karphead
karphead
Post rating:
~
good shit op
acephalousuniverse
acephalousuniverse
Post rating:
~
thanks for this, folks
EmanuelaBrolandi
EmanuelaBrolandi
Post rating:
~
Petrol posted:This book is extremely good and could form the basis for a new version that sounds a little more modern/less formal in style, imo. Not so informal that it's just 200 pages of Bro We Are Communist, Problem? posts. Just enough to keep that immortal science sounding fresh
So a good supplement to David Harvey or...?
EmanuelaBrolandi
EmanuelaBrolandi
Post rating:
+
But seriously I'd be very interested in contrivuting to an effort to map out a modern curriculum / seminar style jawn about materialism / Marxism etc.. based on solid foundations like this. I've actually been thinking about trying to be a community college teacher or faculty at a uh non highly regarded university to try and radicalize the youth since I can never be an effective revolutionary due to various factors like how I abide by all laws foreign and domestic of my great nation
MarianneSadd
MarianneSadd
Post rating:
~
It would be nice to set up a workers' university with comrades. We just need the space and the organization. It would be great to teach courses on materialism, racism and US history, feminism, imperialism, while also offering courses on practical skills like first aid, basic repairs, etc. It would be a free course (donations welcome) and we could run a patreon or whatever for people to support us.
Maybe you and I can meet up sometime with other interested parties in NYC to discuss options. I've also always wanted to be a teacher but it's pretty difficult for someone in my position.
Maybe you and I can meet up sometime with other interested parties in NYC to discuss options. I've also always wanted to be a teacher but it's pretty difficult for someone in my position.
MarianneSadd
MarianneSadd
Post rating:
+
I had a dream once to open a sort of community centre where people could take classes, crash if they needed a place to stay, offer a library, community garden and free meals for the community. I guess I'm just lacking space, but I'm sure I know enough comrades where we can plant some seeds.
[account deactivated]
c_man
c_man
Post rating:
~
glomper_stomper posted:imo, a developed organization capable of building cadre or peoples' schools needs capital.
is this why the cpusa started renting their building?
Flying_horse_in_saudi_arabia
Flying_horse_in_saudi_arabia
Post rating:
~
EmanuelaBrolandi posted:Petrol posted:This book is extremely good and could form the basis for a new version that sounds a little more modern/less formal in style, imo. Not so informal that it's just 200 pages of Bro We Are Communist, Problem? posts. Just enough to keep that immortal science sounding fresh
So a good supplement to David Harvey or...?
I should probably check that out sometime but yeah im thinking something more like you said in your next post, starting from first principles and not built around 'capital' alone. i do like that he has the free yt lecture series, we could do something more extensive tho, a proper online self-directed study course that can also be used/adapted as the basis for local community groups. idk am i thinking too big here. i dont think so
EmanuelaBrolandi
EmanuelaBrolandi
Post rating:
~
I was joking about the Harvey but they are a good resource actually. As far as the 'curriculum' that's basically my thoughts exactly.. I was thinking inline too sinfe, well, this is a website
MarianneSadd
MarianneSadd
Post rating:
~
I'm unemployed. I'd love to develop curriculum for a few topics to teach in person but would be happy to design an online resource as well.
swampman
swampman
Dont Mess With Sucess
Post rating:
~
glomper_stomper posted:since nothing, except for maybe a single person in the best of cases, can survive on donations alone, i think you would need a good deal of money to rent the space and buy equipment for the org.
imo, a developed organization capable of building cadre or peoples' schools needs capital.
Equipment depends on the work the group is doing, but we should assume that finding space to meet is a solvable problem... I know a couple of nyc posters, any others want to get an update on meeting time / location?
tears
tears
Post rating:
+
uh, can someone re'write capital 1-3 in less thn a hundred pages with fewer references to lenths of linen; like something u could actulally sit down with a marxism neophyte in 2016 and work thru together rather than something which is mostly used as a doorstop
c_man
c_man
Post rating:
+
tears posted:something which is mostly used as a doorstop
mods?
fape
fape
Post rating:
~
I have a couple reservations about this book.
MarianneSadd
MarianneSadd
Post rating:
~
Why?
MarianneSadd
MarianneSadd
Post rating:
~
PART 2: Philosophical Materialism
1 MATTER AND MATERIALISTS
After having defined: first, the ideas common to all materialists; second, the arguments of all materialists against idealist philosophies; and finally, having demonstrated the error of agnosticism, we are now going to draw the conclusions from this instruction and reinforce our materialist arguments by answering the following questions:
1. What is matter?
2. What does it mean to be a materialist?
1. What is matter?
Importance of the question. Each time that we have a problem to solve, we should state the question very clearly. In fact, here, it is not so simple to give a satisfactory answer. In order to do so we must construct a theory of matter.
In general, people think that matter is what you can touch, what is resistant and hard. In Greek antiquity matter was defined in this way.
Thanks to science, we know today that this is not exact.
2. Successive theories of matter
(Our goal is to go through as simply as possible the different theories related to matter, without entering into scientific explanations.)
In Greece it was thought that matter was a solid and impenetrable reality which could not be divided infinitely. There comes a moment, so it was said, when the pieces are no longer divisible. These particles were called atoms (atomindivisible). A table is then a conglomeration of atoms. It was also thought that these atoms were different from each other: there were smooth and round atoms like those of oil; others were rough and crooked, like those of vinegar.
It was Democritus, a materialist of antiquity, who established this theory; he was the first to have tried to give a materialist explanation of the world. He thought, for example, that the human body was composed of coarse atoms, that the soul was a conglomeration of finer atoms and, as he recognized the existence of gods but still wanted, however, to explain everything as a materialist, he claimed that the gods themselves were composed of extra-fine atoms.
In the 19th century this theory was profoundly modified.
People still thought that matter was divided into atoms and that the latter were hard and mutually attractive particles. The theory of the Greeks had been abandoned: these atoms were no longer crooked or smooth. But people still maintained that they were impenetrable, indivisible and mutually attracted to each other.
Today, it has been shown that the atom is not an impenetrable and indivisible particle of matter. Rather it is itself composed of particles called electrons which revolve at high speed around a nucleus where almost the totality of the atom’s mass is found. If the atom is neutral, the electrons and nucleus have an electric charge, but the positive charge of the nucleus is equal to the sum of the negative charges carried by the electrons. Matter is a conglomeration of these atoms. It may resist penetration due to the motion of the particles which compose it.
The discovery of these electrical properties of matter, particularly that of electrons, provoked an attack by idealists in the beginning of the 20th century on the very existence of matter. "There is nothing material about an electron," they claimed. "It is nothing more than an electrical charge in motion. If there is no matter in the negative charge, why should there be any in the positive nucleus? Thus matter has disappeared. There is only energy!"
Lenin, in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (ch. 5), clarifies things by showing that energy and matter are inseparable. Energy is material and motion is but the way of life of matter. In short, idealists interpreted the discoveries of science backwardly. While the latter was uncovering aspects of matter until then unknown, they concluded that matter does not exist, under the pretext that it does not conform to the idea people used to have of it, when it was believed that matter and motion were two different realities.
3. What matter is for materialists
In this regard, it is indispensable to make a distinction; we must see first:
1. What is matter? and then:
2. What is matter like?
The answer which materialists give to the first question is that matter is an external reality, independent of the mind, and which does not need the mind to exist. Lenin says about this, “matter is the objective reality given to us in sensation, and so forth.” (Lenin, Empirio-Criticism, p. 145.)
Now, to the second question, “What is matter like?", materialists answer, “It is up to science, not us, to answer.”
The first answer has been invariable from antiquity to today.
The second answer has varied and must vary because it depends on science and on the state of human knowledge. It is not a conclusive answer.
We see that it is absolutely indispensable to state the problem correctly and not to let idealists mix up these two questions. We must separate them and show that it is the first question which is primary and that our answer to it has always been invariable.
“For the sole ‘property’ of matter with whose recognition philosophical materialism is bound up is the property of being an objective reality, of existing outside the mind.”
4. Space, time, motion and matter
While we claim, because we find it to be so, that matter exists outside of us, we also must make it clear that:
1. Matter exists in time and in space.
2. Matter is in motion.
Idealists, on the other hand, think that space and time are ideas in our minds (it was Kant who first supported this idea). For them, space is a shape which we give to things and it originates in man’s mind. The same is true for time.
Materialsts maintain, on the contrary, that space is not in us, but rather we are in space. They also contend that time is an indispensable condition for the unfolding of our lives and that, consequently, time and space are inseparable from what exists outside of us, i.e., matter. "For the basic forms of all being are in space and time, and existence out of time is just as gross an absurdity as existence out of space.” (Frederick Engels, Anti-Duhring, New York: International Publishers, 1939, p. 60.)
Hence, we think that there is a reality independent of our consciousness. We all believe that the world existed before us and will continue to exist after us. We believe that the world does not need us in order to exist. We are convinced that Paris existed before our birth and, unless it is razed to the ground, will continue to exist after our death. We are certain that Paris exists, even when we are not thinking about it; likewise, there are tens of thousands of cities we have never visited, whose names we do not even know, but which exist nevertheless. Such is the general conviction of humanity. Science has enabled us to give a precision and solidity to this argument, thus reducing all the idealist trickeries to zero. "Natural science positively asserts that the earth once existed in such a state that no man or any other creature existed or could have existed on it. Organic matter is a later phenomenon, the fruit of a long evolution.” (Lenin, Empirio-Criticism, p. 69.)
Hence, while science provides us with the proof that matter exists in time and in space, it teaches us as well that matter is in motion. This last detail, which has been provided by modern science, is very important, for it destroys the old theory according to which matter was incapable of motion, i.e., inert. "Motion is the mode of existence of matter. Never anywhere has there been matter without motion, nor can there be.” (Engels, Anti-Duhring, p. 68.)
We know that the world in its present state is the result, in all domains, of a long evolution and, consequently, the result of a slow, but continuous, motion. We specify then, after having shown the existence of matter, that "There is nothing in the world but matter in motion, and matter in motion cannot move otherwise than in space and time.” (Lenin, Empirio-Criticism, p. 177.)
5. Conclusion
The result of these findings is that the idea of God, the idea of a "pure spirit” which created the universe, makes no sense, for a God outside of space and time is something which cannot exist.
We must share the idealist mystique and, consequently, we must allow no scientific control in order to believe in a God existing outside of time, i.e., existing at no moment, and existing outside of space, i.e., existing nowhere.
Materialists, strengthened by the conclusions of science, maintain that matter exists in space and at a certain moment (in time). Consequently, the universe could not have been created, for in order to create the world, God would have needed a moment which was at no moment (since for God time does not exist) and it would have been necessary for the world to have sprung out of nothing.
In order to acknowledge creation, we must first accept that there was a moment when the universe did not exist. Next we must admit that something came from nothing, which science cannot accept.
We see that idealist arguments, when confronted by science cannot stand, whereas those of materialist philosophers are inseparable from science. Thus we underline once more the intimate relations which link materialism with science.
Readings
F. Engels, Anti-Duhring (New York: International Publishers, 1939) pp. 9-92.
V. I. Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (New York: International Publishers, 1970), Chapter 5.
1 MATTER AND MATERIALISTS
After having defined: first, the ideas common to all materialists; second, the arguments of all materialists against idealist philosophies; and finally, having demonstrated the error of agnosticism, we are now going to draw the conclusions from this instruction and reinforce our materialist arguments by answering the following questions:
1. What is matter?
2. What does it mean to be a materialist?
1. What is matter?
Importance of the question. Each time that we have a problem to solve, we should state the question very clearly. In fact, here, it is not so simple to give a satisfactory answer. In order to do so we must construct a theory of matter.
In general, people think that matter is what you can touch, what is resistant and hard. In Greek antiquity matter was defined in this way.
Thanks to science, we know today that this is not exact.
2. Successive theories of matter
(Our goal is to go through as simply as possible the different theories related to matter, without entering into scientific explanations.)
In Greece it was thought that matter was a solid and impenetrable reality which could not be divided infinitely. There comes a moment, so it was said, when the pieces are no longer divisible. These particles were called atoms (atomindivisible). A table is then a conglomeration of atoms. It was also thought that these atoms were different from each other: there were smooth and round atoms like those of oil; others were rough and crooked, like those of vinegar.
It was Democritus, a materialist of antiquity, who established this theory; he was the first to have tried to give a materialist explanation of the world. He thought, for example, that the human body was composed of coarse atoms, that the soul was a conglomeration of finer atoms and, as he recognized the existence of gods but still wanted, however, to explain everything as a materialist, he claimed that the gods themselves were composed of extra-fine atoms.
In the 19th century this theory was profoundly modified.
People still thought that matter was divided into atoms and that the latter were hard and mutually attractive particles. The theory of the Greeks had been abandoned: these atoms were no longer crooked or smooth. But people still maintained that they were impenetrable, indivisible and mutually attracted to each other.
Today, it has been shown that the atom is not an impenetrable and indivisible particle of matter. Rather it is itself composed of particles called electrons which revolve at high speed around a nucleus where almost the totality of the atom’s mass is found. If the atom is neutral, the electrons and nucleus have an electric charge, but the positive charge of the nucleus is equal to the sum of the negative charges carried by the electrons. Matter is a conglomeration of these atoms. It may resist penetration due to the motion of the particles which compose it.
The discovery of these electrical properties of matter, particularly that of electrons, provoked an attack by idealists in the beginning of the 20th century on the very existence of matter. "There is nothing material about an electron," they claimed. "It is nothing more than an electrical charge in motion. If there is no matter in the negative charge, why should there be any in the positive nucleus? Thus matter has disappeared. There is only energy!"
Lenin, in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (ch. 5), clarifies things by showing that energy and matter are inseparable. Energy is material and motion is but the way of life of matter. In short, idealists interpreted the discoveries of science backwardly. While the latter was uncovering aspects of matter until then unknown, they concluded that matter does not exist, under the pretext that it does not conform to the idea people used to have of it, when it was believed that matter and motion were two different realities.
3. What matter is for materialists
In this regard, it is indispensable to make a distinction; we must see first:
1. What is matter? and then:
2. What is matter like?
The answer which materialists give to the first question is that matter is an external reality, independent of the mind, and which does not need the mind to exist. Lenin says about this, “matter is the objective reality given to us in sensation, and so forth.” (Lenin, Empirio-Criticism, p. 145.)
Now, to the second question, “What is matter like?", materialists answer, “It is up to science, not us, to answer.”
The first answer has been invariable from antiquity to today.
The second answer has varied and must vary because it depends on science and on the state of human knowledge. It is not a conclusive answer.
We see that it is absolutely indispensable to state the problem correctly and not to let idealists mix up these two questions. We must separate them and show that it is the first question which is primary and that our answer to it has always been invariable.
“For the sole ‘property’ of matter with whose recognition philosophical materialism is bound up is the property of being an objective reality, of existing outside the mind.”
4. Space, time, motion and matter
While we claim, because we find it to be so, that matter exists outside of us, we also must make it clear that:
1. Matter exists in time and in space.
2. Matter is in motion.
Idealists, on the other hand, think that space and time are ideas in our minds (it was Kant who first supported this idea). For them, space is a shape which we give to things and it originates in man’s mind. The same is true for time.
Materialsts maintain, on the contrary, that space is not in us, but rather we are in space. They also contend that time is an indispensable condition for the unfolding of our lives and that, consequently, time and space are inseparable from what exists outside of us, i.e., matter. "For the basic forms of all being are in space and time, and existence out of time is just as gross an absurdity as existence out of space.” (Frederick Engels, Anti-Duhring, New York: International Publishers, 1939, p. 60.)
Hence, we think that there is a reality independent of our consciousness. We all believe that the world existed before us and will continue to exist after us. We believe that the world does not need us in order to exist. We are convinced that Paris existed before our birth and, unless it is razed to the ground, will continue to exist after our death. We are certain that Paris exists, even when we are not thinking about it; likewise, there are tens of thousands of cities we have never visited, whose names we do not even know, but which exist nevertheless. Such is the general conviction of humanity. Science has enabled us to give a precision and solidity to this argument, thus reducing all the idealist trickeries to zero. "Natural science positively asserts that the earth once existed in such a state that no man or any other creature existed or could have existed on it. Organic matter is a later phenomenon, the fruit of a long evolution.” (Lenin, Empirio-Criticism, p. 69.)
Hence, while science provides us with the proof that matter exists in time and in space, it teaches us as well that matter is in motion. This last detail, which has been provided by modern science, is very important, for it destroys the old theory according to which matter was incapable of motion, i.e., inert. "Motion is the mode of existence of matter. Never anywhere has there been matter without motion, nor can there be.” (Engels, Anti-Duhring, p. 68.)
We know that the world in its present state is the result, in all domains, of a long evolution and, consequently, the result of a slow, but continuous, motion. We specify then, after having shown the existence of matter, that "There is nothing in the world but matter in motion, and matter in motion cannot move otherwise than in space and time.” (Lenin, Empirio-Criticism, p. 177.)
5. Conclusion
The result of these findings is that the idea of God, the idea of a "pure spirit” which created the universe, makes no sense, for a God outside of space and time is something which cannot exist.
We must share the idealist mystique and, consequently, we must allow no scientific control in order to believe in a God existing outside of time, i.e., existing at no moment, and existing outside of space, i.e., existing nowhere.
Materialists, strengthened by the conclusions of science, maintain that matter exists in space and at a certain moment (in time). Consequently, the universe could not have been created, for in order to create the world, God would have needed a moment which was at no moment (since for God time does not exist) and it would have been necessary for the world to have sprung out of nothing.
In order to acknowledge creation, we must first accept that there was a moment when the universe did not exist. Next we must admit that something came from nothing, which science cannot accept.
We see that idealist arguments, when confronted by science cannot stand, whereas those of materialist philosophers are inseparable from science. Thus we underline once more the intimate relations which link materialism with science.
Readings
F. Engels, Anti-Duhring (New York: International Publishers, 1939) pp. 9-92.
V. I. Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (New York: International Publishers, 1970), Chapter 5.
MarianneSadd
MarianneSadd
Post rating:
~
2 WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A MATERIALIST?
1. Union of theory and practice
The goal of the study which we are pursuing is to know what Marxism is, to see how the philosophy of materialism, by becoming dialectical, is identified with Marxism. We already know that one of the bases of this philosophy is the close connection between theory and practice.
This is why, after having seen what matter is for materialists and what matter is like, it is essential to state, after these two theoretical questions, what it means to be a materialist, i.e., how the materialist acts. This is the practical side of the question.
The basis of materialism is the acknowledgment of being as the source of thought. But is it enough to keep repeating that? In order to be a true supporter of consistent materialism we must be so: 1) in the sphere of thought and 2) in the sphere of action.
2. What does it mean to be a supporter of materialism in the sphere of thought?
Being a supporter of materialism in the sphere of thought means knowing how to apply the fundamental formula of materialism: being produces thought.
When we say, "being produces thought," we are expressing an abstract formula, because the words "being” and "thought” are abstract words. "Being" refers to being in general, "thought" to thought in general. Being, as well as thought in general, is a subjective reality (see in Part One, chapter 4, the explanation of "subjective reality" and "objective reality"). It does not exist: it is what is called an abstraction. To say "being produces thought" is thus an abstract formula because it is composed of abstractions.
Hence, for example: we all know very well what horses are, but if we speak of the horse, we mean the horse in general; well then, the horse in general is an abstraction.
If we substitute for the horse "man" or "being” in general, these are also abstractions.
But if the horse in general does not exist, what does? Horses in particular. The veterinarian who says, “I treat the horse in general, but not the horse in particular,” would be laughed at; so would the doctor who says the same thing about men.
Being in general, therefore, does not exist; but what does exist is particular beings, which have particular qualities. The same thing is true for thought.
We can say then that being in general is something abstract, whereas being in particular is something concrete; the same for thought in general and thought in particular.
A materialist is someone who can recognize in every situation, who can concretize where being is and where thought is.
Example: The brain and our ideas.
We have to know how to transform the abstract general formula into a concrete formula. Thus, a materialist will identify the brain as being and our ideas as thought. He will reason by saying, "It is the brain (being) which produces our ideas (thought)." This is a simple example, but let us take the more complex example of human society and see how a materialist will reason.
The life of society is composed (basically) of an economic life and a political life. What are the relations between economic life and political life? What is the primary factor of this abstract formula which we want to transform into a concrete formula?
For the materialist, the primary factor, i.e., being, the one which gives life to society, is economic life. The secondary factor, thought which is created by being and which can live only through it, is political life.
The materialist will say then that economic life explains political life, since political life is a product of economic life.
This declaration, made here only summarily, is at the root of what is called historical materialism and was made for the first time by Marx and Engels.
Here is another more delicate example: the poet. Certainly numerous elements come into play to “explain” the poet, but here we want to show one aspect of the question only.
It is generally said that the poet writes because he is inspired. Is this sufficient to explain why the poet writes this instead of that? No. He certainly has ideas in his head, but he is also a being who lives in society. We shall see that the primary factor, the one which gives the poet his own life, is society, since the secondary factor is the ideas which the poet has in his brain. Consequently, one of the elements, the fundamental element, which "explains” the poet will be society, i.e., the milieu in which he lives in society. (We shall reencounter the “poet” when we study dialectics, for then we shall have all the elements to study the problem properly.)
From these examples we see that the materialist is someone who, everywhere and always, at each moment and in every case, knows howto apply the formula of materialism.
3. How is one a materialist In practice?
(1) First aspect of the question.
We have seen that there is no third philosophy and that, if one is not consistent in the application of materialism, either one is an idealist, or one obtains a mixture of idealism and materialism.
The bourgeois scientist, in his studies and in his experiments, is always a materialist. This is normal since, in order to advance science, one must work on matter and, if the scientist really thought that matter exists only in his mind, he would find it useless to experiment.
There are thus several varieties of scientists:
1. Scientists who are conscious and consistent materialists.
2. Scientists who are materialists without knowing it, i.e., almost all of them, for it is impossible to do scientific research without presupposing the existence of matter. But, among these, we must distinguish between:
a) Those who begin to follow materialism, but who stop, for they do not dare call themselves such: these are agnostics, those whom Engels calls “shamefaced materialists,” and
b) Those scientists who are unconscious and inconsistent materialists. These are materialists in the laboratory, but outside of their work they are idealists, religious believers.
In fact, the latter have not known how or have not wanted to organize their ideas. They are in perpetual contradiction with themselves. They separate their work, necessarily materialist, from their philosophical concepts. They are “scientists,” yet, while they may not deliberately deny the existence of matter, they think, not very scientifically, that it is useless to know the real nature of things. They are “scientists," but they believe, without any proof, in impossible things. (See the case of Pasteur, Branly and others who were believers; whereas the scientist, if he is consistent, must abandon his religious beliefs.) Science and faith are absolutely opposed.
(2) Second aspect of the question
Materialism and action : While it is true that the real materialist is one who applies the formula at the base of this philosophy everywhere and in every case, he must also be careful to apply it correctly.
As we have just seen, one must be consistent, and to be a consistent materialist, one must transpose materialism into action.
To be a materialist in practice is to act in accordance with philosophy by taking reality as the primary factor, and thought as the secondary factor.
We are going to see the attitudes of those who, without realizing it, regard thought as the primary factor and are then at that momemt idealists without knowing it.
1. What do we call someone who lives as though he were alone in the world? An individualist. He lives within his shell; the outside world exists only for him. For him, the important thing is himself, his thought. He is a pure idealist, or what is called a solipsist. (See the explanation of this word in Part One, ch. 2.)
The individualist is selfish, and being selfish is not a materialist attitude. A selfish person restricts the universe to his own person.
2. The person who learns for the pleasure of learning, as a dilettante, who assimilates well, has no difficulties, but keeps it all for himself. He assigns primary importance to himself, to his thought.
The idealist is closed to the outside world, to reality. The materialist is always open to reality; this is why those who take courses in Marxism and who learn easily ought to try to transmit what they have learned.
3. The person who argues about everything in relation to himself undergoes an idealist distortion.
For example, with regard to a meeting in which things were said which were disagreeable for him, the idealist will say, "This is a bad meeting." This is not how things should be analyzed; the meeting should be judged in relation to its organization, to its goal, and not in relation to oneself.
4. Neither is sectarianism a materialist attitude. Because the sectarian has understood the problems and is in agreement with himself, he maintains that others must be like him. This is again giving primary importance to oneself.
5. The doctrinarian who has studied the texts and has drawn definitions from them is still an idealist when he is satisfied with quoting materialist texts, when he lives only with his texts, for then the real world disappears. He repeats these formulas without applying them to reality. He gives primary importance to the texts, to ideas. Life takes place in his consciousness in the form of texts and, in general, it is found that the doctrinarian is also a sectarian.
Believing that revolution is a question of education, saying that by explaining "once and for all" to workers the necessity of a revolution they must understand and that, if they do not understand, it is not worth it to try to make a revolution, all of this is sectarianism and not a materialist attitude.
We must observe the cases where people do not understand, find out why this is so, note the repression, the propaganda of bourgeois newspapers, radio, cinema, etc., and look for all the possible ways in which to make what we want understood, by leaflets, brochures, newspapers, schools, etc.
To lack a sense of reality, to live in the clouds, and, practically, to make plans without taking situations and realities into account, is an idealist attitude, which assigns primary importance to beautiful plans without seeing whether or not they are practicable. Those who are constantly criticizing, but who do nothing to improve the situation, who propose no remedy; those who lack a critical sense towards themselves, all of these people are inconsistent materialists.
4. Conclusion
From these examples, we see that the faults which are found in us all to a greater or lesser degree are idealist faults. We are afflicted with them because we separate practice from theory and because the bourgeoisie, which has influenced us, likes us not to attach any importance to reality. For the bourgeoisie, which supports idealism, theory and practice are two completely different things having no relation. These faults are thus harmful and we should fight them, for the bourgeoisie profits from them. In short, we should observe that these faults, engendered in us by society, by the theoretical bases of our education and culture, and rooted in our childhood, are the work of the bourgeoisie—and rid ourselves of them.
1. Union of theory and practice
The goal of the study which we are pursuing is to know what Marxism is, to see how the philosophy of materialism, by becoming dialectical, is identified with Marxism. We already know that one of the bases of this philosophy is the close connection between theory and practice.
This is why, after having seen what matter is for materialists and what matter is like, it is essential to state, after these two theoretical questions, what it means to be a materialist, i.e., how the materialist acts. This is the practical side of the question.
The basis of materialism is the acknowledgment of being as the source of thought. But is it enough to keep repeating that? In order to be a true supporter of consistent materialism we must be so: 1) in the sphere of thought and 2) in the sphere of action.
2. What does it mean to be a supporter of materialism in the sphere of thought?
Being a supporter of materialism in the sphere of thought means knowing how to apply the fundamental formula of materialism: being produces thought.
When we say, "being produces thought," we are expressing an abstract formula, because the words "being” and "thought” are abstract words. "Being" refers to being in general, "thought" to thought in general. Being, as well as thought in general, is a subjective reality (see in Part One, chapter 4, the explanation of "subjective reality" and "objective reality"). It does not exist: it is what is called an abstraction. To say "being produces thought" is thus an abstract formula because it is composed of abstractions.
Hence, for example: we all know very well what horses are, but if we speak of the horse, we mean the horse in general; well then, the horse in general is an abstraction.
If we substitute for the horse "man" or "being” in general, these are also abstractions.
But if the horse in general does not exist, what does? Horses in particular. The veterinarian who says, “I treat the horse in general, but not the horse in particular,” would be laughed at; so would the doctor who says the same thing about men.
Being in general, therefore, does not exist; but what does exist is particular beings, which have particular qualities. The same thing is true for thought.
We can say then that being in general is something abstract, whereas being in particular is something concrete; the same for thought in general and thought in particular.
A materialist is someone who can recognize in every situation, who can concretize where being is and where thought is.
Example: The brain and our ideas.
We have to know how to transform the abstract general formula into a concrete formula. Thus, a materialist will identify the brain as being and our ideas as thought. He will reason by saying, "It is the brain (being) which produces our ideas (thought)." This is a simple example, but let us take the more complex example of human society and see how a materialist will reason.
The life of society is composed (basically) of an economic life and a political life. What are the relations between economic life and political life? What is the primary factor of this abstract formula which we want to transform into a concrete formula?
For the materialist, the primary factor, i.e., being, the one which gives life to society, is economic life. The secondary factor, thought which is created by being and which can live only through it, is political life.
The materialist will say then that economic life explains political life, since political life is a product of economic life.
This declaration, made here only summarily, is at the root of what is called historical materialism and was made for the first time by Marx and Engels.
Here is another more delicate example: the poet. Certainly numerous elements come into play to “explain” the poet, but here we want to show one aspect of the question only.
It is generally said that the poet writes because he is inspired. Is this sufficient to explain why the poet writes this instead of that? No. He certainly has ideas in his head, but he is also a being who lives in society. We shall see that the primary factor, the one which gives the poet his own life, is society, since the secondary factor is the ideas which the poet has in his brain. Consequently, one of the elements, the fundamental element, which "explains” the poet will be society, i.e., the milieu in which he lives in society. (We shall reencounter the “poet” when we study dialectics, for then we shall have all the elements to study the problem properly.)
From these examples we see that the materialist is someone who, everywhere and always, at each moment and in every case, knows howto apply the formula of materialism.
3. How is one a materialist In practice?
(1) First aspect of the question.
We have seen that there is no third philosophy and that, if one is not consistent in the application of materialism, either one is an idealist, or one obtains a mixture of idealism and materialism.
The bourgeois scientist, in his studies and in his experiments, is always a materialist. This is normal since, in order to advance science, one must work on matter and, if the scientist really thought that matter exists only in his mind, he would find it useless to experiment.
There are thus several varieties of scientists:
1. Scientists who are conscious and consistent materialists.
2. Scientists who are materialists without knowing it, i.e., almost all of them, for it is impossible to do scientific research without presupposing the existence of matter. But, among these, we must distinguish between:
a) Those who begin to follow materialism, but who stop, for they do not dare call themselves such: these are agnostics, those whom Engels calls “shamefaced materialists,” and
b) Those scientists who are unconscious and inconsistent materialists. These are materialists in the laboratory, but outside of their work they are idealists, religious believers.
In fact, the latter have not known how or have not wanted to organize their ideas. They are in perpetual contradiction with themselves. They separate their work, necessarily materialist, from their philosophical concepts. They are “scientists,” yet, while they may not deliberately deny the existence of matter, they think, not very scientifically, that it is useless to know the real nature of things. They are “scientists," but they believe, without any proof, in impossible things. (See the case of Pasteur, Branly and others who were believers; whereas the scientist, if he is consistent, must abandon his religious beliefs.) Science and faith are absolutely opposed.
(2) Second aspect of the question
Materialism and action : While it is true that the real materialist is one who applies the formula at the base of this philosophy everywhere and in every case, he must also be careful to apply it correctly.
As we have just seen, one must be consistent, and to be a consistent materialist, one must transpose materialism into action.
To be a materialist in practice is to act in accordance with philosophy by taking reality as the primary factor, and thought as the secondary factor.
We are going to see the attitudes of those who, without realizing it, regard thought as the primary factor and are then at that momemt idealists without knowing it.
1. What do we call someone who lives as though he were alone in the world? An individualist. He lives within his shell; the outside world exists only for him. For him, the important thing is himself, his thought. He is a pure idealist, or what is called a solipsist. (See the explanation of this word in Part One, ch. 2.)
The individualist is selfish, and being selfish is not a materialist attitude. A selfish person restricts the universe to his own person.
2. The person who learns for the pleasure of learning, as a dilettante, who assimilates well, has no difficulties, but keeps it all for himself. He assigns primary importance to himself, to his thought.
The idealist is closed to the outside world, to reality. The materialist is always open to reality; this is why those who take courses in Marxism and who learn easily ought to try to transmit what they have learned.
3. The person who argues about everything in relation to himself undergoes an idealist distortion.
For example, with regard to a meeting in which things were said which were disagreeable for him, the idealist will say, "This is a bad meeting." This is not how things should be analyzed; the meeting should be judged in relation to its organization, to its goal, and not in relation to oneself.
4. Neither is sectarianism a materialist attitude. Because the sectarian has understood the problems and is in agreement with himself, he maintains that others must be like him. This is again giving primary importance to oneself.
5. The doctrinarian who has studied the texts and has drawn definitions from them is still an idealist when he is satisfied with quoting materialist texts, when he lives only with his texts, for then the real world disappears. He repeats these formulas without applying them to reality. He gives primary importance to the texts, to ideas. Life takes place in his consciousness in the form of texts and, in general, it is found that the doctrinarian is also a sectarian.
Believing that revolution is a question of education, saying that by explaining "once and for all" to workers the necessity of a revolution they must understand and that, if they do not understand, it is not worth it to try to make a revolution, all of this is sectarianism and not a materialist attitude.
We must observe the cases where people do not understand, find out why this is so, note the repression, the propaganda of bourgeois newspapers, radio, cinema, etc., and look for all the possible ways in which to make what we want understood, by leaflets, brochures, newspapers, schools, etc.
To lack a sense of reality, to live in the clouds, and, practically, to make plans without taking situations and realities into account, is an idealist attitude, which assigns primary importance to beautiful plans without seeing whether or not they are practicable. Those who are constantly criticizing, but who do nothing to improve the situation, who propose no remedy; those who lack a critical sense towards themselves, all of these people are inconsistent materialists.
4. Conclusion
From these examples, we see that the faults which are found in us all to a greater or lesser degree are idealist faults. We are afflicted with them because we separate practice from theory and because the bourgeoisie, which has influenced us, likes us not to attach any importance to reality. For the bourgeoisie, which supports idealism, theory and practice are two completely different things having no relation. These faults are thus harmful and we should fight them, for the bourgeoisie profits from them. In short, we should observe that these faults, engendered in us by society, by the theoretical bases of our education and culture, and rooted in our childhood, are the work of the bourgeoisie—and rid ourselves of them.
fape
fape
Post rating:
~
"Before the 18th Century, humanity was so dumb that it invented religion to explain the world's mysteries. This is called Idealism"
[account deactivated]
fape
fape
Post rating:
~
I know, it's so painfully eurocentric.
[account deactivated]
swampman
swampman
Dont Mess With Sucess
Post rating:
+
fape posted:I know, it's so painfully eurocentric.
Nice argument, now make it cogent
fape
fape
Post rating:
~
The first men, completely ignorant, having no knowledge of the world or
of themselves, and possessing only poor technical means of acting on the
world, attributed the responsibility for everything which surprised them to
supernatural beings. In their imagination, they arrived at the conclusion
that each one of us has a double existence. Troubled by the idea of this
“double,” they came to imagine that their ideas and their sensations were
produced not by activities of their “bodies, but of a distinct soul which
inhabits the body and leaves it at death."
Afterwards was born the idea of the immortality of the soul and of a
possible life of the spirit independent of matter.
Similarly, the weakness and anxiety of these men, when confronted with
the forces of nature and all those phenomena which they did not under
stand and which the level of technology did not permit them to dominate
(germination, storms, floods, etc.), led them to suppose that, behind these
forces, there were all-powerful beings, “spirits” or "gods,” benevolent or
malevolent, but, in any case, capricious.
(...)
Those who, adopting the unscientific explanation, acknowledged the
creation of the world by God, i.e., affirmed that spirit had created matter,
formed the faction of idealism.
MarianneSadd
MarianneSadd
Post rating:
+
Let's read the text as a good materialist would, with full understanding of the its possible limitations, and also with an understanding of the historical context, and the fact that this book is incredibly rare because it has been banned and out of print for some time. I have a strong suspicion it's because the core of the book is so useful and accessible to people, and therefore presents a threat to the ruling class wherever it is being read, disseminated and discussed.
Themselves
Themselves
Post rating:
+
i wouldnt have been so eurocentric in my beliefs if it werent for that blasted georges politzer
animedad
animedad
Post rating:
~
when something is deemed Eurocentric it self-detonates immediately
gyrofry
gyrofry
Kurdt
Post rating:
+
Lockerbie explained at last
fape
fape
Post rating:
~
I dont udnerstadn a single thing you guys are saying,
fape
fape
Post rating:
~
It's a shitty definition of idealism. The eurocentric thing was a joke about greek philosophy. sorry
MarianneSadd
MarianneSadd
Post rating:
~
What's your definition? How would you explain it better?
tears
tears
Post rating:
~
if you're trying to explain dialectical materialism to young people, be aware that they will instinctively read "Third Philosophy" as "Turd Philosophy"
Constantignoble
Constantignoble
Post rating:
+
Thanks, the copy of the Politzer book linked in this thread seems nicer than the one I got from the soviet broadcast library.
Speaking of tidying up versions of texts on Marxist philosophy: while digging through archived copies of NST, I found that vol 18 no 1 is just a full reprinting of John Somerville's The Philosophy of Marxism: An Exposition. It's a very good book; clear and accessible, with a Q&A section at the end of each chapter that actually adds to content instead of restating it. Chapter 2 alone, on dialectical logic, cleared up a lot for me.
Anyway I attempted to make it look nice and OCR and so on and the result is here.
(Incidentally, removing 99.9% of the image data in favor of text, culling metadata and cropping a load of whitespace at the margins somehow made the file a couple megs larger, because there appears to be no rhyme or reason to how acrobat encodes pdfs)
Speaking of tidying up versions of texts on Marxist philosophy: while digging through archived copies of NST, I found that vol 18 no 1 is just a full reprinting of John Somerville's The Philosophy of Marxism: An Exposition. It's a very good book; clear and accessible, with a Q&A section at the end of each chapter that actually adds to content instead of restating it. Chapter 2 alone, on dialectical logic, cleared up a lot for me.
Anyway I attempted to make it look nice and OCR and so on and the result is here.
(Incidentally, removing 99.9% of the image data in favor of text, culling metadata and cropping a load of whitespace at the margins somehow made the file a couple megs larger, because there appears to be no rhyme or reason to how acrobat encodes pdfs)
MarianneSadd
MarianneSadd
Post rating:
~
Why don't you start a thread and lay it out there? I tried to download the pdf but it didn't work.
Constantignoble
Constantignoble
Post rating:
~
the thought hadn't occurred to me but sure why not
EmanuelaBrolandi
EmanuelaBrolandi
Post rating:
~
fape posted:It's a shitty definition of idealism.
But you don't need to focus in defining idealism, you just need to explain what materialism is
EmanuelaBrolandi
EmanuelaBrolandi
Post rating:
~
If a high school kid takes a philosophy class senior year they mention Marx but in the continuum of idealist philosophy not in a meaningful way. Like you have to read Kierkegaard Sartre Hegel and John Locke to understand Marx, who was just some other philosopher dude.
aerdil
aerdil
Post rating:
+
i sat through so many philosophy classes where the twenty minutes spent talking about marx mostly consisted of well, he thought history was thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis over and over. now let's discuss real shit like green's positive and negative liberties.
EmanuelaBrolandi
EmanuelaBrolandi
Post rating:
~
Exactly. As we know you could write a book or twenty about Marx and his relationship to any famous German philosopher or any economist, but this is a book about political economy
fape
fape
Post rating:
+
EmanuelaBrolandi posted:fape posted:
It's a shitty definition of idealism.
But you don't need to focus in defining idealism, you just need to explain what materialism is
How am I, the casual reader unacquainted with dialectical materialism, expected to take this work seriously when one of the first tenets it lays out is that idealism is the philosophy of dumb primitives who are too stupid to do science? it's not just a gross, weird misconception about idealism, it misses the point completely on early society, early technology, animism, religion in general, etc. not to even mention the indigenous cultures that he's basing his perspective of 'early man' on. His proof of why materialism is superior to idealism, also, is the early-20th-century equivalent of "I can't see, hear, taste, smell, or touch god, therefore god doesn't exist" tthat atheists on GameFAQs and facepunch use to stump their 13 year old christian rivals.
If the guy cant give an even remotely proper survey of an opposing viewpoint without devolving into a dozen inaccurate, stereotypical, ahistoric tropes about philosophy, religion, and culture, how can the uninitiated (never read Marx or Lenin, no exposure to D.M. or dialectical thought, as is the target audience of the work, a.k.a. no suspension of disbelief) reader be expected to believe that the rest of the work isn't also inaccurate and stereotypical?