ^^^ Has Galileo, Darwin not refuted such conceptions. CB: Yes, they have. But I'm not sure what I said that made you mistakenly think that I think that humans are the apogee or axis of development of nature, from nature's standpoint. We are appropriately the center of the universe from _our_ standpoint. Our interest in the rest of the universe is in how it affects us, no ? ^^ Is the problem here not centrally linked into the matter of consciousness and idealism. Can marxism not be accused of beingan idealism concerning this. Is the view that consciousness, spirit, determines being at the heart of the marxist conception of man --christianity (Hegel) in another guise. CB: Read what I said above and see if you still think this. Anyway, focus on survival of the human species, alone as we are in the universe, is not idealism in the sense that Engels and Marx described it as an error, no. In fact, it's materialism, as far as I can see. Idealism is basically religion. How is saying that there is no God , and so we have to look after ourselves idealism or religion? Not hardly. It's precisely materialism. ^^^ If so this may help explain its failure to grip the masses giving us the present condition in which there exists no revolutionary communism today. The philosophy of man was a matter of interest in the seventies I believe. Lucien Seve, Althusser and Garaudy. Paddy Hackett ^ ___ 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] The Worst Mistake
Paddy Hackett The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race ^^ CB: From a Marxist perspective, the origin of agriculture - domestication of plants and animals - was the basis for producing surpluses, which in turnsupported non-productive classes that evolved into exploitative classes. Paddy: I understand what you are saying Charles. But does this linearity constitute progress? On what basis can it be validly concluded what is advanced, progressive or better. Can it be validly concluded that bacteria or chimps are less succesful or more advanced species than homo sapiens? Paddy Hackett ^^ CB: No, I don't consider the origin of _exploiting_ classes as progress. Now with nuclear weapons, I'd say that in the long run, it has been regressive, not progressive. Of course, I was an anthropology major in school, and we are often accused of indulging in romaticizing "noble savages". I have a paper I wrote arguing that "primary culture" is superior to state-exploitative culture, given that primary culture lasted for hundreds of thousands of years successfully, and now state-exploitative culture threatens extinction of our species. In other words, no, I don't think it's progressive, in the big picture. Paddy Hackett: Very interesting Charles. But where does that leave us? What is to be the politics --some form of animal rights or liberation movement? I am not saying it is actually wrong to suggest that the introduction of agriculture, as such, is not progressive. What I am concerned about is the basis for such a conclusion. It does not appear to me that marxism has presented a valid basis for concluding that agriculture constituted a step forward. Anthropocentric foundations cannot be simply accepted as assumptions. And if they are to be made it must be made clear that they are being made and why. Can we with justificaion claim that humanity constitutes the apogee of development -or the axis of development. Has Galileo, Darwin not refuted such conceptions. Is the problem here not centrally linked into the matter of consciousness and idealism. Can marxism not be accused of beingan idealism concerning this. Is the view that consciousness, spirit, determines being at the heart of the marxist conception of man --christianity (Hegel) in another guise. If so this may help explain its failure to grip the masses giving us the present condition in which there exists no revolutionary communism today. The philosophy of man was a matter of interest in the seventies I believe. Lucien Seve, Althusser and Garaudy. Paddy Hackett ___ 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] The Worst Mistake
Paddy Hackett The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race ^^ CB: From a Marxist perspective, the origin of agriculture - domestication of plants and animals - was the basis for producing surpluses, which in turnsupported non-productive classes that evolved into exploitative classes. Paddy: I understand what you are saying Charles. But does this linearity constitute progress? On what basis can it be validly concluded what is advanced, progressive or better. Can it be validly concluded that bacteria or chimps are less succesful or more advanced species than homo sapiens? Paddy Hackett ^^ CB: No, I don't consider the origin of _exploiting_ classes as progress. Now with nuclear weapons, I'd say that in the long run, it has been regressive, not progressive. Of course, I was an anthropology major in school, and we are often accused of indulging in romaticizing "noble savages". I have a paper I wrote arguing that "primary culture" is superior to state-exploitative culture, given that primary culture lasted for hundreds of thousands of years successfully, and now state-exploitative culture threatens extinction of our species. In other words, no, I don't think it's progressive, in the big picture. ___ 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] The Worst Mistake
The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race ^^ CB: From a Marxist perspective, the origin of agriculture - domestication of plants and animals - was the basis for producing surpluses, which in turn supported non-productive classes that evolved into exploitative classes. Paddy: I understand what you are saying Charles. But does this linearity constitute progress? On what basis can it be validly concluded what is advanced, progressive or better. Can it be validly concluded that bacteria or chimps are less succesful or more advanced species than homo sapiens? Paddy Hackett ___ 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] The Worst Mistake
Below is an interesting article that can form the subject for discussion. Paddy The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race WORLD FOOD ISSUES: PAST AND PRESENT Jared Diamond on Agriculture ^^ CB: From a Marxist perspective, the origin of agriculture - domestication of plants and animals - was the basis for producing surpluses, which in turn supported non-productive classes that evolved into exploitative classes. ___ 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
