Praxis Part 1: Epistemology
No revolutionary movement without a revolutionary theory - V.I Lenin
We are going to start our next philosophical exploration with the concept of praxis. Praxis is understood as practical-critical labour; what Marx writes about in his Theses on Feuerbach. We are also going to discuss how we may use praxis and what solutions it may provide, there are many attacks against Marxism, and while most of them are ridiculous, there are some which requires more attention than the typical sneer you give to the typical sycophantic and incompetent petit burgeoise who believes he can unmask historical materialism with the typical unoriginal platitudes we come across every so often as we go about our daily routines trying to rouse the masses and incite mobs.
One of the charges against historical materialism is how the concept of the superstructure (Swedish: bas-överbyggnad), transforms Marxism into an economist and determinist theory. While I believe that economism is a possible deviation in Marxism, I am not going to join the chorus of modern Marxists that shake their fists at imaginary economistic philosophers - simply because I don't know of any. Rather, I know that there have been some and that it is possible that some exist, but it is hardly the case that any of the important scholars have been hopelessly infected with economism. Who really believes that there is a 1-1 relationship between the base and the superstructure? What would it even mean for there to be a 1-1 relationship?
Praxis and the Dialectic
For us to understand the concept of the superstructure and to develop it further and allow for us to realize the narratives, ideologies and systems within the superstructure we must maintain and understand the concept of praxis as a central point of Marxist philosophy. The manner in which we organize our economic life creates a basis for reflexive understanding of the world and ourselves. It is of course not the "big Lie" that some philistine right-wing idiots blabber on about, but rather a system of lived experience based around a continous input from the material realities of life. In a less academic fashion, we can simply say that the medieval peasant who worked the fields every day, far from any major center of commerce, will develop a certain understanding of the world. He understands how his tools work, how the weather changes, how he must reap and sow, etc. Around him is built an extended family unit, varying in size and composition on the basis of the individual family, the economic base but also the superstructure - what might be called pure chance, but also involves learned tradition, superstitions and other things. From the basic understanding given from the reflexive consciousness produced by habit is raised the movement towards the world as well - the faint grasping for understanding offered by religion and magic, the solidarity caused by the necessity of the situation with other peasants and so on.
Praxis then is dialectic in the true sense of the word, it contains the two parts of theory and practice, molded together but also 'exploding' - causing revolutions in understanding or practice. Practical reality gives us input, but unfortunately not as easily as Lenin believed when defending a simple reflexive materialist epistemology in Materialism and Empirocriticism there is the necessity of existing ideological frameworks for us to understand the world. It is what the child learns through the pedagogue that is his parents in combinations with the playing, chewing, touching and hurting that are the lessons of the baby.
Science
Aligning myself with Thomas Kuhn I am of the opinion that science is dependant on pre-existing notions of philosophy, theory and concepts. Einstein's debt to Spinoza, Newton's to the alchemists and so on are all illuminating examples. All science is built on tradition, and metaphysical examples can be a helpful guide to breaking through the invisible cages of language and the dormant metaphysics existing in all scientific theories.
So we find then the concept of praxis at the heart of science as well. A society of a certain type with a specific material basis and development in the superstructure can open up radical new ways of understanding reality, which is of course also indicating that there are ten doors closed for every one door opened. But that is the way of things, ability provides means but is also excluding.
Mass Struggle and Ideology
Through the economic floor that the classes rise up on they continously come into conflict with one another until the means of production have matured enough to cause the release that is revolution. Classes see themselves through the stories they tell themselves - part lies, part myth, part self-delusion and part insight in tradition, history and modern politics. All grounded in the ongoing struggle of praxis that shapes and reshapes currents of thought, action and organization. What is part and parcel for one group within the two vast classes might be foreign to another part. Thus we find the insistance on anti-fascism within certain elements of the leftist movement, while others are more concentrated on the defence and development of the welfare state. From time to time we confuse our tactical and strategical choices with our genuine causes. Believing that there is a value in itself for, for example, the welfare state. Certainly, to understand the development of political organizations it is vital to understand the traditions that give rise to both the deteriorations of Leftist groups, as for example the split in 1917.
The masses are taught, disciplined and developed in their class consciousness through their activity in the class struggle. Their practical-critical development is caused through actual action rather than the passive consumtion of ideology - whether from a party or media. While these might be effective leaders, interpreters or theoreticians in the Gramscian tradition they are no substitute for actual class consciousness, generated through the realization of the class system that is only revealed to the large majority through their own eyes.
Postmodernist Blahblahblah versus Positivism
The idea of praxis might be co-opted by postmodernists from time to time, but it is actually a defence - the only defence - for materialism. The most effective argument for the existance of an objective reality is that it changes over time. It deteriorates, it grows, it falls apart and it comes together again. Disasters happen, forests burn and seas are made dry. Humanity may influence nature, but doesn't rule it. It makes no sense to attribute these changes that are so often foreign to our conception to our reality to a priori existing filters in us - the filters that truly exist are most likely biologically evolved to aid us in decoding other human beings and to increase our efficiency in manipulating reality.
Both postmodernism and positivism, at least in their vulgar forms, make the same mistake to see reality as given through either social creations or 1-1 reflections of reality. I am not going to insult either tradition in saying that they are all in that manner, but that the difference between Marxist Third Way-ism in the question of epistemology is the insistance that praxis solves many metaphysical questions as well as ties in important understandings of humanity and nature - two things that should not be as separate as both the postmodernist and positivist tradition make them out to be.
We are going to start our next philosophical exploration with the concept of praxis. Praxis is understood as practical-critical labour; what Marx writes about in his Theses on Feuerbach. We are also going to discuss how we may use praxis and what solutions it may provide, there are many attacks against Marxism, and while most of them are ridiculous, there are some which requires more attention than the typical sneer you give to the typical sycophantic and incompetent petit burgeoise who believes he can unmask historical materialism with the typical unoriginal platitudes we come across every so often as we go about our daily routines trying to rouse the masses and incite mobs.
One of the charges against historical materialism is how the concept of the superstructure (Swedish: bas-överbyggnad), transforms Marxism into an economist and determinist theory. While I believe that economism is a possible deviation in Marxism, I am not going to join the chorus of modern Marxists that shake their fists at imaginary economistic philosophers - simply because I don't know of any. Rather, I know that there have been some and that it is possible that some exist, but it is hardly the case that any of the important scholars have been hopelessly infected with economism. Who really believes that there is a 1-1 relationship between the base and the superstructure? What would it even mean for there to be a 1-1 relationship?
Praxis and the Dialectic
For us to understand the concept of the superstructure and to develop it further and allow for us to realize the narratives, ideologies and systems within the superstructure we must maintain and understand the concept of praxis as a central point of Marxist philosophy. The manner in which we organize our economic life creates a basis for reflexive understanding of the world and ourselves. It is of course not the "big Lie" that some philistine right-wing idiots blabber on about, but rather a system of lived experience based around a continous input from the material realities of life. In a less academic fashion, we can simply say that the medieval peasant who worked the fields every day, far from any major center of commerce, will develop a certain understanding of the world. He understands how his tools work, how the weather changes, how he must reap and sow, etc. Around him is built an extended family unit, varying in size and composition on the basis of the individual family, the economic base but also the superstructure - what might be called pure chance, but also involves learned tradition, superstitions and other things. From the basic understanding given from the reflexive consciousness produced by habit is raised the movement towards the world as well - the faint grasping for understanding offered by religion and magic, the solidarity caused by the necessity of the situation with other peasants and so on.
Praxis then is dialectic in the true sense of the word, it contains the two parts of theory and practice, molded together but also 'exploding' - causing revolutions in understanding or practice. Practical reality gives us input, but unfortunately not as easily as Lenin believed when defending a simple reflexive materialist epistemology in Materialism and Empirocriticism there is the necessity of existing ideological frameworks for us to understand the world. It is what the child learns through the pedagogue that is his parents in combinations with the playing, chewing, touching and hurting that are the lessons of the baby.
Science
Aligning myself with Thomas Kuhn I am of the opinion that science is dependant on pre-existing notions of philosophy, theory and concepts. Einstein's debt to Spinoza, Newton's to the alchemists and so on are all illuminating examples. All science is built on tradition, and metaphysical examples can be a helpful guide to breaking through the invisible cages of language and the dormant metaphysics existing in all scientific theories.
So we find then the concept of praxis at the heart of science as well. A society of a certain type with a specific material basis and development in the superstructure can open up radical new ways of understanding reality, which is of course also indicating that there are ten doors closed for every one door opened. But that is the way of things, ability provides means but is also excluding.
Mass Struggle and Ideology
Through the economic floor that the classes rise up on they continously come into conflict with one another until the means of production have matured enough to cause the release that is revolution. Classes see themselves through the stories they tell themselves - part lies, part myth, part self-delusion and part insight in tradition, history and modern politics. All grounded in the ongoing struggle of praxis that shapes and reshapes currents of thought, action and organization. What is part and parcel for one group within the two vast classes might be foreign to another part. Thus we find the insistance on anti-fascism within certain elements of the leftist movement, while others are more concentrated on the defence and development of the welfare state. From time to time we confuse our tactical and strategical choices with our genuine causes. Believing that there is a value in itself for, for example, the welfare state. Certainly, to understand the development of political organizations it is vital to understand the traditions that give rise to both the deteriorations of Leftist groups, as for example the split in 1917.
The masses are taught, disciplined and developed in their class consciousness through their activity in the class struggle. Their practical-critical development is caused through actual action rather than the passive consumtion of ideology - whether from a party or media. While these might be effective leaders, interpreters or theoreticians in the Gramscian tradition they are no substitute for actual class consciousness, generated through the realization of the class system that is only revealed to the large majority through their own eyes.
Postmodernist Blahblahblah versus Positivism
The idea of praxis might be co-opted by postmodernists from time to time, but it is actually a defence - the only defence - for materialism. The most effective argument for the existance of an objective reality is that it changes over time. It deteriorates, it grows, it falls apart and it comes together again. Disasters happen, forests burn and seas are made dry. Humanity may influence nature, but doesn't rule it. It makes no sense to attribute these changes that are so often foreign to our conception to our reality to a priori existing filters in us - the filters that truly exist are most likely biologically evolved to aid us in decoding other human beings and to increase our efficiency in manipulating reality.
Both postmodernism and positivism, at least in their vulgar forms, make the same mistake to see reality as given through either social creations or 1-1 reflections of reality. I am not going to insult either tradition in saying that they are all in that manner, but that the difference between Marxist Third Way-ism in the question of epistemology is the insistance that praxis solves many metaphysical questions as well as ties in important understandings of humanity and nature - two things that should not be as separate as both the postmodernist and positivist tradition make them out to be.
Labels: epistemology, Marxism, praxis
posted by Björn at 2:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home