wolfgang von skeptik
05-07-2007, 07:07 AM
As with everything I do these days except the book project that keeps a roof over my head, the following is written in haste and with advance apologies for any errors, whether of interpretation or syntax.
From López, combining my own choice of excerpts from “Old and New Globalization” (first passage below) with the material posted by PPLE (second passage with link), emphasis added in each instance:
(G)lobalization is a revival of the most strict capitalist postulates in a much more internationalized and massive dimension. From this standpoint, "globalization" does not represent so much a postmodern era, but goes back to premodern times or to early modernity. Nevertheless, the postmodern disenchantment and lack of social militancy in rich countries provides an outstanding ally of globalization.
…In its attempt to dominate everything and to eliminate the weak, the basic policy of global capitalism and its magnates is an unscrupulous control over the world population. This is the Neo-Malthusian ideology. Malthus's prediction about the global incapability of producing enough commodities has proved to be totally groundless. Technology, new work systems and real scientific economy have once again refuted capitalist predictions. This is what capitalism does not want to recognize: the problem is not production, but distribution; the center of economy is not the capital, but the person whom the capital has to serve.
http://www.crvp.org/book/Series01/I-19/chapter_ii.htm
It seems to me -- and here I would very much appreciate critical input from Anaxarchos -- that López grasps the basic conditions of globalization: “the most strict capitalist postulates” (or as I would say, “the newly re-unleashed tyrannosaur of capitalism“). He also seems to understand the infinite cunning with which the ruling class has nullified in advance any possible opposition to imposition of the Global Sweatshop: “postmodern disenchantment and lack of social militancy“: note in particular the implicit denunciation of postmodernism -- the anti-philosophy which argues from the absurd premise that even the concept of meaning itself is meaningless, which in turn gives rise to an obscene moral equivalence that makes it possible to argue (and do so in all seriousness), that Ted Bundy performed a moral service (by reducing human numbers) potentially equal to the contribution of Alexander Fleming (who rediscovered penicillin). Which, I might note in passing, not only proves beyond a scintilla of doubt that academia serves the ruling class, but demonstrates how that servitude is accomplished via the huge popularity of postmodernism in the classroom (no doubt because it denounces knowledge as unreal and thereby reduces learning to nothing more purposeful than mental masturbation) (and why bother to masturbate the mind when, especially at age 19, there are other more easily accessible organs that reach the ultimate organ-ism of orgasm ooooooh so much more quickly). However, aside from this aside (and the fact it teaches us that moronation aka “dumbing down” goes far beyond the corps of cretins carefully chosen for their sub-mediocrity to proctor public schools), I would argue that Mr. López quite unexpectedly nullifies all his observations by suddenly shifting from material reality to metaphysics (emphasis again added):
Concerning the cosmic evolution we can endorse the intuition of scholars like Teilhard de Chardin, (The Phenomenon of Man). The concept has its roots in the most genuine origins of philosophy, as made clear by the pre-Socratics. The world strives to attain its unity. It has an arche, or natural ruling principle. What kind of arche would be consistent with a true global unity? According to Teilhard, "Unity enlarges itself only through a growth of consciousness, and therefore the history of the living world consists in the elaboration of ever more perfect eyes."7 The arche is consciousness; in Greek terms, "nous" or "logos." We are entitled to contemplate our contemporary globalization as a part of the universal march towards unity. The question now is to what extent our globalization constitutes a special stage because of its distinctive degree of consciousness. On the one hand, there has never been so much talk about something like this. Today we have technical means available to multiply the spread of any fashionable idea. On the other hand, however, such frequency of the topic and of certain words like "globalization" does not secure the depth and intensity of a worldwide global consciousness. The extraordinarily large gap between the few rich and the many poor is increasing. The gap has never been so scandalous, and it is due to our historical production surplus. Production has been globalized by means of the international division of labor, but distribution of benefits has not been globalized. As things stand, a common planet-consciousness is impossible. A consumerist mentality takes no account of the reality of a life of abject poverty…The one promising aspect of this chaos is its being considered unnatural. It seems as though the Tellurian forces of humanity demand an effective, close union of humanity. This is a joint teaching of anthropology and history. People from very different cultures are meeting and living together on a scale never seen in the 20th century. Cultures are discovering not only their particular identities, but also their own universal values by meeting face to face with other cultures. This happens superficially on the basis of today's phase of globalization: new international markets, new massive emigrations, new planet-wide media. It is a matter of degree and acceleration. But on a deeper level the global meeting of the human race rests on a common human nature, although many cultural anthropologists are still reluctant to use that term.
Alas, even as López repudiates the revolution-by-fantasy cult that has taken root in the industrial world (the so-called but misleadingly named New Age phenomenon, which he derides as yet another form of “capitalist homogenization,”), he joins hands with the New Agers by his absurd belief in the creation and expansion of the global slave state as “part of a universal march towards unity” when science proves it is in fact the diametric opposite: the final triumph of the death impulse that coexists, yin unto yang, as part of human consciousness.
(I suspect a Marxist critique would agree with the first half of my statement -- that López appears to contradict himself just as I have noted -- though I will here typically defer to Anax. The second half of my statement is of course another expression of what Anax calls my “fire and brimstone socialism,” a characterization that is indeed apt and which I also accept with the good humor of self-recognition.)
There is also another point on which I must fault López: his apologetic but wholly wrong-headed characterization of Islamic aggression as merely a reaction to the cultural hegemony implicit in globalization. While his ironically postmodern refusal to acknowledge the historical record is dismayingly typical, it is nevertheless an absolute historical truth that Islam -- without any provocation whatsoever -- launched its theocratic war against all civilization both Occidental and Oriental nearly 13 centuries before the first Golden Arches were raised like some malevolent idol of empty-headed gluttony, thus to tempt humanity to abandon its ancient nutritional wisdom and begin the long decline toward what López aptly labels “Mcdonalization.” And Islam has continued these attacks -- with only a few relatively short interruptions -- ever since their Seventh Century beginning: the legacy not of food critics turned fanatical but of the Abrahamic doctrine of conquest by father-godly mandate: reductio ad absurdum, in all probability a practice that will end only when the Jihadists achieve their ultimate goal: a species-wide suicide-bombing facilitated by some one-size-kills-all thermonuclear weapon. If some other Abrahamic surrogate doesn’t achieve final triumph over death -- that is, the extermination of all life -- beforehand.
Perhaps the blindness to history so demonstrated is why López seems to regard the horrors of the Global Sweatshop as something that can be remedied by “(re)distribution of benefits” -- that is, using capitalism to fight capitalism -- never mind the fact the “benefits” (surely a curious and perhaps revealing choice of nouns) are themselves increasingly in short supply. Such blindness would also explain why López seems to regard class struggle as wholly irrelevant -- again (if in my haste I understand him correctly) showing his (perhaps unintentional) kinship with the New Agers he claims to deplore. And López clearly overlooks the fact the entire New Age compensatory fantasy -- especially the associated pacifism -- is itself deeply rooted in the cultural traditions of Westernesse: since Roman times, the Christians have deluded themselves with a similar notion, redemption by faith alone, and in one form or another, theirs has been the typical response of the abjectly powerless -- abysmal ignorance included -- ever since.
Capital and Nature
Re: Capital and Nature
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Capital and Nature
wolfgang von skeptik
05-07-2007, 07:48 AM
But I also recognize three factors Anax may not want to acknowledge: that the skyrocketing inflation of fuel prices proves the eco-socialists’ projections of petro-apocalypse are terrifyingly accurate; that eco-socialism is largely a product of U.S. academia, where class-struggle is absolutely taboo, forbidden material outside a few sociology departments and even there acknowledged only as a quaint, obsolete theory (which means that if the eco-socialists included the traditional definition of class struggle in their theories, they would undoubtedly be silenced); and that eco-socialism owes a huge debt to eco-feminism -- a debt typically unacknowledged due to academia’s ongoing gender war.
Note however that, in ironic contrast to eco-socialism, eco-feminism seems to regard class struggle as very real -- not a first cause but a major symptom, another manifestation of the patriarchal war against woman and Nature that is brought to horrific (and probably terminal) expression in Abrahamic theology (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) and its seemingly secular derivitives: capitalism, capitalism’s ultimate fulfillment in fascism and the various phallus-shaped thermonuclear doomsday machines and bio-bombs intended to kill forever. (The single best source on this absolutely vital mode of feminist thinking is The Great Cosmic Mother, a misleadingly titled work -- the publishers rejected the original title as too subversively political and therefore too obviously of general interest -- by Barbara Mor with contributions from Monica Sjöö.)
As it happens, I believe the eco-feminist position is the historically correct position -- even Marx suggests that the emergence of private property (and thus class struggle) was occasioned by the forcible imposition of patriarchy. Perhaps too I should note here that I do NOT fault American feminism for its political theory -- most of which (with the notable exception of the demand for tyranny implicit in the Catharine MacKinnon/Andrea Dworkin “freedom is slavery” doctrine) -- I wholeheartedly applaud even when it makes me uncomfortable. Instead I condemn it for the fact it willingly opened its legs to corporate co-optation and thus became -- rather gleefully in every instance personally known to me -- an exceptionally malicious collaborator in the ruling class war of subjugation: witness not just my own experience but how corporate manipulation of “equal employment opportunity” destroys unions, subverts workplace solidarity and demonstrably reduces the number of males -- especially minority males -- in the workforce.
I also believe recognition that class struggle evolved as a reaction to patriarchy (rather than a reaction to abstract “economic conditions”) illuminates a hitherto unrecognized metaphysical dimension of class struggle. (So-called Liberation Theology attempted to do this but failed because the tyrannical mandates at the core of Abrahamic doctrine ultimately define "liberation" in any form as defiance of god, thereby making the concept of "Liberation Theology" self-contradictory and perhaps also reducing the term to an oxymoron.) In any case, acknowledgement that class struggle may include a metaphysical dimension uniquely leverages such struggle into position for potential resolution of the ancient Western conflict between idealism and materialism.
Mor’s work suggests that if you follow class-struggle to its roots, you find the struggle is the basic human (male and female) response to patriarchy’s decree that the ultimate male fulfillment is conquest. In eco-feminist terms, this means that class struggle arose in response to the original expression of idealism: the concept -- utterly irrational in phenomenological terms -- of the self-contained father-god as owner/creator (and therefore justifiably slayer/conqueror/enslaver) of the world -- this as opposed to the original expression of materialism: the Great Mother. In other words, the concept of the father god was the first spurious assertion of the demonstrably false notion that matter (mater or the Mother) arises from ideals (and is thus rightfully subservient to them) rather than vice versa: not "in the beginning was the Mother" (matter/Mater), but "In the beginning was the Word" (the idea). Thus was overthrown the phenomenological (hence materialistic) expression of a living universe who gives birth to us all.
Such a (mater-ial) universe is equally expressible in metaphor or scientific fact -- no doubt the ultimate reason for the deadly hostility to science characteristic of all Abrahamic theology. Note for instance the fact all life is originally female -- a truth rediscovered by modern biology in courageous defiance of Abrahamic taboo but still largely suppressed in the (once again) ever-more-openly theocratic United States. That this hugely significant fact is typically denied all high-school biology students and even excluded from most lower-division college biology courses -- the exclusions due entirely to (theoretically illegal) Christian censorship exercised via legitimate government -- is another dismal example of the extent to which the United States is a defacto theocracy.
Given Marx’s profound interest in prehistoric and so-called “primitive” societies -- one of my earliest understandings of Marxism is that it recognizes economic democracy as the original condition of humanity and thus seeks to restore it -- I have difficulty believing Marx would object to the above enlargement of the meanings of materialism and class-struggle. Furthermore I remain convinced that such a reinterpretation -- technically eco-feminist rather than eco-socialist -- would heal many of the schisms that presently obstruct the emergence of any new political solidarity.
I eagerly await your critical response.
05-07-2007, 07:48 AM
Just as Anax noted, many eco-socialists sidestep the historical truth of class struggle (though I must admit I never before focused on the singularly damning significance of their avoidance). More to the point, because I remember instinctively fighting the class-struggle acknowledgement battle with the fledgling eco-socialists I knew in my college days, I recognize now that many eco-socialists deliberately ignore the class-struggle issue simply because their refusal to acknowledge it is dictated by their own class consciousness. Many are aristocrats by birth -- how else could they have afforded college? -- and some are surely the pampered children of the same families that are wantonly destroying our planet. Thus too many eco-socialists (and these in particular) view us working folk with absolute contempt. They despise our unions with even greater venom -- working-class solidarity, they reason, is a major source of eco-ruin, and thus they do everything in their considerable power to continue their families’ deliberate reduction of all of us to the most degrading subjugation possible. Note for example the practice of tree-spiking: making war on loggers (i.e., the working class) rather than the capitalists who employ them (i.e., the ruling class).Anaxarchos wrote (emphasis added):
The intent is the same as with all “eco-socialists”: to make the struggle between capital and nature independent of class struggle, and even to give it primacy over such struggle.
But I also recognize three factors Anax may not want to acknowledge: that the skyrocketing inflation of fuel prices proves the eco-socialists’ projections of petro-apocalypse are terrifyingly accurate; that eco-socialism is largely a product of U.S. academia, where class-struggle is absolutely taboo, forbidden material outside a few sociology departments and even there acknowledged only as a quaint, obsolete theory (which means that if the eco-socialists included the traditional definition of class struggle in their theories, they would undoubtedly be silenced); and that eco-socialism owes a huge debt to eco-feminism -- a debt typically unacknowledged due to academia’s ongoing gender war.
Note however that, in ironic contrast to eco-socialism, eco-feminism seems to regard class struggle as very real -- not a first cause but a major symptom, another manifestation of the patriarchal war against woman and Nature that is brought to horrific (and probably terminal) expression in Abrahamic theology (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) and its seemingly secular derivitives: capitalism, capitalism’s ultimate fulfillment in fascism and the various phallus-shaped thermonuclear doomsday machines and bio-bombs intended to kill forever. (The single best source on this absolutely vital mode of feminist thinking is The Great Cosmic Mother, a misleadingly titled work -- the publishers rejected the original title as too subversively political and therefore too obviously of general interest -- by Barbara Mor with contributions from Monica Sjöö.)
As it happens, I believe the eco-feminist position is the historically correct position -- even Marx suggests that the emergence of private property (and thus class struggle) was occasioned by the forcible imposition of patriarchy. Perhaps too I should note here that I do NOT fault American feminism for its political theory -- most of which (with the notable exception of the demand for tyranny implicit in the Catharine MacKinnon/Andrea Dworkin “freedom is slavery” doctrine) -- I wholeheartedly applaud even when it makes me uncomfortable. Instead I condemn it for the fact it willingly opened its legs to corporate co-optation and thus became -- rather gleefully in every instance personally known to me -- an exceptionally malicious collaborator in the ruling class war of subjugation: witness not just my own experience but how corporate manipulation of “equal employment opportunity” destroys unions, subverts workplace solidarity and demonstrably reduces the number of males -- especially minority males -- in the workforce.
I also believe recognition that class struggle evolved as a reaction to patriarchy (rather than a reaction to abstract “economic conditions”) illuminates a hitherto unrecognized metaphysical dimension of class struggle. (So-called Liberation Theology attempted to do this but failed because the tyrannical mandates at the core of Abrahamic doctrine ultimately define "liberation" in any form as defiance of god, thereby making the concept of "Liberation Theology" self-contradictory and perhaps also reducing the term to an oxymoron.) In any case, acknowledgement that class struggle may include a metaphysical dimension uniquely leverages such struggle into position for potential resolution of the ancient Western conflict between idealism and materialism.
Mor’s work suggests that if you follow class-struggle to its roots, you find the struggle is the basic human (male and female) response to patriarchy’s decree that the ultimate male fulfillment is conquest. In eco-feminist terms, this means that class struggle arose in response to the original expression of idealism: the concept -- utterly irrational in phenomenological terms -- of the self-contained father-god as owner/creator (and therefore justifiably slayer/conqueror/enslaver) of the world -- this as opposed to the original expression of materialism: the Great Mother. In other words, the concept of the father god was the first spurious assertion of the demonstrably false notion that matter (mater or the Mother) arises from ideals (and is thus rightfully subservient to them) rather than vice versa: not "in the beginning was the Mother" (matter/Mater), but "In the beginning was the Word" (the idea). Thus was overthrown the phenomenological (hence materialistic) expression of a living universe who gives birth to us all.
Such a (mater-ial) universe is equally expressible in metaphor or scientific fact -- no doubt the ultimate reason for the deadly hostility to science characteristic of all Abrahamic theology. Note for instance the fact all life is originally female -- a truth rediscovered by modern biology in courageous defiance of Abrahamic taboo but still largely suppressed in the (once again) ever-more-openly theocratic United States. That this hugely significant fact is typically denied all high-school biology students and even excluded from most lower-division college biology courses -- the exclusions due entirely to (theoretically illegal) Christian censorship exercised via legitimate government -- is another dismal example of the extent to which the United States is a defacto theocracy.
Given Marx’s profound interest in prehistoric and so-called “primitive” societies -- one of my earliest understandings of Marxism is that it recognizes economic democracy as the original condition of humanity and thus seeks to restore it -- I have difficulty believing Marx would object to the above enlargement of the meanings of materialism and class-struggle. Furthermore I remain convinced that such a reinterpretation -- technically eco-feminist rather than eco-socialist -- would heal many of the schisms that presently obstruct the emergence of any new political solidarity.
I eagerly await your critical response.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Capital and Nature
PPLE
05-07-2007, 07:49 AM
Concerning the cosmic evolution we can endorse the intuition of scholars like Teilhard de Chardin, (The Phenomenon of Man). The concept has its roots in the most genuine origins of philosophy, as made clear by the pre-Socratics. The world strives to attain its unity. It has an arche, or natural ruling principle. What kind of arche would be consistent with a true global unity? According to Teilhard, "Unity enlarges itself only through a growth of consciousness, and therefore the history of the living world consists in the elaboration of ever more perfect eyes."7 The arche is consciousness; in Greek terms, "nous" or "logos." We are entitled to contemplate our contemporary globalization as a part of the universal march towards unity. The question now is to what extent our globalization constitutes a special stage because of its distinctive degree of consciousness. On the one hand, there has never been so much talk about something like this. Today we have technical means available to multiply the spread of any fashionable idea. On the other hand, however, such frequency of the topic and of certain words like "globalization" does not secure the depth and intensity of a worldwide global consciousness. The extraordinarily large gap between the few rich and the many poor is increasing. The gap has never been so scandalous, and it is due to our historical production surplus. Production has been globalized by means of the international division of labor, but distribution of benefits has not been globalized. As things stand, a common planet-consciousness is impossible. A consumerist mentality takes no account of the reality of a life of abject poverty…The one promising aspect of this chaos is its being considered unnatural. It seems as though the Tellurian forces of humanity demand an effective, close union of humanity. This is a joint teaching of anthropology and history. People from very different cultures are meeting and living together on a scale never seen in the 20th century. Cultures are discovering not only their particular identities, but also their own universal values by meeting face to face with other cultures. This happens superficially on the basis of today's phase of globalization: new international markets, new massive emigrations, new planet-wide media. It is a matter of degree and acceleration. But on a deeper level the global meeting of the human race rests on a common human nature, although many cultural anthropologists are still reluctant to use that term.
Alas, even as López repudiates the revolution-by-fantasy cult that has taken root in the industrial world (the so-called but misleadingly named New Age phenomenon, which he derides as yet another form of “capitalist homogenization,”), he joins hands with the New Agers by his absurd belief in the creation and expansion of the global slave state as “part of a universal march towards unity” when science proves it is in fact the diametric opposite: the final triumph of the death impulse that coexists, yin unto yang, as part of human consciousness.
(I suspect a Marxist critique would agree with the first half of my statement -- that López appears to contradict himself just as I have noted -- though I will here typically defer to Anax. The second half of my statement is of course another expression of what Anax calls my “fire and brimstone socialism,” a characterization that is indeed apt and which I also accept with the good humor of self-recognition.)
Consider this frame:
There is an inevitability to socialism.
It will come into being when the consciousness of men has been changed by the vicious change in his culture via globalization.
The controversy is in whether the viciousness is yet sufficient to illuminate the need for wholesale change or not, a vision clouded by the moronating charms of consumerism that obscure absolute poverty, and thus empathy.
That's what I comprehend.
It is fair to say that we do not need to get involved with the guru BS, but at the same time is it is also fair to say that, like our dynamic global economy, consciousness is also changing all the time.
And as Karl said, consciousness is a product of society, not the other more intuitive-seeming way around.
05-07-2007, 07:49 AM
Concerning the cosmic evolution we can endorse the intuition of scholars like Teilhard de Chardin, (The Phenomenon of Man). The concept has its roots in the most genuine origins of philosophy, as made clear by the pre-Socratics. The world strives to attain its unity. It has an arche, or natural ruling principle. What kind of arche would be consistent with a true global unity? According to Teilhard, "Unity enlarges itself only through a growth of consciousness, and therefore the history of the living world consists in the elaboration of ever more perfect eyes."7 The arche is consciousness; in Greek terms, "nous" or "logos." We are entitled to contemplate our contemporary globalization as a part of the universal march towards unity. The question now is to what extent our globalization constitutes a special stage because of its distinctive degree of consciousness. On the one hand, there has never been so much talk about something like this. Today we have technical means available to multiply the spread of any fashionable idea. On the other hand, however, such frequency of the topic and of certain words like "globalization" does not secure the depth and intensity of a worldwide global consciousness. The extraordinarily large gap between the few rich and the many poor is increasing. The gap has never been so scandalous, and it is due to our historical production surplus. Production has been globalized by means of the international division of labor, but distribution of benefits has not been globalized. As things stand, a common planet-consciousness is impossible. A consumerist mentality takes no account of the reality of a life of abject poverty…The one promising aspect of this chaos is its being considered unnatural. It seems as though the Tellurian forces of humanity demand an effective, close union of humanity. This is a joint teaching of anthropology and history. People from very different cultures are meeting and living together on a scale never seen in the 20th century. Cultures are discovering not only their particular identities, but also their own universal values by meeting face to face with other cultures. This happens superficially on the basis of today's phase of globalization: new international markets, new massive emigrations, new planet-wide media. It is a matter of degree and acceleration. But on a deeper level the global meeting of the human race rests on a common human nature, although many cultural anthropologists are still reluctant to use that term.
Alas, even as López repudiates the revolution-by-fantasy cult that has taken root in the industrial world (the so-called but misleadingly named New Age phenomenon, which he derides as yet another form of “capitalist homogenization,”), he joins hands with the New Agers by his absurd belief in the creation and expansion of the global slave state as “part of a universal march towards unity” when science proves it is in fact the diametric opposite: the final triumph of the death impulse that coexists, yin unto yang, as part of human consciousness.
(I suspect a Marxist critique would agree with the first half of my statement -- that López appears to contradict himself just as I have noted -- though I will here typically defer to Anax. The second half of my statement is of course another expression of what Anax calls my “fire and brimstone socialism,” a characterization that is indeed apt and which I also accept with the good humor of self-recognition.)
Consider this frame:
There is an inevitability to socialism.
It will come into being when the consciousness of men has been changed by the vicious change in his culture via globalization.
The controversy is in whether the viciousness is yet sufficient to illuminate the need for wholesale change or not, a vision clouded by the moronating charms of consumerism that obscure absolute poverty, and thus empathy.
That's what I comprehend.
It is fair to say that we do not need to get involved with the guru BS, but at the same time is it is also fair to say that, like our dynamic global economy, consciousness is also changing all the time.
And as Karl said, consciousness is a product of society, not the other more intuitive-seeming way around.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Capital and Nature
Kid of the Black Hole
05-07-2007, 10:36 AM
Hey Wolf
That's a great stretch of two posts there, but I have one (maybe obvious) question. Can you sketch out the political theory you're talking about here?
Perhaps too I should note here that I do NOT fault American feminism for its political theory -- most of which (with the notable exception of the demand for tyranny implicit in the Catharine MacKinnon/Andrea Dworkin “freedom is slavery” doctrine) -- I wholeheartedly applaud even when it makes me uncomfortable
05-07-2007, 10:36 AM
Hey Wolf
That's a great stretch of two posts there, but I have one (maybe obvious) question. Can you sketch out the political theory you're talking about here?
Perhaps too I should note here that I do NOT fault American feminism for its political theory -- most of which (with the notable exception of the demand for tyranny implicit in the Catharine MacKinnon/Andrea Dworkin “freedom is slavery” doctrine) -- I wholeheartedly applaud even when it makes me uncomfortable
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Capital and Nature
Kid of the Black Hole
05-07-2007, 10:43 AM
Consider this frame:
There is an inevitability to socialism.
It will come into being when the consciousness of men has been changed by the vicious change in his culture via globalization.
The controversy is in whether the viciousness is yet sufficient to illuminate the need for wholesale change or not, a vision clouded by the moronating charms of consumerism that obscure absolute poverty, and thus empathy.
That's what I comprehend.
It is fair to say that we do not need to get involved with the guru BS, but at the same time is it is also fair to say that, like our dynamic global economy, consciousness is also changing all the time.
And as Karl said, consciousness is a product of society, not the other more intuitive-seeming way around.
If you're drawing the whole "inevitability" from Marx's *materialism* you need to remember that there's no requisite of gradualism. There won't necessarily be a nuclear clock (per the theory) and there might in fact be great despair and hopelessness beforehand - right beforehand even..almost Biblical.
And, consciousness is probably a misnomer given how much it gets flung around as a New Age catch-phrase. Besides, the inevitability is based as much on historical truths, patterns and (re)developments as it is on any tenets of philosophy.
05-07-2007, 10:43 AM
Consider this frame:
There is an inevitability to socialism.
It will come into being when the consciousness of men has been changed by the vicious change in his culture via globalization.
The controversy is in whether the viciousness is yet sufficient to illuminate the need for wholesale change or not, a vision clouded by the moronating charms of consumerism that obscure absolute poverty, and thus empathy.
That's what I comprehend.
It is fair to say that we do not need to get involved with the guru BS, but at the same time is it is also fair to say that, like our dynamic global economy, consciousness is also changing all the time.
And as Karl said, consciousness is a product of society, not the other more intuitive-seeming way around.
If you're drawing the whole "inevitability" from Marx's *materialism* you need to remember that there's no requisite of gradualism. There won't necessarily be a nuclear clock (per the theory) and there might in fact be great despair and hopelessness beforehand - right beforehand even..almost Biblical.
And, consciousness is probably a misnomer given how much it gets flung around as a New Age catch-phrase. Besides, the inevitability is based as much on historical truths, patterns and (re)developments as it is on any tenets of philosophy.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Capital and Nature
PPLE
05-07-2007, 11:13 AM
An important one-liner, imo:
“In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter Into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.”
Karl Marx's
A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
Written: 1859
Publisher: Progress Publishers, Moscow
First Published:1859
Translated: S.W. Ryazanskaya
On-Line Version: Marx.org 1993 (Preface, 1993), Marxists.org 1999
Transcribed: Tim Delaney, Zodiac
HTML Markup: Tim Delaney 1999
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... reface.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... reface.htm)
Here, and years earlier, he has more to say about consciousness and man's social existence:
The further the separate spheres, which interact on one another, extend in the course of this development, the more the original isolation of the separate nationalities is destroyed by the developed mode of production and intercourse and the division of labour between various nations naturally brought forth by these, the more history becomes world history. Thus, for instance, if in England a machine is invented, which deprives countless workers of bread in India and China, and overturns the whole form of existence of these empires, this invention becomes a world-historical fact. Or again, take the case of sugar and coffee which have proved their world-historical importance in the nineteenth century by the fact that the lack of these products, occasioned by the Napoleonic Continental System, caused the Germans to rise against Napoleon, and thus became the real basis of the glorious Wars of liberation of 1813. From this it follows that this transformation of history into world history is not indeed a mere abstract act on the part of the “self-consciousness,” the world spirit, or of any other metaphysical spectre, but a quite material, empirically verifiable act, an act the proof of which every individual furnishes as he comes and goes, eats, drinks and clothes himself.
[7. Summary of the Materialist Conception of History]
This conception of history depends on our ability to expound the real process of production, starting out from the material production of life itself, and to comprehend the form of intercourse connected with this and created by this mode of production (i.e. civil society in its various stages), as the basis of all history; and to show it in its action as State, to explain all the different theoretical products and forms of consciousness, religion, philosophy, ethics, etc. etc. and trace their origins and growth from that basis; by which means, of course, the whole thing can be depicted in its totality (and therefore, too, the reciprocal action of these various sides on one another). It has not, like the idealistic view of history, in every period to look for a category, but remains constantly on the real ground of history; it does not explain practice from the idea but explains the formation of ideas from material practice; and accordingly it comes to the conclusion that all forms and products of consciousness cannot be dissolved by mental criticism, by resolution into “self-consciousness” or transformation into “apparitions,” “spectres,” “fancies,” etc. but only by the practical overthrow of the actual social relations which gave rise to this idealistic humbug; that not criticism but revolution is the driving force of history, also of religion, of philosophy and all other types of theory. It shows that history does not end by being resolved into “self-consciousness as spirit of the spirit,” but that in it at each stage there is found a material result: a sum of productive forces, an historically created relation of individuals to nature and to one another, which is handed down to each generation from its predecessor; a mass of productive forces, capital funds and conditions, which, on the one hand, is indeed modified by the new generation, but also on the other prescribes for it its conditions of life and gives it a definite development, a special character. It shows that circumstances make men just as much as men make circumstances.
Karl Marx
The German Ideology
Part I: Feuerbach.
Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook
B. The Illusion of the Epoch
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... /ch01b.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... /ch01b.htm)
05-07-2007, 11:13 AM
Seems to me we should be careful not to demonize the term consciousness. Marx was not hesitant to use it, nor Pisarev. Meanings do have a fluidity that perhaps demand our precision in thinking and using certain terms, but to throw them out is unwarranted.Consider this frame:
There is an inevitability to socialism.
It will come into being when the consciousness of men has been changed by the vicious change in his culture via globalization.
The controversy is in whether the viciousness is yet sufficient to illuminate the need for wholesale change or not, a vision clouded by the moronating charms of consumerism that obscure absolute poverty, and thus empathy.
That's what I comprehend.
It is fair to say that we do not need to get involved with the guru BS, but at the same time is it is also fair to say that, like our dynamic global economy, consciousness is also changing all the time.
And as Karl said, consciousness is a product of society, not the other more intuitive-seeming way around.
If you're drawing the whole "inevitability" from Marx's *materialism* you need to remember that there's no requisite of gradualism. There won't necessarily be a nuclear clock (per the theory) and there might in fact be great despair and hopelessness beforehand - right beforehand even..almost Biblical.
And, consciousness is probably a misnomer given how much it gets flung around as a New Age catch-phrase. Besides, the inevitability is based as much on historical truths, patterns and (re)developments as it is on any tenets of philosophy.
An important one-liner, imo:
“In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter Into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.”
Karl Marx's
A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
Written: 1859
Publisher: Progress Publishers, Moscow
First Published:1859
Translated: S.W. Ryazanskaya
On-Line Version: Marx.org 1993 (Preface, 1993), Marxists.org 1999
Transcribed: Tim Delaney, Zodiac
HTML Markup: Tim Delaney 1999
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... reface.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... reface.htm)
Here, and years earlier, he has more to say about consciousness and man's social existence:
The further the separate spheres, which interact on one another, extend in the course of this development, the more the original isolation of the separate nationalities is destroyed by the developed mode of production and intercourse and the division of labour between various nations naturally brought forth by these, the more history becomes world history. Thus, for instance, if in England a machine is invented, which deprives countless workers of bread in India and China, and overturns the whole form of existence of these empires, this invention becomes a world-historical fact. Or again, take the case of sugar and coffee which have proved their world-historical importance in the nineteenth century by the fact that the lack of these products, occasioned by the Napoleonic Continental System, caused the Germans to rise against Napoleon, and thus became the real basis of the glorious Wars of liberation of 1813. From this it follows that this transformation of history into world history is not indeed a mere abstract act on the part of the “self-consciousness,” the world spirit, or of any other metaphysical spectre, but a quite material, empirically verifiable act, an act the proof of which every individual furnishes as he comes and goes, eats, drinks and clothes himself.
[7. Summary of the Materialist Conception of History]
This conception of history depends on our ability to expound the real process of production, starting out from the material production of life itself, and to comprehend the form of intercourse connected with this and created by this mode of production (i.e. civil society in its various stages), as the basis of all history; and to show it in its action as State, to explain all the different theoretical products and forms of consciousness, religion, philosophy, ethics, etc. etc. and trace their origins and growth from that basis; by which means, of course, the whole thing can be depicted in its totality (and therefore, too, the reciprocal action of these various sides on one another). It has not, like the idealistic view of history, in every period to look for a category, but remains constantly on the real ground of history; it does not explain practice from the idea but explains the formation of ideas from material practice; and accordingly it comes to the conclusion that all forms and products of consciousness cannot be dissolved by mental criticism, by resolution into “self-consciousness” or transformation into “apparitions,” “spectres,” “fancies,” etc. but only by the practical overthrow of the actual social relations which gave rise to this idealistic humbug; that not criticism but revolution is the driving force of history, also of religion, of philosophy and all other types of theory. It shows that history does not end by being resolved into “self-consciousness as spirit of the spirit,” but that in it at each stage there is found a material result: a sum of productive forces, an historically created relation of individuals to nature and to one another, which is handed down to each generation from its predecessor; a mass of productive forces, capital funds and conditions, which, on the one hand, is indeed modified by the new generation, but also on the other prescribes for it its conditions of life and gives it a definite development, a special character. It shows that circumstances make men just as much as men make circumstances.
Karl Marx
The German Ideology
Part I: Feuerbach.
Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook
B. The Illusion of the Epoch
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... /ch01b.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... /ch01b.htm)
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Capital and Nature
anaxarchos
05-07-2007, 11:23 AM
And as far as "consciousness" goes, "you are what you eat"... (no, I don't mean personally).
05-07-2007, 11:23 AM
"Inevitability" is simply an observation that social evolution does not stop, just as biological evolution does not, and, in fact, may be part and parcel of the same process. Human society does not plateau just because some think that with the invention of the Mutual Fund and the Reality TV Show, society has reached the highest pinnacle that it ever needs to achieve. KOBH is right that it is a historical observation as to form... not that much of a stretch, though, considering how the forces of production strain against the social relations organizing them (I'm surprised that this is not a major root of a form of "eco-socialism").Consider this frame:
There is an inevitability to socialism.
It will come into being when the consciousness of men has been changed by the vicious change in his culture via globalization.
The controversy is in whether the viciousness is yet sufficient to illuminate the need for wholesale change or not, a vision clouded by the moronating charms of consumerism that obscure absolute poverty, and thus empathy.
That's what I comprehend.
It is fair to say that we do not need to get involved with the guru BS, but at the same time is it is also fair to say that, like our dynamic global economy, consciousness is also changing all the time.
And as Karl said, consciousness is a product of society, not the other more intuitive-seeming way around.
If you're drawing the whole "inevitability" from Marx's *materialism* you need to remember that there's no requisite of gradualism. There won't necessarily be a nuclear clock (per the theory) and there might in fact be great despair and hopelessness beforehand - right beforehand even..almost Biblical.
And, consciousness is probably a misnomer given how much it gets flung around as a New Age catch-phrase. Besides, the inevitability is based as much on historical truths, patterns and (re)developments as it is on any tenets of philosophy.
And as far as "consciousness" goes, "you are what you eat"... (no, I don't mean personally).
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Capital and Nature
anaxarchos
05-07-2007, 03:08 PM
Wow...
Yes, precisely.
05-07-2007, 03:08 PM
For someone who claims that Marx, "makes my head hurt", your headache is nowhere to be seen, above.Seems to me we should be careful not to demonize the term consciousness. Marx was not hesitant to use it, nor Pisarev. Meanings do have a fluidity that perhaps demand our precision in thinking and using certain terms, but to throw them out is unwarranted.Consider this frame:
There is an inevitability to socialism.
It will come into being when the consciousness of men has been changed by the vicious change in his culture via globalization.
The controversy is in whether the viciousness is yet sufficient to illuminate the need for wholesale change or not, a vision clouded by the moronating charms of consumerism that obscure absolute poverty, and thus empathy.
That's what I comprehend.
It is fair to say that we do not need to get involved with the guru BS, but at the same time is it is also fair to say that, like our dynamic global economy, consciousness is also changing all the time.
And as Karl said, consciousness is a product of society, not the other more intuitive-seeming way around.
If you're drawing the whole "inevitability" from Marx's *materialism* you need to remember that there's no requisite of gradualism. There won't necessarily be a nuclear clock (per the theory) and there might in fact be great despair and hopelessness beforehand - right beforehand even..almost Biblical.
And, consciousness is probably a misnomer given how much it gets flung around as a New Age catch-phrase. Besides, the inevitability is based as much on historical truths, patterns and (re)developments as it is on any tenets of philosophy.
An important one-liner, imo:
“In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter Into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.”
Karl Marx's
A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
Written: 1859
Publisher: Progress Publishers, Moscow
First Published:1859
Translated: S.W. Ryazanskaya
On-Line Version: Marx.org 1993 (Preface, 1993), Marxists.org 1999
Transcribed: Tim Delaney, Zodiac
HTML Markup: Tim Delaney 1999
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... reface.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... reface.htm)
Here, and years earlier, he has more to say about consciousness and man's social existence:
The further the separate spheres, which interact on one another, extend in the course of this development, the more the original isolation of the separate nationalities is destroyed by the developed mode of production and intercourse and the division of labour between various nations naturally brought forth by these, the more history becomes world history. Thus, for instance, if in England a machine is invented, which deprives countless workers of bread in India and China, and overturns the whole form of existence of these empires, this invention becomes a world-historical fact. Or again, take the case of sugar and coffee which have proved their world-historical importance in the nineteenth century by the fact that the lack of these products, occasioned by the Napoleonic Continental System, caused the Germans to rise against Napoleon, and thus became the real basis of the glorious Wars of liberation of 1813. From this it follows that this transformation of history into world history is not indeed a mere abstract act on the part of the “self-consciousness,” the world spirit, or of any other metaphysical spectre, but a quite material, empirically verifiable act, an act the proof of which every individual furnishes as he comes and goes, eats, drinks and clothes himself.
[7. Summary of the Materialist Conception of History]
This conception of history depends on our ability to expound the real process of production, starting out from the material production of life itself, and to comprehend the form of intercourse connected with this and created by this mode of production (i.e. civil society in its various stages), as the basis of all history; and to show it in its action as State, to explain all the different theoretical products and forms of consciousness, religion, philosophy, ethics, etc. etc. and trace their origins and growth from that basis; by which means, of course, the whole thing can be depicted in its totality (and therefore, too, the reciprocal action of these various sides on one another). It has not, like the idealistic view of history, in every period to look for a category, but remains constantly on the real ground of history; it does not explain practice from the idea but explains the formation of ideas from material practice; and accordingly it comes to the conclusion that all forms and products of consciousness cannot be dissolved by mental criticism, by resolution into “self-consciousness” or transformation into “apparitions,” “spectres,” “fancies,” etc. but only by the practical overthrow of the actual social relations which gave rise to this idealistic humbug; that not criticism but revolution is the driving force of history, also of religion, of philosophy and all other types of theory. It shows that history does not end by being resolved into “self-consciousness as spirit of the spirit,” but that in it at each stage there is found a material result: a sum of productive forces, an historically created relation of individuals to nature and to one another, which is handed down to each generation from its predecessor; a mass of productive forces, capital funds and conditions, which, on the one hand, is indeed modified by the new generation, but also on the other prescribes for it its conditions of life and gives it a definite development, a special character. It shows that circumstances make men just as much as men make circumstances.
Karl Marx
The German Ideology
Part I: Feuerbach.
Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook
B. The Illusion of the Epoch
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... /ch01b.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... /ch01b.htm)
Wow...
Yes, precisely.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Capital and Nature
PPLE
05-07-2007, 03:19 PM
Aw, it's the detailed economic discussion that makes me drown in prose. I'll get used to him and maybe even come to love his writing once I read enough. Kinda like it was with Loren
05-07-2007, 03:19 PM
.Consider this frame:
There is an inevitability to socialism.
It will come into being when the consciousness of men has been changed by the vicious change in his culture via globalization.
The controversy is in whether the viciousness is yet sufficient to illuminate the need for wholesale change or not, a vision clouded by the moronating charms of consumerism that obscure absolute poverty, and thus empathy.
That's what I comprehend.
It is fair to say that we do not need to get involved with the guru BS, but at the same time is it is also fair to say that, like our dynamic global economy, consciousness is also changing all the time.
And as Karl said, consciousness is a product of society, not the other more intuitive-seeming way around.
If you're drawing the whole "inevitability" from Marx's *materialism* you need to remember that there's no requisite of gradualism. There won't necessarily be a nuclear clock (per the theory) and there might in fact be great despair and hopelessness beforehand - right beforehand even..almost Biblical.
And, consciousness is probably a misnomer given how much it gets flung around as a New Age catch-phrase. Besides, the inevitability is based as much on historical truths, patterns and (re)developments as it is on any tenets of philosophy.
Seems to me we should be careful not to demonize the term consciousness. Marx was not hesitant to use it, nor Pisarev. Meanings do have a fluidity that perhaps demand our precision in thinking and using certain terms, but to throw them out is unwarranted.
An important one-liner, imo:
It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.”
For someone who claims that Marx, "makes my head hurt", your headache is nowhere to be seen, above.
Wow...
Yes, precisely.
Aw, it's the detailed economic discussion that makes me drown in prose. I'll get used to him and maybe even come to love his writing once I read enough. Kinda like it was with Loren
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Capital and Nature
PPLE
05-08-2007, 06:01 PM
While his ironically postmodern refusal to acknowledge the historical record is dismayingly typical, it is nevertheless an absolute historical truth that Islam -- without any provocation whatsoever -- launched its theocratic war against all civilization both Occidental and Oriental nearly 13 centuries
Someone care to expound on this history in a manner that would comport with a World Historical Event as Marx describes?
From a post of mine downthread we can again see what Marx said about history:
Here, and years earlier, he has more to say about consciousness and man's social existence:
The further the separate spheres, which interact on one another, extend in the course of this development, the more the original isolation of the separate nationalities is destroyed by the developed mode of production and intercourse and the division of labour between various nations naturally brought forth by these, the more history becomes world history. Thus, for instance, if in England a machine is invented, which deprives countless workers of bread in India and China, and overturns the whole form of existence of these empires, this invention becomes a world-historical fact. Or again, take the case of sugar and coffee which have proved their world-historical importance in the nineteenth century by the fact that the lack of these products, occasioned by the Napoleonic Continental System, caused the Germans to rise against Napoleon, and thus became the real basis of the glorious Wars of liberation of 1813. From this it follows that this transformation of history into world history is not indeed a mere abstract act on the part of the “self-consciousness,” the world spirit, or of any other metaphysical spectre, but a quite material, empirically verifiable act, an act the proof of which every individual furnishes as he comes and goes, eats, drinks and clothes himself.
[7. Summary of the Materialist Conception of History]
This conception of history depends on our ability to expound the real process of production, starting out from the material production of life itself, and to comprehend the form of intercourse connected with this and created by this mode of production (i.e. civil society in its various stages), as the basis of all history; and to show it in its action as State, to explain all the different theoretical products and forms of consciousness, religion, philosophy, ethics, etc. etc. and trace their origins and growth from that basis; by which means, of course, the whole thing can be depicted in its totality (and therefore, too, the reciprocal action of these various sides on one another). It has not, like the idealistic view of history, in every period to look for a category, but remains constantly on the real ground of history; it does not explain practice from the idea but explains the formation of ideas from material practice; and accordingly it comes to the conclusion that all forms and products of consciousness cannot be dissolved by mental criticism, by resolution into “self-consciousness” or transformation into “apparitions,” “spectres,” “fancies,” etc. but only by the practical overthrow of the actual social relations which gave rise to this idealistic humbug; that not criticism but revolution is the driving force of history, also of religion, of philosophy and all other types of theory. It shows that history does not end by being resolved into “self-consciousness as spirit of the spirit,” but that in it at each stage there is found a material result: a sum of productive forces, an historically created relation of individuals to nature and to one another, which is handed down to each generation from its predecessor; a mass of productive forces, capital funds and conditions, which, on the one hand, is indeed modified by the new generation, but also on the other prescribes for it its conditions of life and gives it a definite development, a special character. It shows that circumstances make men just as much as men make circumstances.
Karl Marx
The German Ideology
Part I: Feuerbach.
Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook
B. The Illusion of the Epoch
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... /ch01b.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... /ch01b.htm)
At risk of another completely undesired dust-up for no good reason, I again ask is this comment in keeping with materialist analysis? And if so, how does it explain for us the progression of history, such as it was some 700 years ago? I cannot seem to analyze this unless I think in bigoted terms? Am I missing something?
05-08-2007, 06:01 PM
While his ironically postmodern refusal to acknowledge the historical record is dismayingly typical, it is nevertheless an absolute historical truth that Islam -- without any provocation whatsoever -- launched its theocratic war against all civilization both Occidental and Oriental nearly 13 centuries
Someone care to expound on this history in a manner that would comport with a World Historical Event as Marx describes?
From a post of mine downthread we can again see what Marx said about history:
Here, and years earlier, he has more to say about consciousness and man's social existence:
The further the separate spheres, which interact on one another, extend in the course of this development, the more the original isolation of the separate nationalities is destroyed by the developed mode of production and intercourse and the division of labour between various nations naturally brought forth by these, the more history becomes world history. Thus, for instance, if in England a machine is invented, which deprives countless workers of bread in India and China, and overturns the whole form of existence of these empires, this invention becomes a world-historical fact. Or again, take the case of sugar and coffee which have proved their world-historical importance in the nineteenth century by the fact that the lack of these products, occasioned by the Napoleonic Continental System, caused the Germans to rise against Napoleon, and thus became the real basis of the glorious Wars of liberation of 1813. From this it follows that this transformation of history into world history is not indeed a mere abstract act on the part of the “self-consciousness,” the world spirit, or of any other metaphysical spectre, but a quite material, empirically verifiable act, an act the proof of which every individual furnishes as he comes and goes, eats, drinks and clothes himself.
[7. Summary of the Materialist Conception of History]
This conception of history depends on our ability to expound the real process of production, starting out from the material production of life itself, and to comprehend the form of intercourse connected with this and created by this mode of production (i.e. civil society in its various stages), as the basis of all history; and to show it in its action as State, to explain all the different theoretical products and forms of consciousness, religion, philosophy, ethics, etc. etc. and trace their origins and growth from that basis; by which means, of course, the whole thing can be depicted in its totality (and therefore, too, the reciprocal action of these various sides on one another). It has not, like the idealistic view of history, in every period to look for a category, but remains constantly on the real ground of history; it does not explain practice from the idea but explains the formation of ideas from material practice; and accordingly it comes to the conclusion that all forms and products of consciousness cannot be dissolved by mental criticism, by resolution into “self-consciousness” or transformation into “apparitions,” “spectres,” “fancies,” etc. but only by the practical overthrow of the actual social relations which gave rise to this idealistic humbug; that not criticism but revolution is the driving force of history, also of religion, of philosophy and all other types of theory. It shows that history does not end by being resolved into “self-consciousness as spirit of the spirit,” but that in it at each stage there is found a material result: a sum of productive forces, an historically created relation of individuals to nature and to one another, which is handed down to each generation from its predecessor; a mass of productive forces, capital funds and conditions, which, on the one hand, is indeed modified by the new generation, but also on the other prescribes for it its conditions of life and gives it a definite development, a special character. It shows that circumstances make men just as much as men make circumstances.
Karl Marx
The German Ideology
Part I: Feuerbach.
Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook
B. The Illusion of the Epoch
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... /ch01b.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... /ch01b.htm)
At risk of another completely undesired dust-up for no good reason, I again ask is this comment in keeping with materialist analysis? And if so, how does it explain for us the progression of history, such as it was some 700 years ago? I cannot seem to analyze this unless I think in bigoted terms? Am I missing something?
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."