Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 00:24:23 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Wayne Austin <aaustin-AT-utkux.utcc.utk.edu> Subject: M-I: The Marxian Dialectic Part 4 of 4 IV. Parallel Interpretation I have changed my mind and here present an interpretation of Marx that supports my argument. I do so here because this interpretation very succienctly sets forth my argument. This is by Shlomo Avineri (whose text I am sure will be, by my detractors, considered rife with reactionary intrique). First, Avineri, drawing on interpretation of Lukacs in Geschichte und Klassenbewusstsein and Kolakowski in "Karl Marx and the Classical Definition of Truth," wrote: "Marx's views cannot be squared with Engels' theories as described in *Anti-Duhring* or 'Dialectics of Nature.' Lukacs and his disciples are perfectly right in maintaining that the dialectics of nature, in Engels' sense of the term, has very little in common with the way Marx understood materialism, and that the origins of Engels' view must be sought in a vulgarized version of Darwinism and biology, with Hegelian terminology serving only as an external, and rather shallow veneer." (Note: I have thought of excerpting Lukas' argument, which is surperb. Lukacs, drawing from Marx's later work, which was all that was obtainable in his day, arrived at a theory of alienation and reification that near parallels arguments made by Marx in his earlier writing. When Marx's early writings were rediscovered, it became clear that the Soviet line of thought had so distorted Marx that many scholars could not boil out the core of Marx's thought. These early writings confirmed Lukacs' interpretation of Marx, and rendered absurd the future claim, made by Althusser, that there is an epistemological break in Marx's work.) Avineri continues: "According to Marx, nature cannot be discussed as if it were severed from human action, for nature as a potential object for human cognition has already been affected by previous human action or contact. Hence nature is never an opaque datum. The phrases 'humanized nature' and 'humanism equals naturalism' recur in Marx's writings, and 'naturalism' in his sense is virtually the opposite of what is generally implied by this term in traditional philosophical discussion. "The identification of human consciousness with the practical process of reality as shaped by man is Marx's epistemological and historiosophical achievement. To Marx reality is always human reality not in the sense that man exists within nature, but in the sense that man shapes nature. This act also shapes man and his relations to other human beings; it is total process, implying a constant interaction between subject and object." Is Avineri's interpretation correct? Marx wrote in The German Ideology: "My relationship to my surroundings is my consciousness...For the animal, its relation to others does not exist as a relation. Consciousness is therefore, from the very beginning a social product and remains so as long as men exist at all." So Engels believed that consciousness was a reflection of the physical world. This is empiricism. And Engels believed that the world was determined by laws that stood external to human beings. This is positivism. And Engels believed that these natural laws followed the course of the dialectic. This is idealism. Altogether we have dialectical materialism, which is an confused amalgamation of philosphical threads that are incommensurable with Marx's synthesis. What did Marx believe? That "consciousness is...from the very beginning a social product." Marx believed that the world "is the result of the activity of a whole succession of generations." Marx believed that the dialectic was the relations between human subjects and objects for human subjects. This stands in direct contrast to Engels. Marx: "[Feuerbach] does not see how the sensuous world around him is not a thing given direct from all eternity, remaining ever the same, but the product of industry and of the state of society; and that it is an historical product, it is the result of the activity of a whole succession of generations, each standing on the shoulders of the preceding system according to the changed needs, Even the objects of simplest 'sensuous certainty' are only given to him though social development, industry, and the commercial intercourse." Avineri writes: "[Engels] saw in inanimate nature only opaque matter. Moreover, Engels says in "Dialectics of Nature" not only that matter historically preceded spirit, but also that it is the cause and the source of the of the evolution of consciousness. It became commonplace and fashionable to credit Marx with such a reductionistic view which sees in spirit a mere biological by-product of matter. "Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-Criticism intensified the identification of Marxist epistemology with a highly mechanistic view of materialism. Because Lenin viewed consciousness as a mere reflection of the objective world, some writers still ascribe such a view to Marx himself." [Lenin rejected this position after 1916--he went back and read Hegel.] "Ironically, many of the views of Engels, Plekhanov, Kautsky and Lenin on this subject are identical with the mechanistic materialism Marx criticized in his *Theses on Feuerbach*. "Marx's comments on eighteenth-century French materialism in his *Theses on Feuerbach* foreshadow his awareness of the social consequences of a mechanistic epistemology. They place the epistemological problem in the center of Marx's own views. Marx here takes issue with the view that consciousness is nothing but a reflection of the material, environmental condition of man's existence. According to him the internal contradiction of a reflectionist theory of consciousness is very simple: both eighteenth-century materialists and Feuerbach combine a passivist view of human existence (man determined by objective-material conditions) with a social optimism implying immanent and necessary progress of human history. These views, Marx argues, are mutually incompatible and their combination produces a social philosophy ultimately quietistic, a-political and conservative." "The main shortcoming of all materialism up to now," Marx writes, "is that the object, the reality, the sensibility, is conceived only in the form of the *object* or of *perception*, but not as sensuous human activity, *praxis*, not subjectively. Hence the *active* side was developed abstractly in opposition to materialism by idealism, which naturally does not know the real, sensuous activity as such. Feuerbach urged a real distinction between sensuous activity and thought objects: but he does not conceive of human activity itself as an *objective* activity." V. Feuerbach In the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, Marx credits Feuerbach with having produced the only "*serious, critical* attitude to the Hegelian dialectic." Marx lists Feuerbach's "great achievement" as, among other things, "the establishment of *true materialism* and of *real science*, since Feuerbach also makes the social relationship 'of man to man' the basic pirinciple of the theory." Here Marx stresses that Feuerbach's great achievement was arguing that "true materialism" and "real science" were those thought systems that took as their object social relations. Since science is produced in social contexts by real human beings, its production is subsumed under the study of social production generally. Hence it is backwards to suggest that historical materialism is an application of dialectical materialism, when in fact dialectical materialism is an object of study to be dismantled within the method of historical materialism. And this is precisely what I am doing in this post: I am applying historical materialist method to deconstruct dialectical materialism. VI. Where Siddharth Chatterjee Stands in Relation to Marx and the Working Class. On Sat, 25 Jan 1997, Siddharth Chatterjee wrote: > Viraj, > > This is getting serious. As a poet once said, this is not the time > for writing poetry but hard prose. Andrew Austin and Ralph Dumain are > engaged in a pernicious exercise whether consciously or unconsciously. > They are ultimately using Marx as a intellectual weapon against the > working people. This is evident in their highly "philosophical", > "intellectual" and sneering attitude which can cause great confusion. This is a ridiculous remark and an insult. Chatterjee is on the wrong side of this debate, and his lack of understanding Marx allows him to assert ignorance in glorious fashion. If anybody is hurting the working class where Marx's thought is concerned, it is people like Sidd who distort Marx's work all out of wack with pretensious appeals to liberal science. Such attempts to scientize Marx's writings suffers from the same wrongheadedness as Engels. > This smug veneer has to be ripped off. Of course, they will immediately > denounce this charge as being "Stalinist". A massive ignorance of both > knowledge and practice of science is implicit in their postings. First, I will refrain from characterizing Siddharth as a "Stalinist," however the dogmatic tone of much of his side of the argument has been in the grand tradition of dia-mat. Second, the problem is that I am not a positivist, therefore I do not share Siddharth's bourgeois assumptions regarding science and progress. For a Marxist, Chatterjee comes out smelling like a liberal. For Siddharth, and he presented this view in his last post, truth is eternal, and science is on a grand teleological march towards truth, polishing the human-smudged windows, wiping them of human obfuscation so we can better see the ultimate reality. As a Marxist, and an adherent to historical materialism, I regard such positivistic and scientistic pablum as pseudoscience. That is precisely what it is. That Chatterjee have the gall to suggest that I possess "a massive ignorance of both knowledge and practice" when it is clear that on the central point of this debate I have clearly demonstrated my case is rather amazing at any point in this debate. > Look at all the half-phrases above. So the "ontology is to be found in > the relation between subject and objects ... not in objects or > subjects themselves.....Relations form the inner core of social > reality". You are a naval engineer (I presume); do you think the > turbulence observed in seas and rivers, waves, eddies, vortices, > swirls, etc. are to be explained as "relations" between subject and > object? If you and Mr Austin, two independent observers, both > simultaneously observe the same wave, does this not make this wave > (although) socially observed, an independent entity and not a "relation > that forms the inner core of social reality"? What about the other > laws of nature? Are these all social constructions (since they are > socially produced)? Mr Austin, of course, does not explain what he means > by "social reality". We are dangerously close to church theology here > disguised as the thought of Marx. The short answer is, yes, the laws of nature are social constructions, and they are abstracted from nature through observation and practice and through knowledge systems bestowed by social arrangements. This is why our constructions regarding nature change when social contexts change. I would think that some sociology of knowledge would help out considerably. Do I believe nature is a social construction? No. I believe that nature exists mind-independently. I believe that nature is prior to human being. I believe in physical reality. Are atoms social constructions? The way we understand them they are. Does this mean that humans created them? No. It means that our knowledge of them is socially constructed. Siddharth has conflated ontology with epistemology and have regarded everything which fancies him as bearing truth in itself. Does Siddharth believe concepts exist prior to all human cognition? Is bourgeois "realism" here surplanting Marxian realism? The abstract made concrete? Marx made a distinction between the two (ontology/episetmology). So do I. But then by observing Marx I am accused of using Marx against the working class! > Ralph Dumain > > > >Chris did not get me 100% correct, in that objective dialectics > >refers to more than tension or opposition. He is correct in > >suggesting that, if our subjective cognitive activity correctly > >reflects an independently existing reality, its judgments must be > >considered part of that reality. As you will see from the rest of > >this post, I don't object a priori to the notion of objective > >dialectics or to a link between objective and subjective > >dialectics. I object only to confusion and to simplistic, > >unreflective dogma about the mediative process between the > >subjective and the objective. I would have hoped that Carlile > >understand this. Dumain makes a fine point here. Not in asserting the possibilty that there are objective dialectics, that is that some aspect of reality might unfold in a dialectical manner. I would restrict this only to the social domain, so we may disagree. But the notion of subjective dialectics, the method of dialectical analysis, used to reveal underlying objective social relations, is clearly viable. I have not seen the rest of this post, but what is said here is far more consistent with Marxian thought than anything the other side has offered. I don't know what else a logic (outside of social forces) is if it is not subjective/intersubjective. Does this mean that logics cannot be set in place and move objectively? No, it doesn't. Social reality can have an objectified logic because it is a objectified social production. But physical reality has a logic? I suppose that numbers define this logic? I just can't understand the idea of logics and mathematical systems, etc. existing *a priori* human culture. Engels again. Mysticism. Pseudorealism. Idealism through and through. > In his impressionistic word play (which has not yet degenerated to the use > of obsceneties for which he is well-known), Mr. Dumain has given birth > to two new children which he has named "subjective" and "objective" > dialectics - one of them presumably associated with the subject or > observer, the other with the observed object. Exactly. Dumain is noting the possibility of a dialectical process that is objective, such as the dynamic between the social relations and forces of production. He is also attending to the method of dialectical logic, which is, after all, what Marx wrote about. Marx regarded as purely speculative the notion that a transhistorical dialectical logic existed independently of humans or existed in nature. Rather, he demonstrated a dialectical process in society. Marx method was subjective, in that it was a logic that he employed to understand social reality. And the dialectical process he observed in society, he regarded as an objective process. I would suggest Siddharth lay off of Dumain if his knowledge in this area is this vacuous. > Mr. Dumain further sees > (or postulates) a link between these two domains and he, so to > speak, would like to straddle the fence between them with one feet planted > in either realm. This would, of course, afford him with the opportunity > of hastily disembarking on either side if the need arose in the future. > For now, he is comfortable where he is while engaging in lofty and > occasionally vulgar polemics ("balance" as you called it). Mr Dumain > has forgotton a cardinal method used in scientific experimentation > or observation of reality - repetition of experiments, often > by different observers, so as to remove the subjective bias of individual > observers from the observations of external world. How does any human-made epistemology or method eliminate the subject from the experiment? This is extremely nondialectical!! Dialectics asserts the impact that the subject has on any phenomenon. Marx only spoke of things *as they were known*! If you a positivist, then you believe you can create methods that allow you to completely remove subjectivity. But if you observe the dialectical method, you must account for yourself as a variable in any observation of social or natural phenomenon. I am shocked that somebody who rattles on about physics would so blatantly ignore the Heisenberg Principle. It is a scientific fantasy to suppose that you could observe reality independent of your knowledge of it. How would you do this? If I must not know it to know it more plainly then I have asserted a contradiction. No! I must know it first, and this means that my mind will define what I see. And since there is the intersubjective, WE see what we are supposed to see. If you accept on blind faith the positivism that is being advocated here, then you will never approach what Sandra Harding calls "strong objectivity," because you will simply be unaware of your role in determining reality. Becoming more objective first demands the recognition that total objectivity is an impossibility. VII. Conclusion I really don't have much to say in way of a conclusion or a summary. I think that what has happened here is self-evident. I solicit comments and criticisms of this post. I may certainly have made errors in my interpretations of Marx, despite my confidence in my correctness. There have been posts from people who share my perspective, more or less, but my posts have become the focus. I would like to see the debate broadened on both sides, but still remain on point, which concerns Marx and his relationship to dialectical materialism. I would also like to see more demonstration of dialectical materialism in Marx; I haven't seen this (only sailors in ships watching waves). I think that the anthropology of Marx makes for an interesting discussion, as suggested by Fernando, and there are excellent works on these interpretations of Marx's work (for example, Lefebvre). I think Lukacs and Gramsci are very relevant here for providing a humanistic and anthropological view of human beings contra positivistic views of Marx. Here we can expand the discussion and stay on target. Of course, Marx's writings on this are in his transition from Hegel to Feuerbach, and so the text is tough slogging (speaking of the E&M). I will refrain from posting on this thread in the near future. I believe that I should make room for others to speak up, allow for my post to be digested (I imagine it is quite lengthy by now), and see if this debate has any legs left. Please forgive misspelling and other minor errors of grammar. I have found this post too long to spell check and myself with too little time. Peace and Solidarity, Andrew Austin ------End of Series-------- --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005