4 ms·

> The marxist perspective for example based in isolation and collectivism, with the assumptions of the static unchanging individual. Maybe i'm reading the syna

by gtsop 2y ago

> The marxist perspective for example based in isolation and collectivism, with the assumptions of the static unchanging individual. Maybe i'm reading the synatx wrong here, but if you are implying that marxism has a static unchaning view of the individual then this is the complete opposite of marxism. Dialectial materialsim (marxism) has the never ending change (movement) of everything in it's very core of it's philosophical understanding. There is literally nothing more distilled for a marxist that everything in the universe changes, let alone the individual. Not sure how you arrived at that rationale.

trod1234 2y ago
> but if you are implying that marxism has a static unchanging view of the individual then this is completely opposite of marxism. It is all about class identity with Marxism. I think you may be conflating aspects of dialectical materialism with Marxism. The two while linked, are not the same. Marxism is a political and social philosophy that aims to change society, while dialectical materialism is a way of understanding the world. Understandably there is some overlap, but there are distinctions and conflicts too in practice. For Marxism, it ultimately comes down to class identity which is treated as unchanging in practice. Analysis is all about the class not the individual, which goes to classic Marx and Engels in their Manifesto. Praxis was a transformation of Hegel's Idealisms Geist as a method of change (albeit its been awhile, so I may misremember the details here). Dialectical materialism unlike Marxism doesn't have unchanging class, instead it says classes support their class interest, sidestepping the issue, albeit allowing for some change but not much. A nuanced distinction. Under Marxism, if you were born as a a worker proletariat you remain a proletariat, everything else is structured around this overdetermination. The dynamic change you mention is based in praxis and is only ever in relation to their unchanging class identity. If you were born as a petty or hauty bourgeoisie, you are always one who supports them, regardless of change in circumstances, or free will, your perspectives are only ever first of that identity, and then may change through praxis but are always tethered to the former, and remain consistent and unchanging, where observation may deviate from ideology. This is the fundamental issue, because people can and do change their class identities over their lifetimes, based in the structured relationship of the means of their production. But members of such have nullified, discredited, and claimed that these don't change. Its only right to take them at their word (in practice). While variations have evolved over the years none really get away from the structuring element of class identity directing all other struggles. Marx uses the concept of overdetermination as does Hegel to describe this. All other struggles are in relation to this element. Its a static element, in most major derivations. There are also significant conflicts. Identity politics for example is more rooted in idealism as is intersectionality than in Marxism's dialectical materialism, and there's a philosophical conflict between idealism, and dialectical materialism, that goes to the core of this philosophy. Discussions often results in reductionist behavior by its proponents on either side. If I'm remembering correctly I believe Žižek covers these nuances in some detail, though not very satisfactorily overall in my opinion. Digesting some of the things Zizek says, going back to basics in the Manifesto, and a number of other experiences led me to this rationale culminating in the observations I relayed before.
- gtsop 2y ago
  Ok so the answer to my question of where you got all that is: Zizek? You are reading marxism through the distorting eye of a middleman. Marxism, as you said, is a wider context than diamat, but not a different one. As you said, dialectical meterialism is the philosophy, the world view, which informs the subsequent aspects of marxism, that is socialism/communism and all the political aspects around it. To say that marxism has a static view on anything IS to say that diamat has a static view on anything because diamat is the "algorithm" of marxism. > Under Marxism, if you were born as a a worker proletariat you remain a proletariat, everything else is structured around this overdetermination. Where did you get this? Zizek? It is a different thing to say that "chances are you will remain a proletariat" than to say "it is impossible to change class, therefore you will remain a proletariat". The fist is true, the latter is false.
  - trod1234 2y ago
    > Zizek The nuances Yes, but the overall concept of overdetermination came from Marx/Engels, along with the observation of how its practiced, and others. > You are reading marxism through the distorting eye of a middleman. ... There are many who are dyed-in-the-wool Marxists who would disagree with this quite strongly. The philosophy is based solely in the mind and world-view whereas the Marxist ideology is based in practice and causality. > To say that marxism has a static view on anything IS to say that diamat has a static view on anything, because diamat is the "algorithm" of marxism. Except this is circular, and neglects that its only one part of the algorithm of marxism, and not the whole part. The two are not the same thing. There are elements in Marxism that do not exist in diamat. Identity politics for example. > It is a different thing to say that "chances are you will remain a proletariat", than to say "its impossible to change class, therefor you will remain a proletariat". Yes it is different, but not in the way you seem to think. The first is a likelihood that seems to follow aristotle's logic, but doesn't apply under Marxism. Under such a system no truth can be determined in statements based in likelihoods and indirections, let alone consistently, and there must be a consistent truth based in causality. Althusser touches on this in his works. The latter statement is an absolute, with contradictions that cannot form causally, so could be called false, dependent, and based on the class identity of the person saying so or being addressed. It all comes down to class.

by gtsop 2y ago

trod1234 2y ago

> but if you are implying that marxism has a static unchanging view of the individual then this is completely opposite of marxism. It is all about class identity with Marxism. I think you may be conflating aspects of dialectical materialism with Marxism. The two while linked, are not the same. Marxism is a political and social philosophy that aims to change society, while dialectical materialism is a way of understanding the world. Understandably there is some overlap, but there are distinctions and conflicts too in practice. For Marxism, it ultimately comes down to class identity which is treated as unchanging in practice. Analysis is all about the class not the individual, which goes to classic Marx and Engels in their Manifesto. Praxis was a transformation of Hegel's Idealisms Geist as a method of change (albeit its been awhile, so I may misremember the details here). Dialectical materialism unlike Marxism doesn't have unchanging class, instead it says classes support their class interest, sidestepping the issue, albeit allowing for some change but not much. A nuanced distinction. Under Marxism, if you were born as a a worker proletariat you remain a proletariat, everything else is structured around this overdetermination. The dynamic change you mention is based in praxis and is only ever in relation to their unchanging class identity. If you were born as a petty or hauty bourgeoisie, you are always one who supports them, regardless of change in circumstances, or free will, your perspectives are only ever first of that identity, and then may change through praxis but are always tethered to the former, and remain consistent and unchanging, where observation may deviate from ideology. This is the fundamental issue, because people can and do change their class identities over their lifetimes, based in the structured relationship of the means of their production. But members of such have nullified, discredited, and claimed that these don't change. Its only right to take them at their word (in practice). While variations have evolved over the years none really get away from the structuring element of class identity directing all other struggles. Marx uses the concept of overdetermination as does Hegel to describe this. All other struggles are in relation to this element. Its a static element, in most major derivations. There are also significant conflicts. Identity politics for example is more rooted in idealism as is intersectionality than in Marxism's dialectical materialism, and there's a philosophical conflict between idealism, and dialectical materialism, that goes to the core of this philosophy. Discussions often results in reductionist behavior by its proponents on either side. If I'm remembering correctly I believe Žižek covers these nuances in some detail, though not very satisfactorily overall in my opinion. Digesting some of the things Zizek says, going back to basics in the Manifesto, and a number of other experiences led me to this rationale culminating in the observations I relayed before.

gtsop 2y ago
Ok so the answer to my question of where you got all that is: Zizek? You are reading marxism through the distorting eye of a middleman. Marxism, as you said, is a wider context than diamat, but not a different one. As you said, dialectical meterialism is the philosophy, the world view, which informs the subsequent aspects of marxism, that is socialism/communism and all the political aspects around it. To say that marxism has a static view on anything IS to say that diamat has a static view on anything because diamat is the "algorithm" of marxism. > Under Marxism, if you were born as a a worker proletariat you remain a proletariat, everything else is structured around this overdetermination. Where did you get this? Zizek? It is a different thing to say that "chances are you will remain a proletariat" than to say "it is impossible to change class, therefore you will remain a proletariat". The fist is true, the latter is false.
- trod1234 2y ago
  > Zizek The nuances Yes, but the overall concept of overdetermination came from Marx/Engels, along with the observation of how its practiced, and others. > You are reading marxism through the distorting eye of a middleman. ... There are many who are dyed-in-the-wool Marxists who would disagree with this quite strongly. The philosophy is based solely in the mind and world-view whereas the Marxist ideology is based in practice and causality. > To say that marxism has a static view on anything IS to say that diamat has a static view on anything, because diamat is the "algorithm" of marxism. Except this is circular, and neglects that its only one part of the algorithm of marxism, and not the whole part. The two are not the same thing. There are elements in Marxism that do not exist in diamat. Identity politics for example. > It is a different thing to say that "chances are you will remain a proletariat", than to say "its impossible to change class, therefor you will remain a proletariat". Yes it is different, but not in the way you seem to think. The first is a likelihood that seems to follow aristotle's logic, but doesn't apply under Marxism. Under such a system no truth can be determined in statements based in likelihoods and indirections, let alone consistently, and there must be a consistent truth based in causality. Althusser touches on this in his works. The latter statement is an absolute, with contradictions that cannot form causally, so could be called false, dependent, and based on the class identity of the person saying so or being addressed. It all comes down to class.