Marxism and Relativism ...

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by woot

I always thought that Marx's "opiate of the people" remark was a positive thing. Wasn't he referring to religion as a good way for people to be able to deal with life, rather than as a pejorative "religion is for stupid sheep" type of thing? I could be totally wrong on that.

Marx does not like religion, but he understood why people valued it. In his view, one has to cast it aside to overcome alienation and false consciousness.

[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.

[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

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

But the fabrication is real, ergo you have Marxism. False consciousness by default is relative; hence my fallacious comparison of wealth is also real and actually is not non-sequiter … or fallacious.

So, let me try and put this discussion in terms that relate to this forum, for we are not in a philosophy class … I often read and discern from the tone of posts that many here feel discouraged at the depth of the teaching in church –say in Sunday School. In Marxist terms the institutional gospel simplification processes misleads the general body of the church (aka the proletariat) about the real gospel and history of the church etc.

Does that make the many critiques who have voiced displeasure concerning teaching, religious Marxists? And yes I am aware of the absurd irony, but maybe this is worthy of discussion

[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 the fabrication is real, ergo you have Marxism. False consciousness by default is relative; hence my fallacious comparison of wealth is also real and actually is not non-sequiter … or fallacious.

So, let me try and put this discussion in terms that relate to this forum, for we are not in a philosophy class … I often read and discern from the tone of posts that many here feel discouraged at the depth of the teaching in church –say in Sunday School. In Marxist terms the institutional gospel simplification processes misleads the general body of the church (aka the proletariat) about the real gospel and history of the church etc.

Does that make the many critiques who have voiced displeasure concerning teaching, religious Marxists? And yes I am aware of the absurd irony, but maybe this is worthy of discussion

Nope. For Marx false consciousness is not relative. It simply isn't. It's the product of historical economoic realities--the means and relationships of production.

You can make up your own notion of false consciousness if you want to, but you're contradicting Marx when you do so. He was not putting his ideas forward as "real fabrications." Marxists don't accept the idea that Marxism is composed of "real fabrications." You simply want Marxism to be something it doesn't put itself forward as. Wanting to make it something other than what it is doesn't make it so.

How about you actually study Marxism before you decide that it is what you want it to be? Saying Marx and Marxists don't realize that their thinking is composed of "real fabrications" but that YOU DO, when you haven't demonstrated a basic understanding of their ideas is such arrogance as to be almost incomprehensible.

Marx was not a relativist. You trying to make him into one just demonstrates that you don't understand what you're discussing.

Postmodernists (or others, but you sound like some kind of eccentric postmodernist) might claim that his ideas were more relative than he knew, but this does not change his and Marxists understandings of them. It does not make the Marxist notion of false consciousness relative. It does not make postmodernists into Marxists. It makes postmodernists rejectors of Marxism who insert contradictory notions in their place. It makes them postmodernists whose relativism is absolute, a grand narrative in its own right.

You are trying to insert a notion that contradicts Marxism into Marxism so you can declare your notion Marxist. It's folly. You'd benefit from reading Isaiah Berlin's commentary on Marx and Marxism. Why don't you read it and we can talk some more?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Nope. For Marx false consciousness is not relative. It simply isn't. It's the product of historical economoic realities--the means and relationships of production.

You can make up your own notion of false consciousness if you want to, but you're contradicting Marx when you do so. He was not putting his ideas forward as "real fabrications." Marxists don't accept the idea that Marxism is composed of "real fabrications." You simply want Marxism to be something it doesn't put itself forward as. Wanting to make it something other than what it is doesn't make it so.

How about you actually study Marxism before you decide that it is what you want it to be? Saying Marx and Marxists don't realize that their thinking is composed of "real fabrications" but that YOU DO, when you haven't demonstrated a basic understanding of their ideas is such arrogance as to be almost incomprehensible.

Marx was not a relativist. You trying to make him into one just demonstrates that you don't understand what you're discussing.

Postmodernists (or others, but you sound like some kind of eccentric postmodernist) might claim that his ideas were more relative than he knew, but this does not change his and Marxists understandings of them. It does not make the Marxist notion of false consciousness relative. It does not make postmodernists into Marxists. It makes postmodernists rejectors of Marxism who insert contradictory notions in their place. It makes them postmodernists whose relativism is absolute, a grand narrative in its own right.

You are trying to insert a notion that contradicts Marxism into Marxism so you can declare your notion Marxist. It's folly. You'd benefit from reading Isaiah Berlin's commentary on Marx and Marxism. Why don't you read it and we can talk some more?

It is arrogant to presume someone has not studied Marxism simply because that someone's ruminations are at first glance patently absurd. I understand the condemnation, however, it is misplaced and woefully condescending. Such an attempt at absurd connection is in fact a very good indicator of not only basic but sound understanding of Marxism.

I am not trying to contradict Marx or claim he is a relativist. In fact I am not pasing judgement on Marx; in fact this thread is not about Marx, nor is it an attemtp to make Marxims something it is not. I am playing with the philosophy in a manner that is unique to me and my experience -especially as it pertains to my own ideology. Surely you can see some value in probing whether or not it is possible, though absurd as it may sound, to be both a relativist and a Marxist ... the possiblility of which you summarily dismissed rather domatically along with a great deal of denegration in a drive-by in the Religion forum

Therefore I do know what I am arguing and why ...

Where do we go from here. My ideas don't fit within the linear framework of your understanding. Therefore you suggest I require further education. More reading is a good thing, I certainly have access to the commentary, but that will not satiate the quesitons and probing I have laid out at present ... it will not deal with the silly notion of a relativist who also is a Marxist, shops at Voldemart and will vote for Romney.

If you can embrace the absurdity of a relativist who is also a Marxist perhaps we can probe the Marxist proclivities of those who critique the manner in which the gospel and history of the church is taught in Sunday School ... ?!

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by tooblue

It is arrogant to presume someone has not studied Marxism simply because that someone's ruminations are at first glance patently absurd. I understand the condemnation, however, it is misplaced and woefully condescending. Such an attempt at absurd connection is in fact a very good indicator of not only basic but sound understanding of Marxism.

I am not trying to contradict Marx or claim he is a relativist. In fact I am not pasing judgement on Marx; in fact this thread is not about Marx, nor is it an attemtp to make Marxims something it is not. I am playing with the philosophy in a manner that is unique to me and my experience -especially as it pertains to my own ideology. Surely you can see some value in probing whether or not it is possible, though absurd as it may sound, to be both a relativist and a Marxist ... the possiblility of which you summarily dismissed rather domatically along with a great deal of denegration in a drive-by in the Religion forum

Therefore I do know what I am arguing and why ...

Where do we go from here. My ideas don't fit within the linear framework of your understanding. Therefore you suggest I require further education. More reading is a good thing, I certainly have access to the commentary, but that will not satiate the quesitons and probing I have laid out at present ... it will not deal with the silly notion of a relativist who also is a Marxist, shops at Voldemart and will vote for Romney.

If you can embrace the absurdity of a relativist who is also a Marxist perhaps we can probe the Marxist proclivities of those who critique the manner in which the gospel and history of the church is taught in Sunday School ... ?!

Your ruminations are absurd, and whether you've studied Marxism or not, you don't understand it.

You say that you aren't trying to make Marx a relativist and then turn around and in the same post try to do that very thing (again).

Playing with Marxist philosophy in a manner unique to your experience is not something a Marxist does (read that again, if necessary). It might be something a postmodernist would do. The move from historical materialism and dominant ideology to identity politics is a move from a modernist approach (that in its form in das kapital Marx and Engels actually tried to make into a science, and one whose causes would culminate in an effect--communist utopia) to a postmodernist approach. Modernist and postmodernist approaches are, by definition, mutually exclusive because they rely on assumptions that are wholly contradictory.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s the class consciousness arguments (note: consciousness is here ascribed to class and not to individual identity) fractured for some into environmentalism, second wave feminism, studies of sexuality, and race studies. For the scholars who went with the fracture, historical materialism was no longer an adequate explanation and identity politics were seen as a better explanation. Those who continued to put forward historical materialism have developed and elaborated on their own concepts to try to account for the problems (such concepts as hegemony and interpolation received more emphasis).

Marxists have their disagreements, but a Marxist of any stripe does not countenance the identity politics that you repeatedly invoke. They believe in the objective (note: not relative) truth of species being and see identity politics (such as you are invoking when you claim on the individual level to be both a Marxist and a relativist) as just another aspect of the dominant ideology, as another layer of malaise. The concept of species being, which is what Marxists believe we'll discover in communism, is mutually exclusive of identity politics.

For any conservatives who are reading this, that last paragraph is a pretty decent summary of one of the main sources of infighting on the left. It also describes why Marxism is such a danger to right-leaning politics because it is so singularly absolute in it's declaration of a progressive march to communism. Postmodernists don't believe in the Marxist notion of progress.

Marx wouldn't care a bit about the content of a religious disagreement, such as how or what should be taught in terms of Mormon history. Marx is interested in how religion functions to help maintain the economic status quo. For Marx, religion is caused by economics. It is an effect of economics.

In brief, I reject your attempt to use the term "Marxist" idiosyncratically. You do not get to have your own private language. You cannot be the sole or unique source of the meaning of a word (such as "Marxist"), since that would mean that you could express yourself in entirely private language. You can't. The essence of language is communication, and that, in turn, depends on language having currency--on shared linguistic conventions. Language can never be a wholly private game, which is why no one but the schizophrenic can make sense of his word salad.

Please, is somebody getting a better understanding of Marxism out of my efforts? I feel like I should bill TB for an independant study course (just kidding, TB).

[Archaea]

What I never got about Marx is how he ignored the cause aspect of religion in economics. I side much, much more with the post-modernists than I do with historical materialism. To have rigid objectivism while ignoring the relative, or ability to switch positions, from cause to effect and vice versa, seems whacko.

How do Marxists deal with this inherent inconsistency. As I understand Marx, religion is caused by the harmful effects of economic oppression, it is man's last gasp for hope for relief. However, religion also causes economic change. How does Marx deal with that? Does he simply ignore it? And do you know the difference in contributions between Marx and Engels? I do not. Then again, I am not a university professor so that might explain it.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Archaea

What I never got about Marx is how he ignored the cause aspect of religion in economics. I side much, much more with the post-modernists than I do with historical materialism. To have rigid objectivism while ignoring the relative, or ability to switch positions, from cause to effect and vice versa, seems whacko.

How do Marxists deal with this inherent inconsistency. As I understand Marx, religion is caused by the harmful effects of economic oppression, it is man's last gasp for hope for relief. However, religion also causes economic change. How does Marx deal with that? Does he simply ignore it? And do you know the difference in contributions between Marx and Engels? I do not. Then again, I am not a university professor so that might explain it.

Good questions.

The other two of the "big three" in classical sociology, Durkheim and Weber, both have better arguments about religion's interwovenness with economics than does Marx. Durkheim has been fairly supplanted by Goffman and Berger, but there's still some interesting stuff in Durkheim's The Elementary Forms of Religioius Life. There's plenty that I like in Weber. Come to think of it, Weber's "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" is an excellent, short work that could have us thinking about the changes from Joseph Smith to subsequent leadership in interesting ways. It would be a great outside the box book of the board.

The early Marx who is still wrestling with Hegel is better on religion. Das Kapital was finished by Engels, and is Marxism at its most rigid. I'll take my collection of early Marx with me over break and maybe I'll post something on this.

Some of what is interesting at the intersection of Marxism and religion is the presence of "Communist priests" who have been mixed up in South American politics at different times. There's a way to think of the communist utopia as a Christian utopia, and especially if one emphasizes Luke's Gospel, but there's no way around Marx's condemnation of religion as superstructure (as an economic effect).

For Marx, historical materialism starts with the most basic, objective human needs--like eating. If one argues that those acts are not only economic, but also technological and/or ritual, then one might be able to adapt Marxism--except that Marx sees technology, ritual, and consciousness itself deriving from the alienated false consciousness of economic production and relations. Innis, McLuhan, and others push the technological/ritual side, and have been roundly condemned by Marxists for doing so.

Lewis Mumford wrestled with such issues and he's one of my favorite thinkers. He tried to suggest that some technologies were democratic and others were autocratic, but that both were tied into economic imperatives. In a manner a bit reminiscent of Weber, Mumford has machine-like human activities preceding the machines themselves. Monks in a 10th century Spanish monestary have to start acting in clock-like ways--have to become a clock--before the modern clock is invented and so on.

I'll ruminate on this over the break.