Marxism and Relativism ...

[tooblue]

Are Marxism and Relativism incongruent with one another?

Relativism: the belief that concepts such as right and wrong, goodness and badness, or truth and falsehood are not absolute but change from culture to culture and situation to situation.

Marxism: the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.

Bonus question: does shopping at Walmart make anyone else depressed?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Are Marxism and Relativism incongruent with one another?

Relativism: the belief that concepts such as right and wrong, goodness and badness, or truth and falsehood are not absolute but change from culture to culture and situation to situation.

Marxism: the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.

Bonus question: does shopping at Walmart make anyone else depressed?

They are incongruent with one another. Marx was not a relativist. He was a historical materialist with a grand narrative (the truth and inevitability of communism). For Marxists, consciousness is not even relative--it is connected, and in some variations, caused, by the means and relations of production. Such fundamental Marxist notions as alienation and demystification are incompatible with relativism. The class consciousness Marx is interested in is obscuring what he calls species being, and is not relativistic either.

These are some of the reasons Marxists and Neo-Marxists of every stripe and type critique postmodernists.

I'm well-read in several branches of Marxism--the 1844 Manuscripts and their application to British Cultural Studies, the French Situationists, the Frankfurt School sociologists, Gramsci's adaptation of Marx, Althusser and the structural Marxists, Antonio Negri's Italian Marxism, Lenninism...

I should mention that I am not a Marxist. But understanding it is invaluable in my discipline.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I should mention that I am not a Marxist. But understanding it is invaluable in my discipline.

Is not the truth of the state relative? This is where I find a congruity. Without question you must be well versed in Marxism in your discipline. My fascintion is merely a daliance. I am quite sensitive to postmodernism, however as you well know my tone is often very dogmatic

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Is not the truth of the state relative? This is where I find a congruity. Without question you must be well versed in Marxism in your discipline. My fascintion is merely a daliance. I am quite sensitive to postmodernism, however as you well know my tone is often very dogmatic

The truth of the state is inseperable from historic material conditions.

I can think of one branch of Marxism that might have you voting for Romney, though. The social scientists think that all of the attempts to reform and make capitalism friendlier are just prolonging its reign. They think we should let the Romney's of the world run things without encumberance because they'll bring on revolution, or the collapse of the private property system, or something.

Needless to say, most Marxists find them suspect.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

The truth of the state is inseperable from historic material conditions.

I can think of one branch of Marxism that might have you voting for Romney, though. The social scientists think that all of the attempts to reform and make capitalism friendlier are just prolonging its reign. They think we should let the Romney's of the world run things without encumberance because they'll bring on revolution, or the collapse of the private property system, or something.

Needless to say, most Marxists find them suspect.

But what if those historic material conditions are a fabrication or an elaborate ruse?

It is quite schizophrenic but my Marxist sensitivities do not prohibit me from wanting to vote for Romney … maybe that’s just a condition of my up bringing?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by tooblue

But what if those historic material conditions are a fabrication or an elaborate ruse?

It is quite schizophrenic but my Marxist sensitivities do not prohibit me from wanting to vote for Romney … maybe that’s just a condition of my up bringing?

Is not my middle class wealth remarkable relative to the middle class wealth of a South American citizen? Certainly I am worth more, own more, have access to more via my buying power; yet he/she relative to his/her ecomomy is worth as much, owns as much and has access to as much via his/her buying power ... in otherwords we both have access to what we need, yet one of us may be more easily convinced that more of our wants are in fact additional needs?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by tooblue

yet one of us may be more easily convinced that more of our wants are in fact additional needs?

And is this not the aim of marketing -the greatest lie ever told?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Is not my middle class wealth remarkable relative to the middle class wealth of a South American citizen? Certainly I am worth more, own more, have access to more via my buying power; yet he/she relative to his/her ecomomy is worth as much, owns as much and has access to as much via his/her buying power ... in otherwords we both have access to what we need, yet one of us may be more easily convinced that more of our wants are in fact additional needs?

What you've written here is non-sequitur. For Marx, both you and the person in South America are suffering from alienation and false consciousness. Comparing wealth the way you do here seems very bourgeois.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Comparing wealth the way you do here seems very bourgeois.

And perhaps that's why I will vote for Romney

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by tooblue

But what if those historic material conditions are a fabrication or an elaborate ruse?

It is quite schizophrenic but my Marxist sensitivities do not prohibit me from wanting to vote for Romney … maybe that’s just a condition of my up bringing?

Without historical materialism you don't have Marxism. End of story.