Thanks for your question. These are complex topics that require some background reading and prior interest. However, I think the series will make more sense to someone who is new to Marxism if it is viewed in a sequence beginning with the "history of modernity" videos ("Economic Conditions of Modernity," "Individual and Society in Modernity," etc), followed by the "Historical Materialism," "Labor Theory of Value" and "Commodities and Commodity Fetishism" videos.
Finally, when I said you were myopic it wasn't to make a defense for existing social forms. It was to point out that you are only considering a miniscule part of economic relations, let alone borader economics, psychology, philosophies, social ontology, politics, law, distribution, and so forth.
Private property, in this system, is congealed labor, which is controlled by and enables the owners of the means of production to set the terms for the workers' wages. If it weren't for the legal and social conditions that protect private property, some people wouldn't be able to avoid paying other people the true value for the labor they exchange with them. Sorry if this response seems cryptic--it's a big question, and time is short.
Many thanks for this very useful overview of what had seemd like a complicated concept (before you elucidated it here). Question: How does Historical Materialism differ from Dialectic Materialism? I assume that the former merely emphasises Marxist conceptualisations of history rather than more generally providing the theoretical framework for Marxist understanding of society? Is this correct? Or is it possible to ise the terms interchangeably? Many thanks, Jenny
Fair criticism. That's my assertion, not directly from Marx. I think Marx would say that the ancient Greeks had democracy for the aristocracy, dependent upon the economic foundation of a slave economy. It required the emerging economic conditions of industrial modernity to extend this idea beyond the ranks of the aristocracy. And even then, what we are talking about is democracy for the bourgeoisie, not for the proletariat.
Thanks for your question. If you haven't viewed them yet, I think you would find my videos on "The Labor Theory of Value" and "Commodity Fetishism" helpful in understanding Marx's critique of private property and surplus value (value created when workers are required to work longer than necessary for reproducing their labor power, which is a "commodity" in its own right). (see continuation in subsequent comment)
Good question, but big question. Briefly Marx's materialist theorization of consciousness and language (in Capital, Vol I) is consistent with and foundational for postmodernism. But, the Marxist concept of "Historical Materialism" is undercut, if not rejected outright, by much postmodernism.
... Worker's Unions (which despite their multiple achievements, still have a long way to go terms of merging into and accepting artisan's union-guilds as a community). Thus, worker's unions in capitalist society have often become a tool of imperialism, by reverting it against the people, in such way also expropiating tht labour (the union itself)
As we reposess "power" (labour. which is always our labour but now alienated.) from the imperialist class, we must evolve tactics as part of the process... The dictatorship of the proletariat is an essential part in this strategy... But let's not forget that the capitalists are more advanced than the people's army in battle strategies. Not because their any wiser, but they've been using this (dictatorship)and other tactics against the people for a longer time now...
Largely, postmodernity would appear simply as "late modernity" for historical materialism. So, HM would reject postmodernism's claim to transcend the historical and the material. Yet HM tradition includes a critique of ideology that sees PM as a phenomenon with real historical and material consequences.
I'm not sure if we can consider slave society as a type of society like bourgeois, feudal, and tribal. Isn't it a special arrangement that can arise from any of the 3 others ? That way democracy among aristocrats arises during transition from tribes to feudalism. There's a book I've always wanted to read, De Ste-croix's class struggle in ancient grece, but it's not released in french. I think it might have some insights on that subject, have you read it ?
Hi, idealism refers to the 'other half' of dualistic metaphysics. Instead of evoking claims about unknowable substances that possess an indefinite relationship to the material (e.g. soul, mind, god) he posits dialectical monism. Here, evereything is reducable to matter but sees existence as divided into 3 fields (cA-N-S). Here, instead of using mysticism to explain things he showed that relation between two fields are mediated by the third (i.e. man's relation to nature mediated by social R/FPs)
I haven't studied this question systematically, but, offhand, it seems to me that, while there are many "Christian Marxists" or "Marxist Christians" among politicians, political activists and clergy, the philosophical idealism and the anti-historicism of the Christian tradition can't be reconciled with the historical materialism of the Marxist tradition.
I suppose you're right... slavery is not really a necessary or even dominant feature of any of those modes of production, except what Marx calls the "asiatic" mode (ancient Egypt). And ancient Greece would be transitional tribal. I haven't read de Ste-Croix, but colleagues regard the work very highly.
That's interesting, but I'm not sure I understand exactly. Marx's method supposes that matter has ontological primacy which doesn't seem reconcilable with a dualist/idealist perspective. Moreover, his lifes work sustained the materialist perspective instead of reverting to incorporate idealism into his theory. I mean his dialectic approach allows for interplay between natural, social, and concious elements...but idealism seems to be the part of the thesis he is discarding.
But my point is who controls the direction? Our culture determines what the money and means are put to use doing. At the very least, Marx was pointing out an ethical consideration to be made concerning the values (driven by a production system) that effect how each member of our society is treated and behaves. The means of production as a mirror on our cultural values. As with the progressive and civil rights movements, our overall cultural values determine the behavior of our institutions.
... "On The Jewish Question" and the concept of human emancipation, this can be easily understood as reverted colonialism against the empire (colonizing country), which created the problem in modern capitalist society for both the imperialist and the colonized... This strategy of reverting colonialism against the oppresors, like the european jews did, thus becoming the colonizers of their "masters" in a reverse back-lash effect cannot be wasted neither...
Re skiskiskiii-- This question turns out to be a very important question in the history of Marxist thought. On reflection, I realized that I always use the term "Historical Materialism" rather than "Dialectical Materialism," but couldn't remember why (if, indeed, I had a reason). When I consulted Bottomore's _Dictionary of Marxist Thought_, I saw why. Check out the entry on "Dialectical Materialism" from that work... I think it will be useful for you. Or email (rlstrick@mtu.edu) for pdf.
Organizing the masses and finding out each and every one individual real talents in a honest way have proven to be the biggest challenge for us Soviets so far. Due to the auto-destructive mess that has been laid by capitalism in it's nature plus infiltrating agendas against real communism. This is a matter we should pay importance too, working on finding and fitting people's "likes" and "talents" in the socialist society...
Well, whether you disagree make no difference to me :) I don't even know you. You are right to say that what I think Marxism is doesn't match up with what you think Marxism is. Whether that is a good/bad thing is a different story. I have a master in political theory and have learned from/debated with all kinds. As far as Mandel goes, I am not a big proponent. But, his argument in that paper seems to coincide with your little claims. Have a good night!
Plus an introduction to and detailed explanation of how capitalism ex-propiated the term "equality" and changed it's original definition of "liberty" and replaced it for the meaning "uniformity" in it's facist tervigersation of the truth becomes necesary at this historical moment we living now...
Marxism is a living tradition; the theory didn't stop with Marx. One writer I have found helpful in understanding the current financial crisis is David Harvey. I'd recommend especially _The New Imperialism_ and _Brief History of Neoliberalism_. Marx and Engels anticipated some later developments of capitalism pretty well, but other developments are still being considered by theorists in the Marxist tradition.
That's correct...Marxists would say that any play for power is a play for political power, but do not advocate nationalism. If you are going with the workers democracy program, which is only one, you would do well to read a real Marxist's ideas on the issue to comprehend its complexity...see Mandel's "In Defense of Socialist Planning" for a start.
yeah there is no absolute truth marx was after, although what marx gave us was a method by which to reach an objective understanding of our historical moment.
I think some of you have missed a big point here. The means of production, don't mean manufacturing, the means of making things happen in the world, in capitalism are controlled via the flow of money from those with need to those with ability. The far reaching effects of this process can include unethical and harmful behavior. But they also provide us with TH-cam. From the media, education, religion, and government, the money system drives it, but it does not give it direction.
Marx/Engels were concerned to analyze the workings of capital, and to demonstrate that there are structural contradictions in capitalism that cause recurrent crises and that should lead eventually to an overthrow of the system. Of course, what comes after the downfall of capitalism could be anarchy rather than a transition to socialism, but Marx and Engels were optimistic. In "Socialism, Utopian and Scientific," Engels rejected attempts to design a perfect society and implement it top-down.
DonMeaker's point about ancient Greek democracy raises another interesting problem for Marxist theory--how did those ancient Greeks come up with the idea of democracy in a slave society? I don't think Marx has a good answer for this, but later Marxist theorists have done better. It's related to Marx's puzzled response to the staying power of ancient Greek tragedy. See my webcast on "Concepts of Ideology."
If you recall, you began to argue with me about whether socialism was feasible. But, you haven't made any claims as to why it would be, how it could be attained, how it might be sustained...I'm not even sure you know what socialism means...?
I believe reading Marx is important to understand certain aspects of history and society, but the Communism people created based on Marx simply does not work.
Rather silly to assert that the idea of democracy is determined by material condition, when democracy has been seen from the ancient greeks to modern times. This suggests that ideas of self government are inherent to man, not caused by his surroundings.
I like that you used the word democracy...but that's about it. There are a lot of disconnects in your arguement. There have been strong cases made for workers democracies which I have read and concur with on many issues...if you want a serious discussion you can message me. But, what you say here doesn't get at anything. Maybe its because you don't have the space in these little response boxes?
all these tertiary industries developed only under capitalism so i don't think marx/engles took that into account. you're right that he oversimplified the process of production. marxism would only work if there was an absolute abundance of resources, but as we're seeing that is unrealistic.
I applaud you for taking interest in politics and cultivating a class consciousness but being somwhat aware and being informed are two different things. Take that as you wish, but I have too much respect for Marxism to see it poorly represented as is the case here. You are right to say that most people do not learn Marxism for Marx's texts...but those who do show interest deserve to be presented with something better than your vulgar, so-called "Marxism"...
The communist countries were tyrannies in which the ruling marxist elite had everything but the people suffered. If people said something like "we need better living conditions and the party should listen to the people", they were beaten up by the communist party. There is no perfect world but communism was really bad. In capitalism,worker's unions have huge buildings and workers get seats in corporate board. Which is better then?
That's a somewhat rudimentary understanding of it, I suppose. I am not anti-Marxist but you seem somewhat naive. When I called you myopic, I followed by explaining you were ignoring everything except a small part of the economic relations. You aren't even giving economics their due, let alone philosophies, distribution, psychology, politics, law, programmatic strategies, social ontology, various institutions, global relationships, directives, cultural differences, intracultural differences...
@xxwzaebd Most of those accusations derive from propaganda and social constructs that make you think that it is beyond obvious that communism = tyrannical dictatorship and thought like that for a long time until I read about actual communist theory and socialist regimes.
Are you sure socialism is feasible?...it seems like working towards imaginary socialism instead of improving the human condition from where we are invites a myopic view and sets up a possible contradiction between socialist ideals, our values, and the goal of socialism. Moreover, it pressuposes that socialism is one thing and ignores the presuppositions and internalized fictions that colour how each of us understands reality.
I know what socialism and communism are. Your statements above make no argument as to their feasability. Marx never formulated a theory of how to structure such an economy. Morover, your narrow focus (which is not attirbutable to most Marxists or Marx himself) misses the fact that economics are an aspect of a larger unity, which has other elements and relations that must be considered in making such claims.
Actually, Marxists do not argue for the nationalization of industry. Marx himself was adiment that socialism could never be sustained in a country. He argued for global socialism. So, quite simply, you are dead wrong. As far as "planning production for our needs" goes, you are brushing over an incredibly complex issue Marxists still debate to this day. Also, you use words like democratic, production, needs, incentive, etc. with little respect for what they mean or entail.
Many thanks for this very useful overview of what had seemd like a complicated concept (before you elucidated it here). Question: How does Historical Materialism differ from Dialectic Materialism? I assume that the former merely emphasises Marxist conceptualisations of history rather than more generally providing the theoretical framework for Marxist understanding of society? Is this correct? Or is it possible to ise the terms interchangeably? Many thanks, Jenny
Ron's on fire here. I think it's the best I've seen of this excellent series.
excellent. could you do something on marx on the jewish question, and what he believed to be human emancipation, as opposed to political emancipation?
Thanks for your question. These are complex topics that require some background reading and prior interest. However, I think the series will make more sense to someone who is new to Marxism if it is viewed in a sequence beginning with the "history of modernity" videos ("Economic Conditions of Modernity," "Individual and Society in Modernity," etc), followed by the "Historical Materialism," "Labor Theory of Value" and "Commodities and Commodity Fetishism" videos.
Finally, when I said you were myopic it wasn't to make a defense for existing social forms. It was to point out that you are only considering a miniscule part of economic relations, let alone borader economics, psychology, philosophies, social ontology, politics, law, distribution, and so forth.
You are a very clever man and i enjoy your explanations..
Thanks for posting them and keep on doing it.
Private property, in this system, is congealed labor, which is controlled by and enables the owners of the means of production to set the terms for the workers' wages. If it weren't for the legal and social conditions that protect private property, some people wouldn't be able to avoid paying other people the true value for the labor they exchange with them. Sorry if this response seems cryptic--it's a big question, and time is short.
Many thanks for this very useful overview of what had seemd like a complicated concept (before you elucidated it here). Question: How does Historical Materialism differ from Dialectic Materialism? I assume that the former merely emphasises Marxist conceptualisations of history rather than more generally providing the theoretical framework for Marxist understanding of society? Is this correct? Or is it possible to ise the terms interchangeably? Many thanks,
Jenny
Fair criticism. That's my assertion, not directly from Marx. I think Marx would say that the ancient Greeks had democracy for the aristocracy, dependent upon the economic foundation of a slave economy. It required the emerging economic conditions of industrial modernity to extend this idea beyond the ranks of the aristocracy. And even then, what we are talking about is democracy for the bourgeoisie, not for the proletariat.
Thanks for your question. If you haven't viewed them yet, I think you would find my videos on "The Labor Theory of Value" and "Commodity Fetishism" helpful in understanding Marx's critique of private property and surplus value (value created when workers are required to work longer than necessary for reproducing their labor power, which is a "commodity" in its own right). (see continuation in subsequent comment)
Good question, but big question. Briefly Marx's materialist theorization of consciousness and language (in Capital, Vol I) is consistent with and foundational for postmodernism. But, the Marxist concept of "Historical Materialism" is undercut, if not rejected outright, by much postmodernism.
My friend, please tell me how can we understant postmodernism with the historial materialism?
Is it an anthithesis? and if it is, of whitch thesis?
:)
... Worker's Unions (which despite their multiple achievements, still have a long way to go terms of merging into and accepting artisan's union-guilds as a community). Thus, worker's unions in capitalist society have often become a tool of imperialism, by reverting it against the people, in such way also expropiating tht labour (the union itself)
Thank you so much for this and all your other videos.
As we reposess "power" (labour. which is always our labour but now alienated.) from the imperialist class, we must evolve tactics as part of the process... The dictatorship of the proletariat is an essential part in this strategy... But let's not forget that the capitalists are more advanced than the people's army in battle strategies. Not because their any wiser, but they've been using this (dictatorship)and other tactics against the people for a longer time now...
Largely, postmodernity would appear simply as "late modernity" for historical materialism. So, HM would reject postmodernism's claim to transcend the historical and the material. Yet HM tradition includes a critique of ideology that sees PM as a phenomenon with real historical and material consequences.
I'm not sure if we can consider slave society as a type of society like bourgeois, feudal, and tribal. Isn't it a special arrangement that can arise from any of the 3 others ?
That way democracy among aristocrats arises during transition from tribes to feudalism.
There's a book I've always wanted to read, De Ste-croix's class struggle in ancient grece, but it's not released in french. I think it might have some insights on that subject, have you read it ?
Hi, idealism refers to the 'other half' of dualistic metaphysics. Instead of evoking claims about unknowable substances that possess an indefinite relationship to the material (e.g. soul, mind, god) he posits dialectical monism. Here, evereything is reducable to matter but sees existence as divided into 3 fields (cA-N-S). Here, instead of using mysticism to explain things he showed that relation between two fields are mediated by the third (i.e. man's relation to nature mediated by social R/FPs)
I haven't studied this question systematically, but, offhand, it seems to me that, while there are many "Christian Marxists" or "Marxist Christians" among politicians, political activists and clergy, the philosophical idealism and the anti-historicism of the Christian tradition can't be reconciled with the historical materialism of the Marxist tradition.
I suppose you're right... slavery is not really a necessary or even dominant feature of any of those modes of production, except what Marx calls the "asiatic" mode (ancient Egypt). And ancient Greece would be transitional tribal. I haven't read de Ste-Croix, but colleagues regard the work very highly.
That's interesting, but I'm not sure I understand exactly. Marx's method supposes that matter has ontological primacy which doesn't seem reconcilable with a dualist/idealist perspective. Moreover, his lifes work sustained the materialist perspective instead of reverting to incorporate idealism into his theory. I mean his dialectic approach allows for interplay between natural, social, and concious elements...but idealism seems to be the part of the thesis he is discarding.
But my point is who controls the direction? Our culture determines what the money and means are put to use doing. At the very least, Marx was pointing out an ethical consideration to be made concerning the values (driven by a production system) that effect how each member of our society is treated and behaves. The means of production as a mirror on our cultural values. As with the progressive and civil rights movements, our overall cultural values determine the behavior of our institutions.
... "On The Jewish Question" and the concept of human emancipation, this can be easily understood as reverted colonialism against the empire (colonizing country), which created the problem in modern capitalist society for both the imperialist and the colonized... This strategy of reverting colonialism against the oppresors, like the european jews did, thus becoming the colonizers of their "masters" in a reverse back-lash effect cannot be wasted neither...
Re skiskiskiii-- This question turns out to be a very important question in the history of Marxist thought. On reflection, I realized that I always use the term "Historical Materialism" rather than "Dialectical Materialism," but couldn't remember why (if, indeed, I had a reason). When I consulted Bottomore's _Dictionary of Marxist Thought_, I saw why. Check out the entry on "Dialectical Materialism" from that work... I think it will be useful for you. Or email (rlstrick@mtu.edu) for pdf.
Organizing the masses and finding out each and every one individual real talents in a honest way have proven to be the biggest challenge for us Soviets so far. Due to the auto-destructive mess that has been laid by capitalism in it's nature plus infiltrating agendas against real communism. This is a matter we should pay importance too, working on finding and fitting people's "likes" and "talents" in the socialist society...
Well, whether you disagree make no difference to me :) I don't even know you. You are right to say that what I think Marxism is doesn't match up with what you think Marxism is. Whether that is a good/bad thing is a different story. I have a master in political theory and have learned from/debated with all kinds. As far as Mandel goes, I am not a big proponent. But, his argument in that paper seems to coincide with your little claims. Have a good night!
Fantastic, thanks.
At what Univerisity or college is this course taught?
Plus an introduction to and detailed explanation of how capitalism ex-propiated the term "equality" and changed it's original definition of "liberty" and replaced it for the meaning "uniformity" in it's facist tervigersation of the truth becomes necesary at this historical moment we living now...
Marxism is a living tradition; the theory didn't stop with Marx. One writer I have found helpful in understanding the current financial crisis is David Harvey. I'd recommend especially _The New Imperialism_ and _Brief History of Neoliberalism_. Marx and Engels anticipated some later developments of capitalism pretty well, but other developments are still being considered by theorists in the Marxist tradition.
I teach literature and culture; so, what Marxist theory I've read relates mostly to those fields.
If you look closely you can see straight into his soul
No, for the present, family responsibilities take up most of my spare time.
That's correct...Marxists would say that any play for power is a play for political power, but do not advocate nationalism. If you are going with the workers democracy program, which is only one, you would do well to read a real Marxist's ideas on the issue to comprehend its complexity...see Mandel's "In Defense of Socialist Planning" for a start.
yeah there is no absolute truth marx was after, although what marx gave us was a method by which to reach an objective understanding of our historical moment.
I think some of you have missed a big point here. The means of production, don't mean manufacturing, the means of making things happen in the world, in capitalism are controlled via the flow of money from those with need to those with ability. The far reaching effects of this process can include unethical and harmful behavior. But they also provide us with TH-cam. From the media, education, religion, and government, the money system drives it, but it does not give it direction.
Marx/Engels were concerned to analyze the workings of capital, and to demonstrate that there are structural contradictions in capitalism that cause recurrent crises and that should lead eventually to an overthrow of the system. Of course, what comes after the downfall of capitalism could be anarchy rather than a transition to socialism, but Marx and Engels were optimistic. In "Socialism, Utopian and Scientific," Engels rejected attempts to design a perfect society and implement it top-down.
DonMeaker's point about ancient Greek democracy raises another interesting problem for Marxist theory--how did those ancient Greeks come up with the idea of democracy in a slave society? I don't think Marx has a good answer for this, but later Marxist theorists have done better. It's related to Marx's puzzled response to the staying power of ancient Greek tragedy. See my webcast on "Concepts of Ideology."
If you recall, you began to argue with me about whether socialism was feasible. But, you haven't made any claims as to why it would be, how it could be attained, how it might be sustained...I'm not even sure you know what socialism means...?
Anyone who understood anything about Marx would agree with you! It's too bad most people do not heheh.
I believe reading Marx is important to understand certain aspects of history and society, but the Communism people created based on Marx simply does not work.
Rather silly to assert that the idea of democracy is determined by material condition, when democracy has been seen from the ancient greeks to modern times. This suggests that ideas of self government are inherent to man, not caused by his surroundings.
I like that you used the word democracy...but that's about it. There are a lot of disconnects in your arguement. There have been strong cases made for workers democracies which I have read and concur with on many issues...if you want a serious discussion you can message me. But, what you say here doesn't get at anything. Maybe its because you don't have the space in these little response boxes?
Huh?
all these tertiary industries developed only under capitalism so i don't think marx/engles took that into account. you're right that he oversimplified the process of production. marxism would only work if there was an absolute abundance of resources, but as we're seeing that is unrealistic.
i wouldnt dislike athiest so much if so many of them didnt believe in materialism
I applaud you for taking interest in politics and cultivating a class consciousness but being somwhat aware and being informed are two different things. Take that as you wish, but I have too much respect for Marxism to see it poorly represented as is the case here. You are right to say that most people do not learn Marxism for Marx's texts...but those who do show interest deserve to be presented with something better than your vulgar, so-called "Marxism"...
The communist countries were tyrannies in which the ruling marxist elite had everything but the people suffered. If people said something like "we need better living conditions and the party should listen to the people", they were beaten up by the communist party. There is no perfect world but communism was really bad. In capitalism,worker's unions have huge buildings and workers get seats in corporate board. Which is better then?
That's a somewhat rudimentary understanding of it, I suppose. I am not anti-Marxist but you seem somewhat naive. When I called you myopic, I followed by explaining you were ignoring everything except a small part of the economic relations. You aren't even giving economics their due, let alone philosophies, distribution, psychology, politics, law, programmatic strategies, social ontology, various institutions, global relationships, directives, cultural differences, intracultural differences...
@xxwzaebd Most of those accusations derive from propaganda and social constructs that make you think that it is beyond obvious that communism = tyrannical dictatorship and thought like that for a long time until I read about actual communist theory and socialist regimes.
Are you sure socialism is feasible?...it seems like working towards imaginary socialism instead of improving the human condition from where we are invites a myopic view and sets up a possible contradiction between socialist ideals, our values, and the goal of socialism. Moreover, it pressuposes that socialism is one thing and ignores the presuppositions and internalized fictions that colour how each of us understands reality.
I know what socialism and communism are. Your statements above make no argument as to their feasability. Marx never formulated a theory of how to structure such an economy. Morover, your narrow focus (which is not attirbutable to most Marxists or Marx himself) misses the fact that economics are an aspect of a larger unity, which has other elements and relations that must be considered in making such claims.
so old video
Actually, Marxists do not argue for the nationalization of industry. Marx himself was adiment that socialism could never be sustained in a country. He argued for global socialism. So, quite simply, you are dead wrong. As far as "planning production for our needs" goes, you are brushing over an incredibly complex issue Marxists still debate to this day. Also, you use words like democratic, production, needs, incentive, etc. with little respect for what they mean or entail.
wtf are you talking about?
Many thanks for this very useful overview of what had seemd like a complicated concept (before you elucidated it here). Question: How does Historical Materialism differ from Dialectic Materialism? I assume that the former merely emphasises Marxist conceptualisations of history rather than more generally providing the theoretical framework for Marxist understanding of society? Is this correct? Or is it possible to ise the terms interchangeably? Many thanks,
Jenny