tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913318078282493927.post133762629827835194..comments2024-01-29T02:45:22.069+09:00Comments on The Korean Foreigner: “Voting Against Their Own Interest” - You should probably stop saying this.John Lee (the Korean Foreigner)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01291995846376789325noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913318078282493927.post-9355813242971867042014-07-27T20:22:49.014+09:002014-07-27T20:22:49.014+09:00It matters a great deal. Marx said that material ...It matters a great deal. Marx said that material productive forces are what determines the superstructure of any given society. However, as I said, those productive forces come from individual minds. They do not appear out of thin air.<br /><br />But then we have to wonder where those individuals with free minds came from. Yes, an individual with a rational and intelligent mind must first come up with a concept and then transform that concept into something that can be produced. However, that is not all that is required. A new technological invention also requires savings and capital investment (which also require rational and intelligent minds).<br /><br />You say that technological inventions would have brought about the same changes in societies, once placed in the hands of profiteers and elites. But we have to ask whether these inventions could have come into existence without them. Some inventions such as the wheel certainly did not need savings or capital investments. However, what modern invention (and more importantly, mass production) did not require capital investments? And who has capital investments?<br /><br />You seem to be implying that profiteers (Let's be honest here, who doesn't seek a profit? By that definition, EVERYONE is a profiteer.) had no role to play during the process of new technologies being invented, and only comes in later after all the hard work has been done just to turn a quick profit. I say that they play an integral role during the whole process from start to finish.<br /><br />But that leads to more questions. What kind of economic system gives people the best opportunity to create savings and make capital investments? Did such an economic system come into existence because someone simply willed it? No, of course not. It, too, was the result of a very long series of mental processes.<br /><br />Basically, Marx said:<br /><br />Historical Materialism = Technology → Economic Structure → Superstructure<br /><br />In fact, Marx thought that the discovery of electricity was THE material productive force that would hasten the inevitability of socialism.<br /><br />(Another contradiction within Marx's ideas: If he truly believed that socialism was inevitable, why did he bother to organize a socialist movement, or a socialist party, or declare that the violent overthrow of the government was necessary to bring about socialism?)<br /><br />On the other hand, what I am saying is that there is no neat step-by-step process. The entire concept of historical materialism is nonsensical. It all starts with individual minds, which Marx conveniently ignores, and everything else happens organically from that point. There is no smooth transition from one era to another. There is no collective mind, no such thing as collective interests. And there is no inevitable destiny.<br /><br />So do new technologies determine the way people see the world around them? Or is it more likely that rational minds come first, which people improve incrementally over generations? The minds that help people to formulate their notions and ideas, which in turn could potentially lead them to create capitalist economies that can possibly give people the proper economic and political freedom and incentives that are needed for people to exercise their minds further to come up with new inventions for the sake of improving their lives further?<br /><br />That is why if Marx had been intellectually honest, he would have had to change his mind about a LOT of things (and probably saved the world a whole lot of grief).John Lee (the Korean Foreigner)https://www.blogger.com/profile/01291995846376789325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913318078282493927.post-83306293317653893632014-07-27T19:27:59.620+09:002014-07-27T19:27:59.620+09:00Why would his entire system have fallen apart if h...Why would his entire system have fallen apart if he acknowledged technologies are the product of an individual's mind? That's neither here nor there as to the impact of their invention. Whether those technologies came to be through an individual's mind, through the conglomeration of clever minds making incremental contributions, or dropped by aliens or elves tired of cobbling, onto the desks of engineers and inventors and patent clerks, they would have brought about the same changes in societies, once placed in the hands of profiteers and elites.Roboseyohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06308196436612993379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913318078282493927.post-27216812027577955392014-07-27T18:04:48.128+09:002014-07-27T18:04:48.128+09:00First of all, seeing how you merely said that you ...First of all, seeing how you merely said that you think I “don't know Marx either” without mentioning anything that I said about the collectivist root of Marx's notion of inherent class consciousness/interest, which is the philosophical foundation of the phrase “voting against their interest,” I will assume that you have conceded that point to me, at least.<br /><br />Secondly, we need not discuss Francis Fukuyama. His book, "The End of History," should have been enough to disqualify him from any further serious consideration. I would say the same of Marx but he has had far too much influence in the world and cannot be ignored completely.<br /><br />There are many problems that I have with Marx. And I'm glad that you brought up historical materialism because it has been one of those things that has always confused me. Marx claimed that at the base of historical materialism is “material productive forces,” aka technology, the so-called driving power that creates all historical events and changes. <br /><br />Seeing how you teach Marxism in a university, I'm sure that this quote will not be unfamiliar to you: “The hand mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam mill society with the industrial capitalist.”<br /><br />He was convinced that it was material productive forces (technology) that determine human consciousness, which in turn leads to the different ideologies and societies that people create.<br /><br />So here are my questions:<br /><br />1) Where did these productive forces come from? Marx never questioned this. He took their existence as a given fact, as though things just appeared out of nowhere.<br />2) Is technology really material? Or is it the result of an individual's (or group of individuals') mind?<br />3) How do these productive forces make up the “economic structure of society?”<br />4) How does this “economic structure,” in turn, create the “superstructure,” which includes things as vast as natural science, religion, philosophy, the law, and the zeitgeist in general. Definitely no word about this one.<br /><br />Marx never clearly explained any of this, and if he did try, they were half-hearted and vague. He simply asserted them as fact and he moved along. I suppose one should sympathize. Marx COULD NOT answer these questions. As you said, Marx was “a materialist historian who made a reading of history through the lens of classes and who saw an evolutionary pattern in developing societies.” If he had been intellectually honest, which Marx clearly was not, he would have had to admit that all new technologies are the product of an individual's mind.<br /><br />If he had admitted that, his entire system would have fallen apart. He would have had to admit that the invention of material productive forces are determined by individual minds, not the other way around.<br /><br />Then there's the entire factual nonsense that is at the base of historical materialism – did the hand mill “give us” feudalism, or did it exist beforehand? I pose the same question about the steam mill.<br /><br />I do not know if or how you have filled in the blanks that Marx left behind; but if you are a Marxist, and have somehow filled in the missing pieces, especially considering that you said “Marx wasn't a “Marxist,”” then one thing that I can say for sure is that YOU have abandoned Marxism.John Lee (the Korean Foreigner)https://www.blogger.com/profile/01291995846376789325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913318078282493927.post-43982348396730721252014-07-27T18:04:26.981+09:002014-07-27T18:04:26.981+09:00Elsewhere on the internet, I got a response from a...Elsewhere on the internet, I got a response from a reader (who shall remain unnamed unless he/she chooses to voluntarily reveal him/herself) regarding this post. Here was the response:<br /><br />"Doesn't sound like you know Marx, either. Just saying. Marx wasn't a "Marxist," either. He was a materialist historian who made a reading of history through the lens of classes and who saw an evolutionary pattern in developing societies, essentially a Hegelian, just as Francis Fukuyama is, although they came to radically different conclusions about what the "End" state would be. When I teach Marx to undergrads, I talk about historical materialism and the way basic societal structures create culture and how ideology is the glue that holds it all together. It's simple, and it's fine. "Marx. I do not think that word means what you think it means..." to paraphrase another fine film..."<br /><br />The following is my response:John Lee (the Korean Foreigner)https://www.blogger.com/profile/01291995846376789325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-913318078282493927.post-23355463742943335972014-07-26T02:44:07.329+09:002014-07-26T02:44:07.329+09:00Nice post.Nice post.Craignoreply@blogger.com