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

askchapo

23056 readers
402 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 5 years ago
MODERATORS
PorkrollPosadist@hexbear.net
replaceable@hexbear.net
VILenin@hexbear.net
EmmaGoldman@hexbear.net
SexUnderSocialism@hexbear.net
ZoomeristLeninist@hexbear.net
khizuo@hexbear.net
Sulvy@hexbear.net
17
What does materialism have to do with communism? (hexbear.net)
submitted 2 years ago by DroneRights@hexbear.net to c/askchapo@hexbear.net
148 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

it has been repeatedly proven that human beings respond to their environment with more intensity than their own minds

And it has been repeatedly proven that I respond to science fiction with more intensity than soap operas. All you have identified is that our perceptual interface is more compelling than thoughts of our conscious creation, not that our perceptual interface comes from outside the mind.

This has to be true, by necessity, for anything at all to make sense. Think about this: If you were never exposed to anything, ever, and had absolutely no senses, including pain or bodily sensations, since the moment you were born, how would you be able to formulate thoughts or take action? You couldn’t, there would be nothing to make up their content. This demonstrates that the material is essential to human thought.

I don't find Hume's thought experiment as compelling as you do. If I accept your premise that senses are required for sensation, that still does not mean senses must be directed at the world. They could also be directed at other conscious agents, or at parts of the self.

Regardless of if reality is real or not, our fundamental experiences are still defined by it, and that’s what the root of Marxist materialism is. Not a belief that metaphysics aren’t real, not a belief that physical matter is of a certain character or is even unassailable in it’s reality, but a belief that human beings are fundamentally altered and influenced by it.

Sure, but if we were to abolish the social construct of reality, communism would still be plenty possible and the best way of doing things.