Economic Determinism Marxian Style

[phildwyer]

But you persist in identifying Marx's theory as determinist (ie. that classes are purely "defined" from without, rather than shaped by objective and subjective factors. That is what I object to.

Precisely. Unfortunately, Gurrier's outdated and anachronistic understanding of class continues to impede any progress of Leftist politics. Marx is perfectly clear about what constitutes the two classes with which he is concerned: a proletarian sells his labour for wages, and a bourgeois lives off interest. The thing to notice here is that these classes are *not* mutually exclusive (though they *are* contradictory). It is perfectly possible--and today it is normal--to be a proletarian and a bourgeois at the same time. Class confict is thus psychological as well as social. Until dinosaurs like Gurrier come to grips with the implications of this fact, Leftist politics is doomed to irrelevance. Frankly, I'm not holding my breath...

 

[phildwyer]

Your quote from Marx merely underlines the tendency of the base/superstructure model to cut against the critical implications of his work - and, in any case, a "real foundation" upon which other things (ie culture) arise, is not the same as saying that the superstructure is a passive reflection of the base.

But the idea of a 'real foundation,' and indeed the whole metaphor of base and superstructure, is (a) nonsensical--how can one aspect of society be more 'real' than another?--and (b) quite unMarxian. Marx was a Hegelian: he believed in the Totality. Only a materialist would fall into the error of considering factories more 'real' than ideas, and Marx was no materialist. And furthermore, today's 'economy' is not material in any case, as it is dominated by money which, of course, has no material existence.

 

[articul8]

money which, of course, has no material existence.

but now you are falling foul of your own argument - money is what Marx would call a "real abstraction", and as such is inevitably situated in concrete material/historical situations.

In that respect, you could call Marx a more consistent Hegelian than Hegel! Personally, I think Marx is a materialist - but one who grasps the material significance of ideas and their material progression in history ie. having nothing in common with simple minded "materialisms". Class consciousness cannot be reduced to, but nor can it be sequestered from, the specific relation to Capital.

 

[phildwyer]

but now you are falling foul of your own argument - money is what Marx would call a "real abstraction", and as such is inevitably situated in concrete material/historical situations.

And here you commit the archetypal materialist error of conflating 'material' with 'historical,' as if ideas were not historical. There is no such thing as a 'material situation,' all human situations are simultaneously material and ideal. Money is certainly historical, but it is equally certainly *not* material. It is, as you imply, an objective, all-powerful *idea.* The power of money is the most convincing refutation of materialism imaginable.

 

[articul8]

And here you commit the archetypal materialist error of conflating 'material' with 'historical,' as if ideas were not historical. There is no such thing as a 'material situation,' all human situations are simultaneously material and ideal. Money is certainly historical, but it is equally certainly *not* material. It is, as you imply, an objective, all-powerful *idea.* The power of money is the most convincing refutation of materialism imaginable.

The historicity of 'ideas' is phenomenlogically coincident with the course of their material expression. Therefore, money - as real abstraction - is not seperable from the realm of ideas, but nor is it fully seperable from the material either. Incidentally, ideas qua ideas cannot be all-powerful, unless they were manifestations of a divine consciousness. And surely no one would want to argue for the existence of that

Ironically, your rampant idealism itslef assumes, in oppositing it, exactly the same simplistic notion of 'materialism' you (correctly) attack in others.

 

[gurrier]

But you persist in identifying Marx's theory as determinist (ie. that classes are purely "defined" from without, rather than shaped by objective and subjective factors. That is what I object to.

This I really don't understand. I think that I'm a capitalist, is this subjective factor relevant to the class that Marx would place me in considering the fact that I own no capital?

As far as I can see, Marx defines the proletariat and the capitalists as classes based on their relationship to the means of production - which has nothing to do with subjective factors and indeed the whole point of this class analysis is to remove subjective factors from the equation.

Your quote from Marx merely underlines the tendency of the base/superstructure model to cut against the critical implications of his work - and, in any case, a "real foundation" upon which other things (ie culture) arise, is not the same as saying that the superstructure is a passive reflection of the base.

So even Marx himself wasn't a proper Marxist (or was a confused marxist)? What's the point?

 

[gurrier]

It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.

.

 

[articul8]

yes. and? Where does Marx insist that "social existence" can be reduced to a reified economic relation? It is you who seems to be rushing to that judgement (ironically paralleling Stalinist misreadings of Marx).

If it helps, it might be worth employing the distinction (in the Sartrean vocabulary) between a "class-in-itself" and a "class-for-itself". A key work here is E.P. Thompson's "The Making of the English Working Class". Thompson shows how you cannot take class consciousness a passive reflection of processes going on behing the back of actual human beings in their day-to-day struggles . He documents in detail the tremendous effort it took to build a (working) class conscious of its own identity as such.

I am not arguing that this process takes place outside of particular material constraints, that it is a purely 'psychological' (in the idealist sense) phenomenon. But nor is class consciousness a mere 'index' of some purely 'objective' state of affairs.

 

[gurrier]

I am not arguing that this process takes place outside of particular material constraints, that it is a purely 'psychological' (in the idealist sense) phenomenon. But nor is class consciousness a mere 'index' of some purely 'objective' state of affairs.

The issue of class consciousness is an entirely different one to the issue of class definitions and is one that I have made precisely zero comments on. Many proletarians consider themselves to be middle class - it doesn't change their relation to capital a whit.

 

[articul8]

On the contrary, without a class attaining revolutionary consciousness there can be no serious contestation of capitalist society. It is sitll the most important question. Yet again, you make the mistake of equating empirical factors with objective truths.

Without an actively engaged working class, conscious of its own historical significance, there can be no revolution, irrespective of the socio-economical definitions of so-called (bourgeois) 'experts'.

 

[gurrier]

On the contrary, without a class attaining revolutionary consciousness there can be no serious contestation of capitalist society. It is sitll the most important question. Yet again, you make the mistake of equating empirical factors with objective truths.

Do I ????

You seem to have moved seamlessly from the question of how Marx defined classes to how a class can attain revolutionary consciousness. Once again, I have said exacly nothing about how a class can attain revolutionary consciousness, yet you seem to be confident to point out my mistake - are you reading my mind?

Without an actively engaged working class, conscious of its own historical significance, there can be no revolution, irrespective of the socio-economical definitions of so-called (bourgeois) 'experts'.

You don't say, but what on earth has this to do with anything that I've said?

 

[articul8]

you seem to assume - nb. with liberals and Stalinists - that Marx has an economic determinist theory of class, and then promptly go on to dismiss it.
Perhaps it is your understanding of Marx that is at fault?

What is a class without consciousness of itself as such? Fucked!

 

[gurrier]

you seem to assume - nb. with liberals and Stalinists - that Marx has an economic determinist theory of class, and then promptly go on to dismiss it.
Perhaps it is your understanding of Marx that is at fault?

I contend that Marx defined classes based upon their relations to the means of production*. I further contend that this is the widely held opinion of Marxian scholars. Are you really constesting this? Can I have a quote or anything at all to back up your unusual interpretation?

Also, you don't seem to understand what determinism means. It doesn't mean using objective criteria** to define something - not even close.

What is a class without consciousness of itself as such? Fucked!

I agree, but you seem to be arguing that it is not a class (rendering your question a contradiction in terms).

 

[articul8]

I contend that Marx defined classes based upon their relations to the means of production*. I further contend that this is the widely held opinion of Marxian scholars.

OK, I agree insofar as it goes. But everything hangs on the definition of "relations". You appear to believe it is possible to deduce that "relation" through positivistic means - analysing economic data etc.

But would it not be equally true to argue that classes are defined by the totality of social relations under capitalism (which would certainly include but range beyond the narrowly "economic" to include those aspects of social existence Stalinists like to dismiss as mere "superstructure")?

Determinism, as I understand it, is the assertion that 'agency' is merely the disguised expression of factors which operate entirely behind the back of the agent, as it were. For Marx, as I (and many other critical Marxist scholars, a few of whom I cited earlier in the thread), classes are genuine agents, albeit operating within given historical parameters. (ie. human beings create their own history, albeit not in circumstances of their own choosing.) nb. these "circumstances" include, but are not reducible to, the narrowly "economic".

 

[phildwyer]

The historicity of 'ideas' is phenomenlogically coincident with the course of their material expression. Therefore, money - as real abstraction - is not seperable from the realm of ideas, but nor is it fully seperable from the material either. Incidentally, ideas qua ideas cannot be all-powerful, unless they were manifestations of a divine consciousness. And surely no one would want to argue for the existence of that

Ironically, your rampant idealism itslef assumes, in oppositing it, exactly the same simplistic notion of 'materialism' you (correctly) attack in others.

I'm not an idealist, any more than I am a materialist. I regard idealism and materialism as expressive of an identical logical error: as Lukacs says, materialism is merely 'inverted Platonism.' But money *is* an idea, it is *not* material. Interestingly, though, it has *pretended* to be material--in the forms of conch shells, gold, banknotes etc--for most of its history. The fact that money is an idea is a truth that has been revealed in the course of history. We now need to draw appropriate conclusions from this revelation, and that is exactly where materialism inevitably fails us. Hence the reactionary role played by modern materialism, which we have seen amply illustrated in recent disputes on these boards.

 

[Fruitloop]

But money *is* an idea, it is *not* material.

The meaning of this oft-repeated sentence entirely escapes me, I must confess. What qualities are you hoping to attribute or deny to money by it?

 

[revol68]

I'm not an idealist, any more than I am a materialist. I regard idealism and materialism as expressive of an identical logical error: as Lukacs says, materialism is merely 'inverted Platonism.' But money *is* an idea, it is *not* material. Interestingly, though, it has *pretended* to be material--in the forms of conch shells, gold, banknotes etc--for most of its history. The fact that money is an idea is a truth that has been revealed in the course of history. We now need to draw appropriate conclusions from this revelation, and that is exactly where materialism inevitably fails us. Hence the reactionary role played by modern materialism, which we have seen amply illustrated in recent disputes on these boards.

yeah dispshit but you know what isn't just an idea? Land, coal, oil, factories, food and guns, all of which can not be seperated from the *idea* of money.

 

[Fruitloop]

OK, I agree insofar as it goes. But everything hangs on the definition of "relations". You appear to believe it is possible to deduce that "relation" through positivistic means - analysing economic data etc.

But would it not be equally true to argue that classes are defined by the totality of social relations under capitalism (which would certainly include but range beyond the narrowly "economic" to include those aspects of social existence Stalinists like to dismiss as mere "superstructure")?

I normally find your contributions insightful and worthwhile, however I have to agree with gurrier that you don't seem to be attacking the points that he's actually making. That's to say, what gurrier has said so far in no way contradicts the social nature of production, as far as I can see.

I don't think that there is nothing to be gained from a base/superstructure analysis, although self-evidently one is always looking at two sides of the same coin. (In fact, the same goes for the matter/idea distinction, IMO). 'Stalinists' aside, I don't think Adorno and his ilk regard the superstructure as being in any way 'mere' - it's absolutely fundamental to an understanding of capitalist dynamics, in that once you posit the base/superstructure distinction (which is itself avowedly provisional), to ignore one in favour of the other is simply to turn a potentially fruitful conceptual division into a form of either economic or cultural tunnel-vision.

 

[articul8]

what gurrier has said so far in no way contradicts the social nature of production, as far as I can see.

Not as such, but I detect an implicit economic reductionism in gurrier's positivist understanding of how classes are defined (and a corresponding failure to address the contribution of classes - nb within certain material constraints - towards their own self-delineation.

I don't think that there is nothing to be gained from a base/superstructure analysis, although self-evidently one is always looking at two sides of the same coin.

This is precisely where I think it just confuses the issue - the base/superstructure is nothing like a two-sided coin since one side cannot 'determine' (even in the last instance) the other.

 

[Fruitloop]

One side of a coin doesn't determine the other either - they are simply two faces of the same (material) essence.

Not as such, but I detect an implicit economic reductionism in gurrier's positivist understanding of how classes are defined (and a corresponding failure to address the contribution of classes - nb within certain material constraints - towards their own self-delineation.

I agree that it's a tendency that it's important to avoid. I'm prepared to take gurrier at his word that 'economic' class was simply a shorthand to distinguish it from 'occupational' class (of the kind you get in state records etc, whose function IMO is to a large extent to obscure the concept of class as a relation primarily to MOP) and its various bastard brethren.

 

[gurrier]

I agree that it's a tendency that it's important to avoid. I'm prepared to take gurrier at his word that 'economic' class was simply a shorthand to distinguish it from 'occupational' class (of the kind you get in state records etc, whose function IMO is to a large extent to obscure the concept of class as a relation primarily to MOP) and its various bastard brethren.

Thanks Fruitloop

I really think articul8 is taking great liberties with what I have said and is assumng incorrectly that I am positing an altogether different argument. How many times have I been compared to liberals and stalinists in this thread already?

Essentially, I believe, like Marx, that it is impossible to understand any society without a class analysis. Further, like Marx, I believe that classes are defined by their common relationship to the means of production. However, I am much less inclined than Marx was (cf above quotes) to see this relationship as a determinant of other aspects of society (which he termed the superstructure). That is to say, I do not believe that if one identifies the classes in any society and their relationship to each other and the means of production, one can determine other aspects of a society's social order from it. In order to do this, one requires a much broader understanding of the factors at play such as the self-consciousness of the class and all sorts of other historical, cultural and almost random factors.

I believe that Marx's over-emphasis on the objective relationship between classes and their relationships to the means of production as a determinant was exaggerated by various of his followers (most particularly the Leninists). However, I absolutely believe that it was there in Marx and it is partially responsible for the failure of Marxism as a predictive science.

 

[articul8]

This makes things slightly clearer.

But my problem is that you construct a 'straw-man' Marx as an economistic, class reductionist. In this respect, like all manner of postmodernists (and yes, liberals), you take this version of 'marxism'' almost wholly along the lines of a dogmatic 'official' ideology which might have been held by many in the 2nd international, to be rehabilitated by the Stalinists, but has practically nothing in common with revolutionary marxism. (which is why you end up confusing it with Leninism - but that's another argument altogether).

Class relations are a key part of social being in capitalist society (obviously), and as such do help to determine consciousness. But the point is that relation between classes is not (even, or perhaps especially, for Marx) an narrowly defined economic one. Even the briefest reading of the Economic and Philosophical manuscripts would demonstrate that (which is no doubt why the Stalinists manage to surpress it for so long).

In short - in constructing a hopelessly simplified Marx, you dismiss a key theorist with a hell of very relevant methodological lessions for analysing, criticising and transforming contemporary society (not, as you suggested earlier, a merely good survey of 19th C capitalism).

 

[Fruitloop]

But the point is that relation between classes is not (even, or perhaps especially, for Marx) an narrowly defined economic one

I've got no argument with that - in fact I was arguing on the 'rational proof of god's existence' thread that it's ludicrous to imagine human society as being predicated purely on economic activity.

 

[articul8]

money *is* an idea, it is *not* material. Interestingly, though, it has *pretended* to be material--in the forms of conch shells, gold, banknotes etc--for most of its history.

So ideas have duped philosophers by creeping around in material garb all this time? This is idealism taken to paranoid extremes!

As I have tried to explain once already:
Ideas are notionally distinct from, but phenomenologically coincident with, their material expression. Thus, it makes as little sense to talk about an idea "not" being (at all) material as it does to say it is purely material.

 

[revol68]

So ideas have duped philosophers by creeping around in material garb all this time? This is idealism taken to paranoid extremes!

As I have tried to explain once already:
Ideas are notionally distinct from, but phenomenologically coincident with, their material expression. Thus, it makes as little sense to talk about an idea "not" being (at all) material as it does to say it is purely material.

aye but Phil knows that money is not just an idea but infact it is the devil.

 

[gurrier]

But my problem is that you construct a 'straw-man' Marx as an economistic, class reductionist.

No, I don't.

In short - in constructing a hopelessly simplified Marx, you dismiss a key theorist with a hell of very relevant methodological lessions for analysing, criticising and transforming contemporary society (not, as you suggested earlier, a merely good survey of 19th C capitalism).

I didn't suggest such a thing at all (I wrote in the 19th century). I also don't see how on earth you can say that I am "dismissing" Marx when I have said several times that I agree with his conclusions on a variety of important points. I have merely mentioned the fact that I believe that he over-emphasised the degree to which economic relations determine other aspects of society (not to mention the degree to which they determine soceital development which I also think Marx seriously overstated his case on). Apparently, this mild criticism, backed up by quotes, is too much for you and even though you appear to accept it (in saying that my quotes from Marx tend to go against the critical implications of his work) you rail relentlessly against various arguments that I have not stated at all.

My initial impression of a priest at the temple of st Marx is confirmed many times over.

 

[Valve]

 

[articul8]

he over-emphasised the degree to which economic relations determine other aspects of society

This really is becoming a dialogue of the deaf. I have no desire to 'worship' at the temple of Marx - I have already said I think some of his metaphors/simplifications are unhelpful or even downright wrong.

I guess we just disagree on the degree to which his work tends towards economistic class reductionism. I believe (with a number of others) that it is possible to read Marx in a more complex and productive way than your accusation (and the whole boring base-superstructure analogy) allows for.

ie. Marx (in his better moments) has already grasped the idea that not everything in class relations can be reduced to the relation to the means of production (an argument you persist in attributing to him). This is because he follows Hegel in positing the totality of social being (synonymous with the totality of class relations under capitalism) as the horizon which allows the particular (the empirical emergence of 'class').

He therefore - and this is the main point - grasps that the reduction of class to narrowly economic interests (your accusation) is in fact the historical product of the alienation of the wage-labourer and the accompanying reification of economic categories UNDER CAPITALIST SOCIETY.

Marx is describing a SYMPTOMATIC ERROR OF THE BOURGEOISIE, not advocating a crude economism himself.

 

[gurrier]

ie. Marx (in his better moments) has already grasped the idea that not everything in class relations can be reduced to the relation to the means of production (an argument you persist in attributing to him).

Point out where I attribute this argument to him please.

He therefore - and this is the main point - grasps that the reduction of class to narrowly economic interests (your accusation)

No it's not, point out where I said such a thing please.

is in fact the historical product of the alienation of the wage-labourer and the accompanying reification of economic categories UNDER CAPITALIST SOCIETY.

Marx is describing a SYMPTOMATIC ERROR OF THE BOURGEOISIE, not advocating a crude economism himself.

I don't think the evidence of what he wrote supports this view and I think you would be much better off arguing such points without reference to Marx at all. Such a view is, at best, a highly contested interpretation of Marx and I think it makes much more sense to argue such points as being useful in their own right rather than constantly harking back to the holy texts and the consequent theological battles which inevitably ensue.

 

[blamblam]

it would appear the village idiot has some how spoken some sense.

Ha ha you got his number quickly then. I only realised he was full of shite a couple of months back - and I've been on here for years!