Marxism as a method of social analysis. [TheKwas vs. Odovacar]

[TheKwas]

I come forth today with the proposition that Marxism, as an approach to political knowledge, is the most accurate in understanding social phenomenon and social problems as well as providing solutions to remedy said problems. It is important to note right off the bat that this is not a debate about the Soviet Union, or any historical state that claimed to be Marxist. References can be made if the context calls for illustration, but fundamentally this is not a discussion about Marxism as a political practice, but rather as a method of analysis.

First off, I will start out with a materialist, determinist view of the individual. There honestly isn’t too much literature on this matter that is explicitly Marxist as far as I know, as most analysis jumps straight to studying class interactions. However, considering that my opponent is a libertarian and a dominant aspect of most libertarian philosophies is the idea that the individual is an agent of free will and has agency in all things, I wish to jump the gun a bit and present the view that the individual shouldn’t be analyzed in such a matter. Believing that you’re in control of your own destiny and you can do what you want may be a good philosophy in approaching problems in your own life, it is fundamentally shallow when it comes to analyzing society and makes no significant predictions of any sort.

Accepting materialism (ignoring ideas of spirits and whatnot), I think it is perfectly valid to say that the human brain is fundamentally a computer made out of mush. An extremely complicated computer, yes, but a computer still. It has a physical structure which receives input, processes that input, and produces an output. A powerful being that completely understood the physical structure of the brain and how it processes information could, in theory, insert an input and then predict beforehand what the output would be. This is determinism.

From this acknowledgement, we can identify what determines how people act, and it comes down to two factors: Genetics and social environment. Genetics determine the brain hardware, and social environment determines the inputs (it also affects the hardware, but that’s a complication I won’t pursue). This has interesting implications, as we can now make some predictions, namely that people that grow up and experience similar social environments will adopt similar thoughts, actions and other brain ‘output’. This should strike everyone as true. It is no coincident that the majority of people that happen to be Christian also grew up in Christian homes!

This draws a significant contrast to concepts of ‘free will’, where if we accept the concept as a method of analysis, we would expect to see no correlation between social environment and behavior. If every individual is truly and completely free to make his own choices, why do we constantly see Black people making the wrong choices out or proportion to the rest of society? Without resorting to social environment factors, the only other conclusion is racism as far as I can see.

The moderate libertarian may, at this point, say that obviously social conditions affect what decisions individuals make, but when you come down to the nitty-gritty, the person can make any decision he wants. This is also wrong and an intellectual cope-out, which I’ll explain later but I first want to emphasize the point that even if that point was correct, it would still give credence to Marxist analysis. Although ‘free-will’ may provide variation between individuals, there is still enough correlation to take a group of individuals and study them as a collective or as a class, almost as if you’re taking an average (except the factors being studied are not quantities).

The confusion that arises with individual determinism is largely due to individuals thinking “I’m more than just a series of calculations, as I can hear myself rationalizing right now, and I am obviously in control of that rationalizing”. The confusion is due to taking two different approaches to understanding thought. The person in my example is using the intentional approach to understanding agency (ability to affect change) of the individual, where as I’m taking the physical approach; Both are explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_stance

That was longer than expected. But time to move on to more orthodox Marxism. Due to individuals being mostly by-products of their social environment, the best way to understand society is to study that environment and analysis human behavior as reactions to their environment. This is essentially the foundation of all things Marxist. In the capitalist world, the most pressing aspect of one’s social environment tends to be his economic environment, and it was this belief that led to Marx’s own Historical Materialism.

This means that societies and individuals are formed according to their relation to each other in the economic world. Workers that do not own capital but instead sell their labour are in a class subordinate to those that do own capital. Those that control the factors of production in any society will also control the political sphere of society as well. In terms of gender roles, societies where men are the main breadwinners in the economic sphere tend to be largely patriarchic in all matters. On the flip side, societies where both women and men contribute roughly equally in economic life, also tend to be more egalitarian in all social matters. Again, this is an aspect of Marxist thought that is predictive and useful to understanding how society works.

Since these classes (individuals who share a similar relation to economic forces) have different interests, there is bound to be political tension between these classes and naturally the most powerful class (the capitalists) will exploit those on the bottom as much as they can for their own benefit. Not only economically, but politically as well through concepts like hegemony (Where the upper classes create a cultural ‘myth’ or set of ideas that makes the lower classes act against their own interests, examples being warfare in general and forms of nationalism).

Again, this accurately explains phenomenon such as poverty cycles, relative immobility between social classes, and cultural differences that exist between classes.

I’ll expand further on some aspects of modern Marxist thought later if it proves relevant, but I think I already wrote too much.

[Odovacar]

Due to individuals being mostly by-products of their social environment, the best way to understand society is to study that environment and analysis human behavior as reactions to their environment. This is essentially the foundation of all things Marxist.

No, this is behaviourism. People create their enviroment too. Besides we have a rather cloudly understanding of what materialism was for Marx.
(His theses about Feuerbach will make it clear)

Not to mention that the enviroment is a historically originated social-economical system which varies greatly in its reality.
For example capitalism doesnt work in Russia like it works in England.

In the capitalist world, the most pressing aspect of one’s social environment tends to be his economic environment, and it was this belief that led to Marx’s own Historical Materialism.

Its somwhat true however economy was always the basement of society according to Marx. In capitalist society the dominant connections between people are of economic nature, purely economic.

I come forth today with the proposition that Marxism, as an approach to political knowledge, is the most accurate in understanding social phenomenon and social problems as well as providing solutions to remedy said problems.

While marxism can explain a lot and its indeed an interesting point of view, Im not sure about what "remedies" it has.

[TheKwas]

I'll reply to your comments elsewhere if you wish, but nothing in depth here since I don't want to start a two-prounged war in the fight club. The scope of the debate already has me thinking I might be doing alot of writing just to debate one person.

However, I'm talking mostly about marxism as a whole, or what western academics refer to as Marxism. Not Classical Marxism which refers just to what Marx and Engels wrote and believed in.

Wikipedia summarizes this marxism as any form of thought with the following traits:

[1] an attention to the material conditions of people's lives and social relations among people
[2] a belief that people's consciousness of the conditions of their lives reflects these material conditions and relations
[3]an understanding of class in terms of differing relations of production and as a particular position within such relations
[4]an understanding of material conditions and social relations as historically malleable
[5]a view of history according to which class struggle, the evolving conflict between classes with opposing interests, structures each historical period and drives historical change
[6]a sympathy for the working class or proletariat
[7]and a belief that the ultimate interests of workers best match those of humanity in general

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism#Overview

My statement was generally meant to summarize points 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Behavioralism as a school of pyschology refers to a whole other beast, and doesn't even deal with society as a unit. Nor does it place any special emphasis on human interaction being determined by social enviroment as far as I know. Either way the methods of investigation used by both are radically different.

[Odovacar]

I understand that however I think that marxism is insanely complex and as a broad term its rather hollow.

Many so-called marxist-as the states you mentioned- brutally altered the marxist theory or simplified it to a common economical determinism.
I'm not entirely sure Marx was such a simpleton.

Now what do you think what solutions have marxism for today's capitalism?
It's indeed a hot on topic question....

[TheKwas]

I suppose as a broad term I get to pick and choose what I like for the sake of the debate. The challenger is a right-wing libertarian, so just about anything I bring forth from Marxism will be in contradiction to his views. As for solutions, generally I'd like to see more co-operative enterprise, more worker input in the workplace, more collectivity in addressing social ills, and just general socialist stuff like that. I generally like the Nordic countries as social and economic models. However, without given an exact problem to deal with it's hard for me to say what should be done.

[Mythos]

Do not post in a debate between 2 members. All commentaries, parallel discussion and extras must be posted in the Commentary thread provided in the Commentary sub forum. - Яome kb8

[Odovacar]

I suppose as a broad term I get to pick and choose what I like for the sake of the debate. The challenger is a right-wing libertarian, so just about anything I bring forth from Marxism will be in contradiction to his views. As for solutions, generally I'd like to see more co-operative enterprise, more worker input in the workplace, more collectivity in addressing social ills, and just general socialist stuff like that. I generally like the Nordic countries as social and economic models. However, without given an exact problem to deal with it's hard for me to say what should be done.

Let's make clear: Im not a libertarian, nor a right wing one.
I think a human being is not an individual in the sense that he essentially "enough for himself" 'cause no one is. Everyone needs others in many aspects.
Libertarism, individualism are nothing but mere illusions.

However socialims is not marxism at all.
Marxism denied that you can change society through parlamentarian ways, and I could say you a hundred difference between today's socialism and hard core marxism.

My stance here is not that of the opponent, the other side, but the sympathisant who have doubts about the exact "hows"

What do you think about the liberal argument that in the long run as Europe's population is aging welfare state cannot be supported as there will be not enough production value to sustain the level of current, high social care?

[TheKwas]

Let's make clear: Im not a libertarian, nor a right wing one.

I answered the challenge of a libertarian right-wing poster, but since he hasn't shown up to the debate I suppose you're my opponent for now.

However socialims is not marxism at all.
Marxism denied that you can change society through parlamentarian ways, and I could say you a hundred difference between today's socialism and hard core marxism.

I never meant to argue on behalf of 'hard-core Marxism' or 'classical Marxism', but rather on Marxism as a general method of social analysis. Not every solution to a problem identified by Marxist analysis has to be solved by revolution, just that was the general solution that Marx himself advocated (making it part of 'classical Marxism').
However, it should be noted that Marx himself did advocate parliamentarian as a useful tool to help empower the working class:

But universal suffrage is the equivalent of political power for the working class of England, where the proletariat forms the large majority of the population, where, in a long though underground civil war, it has gained a clear consciousness of its position as a class and where even the rural districts know no longer any peasants, but only landlords, industrial capitalists (farmers) and hired labourers. The carrying of universal suffrage in England would, therefore be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the continent. Its inevitable result, here is the political supremacy of the working class. (emphasis in original)

He later downgraded this view to: Universal suffrage is thus the gauge of the maturity of the working class. It cannot and never will be anything more in the modern state.

Greater discussion of this issue is provided here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/hall...83/06/vote.htm

To most classical Marxists, Parliamentary democracy (as we know it) is a means to an end, not an end to itself.

What do you think about the liberal argument that in the long run as Europe's population is aging welfare state cannot be supported as there will be not enough production value to sustain the level of current, high social care?

I think the problems are exaggerated. Yes, there will be strain on the welfare state during this demographic shift, but I haven't seen any data that is convincing that it's not sustainable. Besides, if the alternatives are A) cut these social programs and leave those that need these programs out in the cold, or B) continue population growth forever to maintain a bottom-heavy population, I'd gladly take a period of pain where one generation has to pay extra to maintain the hold. Besides, in generally the later you're born, the better life you're going to enjoy due to technology and productivity increases. Even with the extra burden of a top-heavy population, I doubt that current generations will have lower living standards.