Foster indicates that "in developing historical materialism [Marx] tended to deal with nature only to the extent to which it was brought within human history, since nature untouched by human history was more and more difficult to find. The strength of his analysis in this regard lay in its emphasis on the quality of the interaction between humanity and nature, or what he was eventually to call the "metabolism" of humanity with nature: through production" (114). Foster later cites from Marx and Engels' Collected Works that humans "themselves begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organization. By producing their means of subsistence [humans] are indirectly producing their material life" (7-8).
And as Siegel outlined after explaining the particular materialism of Feuerbach, "the older non-dialectical materialism did not see the historical process in which people collectively seek to answer social questions only when these questions are thrust upon them. In this historical process human activity is both the product of social development and a cause of social development. In transforming its social environment, humanity transforms itself, buts its transformation of society is limited by historical conditions, in the first place the level and power of the productive forces" (61). As Paul D'Amato indicates in the Meaning of Marxism, "the transformation from one mode of production to another was not smooth or automatic. Each ruling class would at first act to lead society forward, then as their rule progressed, would act to prevent any changes to the system from which they benefited" (35). Lastly, as I've indicated earlier within this blog, the working class, on the other hand, is in a unique historical position to liberate humanity from the exploitation, oppression, and misery created by the constraints of class society, particularly those consolidated under a market-based economic system.
Posts
2 comments:
Jerald: "The point, however, is to change it [the world]."
The austro-libertarian position does not necessarily disagree with changing the world. The austro-libertarian view seeks to understand the process of how economics works, not necessarily creating and control economies. Change comes from the entrepreneur(not in the Silcon Valley sense, but in the undertaker/enterpriser sense), and ultimately indviduals. Our respective idea of change do not coincide.
Jerald: "The strength of his analysis...lay in its emphasis on the quality of the interaction...the "metabolism" of humanity with nature: through production."
Both our philosophies emphasis the quality of interaction between humanity and nature, however the divergence comes at the conclusion: through production. More on this on another a topic of production, for this topic focuses on methodology.
Jerald: "In this historical process human activity is both the product of social development and a cause of social development."(emphasis Paul Thomas JR)
I am glad we see eye-to-eye in this respect, not necessarily the historical process per se, but that human activity, ie human action is both the product and cause of social development, a product in that a human mind must make a thought-based choice and action with given datum, and a cause, for the same exact reason. We share more in common that we had previously thought, no pun intended.
Jerald: "the working class...is in a historical position to liberate humanity from the exploitation...particularly those consolidated under a market-based economic system." (emphasis by Paul Thomas JR)
An assumption and implication is made in this statement where free market based economics is the culprit of the alleged exploitation, oppression, and misery. This deserves a new topic to digress, but for the record, government intervention and control of the market, is the source of the exploitation, etc...
What the austro-libertarians, like Paul, are attempting to do is justify the continuation of markets and make assertions that further atomize human societies into merely consisting of individual minds. So while he claims that their “view seeks to understand the process of how economics works,” by hailing market relations as a superior form of economic exchange, Paul demonstrates his present inability to differentiate ideology from reality. To make this clearer, when one takes into consideration that, under capitalism, capitalists, entrepreneurs, parasites, or whatever else name that comes to mind are forced to accumulate more capital (i.e., profit) in order to stay competitive with other capitalists then one can grasp the constraints placed by this system.
As a result of these social relations where those with the most money, profit, wealth, etc. have more social power, they have an advantage due to their class status. So while Paul wants to believe that “[c]hange comes from the entrepreneur(not in the Silcon [sic] Valley sense, but in the undertaker/enterpriser sense), and ultimately indivduals [sic],” he fails to identify the untold number of workers who went on strike for higher wages and better benefits, the determined demonstrators who demanded (and are still demanding) a woman’s right to control what she does with her own body, and the peasants who revolted against their lords who denied them bread and land… hopefully you get my drift.
I want to be as transparent as possible, and seriously, I’m continuing this debate because I see that there is a need to spread revolutionary Marxist politics, not necessarily to win an intellectual battle but, more importantly, to urge people to take part in the movement for real change. Paul may want to think that “we see eye-to-eye,” but I think his philosophy lets the real culprit of exploitation and oppression, capitalism, off the hook.
Post a Comment