The vulgar materialism criticized by Marx, Lenin, etc is a passive one that will happily include social relations in its purview. It is primarily called vulgar in contrast to being dialectical. Where Marx, Lenin, etc see a capacity to drive revolution through class consciousness and revolutionary consciousness, emphasizing that this is a necessary piece of revolution that interplays with material conditions, their predecessors (and contemporaries, and subsequent critics) would more often stand back and say that the events unfolded due to, simply, the material conditions.
Here's a Lenin quote among many: "The new Iskra-ist method of expressing its views reminds one of Marx’s opinion (in his famous) of the old materialism, which was alien to the ideas of dialectics. The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways, said Marx, the point, however, is to change it"
Lenin's analysis is simple, possibly even simplistic compared to what he was referencing, but he played a big part in defining what the term means.
Althusser is also a good read on this: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1953/onmarx/on-marxism.htm .
emphasizing that this is a necessary piece of revolution that interplays with material conditions, their predecessors (and contemporaries, and subsequent critics) would more often stand back and say that the events unfolded due to, simply, the material conditions.
Here we are, this is the quote that reveals the argument.
WE ARE NOT SAYING THERE IS A DETERMINED SET OF EVENTS THAT ARE DESIGNED TO PLAY OUT- our decisions, our goals, our beliefs ALL MATTER. We MAKE OUR OWN HISTORY and decide what WE DO AND WHAT WE SAY.
BUT.
THE THINGS PROVIDED TO US are, to an extent, out of our control- Eventually, we will find a variable we cannot directly influence, and eventually those variables reach beyond our “sphere of control” and those variables outside of our control as individuals still affect us (consider systemic discrimination, telling a random individual to simply act as if it does not exist is absurd, and the supernatural “free will” position basically asks everyone to do that about everything, but working together we can change a lot, and not in an unrealistic or absurd way involving anime power ups and screaming)
We can change the power we have and gain the ability to influence more things, even topple systems, but this does not happen in a vacuum- We gain the ability to do so because we gain the thought to do so because we observe reality or read a book or think about something- We do not spontaneously gain urges and desires from supernatural inspiration (probably).
So, I don’t really consider myself a determinist, because determinism implies a one true path everything follows that’s set out for us. I just think the original conception of “free will”- the very specific idea that every individual is some sort of anime-level entity capable of determining everything about their life through sheer willpower, which is used to justify hating the poor, the unhealthy, or the infirm- is complete bourgoisie bullshit.
I offered a framing like that - that choice exists constrained by material conditions (historically contingent, etc) - and OP rejected it and started talking about 2 or 3 other things. You may want to reconsider who the "we" is referring to and if you really agree with each other. As a reminder, they also said free will was disproven by science lol.
I think several folks here are just starting to learn about these things and are making mistakes. That's not a problem in itself unless there's a resistance to seeking understanding, of adopting defensive behavior rather than accepting and contending with criticism, etc. Then it becomes difficult to share understanding and mutually arrive at correct thinking.
If you read what I've said elsewhere in this thread, you'll find several quotations, references, and reframings that all say the same basic thing about the nature of choice, will, etc in diamat as characterized by Marx and Marxists. A lot of it overlaps with what you're saying, but none of it seemed to resonate with any of those rm disagreeing with me. What do you think that says about the positions here and the nature of the disagreement?
PS this statement is... not correct: "I just think the original conception of “free will”- the very specific idea that every individual is some sort of anime-level entity capable of determining everything about their life through sheer willpower, which is used to justify hating the poor, the unhealthy, or the infirm- is complete bourgoisie bullshit." I doubt anyone knows the first conception but even the old ones were more sophisticated than this. Even the organized religious ones were. And they all predate capitalism and the bourgeois class.
You and EB have a similar compatibilist viewpoint. I am skeptical of compatibilism because I have yet to hear a coherent argument for any sort free will that is not agnostic. I never said it was disproved by science, just that I can find no scientific arguments for it. Maybe I should check out Dennet.
Your position is not compatiblism, but that neither free will nor determinism are correct, and science can not prove either. Basically the same as EB. Is that correct?
If so, I suppose I’ll have to agree with you. I still think it’s interesting to ponder whether everything as it exists is simply the inevitable result of the universe’s conditions as far back as possible, but that is not a useful question.
Think of it this way: criticism can be valid without a positive alternative being provided. An outcome of attenuation is itself valuable.
If you are in a planning meeting with comrades and someone suggests your org fights for a liberal politician to raise the minimum wage, a good org will listen to the (hopefully) many criticisms of this without expecting the critics to immediately provide their own alternative projects. Of course it would be good and healthy to develop alternatives, but imagine if the response to criticism of bourgeois electoralism was saying, "but you thought we should do rallies and that's stupid" or, "so you think we should just do nothing!?" This is incorrect thinking both rationally and in terms of being productive and extracting value from criticism.
IRL organizing you'll be able to navigate these things and achieve better outcomes by choosing other types of responses and thinking! Positive examples (lol) include open-ended questions, accepting critique and synthesizing new framings, and leading people to shared positions by going, "yes and...", that sort of thing.
PS to contradict myself I don't follow these recommendations all the time. Sometimes it feels inauthentic to be in "organizer mode". But it could be something good to try out a few times.
Bourgoisie in that it is used to justify bourgoisie ideology in present day
And I do think people are rejecting your explanations because the conversation just sort of started hostily and I wouldn’t be surprised if that was enough to stop people from trying to reconcile
The old concepts of free will aren't used to justify bourgeois ideology... bourgeois ideology created new versions and normalized them, leading people to believe it was always so. For example, if you used an etymological definition of original you'd be referring to the one of the Roman Catholic Church whose religious framing is entirely replaced within capitalist ideology.
I can't imagine what you think is hostile in how the conversation started.
I can't imagine what you think is hostile in how the conversation started.
The nature of communist theory sort of leads to a “You are a fake Marxist” accusation that you’ve been saying, not just because you intend it but because discussing communist theory is just like that
That's not generally how philosophy works. I'm just pointing out the basis of diamat as framed by Marx et al. You are free to hold whatever position you want, I don't really care, but holding hard and fast to determinism and no free will is a rejection of diamat.
How? I am no mechanical materialist, I just didn't realize I need to write an essay on dialectics to show such. Believing in "free" will is a rejection of diamat because it implies an entity beyond material reality with the power to control one's body.
Mechanical materialist determinism is a rejection of dialectical materialism. I am not that, and thus you are debated what you assume is my position rather than what actually is. As another user pointed out it is foolish to be so arrogant to think humans are above the rest of the universe to be blessed with a "free will." It is true we have wills, but they are not "free."
In the "free will is incompatible with science" thread you linked early on, the only arguments for that case were overtly deterministic, as in the mechanical materialist determinism you're referring to.
But okay let's say it was a miscommunication. Marxism is very much focused on agency to foment revolution but grounding it a material analysis (and the interplay between both). What is your point? Just that agency exists within the confines of material conditions? I don't think that was communicated at all lol
My point is that if we are materialists there is no reason for us to believe in free will. Some hard determinist arguments make total sense they are just far too optimistic about how easily the world is known. Dialectics complicates things and brings us closer to the truth of how the universe works.
I agree, the question is whether the word "agency" implies free will or not. I recognize "wills" with agency, but "free" implies it is beyond the material world in part.
Don't get tripped up by etymology! It's of questionable value to semantics.
There have been arguments for free will that depended on the supernatural and I think that's what the critics here are focusing on. To contradict myself, the origins of the term are with the Catholic Church and intended to justify very specific supernatural positions.
But it's not an inherent aspect of the claim, philosophically. Nerds have been arguing about this for millennia and have enumerated a very long list of framings that make their position (pro or con sliced ten different ways) possible (the lowest of philosophical claims). This includes, but is not limited to, hardline atheistic materialists like Daniel Dennett, a compatibilist.
I am skeptical of the possibility of a true materialist free will argument but I will look into it. I’ll look into Dennett. I think we understand each other’s positions better now. Thanks for the interesting, at times annoying, but ultimately relatively fun discussion. Is there anyone else I should look into?
It's not hard to find folks here using this as a form of fatalism, including vulgar materialism. It pops up both in the form of saying proletarian revolution and socialism are inevitable and in those who take hard determinism (often without even knowing that's what it is) to its logical conclusion of the idea of trying to do anything to build revolution being a category error. I would like people to organize, not paralyze themselves with their first foray into philosophy.
Yeah I think we are more in agreement than maybe both of us thought originally. Maybe just imprecise communication on my part. I try to avoid getting overly jargony but sometimes that can be an overcorrection that swings back into miscommunication territory.
The vulgar materialism criticized by Marx, Lenin, etc is a passive one that will happily include social relations in its purview. It is primarily called vulgar in contrast to being dialectical. Where Marx, Lenin, etc see a capacity to drive revolution through class consciousness and revolutionary consciousness, emphasizing that this is a necessary piece of revolution that interplays with material conditions, their predecessors (and contemporaries, and subsequent critics) would more often stand back and say that the events unfolded due to, simply, the material conditions.
Here's a Lenin quote among many: "The new Iskra-ist method of expressing its views reminds one of Marx’s opinion (in his famous) of the old materialism, which was alien to the ideas of dialectics. The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways, said Marx, the point, however, is to change it"
Lenin's analysis is simple, possibly even simplistic compared to what he was referencing, but he played a big part in defining what the term means.
Althusser is also a good read on this: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1953/onmarx/on-marxism.htm .
Here we are, this is the quote that reveals the argument.
WE ARE NOT SAYING THERE IS A DETERMINED SET OF EVENTS THAT ARE DESIGNED TO PLAY OUT- our decisions, our goals, our beliefs ALL MATTER. We MAKE OUR OWN HISTORY and decide what WE DO AND WHAT WE SAY.
BUT.
THE THINGS PROVIDED TO US are, to an extent, out of our control- Eventually, we will find a variable we cannot directly influence, and eventually those variables reach beyond our “sphere of control” and those variables outside of our control as individuals still affect us (consider systemic discrimination, telling a random individual to simply act as if it does not exist is absurd, and the supernatural “free will” position basically asks everyone to do that about everything, but working together we can change a lot, and not in an unrealistic or absurd way involving anime power ups and screaming)
We can change the power we have and gain the ability to influence more things, even topple systems, but this does not happen in a vacuum- We gain the ability to do so because we gain the thought to do so because we observe reality or read a book or think about something- We do not spontaneously gain urges and desires from supernatural inspiration (probably).
So, I don’t really consider myself a determinist, because determinism implies a one true path everything follows that’s set out for us. I just think the original conception of “free will”- the very specific idea that every individual is some sort of anime-level entity capable of determining everything about their life through sheer willpower, which is used to justify hating the poor, the unhealthy, or the infirm- is complete bourgoisie bullshit.
I offered a framing like that - that choice exists constrained by material conditions (historically contingent, etc) - and OP rejected it and started talking about 2 or 3 other things. You may want to reconsider who the "we" is referring to and if you really agree with each other. As a reminder, they also said free will was disproven by science lol.
I think several folks here are just starting to learn about these things and are making mistakes. That's not a problem in itself unless there's a resistance to seeking understanding, of adopting defensive behavior rather than accepting and contending with criticism, etc. Then it becomes difficult to share understanding and mutually arrive at correct thinking.
If you read what I've said elsewhere in this thread, you'll find several quotations, references, and reframings that all say the same basic thing about the nature of choice, will, etc in diamat as characterized by Marx and Marxists. A lot of it overlaps with what you're saying, but none of it seemed to resonate with any of those rm disagreeing with me. What do you think that says about the positions here and the nature of the disagreement?
PS this statement is... not correct: "I just think the original conception of “free will”- the very specific idea that every individual is some sort of anime-level entity capable of determining everything about their life through sheer willpower, which is used to justify hating the poor, the unhealthy, or the infirm- is complete bourgoisie bullshit." I doubt anyone knows the first conception but even the old ones were more sophisticated than this. Even the organized religious ones were. And they all predate capitalism and the bourgeois class.
You and EB have a similar compatibilist viewpoint. I am skeptical of compatibilism because I have yet to hear a coherent argument for any sort free will that is not agnostic. I never said it was disproved by science, just that I can find no scientific arguments for it. Maybe I should check out Dennet.
I haven't actually stated my viewpoint and I've reminded you of this several times.
Your position is not compatiblism, but that neither free will nor determinism are correct, and science can not prove either. Basically the same as EB. Is that correct?
If so, I suppose I’ll have to agree with you. I still think it’s interesting to ponder whether everything as it exists is simply the inevitable result of the universe’s conditions as far back as possible, but that is not a useful question.
Think of it this way: criticism can be valid without a positive alternative being provided. An outcome of attenuation is itself valuable.
If you are in a planning meeting with comrades and someone suggests your org fights for a liberal politician to raise the minimum wage, a good org will listen to the (hopefully) many criticisms of this without expecting the critics to immediately provide their own alternative projects. Of course it would be good and healthy to develop alternatives, but imagine if the response to criticism of bourgeois electoralism was saying, "but you thought we should do rallies and that's stupid" or, "so you think we should just do nothing!?" This is incorrect thinking both rationally and in terms of being productive and extracting value from criticism.
IRL organizing you'll be able to navigate these things and achieve better outcomes by choosing other types of responses and thinking! Positive examples (lol) include open-ended questions, accepting critique and synthesizing new framings, and leading people to shared positions by going, "yes and...", that sort of thing.
PS to contradict myself I don't follow these recommendations all the time. Sometimes it feels inauthentic to be in "organizer mode". But it could be something good to try out a few times.
Bourgoisie in that it is used to justify bourgoisie ideology in present day
And I do think people are rejecting your explanations because the conversation just sort of started hostily and I wouldn’t be surprised if that was enough to stop people from trying to reconcile
The old concepts of free will aren't used to justify bourgeois ideology... bourgeois ideology created new versions and normalized them, leading people to believe it was always so. For example, if you used an etymological definition of original you'd be referring to the one of the Roman Catholic Church whose religious framing is entirely replaced within capitalist ideology.
I can't imagine what you think is hostile in how the conversation started.
The nature of communist theory sort of leads to a “You are a fake Marxist” accusation that you’ve been saying, not just because you intend it but because discussing communist theory is just like that
So something you just made up? I didn't call anyone a fake Marxist.
It’s a vibe, not anything anyone said
Sounds like your imagination
Exactly, but where does dialectics debunk determinism. It's very easy to have a dialectical view of nature and still not believe in free will.
That's not generally how philosophy works. I'm just pointing out the basis of diamat as framed by Marx et al. You are free to hold whatever position you want, I don't really care, but holding hard and fast to determinism and no free will is a rejection of diamat.
How? I am no mechanical materialist, I just didn't realize I need to write an essay on dialectics to show such. Believing in "free" will is a rejection of diamat because it implies an entity beyond material reality with the power to control one's body.
I have said how several times already.
Mechanical materialist determinism is a rejection of dialectical materialism. I am not that, and thus you are debated what you assume is my position rather than what actually is. As another user pointed out it is foolish to be so arrogant to think humans are above the rest of the universe to be blessed with a "free will." It is true we have wills, but they are not "free."
In the "free will is incompatible with science" thread you linked early on, the only arguments for that case were overtly deterministic, as in the mechanical materialist determinism you're referring to.
But okay let's say it was a miscommunication. Marxism is very much focused on agency to foment revolution but grounding it a material analysis (and the interplay between both). What is your point? Just that agency exists within the confines of material conditions? I don't think that was communicated at all lol
My point is that if we are materialists there is no reason for us to believe in free will. Some hard determinist arguments make total sense they are just far too optimistic about how easily the world is known. Dialectics complicates things and brings us closer to the truth of how the universe works.
So... not the thing I said? I honestly can't tell. The relevance of this conversation to Marxism is in our part, and agency within, the dialectic.
I agree, the question is whether the word "agency" implies free will or not. I recognize "wills" with agency, but "free" implies it is beyond the material world in part.
Don't get tripped up by etymology! It's of questionable value to semantics.
There have been arguments for free will that depended on the supernatural and I think that's what the critics here are focusing on. To contradict myself, the origins of the term are with the Catholic Church and intended to justify very specific supernatural positions.
But it's not an inherent aspect of the claim, philosophically. Nerds have been arguing about this for millennia and have enumerated a very long list of framings that make their position (pro or con sliced ten different ways) possible (the lowest of philosophical claims). This includes, but is not limited to, hardline atheistic materialists like Daniel Dennett, a compatibilist.
I am skeptical of the possibility of a true materialist free will argument but I will look into it. I’ll look into Dennett. I think we understand each other’s positions better now. Thanks for the interesting, at times annoying, but ultimately relatively fun discussion. Is there anyone else I should look into?
deleted by creator
See: the other 30 replies
deleted by creator
It's not hard to find folks here using this as a form of fatalism, including vulgar materialism. It pops up both in the form of saying proletarian revolution and socialism are inevitable and in those who take hard determinism (often without even knowing that's what it is) to its logical conclusion of the idea of trying to do anything to build revolution being a category error. I would like people to organize, not paralyze themselves with their first foray into philosophy.
deleted by creator
Yeah I think we are more in agreement than maybe both of us thought originally. Maybe just imprecise communication on my part. I try to avoid getting overly jargony but sometimes that can be an overcorrection that swings back into miscommunication territory.
I agree with this and the above comment. SN articulated it better than me.