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

I'm not sure what you mean by mills shuffling around symbol

Take a screwdriver as an example. Its purpose is to screw and unscrew screws. Screws are a social construct. I can use the social construct of screws to fix the social construct of my air conditioner. That'll create the social construct of cold air, which will give me the pleasant sensation of staying cool in the summer. The screwdriver is just a tool for manipulating my perceptual interface to grant me pleasure. It's a cultural technology.

[-] PaX@hexbear.net 14 points 1 year ago

Interesting ideas. But if all humans disappeared suddenly, the screw, air conditioner, and screwdriver would still exist as specific configurations of atoms. It is true that humans have conceptions of what those things are but they are merely reflections of the real material things, not the things themselves. If the air conditioner activated on its own, after all humans were gone, it would still measurably cool the air (as in slow the speed of interactions between the molecules of the air).

[-] very_poggers_gay@hexbear.net 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The more OP comments, the less I believe OP is here in good faith, tbh. It's starting to feel like the user is here to waste people's time, prodding others to jump through infinite hoops of explaining basic theory while brushing everything off by saying "it's a social construct", "it's perception", etc...

like an unstoppable force (hexbearian posters) meeting an immovable object (wrecker that says everything is imaginary and nothing is real)

[-] PaX@hexbear.net 14 points 1 year ago

Yeahh idk lol. I'm just having fun at least just vibing to some music and replying. It's good mental exercise at least! I really need to reread Capital though

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

Haha, that’s valid. If nothing else, a good reminder for me not to take it so seriously 🙏 And also to read more theory

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

It couldn't measurably cool the air, because there would be nobody to measure it. But that's beside the point. The real point is: there would be nobody to believe in those atoms, which would render then nonexistent, because atoms are a mental construct. Even a materialist would agree with me there, if they'd heard of protons and neutrons.

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

How do you explain matter existing before humans could conceive of it?

[-] Abraxiel@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago

We didn't discover atoms in the sense of revealing some True Thing. We slowly built successive models of a set of phenomena we identify as atoms, which we continue to revise to make more reliable in descriptive and predictive applications and from there host of other applications.

From the best of our understanding it seems like matter exists independent of our belief or observation, which works well enough that we continue to use this understanding.

OP seems to reject this in favor of something like phenomena behaving in a way that's generated from our consciousness.

[-] PaX@hexbear.net 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is true. I didn't mean to imply atoms are the final, completely true, and perfectly-reflective-of-reality model of matter that will be developed.

I decided to edit the comment you replied to.

this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
17 points (100.0% liked)

askchapo

22766 readers
295 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