17

I feel like I understand communist theory pretty well at a basic level, and I believe in it, but I just don't see what part of it requires belief in an objective world of matter. I don't believe in matter and I'm still a communist. And it seems that in the 21st century most people believe in materialism but not communism. What part of "people should have access to the stuff they need to live" requires believing that such stuff is real? After all, there are nonmaterial industries and they still need communism. Workers in the music industry are producing something that nearly everyone can agree only exists in our heads. And they're still exploited by capital, despite musical instruments being relatively cheap these days, because capital owns the system of distribution networks and access to consumers that is the means of profitability for music. Spotify isn't material, it's a computer program. It's information. It's a thoughtform. Yet it's still a means of production that ought to be seized for the liberation of the musician worker. What does materialism have to do with any of this?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] BeamBrain@hexbear.net 28 points 1 year ago

That's not what materialism means in the context of communist theory.

When communists talk about materialism, we generally refer to historical materialism, the theory that a society's culture and politics (its superstructure) are shaped by its material forces (its base). This isn't strictly a one-way street, mind - it's cyclical, with each exerting some influence on the other, though the base dominates. See this diagram. This view is generally contrasted with liberal idealism, which assumes that ideas and culture are the dominant drivers of society.

To give an example in the most straightforward terms possible, let's take the question: "What is the connection between the 19th century US southern aristocrats' Christianity and their support for slavery?"

Idealism says that these aristocrats were pro-slavery because they interpreted the Bible to be pro-slavery.

Materialism says that these aristocrats interpreted the Bible to be pro-slavery because they were pro-slavery.

Ultimately, they were following their economic and material interests in a society in which Christianity was the dominant religion. Anything they may have believed or professed to believe about Christianity emerged from that.

[-] DroneRights@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

Well I sure disagree with everything you just said. I think it's reductive, simplistic, and appeals to problematic realist sensitivities. What does everything you just said have to do with communism?

[-] mah@hexbear.net 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

so you are not a marxist, bye lol :)

i'm joking. but you really need to read about marxism.

What does everything you just said have to do with communism?

It's the very basics of our theory. and it's basically what i told you before.

ofc, you can believe in socialism without being a marxist. You might be interested in reading Polanyi for example.

[-] DroneRights@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No, I do understand everything you just said, I just think it's wrong and that a properly communist analysis would demonstrate that. Are you telling me that historical materialism is just one of multiple ways of arriving at communist conclusions?

[-] BeamBrain@hexbear.net 29 points 1 year ago

Half an hour ago, you didn't know what historical materialism meant. You are in no position to tell anyone what a "properly communist analysis" would demonstrate.

No investigation, no right to speak.

[-] mah@hexbear.net 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

i think they must be very young, no need to be hostile :)

i find this whole discussion kinda cute to be honest...

[-] DroneRights@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago

I knew what historical materialism meant, just didn't see what it had to do with communism other than Marx believed in it. I don't really understand Marx's thinking in associating the two, but this thread is helping. It seems like y'all are already materialists and just need a material analysis of class because you're not ready to understand the big stuff.

[-] WoofWoof91@hexbear.net 36 points 1 year ago

data-laughing

ok this is definitely an elaborate bit

[-] Judge_Jury@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago

Our problematic, highest-concept elaborate bitposter was banned two days before this account was created

[-] BeamBrain@hexbear.net 35 points 1 year ago

It seems like y'all are already materialists and just need a material analysis of class because you're not ready to understand the big stuff.

Oh, fuck off

[-] Parsani@hexbear.net 18 points 1 year ago

That quote should be a site tagline lmfao

[-] Abracadaniel@hexbear.net 12 points 1 year ago

che-smile

I fully understand the philosophical perspective you've adopted, I simply disagree with it.

[-] mah@hexbear.net 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Communism is usually associated with historical materialism, the theory that everyone here is trying to explain to you. However, there have been other forms of socialism before and after Marx. You might find interesting Henri de Saint-Simon and his theories, Paul Lafargue, or for another, more recent example of non-Marxist socialist, Karl Polanyi.

If you don't believe in Marxism, that's okay. But you need to study it first, and based on your original post, it might require some more time, patience, and reading.

[-] DroneRights@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

I think you and a lot of people in this thread have confused disagreement for ignorance due to a failure of cognitive empathy. Which is understandable, because neurotypical cognitive empathy doesn't work properly on autistic people. I'll check out those sources you linked.

[-] mah@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

lol, i see vast agreement in the answer you got. but you need to be a bit more careful and thoughtful. your ideas so far are a confused potpourri. you need to read what marxist theory and communism are, more than a few slogans. and this can be done just alone, with a book. perhaps start here: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/marx-a-very-short-introduction-9780198821076 (Marx: A Very Short Introduction - Peter Singer)

[-] Florist@hexbear.net 7 points 1 year ago

Do not read that, Singer is a terrible interpreter of Marx

[-] RedDawn@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago

I’ve never heard of Singer. Why is he bad?

[-] Florist@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago

I can't comment on his work as a whole, but his Marx Introduction book includes some major misreadings of Marx https://medium.com/@rahuldandekar2000/annotating-peter-singer-on-marx-decaa8d1ae66

load more comments (29 replies)
load more comments (29 replies)
this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
17 points (100.0% liked)

askchapo

22705 readers
383 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS