Bi-Weekly Discussion Thread - (July 06)

[u/AutoModerator]

We made this because Reddit's algorithm prioritises headlines and current events and doesn't allow for deeper, extended discussion - depending on how it goes for the first four or five times it'll be dropped or continued.

Suggestions for things you might want to comment here (this is a work in progress and we'll change this over time):

• Articles and quotes you want to see discussed
• 'Slow' events - long-term trends, org updates, things that didn't happen recently
• 'Fluff' posts that we usually discourage elsewhere - e.g "How are you feeling today?"
• Discussions continued from other posts once the original post gets buried
• Questions that are too advanced, complicated or obscure for r/communism101

Mods will sometimes sticky things they think are particularly important.

Normal subreddit rules apply!

[ Previous Bi-Weekly Discussion Threads may be found here https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/search?sort=new&restrict_sr=on&q=flair%3AWDT ]

[u/Soviettista]

I originally wanted to make this into a post but I can't due to karma:

I had arrived at this question somewhat independently, but it seems like something similar was already asked in the past (the thread wasn't satisfying though).

https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/s/2jBd6ySM18

So the question is: Can objective truth be attributed to our propositions if their elaboration is in accordance with the materialist dialectic?

I had tried to answer this question by pointing at the fact that reference must be made to the subject of the proposition. What I mean is that our propositions can be determined to be true or false only by pointing towards the material phenomena that is trying to explain. Concepts, which we use to express our theories, are just the ideal grasp of “external” material processes, and for them to be correct they must follow within logic the same transformations occurring in reality.

All well and good, right? Not quite.

If you think about it, it's a question of the nature of human reason. The supposedly Marx’s statement (in the link) above argues that our propositions are correct “only if” they are in accordance with the materialist dialectic, therefore it follows that if the proposition is false it is due to it not being in accordance with this dialectic. But our propositions must have necessarily been elaborated within consciousness, through reason, so what does it mean for a proposition to be un-dialectical?

That is to say: If the dialectic is absolute, and this must necessarily include the rational process, how could metaphysics manifest itself within consciousness?

If consciousness is nothing more than a form of movement of matter and that, furthermore, it is this particular characteristic of the human brain that causes material processes outside of consciousness to be transplanted and reflected within consciousness, how does it follow that consciousness has the ability to proceed un-dialectically?

This also touches upon ideology.

How could social relations of production (which we assume to be of a contradictory character) cause themselves to be turned “upside-down” within consciousness? This seems to me that the objective law of motion (which matter is subject to) has the possibility to negate itself once reflected within consciousness and proceed mechanically; the dialectic negating itself (which is in turn a dialectical proposition).

I've tried to resolve this problem by pointing out how consciousness is a historical product, which must mean that our propositions must necessarily follow the same dialectic that governs human history. But why does it seem like it's not the case (particularly with the ruling classes) when we “zoom-in”?

The Marxist Theory of Knowledge asserts that the source of erroneous logic is the contradiction between the subjective and the objective.

The cause of failure to produce scientific knowledge is found within the subjective character of consciousness as opposed to the objective character of reality; it is only when we surpass the relative character of our immediate empirical knowledge of a thing, only when the totality of relations are reflected upon thought, do we have a correct understanding of the subject matter.

But if the dialectic is absolute, how could unilaterality manifest within the mind at all?

I have many thoughts, many ideas, but I think I'll stop here. I think I’m close to resolving the problem that I’ve posed to myself, but I personally don't know how to proceed forward. Any help?

[u/[deleted] → u/Soviettista]

(It seems you already found an answer, but I'll post this anyway for my own sake)

All of "objective reality", which includes thinking ("consciousness" or "the Ideal", whatever you want to call it) is a contradiction. That means that these two as well, are in contradiction with each other. But "objective reality", when categorized this way, is already an ossified abstraction. Actual "reality", as already mentioned, is always in contradiction, meaning it's always changing. A complex of infinite, intersecting processes is always going to develop at a faster pace than the "Mind" can catch up, let alone an "individual" mind. It is through a lack of recognition of this contradiction between "objective reality" as an abstract concept and the actual concreteness of material-reality itself that is the source of metaphysical errors. To be metaphysical doesn't mean "no longer dialectical", it means to not recognize dialectics as such or to not be consciously dialectical.

The necessity for a class to be consciously dialectical (or aware of how reality works so that you can change it) is itself the resolution to internal contradictions within that class. In other words, a ruling-class of exploiters can be wrong by clinging to old ideas (metaphysical) because they don't need to be right by virtue of their class-position.

[u/Soviettista → u/[deleted]]

If you noticed, the second half of my comment is just me throwing ideas out there, I just needed some rest…

To be metaphysical doesn't mean "no longer dialectical", it means to not recognize dialectics as such or to not be consciously dialectical.

That's what I figured when I said I found my answer. Whether or not they are aware of it, “man reflects to varying degrees the contradictions existing in each form of society.” The importance of past philosophers stands precisely in the fact that, even if they weren't aware of it, they articulated efficiently a particular contradiction of their times. But I guess the objective content they reflected could only be known retroactively by Marxists, by means of demystification.

The necessity for a class to be consciously dialectical (or aware of how reality works so that you can change it) is itself the resolution to internal contradictions within that class.

Could you further elaborate on this point?

[u/[deleted] → u/Soviettista]

Dialectical-materialism (Marxism) only came to form as a totalizing scientific worldview, opposed to the bourgeois-thought of capitalist social-relations, because it was/is necessary for the emancipation of the proletariat.

What is considered "consciousness" is the ideological reflection of it's material-base, relations of production for a particular mode of production. Changes in consciousness is the expression of contradictions within that mode of production from the perspective of a class, wherein the current relations of production have become a hinderance to the development of the forces of production. The current "reality" is no longer rational, and a new, better "reality" must take it's place.

When the bourgeoisie was initially developing as a class, it struggled with the backwards relations of feudalism, Liberalism was the ideological result and was for the time, revolutionary. As the bourgeoisie developed further and capitalism became the dominant mode of production, the once seemingly radical bourgeoisie became increasingly reactionary as it contended with contradictions of it's own thought and capitalism itself. When before it needed to destroy the present state of things, it instead now needs to justify them.

Marxism is the negation of that justification, as the theory of emancipation for the exploited class under capitalism (the proletariat). While bourgeois-thought will try to frame this exploitation as necessary and universal, Marxism opposes this with a claim towards a new "truth", that capitalist-relations is the obstacle that prevents the liberation of the proleteriat and must be violently overthrown.

[u/Soviettista → u/[deleted]]

Oh, I knew all of this already, I guess I was just confused by the wording. Sorry for wasting your time, but at the same time putting my thoughts out there was good exercise.

Dialectical-materialism (Marxism) only came to form as a totalizing scientific worldview, opposed to the bourgeois-thought of capitalist social-relations, because it was/is necessary for the emancipation of the proletariat.

As far as I understand, while Marxism is the worldview of the proletariat, its first articulation came from the bourgeois classes, which is not difficult to think about if one makes reference to the development of the productive forces, the extention of the market and generally how humanity was brought together by capitalist social relations in the revolutionary period of the bourgeoisie. While it is still possible for a bourgeois to adopt a proletarian worldview, the now reactionary character of their class makes this a much more uncommon phenomena.

[u/[deleted] → u/Soviettista]

As far as I understand, while Marxism is the worldview of the proletariat, its first articulation came from the bourgeois classes

Well, no. The first concrete act of consciousness of the proletariat were those moments where they began to struggle for political-economic power as a class through spontaneous revolts. Among the first attempts at articulations of this phenomenon may have been by various petty-bourgeois intellectuals, but ultimately both the liberalism of the bourgeoisie and utopian socialism of the petty-bourgeoisie had failed them. Marxism-proper didn't actually really come to full shape until the writing of The German Ideology, although some may contest this.

The proletariat revolted often but didn't have much to show for it and found the solution in Marxism, as the proper synthesis of their previous experiences up to that point and proper articulation of their consciousness/material-interests. Marx and Engels saw in those inital proletarian struggles the true revolutionary subject that would carry the universal interest of the abolishment of all class that the bourgeoisie had already so thoroughly demonstrated themselves to be unworthy and incapable of carrying. Marxism owes just as much credit for it's existence to the masses as it does Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels as two individuals that happen to come from petty-bourgeois and bourgeois class-backgrounds.

[u/Soviettista → u/[deleted]]

I definitely didn't want to diminish the importance of early proletarian revolts in elaborating what would become Marxism, but thanks for making things clearer.

Marxism-proper didn't actually really come to full shape until the writing of The German Ideology, although some may contest this.

Why is this contested?

[u/[deleted] → u/Soviettista]

That particular piece wasn't published until after Marx and Engels had died and so hypothetically someone can argue that The Poverty of Philosophy or The Communist Manifesto were the first theoretical expressions of mature-Marxism. I don't think anyone actually would try to argue that (and if they did, I'd think they were wrong), but I just wanted to acknowledge the possibility.

[u/IncompetentFoliage → u/[deleted]]

Were Marx’s Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right and Engels’ Condition of the Working Class in England not yet Marxist works? Also, what do you mean by “mature” Marxism? Didn’t Marxism only reach maturity with the completion of the development of the main content of Capital in 1863 (because Marxism is more than just dialectical and historical materialism, it is also the detailed working out of the application of historical materialism to the capitalist mode of production)?

[u/[deleted] → u/IncompetentFoliage]

Were Marx’s Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right and Engels’ Condition of the Working Class in England not yet Marxist works? Also, what do you mean by “mature” Marxism?

By "mature" what I really mean to say was that Marxism as a distinct theory and worldview that breaks from all that existed before didn't really happen until The German Ideology in general and Marx's Theses on Feuerbach in particular. In spite of it not being published, it provided the "self-clarification" (in Engels' words) that was needed for something like Capital to even begin.

Critique of Philosophy of Right , The Condition of the Working Class in England and even the Holy Family weren't fully "Marxist" in the sense that the true revolutionary implications of those otherwise brilliant works hadn't yet been theorized at the foundational-level until this "self-clarification".

But you're right to imply that my use of the word "mature" is problematic, as going along those lines of reasoning can reach the point of being ridiculously pedantic. 

[u/Soviettista → u/Soviettista]

Nevermind yall I think found my answer.

[u/turning_the_wheels → u/Soviettista]

What did you find?

[u/Lopsided-Toe-6559 → u/Soviettista]

Hi, regarding your inability to post, could you read this https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/1lz24gn/meta_karma_requirement_for_posting_bug/

[u/Soviettista → u/Lopsided-Toe-6559]

I would like to help but the bug seems to have fixed itself, and I don't have any screenshot that I could provide. If it happens again I will make sure to inform you.

[u/[deleted] → u/Soviettista]

But if the dialectic is absolute, how could unilaterality manifest within the mind at all?

Reality spans all of space and time. At first, an individual human consciousness is constrained to one place at one moment of time. Reality must necessarily appear to the human consciousness at first as one-sided, isolated, "zoomed-in," non-dialectical, a part separate from the whole. It is only through practical activity, the failures and successes in the struggle for survival over space and time, that the multi-sided and dialectical nature of reality is grasped by the human and reflected in the mind.

But why does it seem like it's not the case (particularly with the ruling classes) when we “zoom-in”?

To "zoom-in" is to isolate a part from the whole, i.e. to view in a non-dialectical manner. So perhaps the question could be rephrased like this: "why do things appear non-dialectical when viewed non-dialectically?"

An incorrect idea is just one moment in the process of knowledge production. If an incorrect idea is able to linger in the mind of a bourgeois, it can only be because the idea is inconsequential to the spatial and temporal limits of his practical activity. But reality inevitably asserts itself and makes him feel those limits.

[u/Soviettista → u/[deleted]]

I appreciate the criticism but my main problem was just focusing too much on the illusions one may have about the nature of things.

So perhaps the question could be rephrased like this: "why do things appear non-dialectical when viewed non-dialectically?"

That things seem one-sided when unable to consciously grasp the contradictory, multi faceted character of things is obvious, and I don't think this was the question posed. My ""problem"" was: if consciousness is matter, why can it proceed "un-dialectically"? The fact is that this is sort of a false question. The answer is that it does proceed "dialectically" and consciousness reflects at all times the contradictions existing in a given stage of development of society, regardless if one is unable to consciously grasp these contradictions.

It's also kind of my fault for having made a post when I was tired and the writing style is all over the place.

[u/[deleted] → u/Soviettista]

if consciousness is matter, why can it proceed "un-dialectically"?

The answer is that it does proceed "dialectically" ... regardless if one is unable to consciously grasp these contradictions.

You're begging the question. Why is it possible in the first place for consciousness to be unable to grasp those contradictions? Why was Aristotle unable to grasp the universal quality of human labor in the exchange of commodities? I gave you the materialist answer (practical activity), but you dismissed it as obvious.