CB comments on science Marx on no need for science if all were apparent

From: Charles Brown Date: April 4, 2014 at 10:27:46 AM EDT To: charles brown Subject: CB comments on science Marx on no need for science if all were apparent Rhyan Potter 12 hrs · Odessa, TX · Edited Here's an interesting criticism. Marx tells us that "If the essence and appearance of things directly coincided, all science would be superfluous" If the purpose of science is to discover the nature of reality concealed under surface appearance. Based on this definition, Marx makes the above assertion - if things appeared exactly as they are, there would be no need for science to remove the veil of appearance. Social science, therefore, is the search for the real nature of society, underneath all of its visible, external façades. If the reality of society is easily observable in our everyday experience, then there is no need for scientific reflection on society, as Marx defines science. The idea that society has an 'appearance', which is not the same as social 'essence', forms the starting point for the Marxist discussion of ideology. Marx clearly has the view that in a classless society, there will be no ideology, for the reason that the appearance will be equal to the essence of a classless society. Marxism pulls back the cover of ideology to reveal the nature of the 'essence' society. By ruling out the economists and philosophers of his time as 'unscientific', Marx leaves only himself and his disciples as true 'social scientists'. It is ironic that he does so. If the proletarian revolution occurs, then, according to his dictum, his own branch of expertise would be 'superfluous'. This would leave only those condemned as 'non-scientists' to take up the investigations of social science. Idealists in branches of philosophy, particularly moral philosophy, would find themselves in a similar boat. According to the link Althusser also encountered this problem and dismissed Marx's claim and asserted that Communist society would have an ideology. Thoughts, anyone? more at http://academic.uprm.edu/~laviles/id219.htm Like · · Share 2 people like this. Aryadev Bhattacharya bogus! 12 hours ago · Like Alois Blucher Socialism would have an ideology but I believe it would be the "right one". I do not think classless society is possible, but a good meritorious on based on the teachings of Marx, Lenin, Che and Trotsky CAN be done and will thusly result in a good society, although not devoid of evil (as it is human to possess some evil), evil will not be able to really do much negative, and people's greed can be channeled into something positive. 11 hrs · Like · 1 Matthias Wasser A technically complex society, like a technically complex computer or climate or cow digestive system, is always going to have a gulf between essence and appearance. Whether or not it has an essence that people can be comfortable looking at when revealed is another matter. 11 hrs · Like · 2 Ed Cidd Your reading on Marx's use of science and ideology is very limited; Marx himself study other sciences and scientists...Adolfo Sanchez Vazquez wrote ( in spanish ) against that althusserian interpretation of ideology ( Ciencia y revolucion ); if communist society eliminates actual division of labor, it will construct new ways of social interaction without alienation. Ideology in Marx was false consciousness, with historical conditions, not eternal... 10 hrs · Like · 1 Calixto Garcia Without falling into utopianism the only thing we can analyze scientifically is the actual political needs of today to lead forward the struggle of the proletariat towards the conquest of state power. The Marxist method only serves us to figure out how to bring about the new society out of the old. To go beyond and ponder on wheter ideology or alienation will exist in communist society is somewhat irrelevant in my opinion. As Marx said, the point is not to interpret the world but to revolutionize it. The relevant question today is on the period of the transition to Socialism, a period with class struggle, ideology, alienation, etc. Without the marxist method (dialectics and materialism plus the rest of the historical experiences of the working class revolutions) we have very little change of constructing communism after the transitionary period. In theory, in a classless society, the Marxist method would indeed be irrelevant as there would be no contradictions in real life which it can uncover. 10 hrs · Like Calixto Garcia Ed Cidd, Sanchez Vazquez has this other great text called " Del Socialismo Cientifico al Socialismo Utopico" in which he argues there is an utopian element in Marx. That element being his statements about there not being ideology or alienation under communist society. I think the point he is making is that Marxism, in order to stay a revolutionary materialist science, cannot analyze further than the actual material conditions in which we find ourselves. 10 hrs · Like · 1 Vedran Jerbic I think that something is missing from this conversation. And what is missing is exatcly postmarxism and its deconstruction of categories like ''revolutionary materialist science'' or ideology as false conciousness, or ''actual material condition''. As...See More 6 hrs · Edited · Like Calixto Garcia When Gramsci talked about hegemony wasn't he speaking of the Socialist period (as a transitionary period towards communism, i.e. a classless society in which we can't possibly assert whether there will be ideology or not without falling into utopianis...See More 1 hr · Like Charles Brown If the proletarian revolution occurs, then, according to his dictum, his own branch of expertise would be 'superfluous'./////// this is true of Marx's critique of capitalism and class divided society. They are superfluous with socialism as to socialist society 1 hr · Like Justin Schwartz Marx's point is not strictly accurate. It is only true if science is required to uncover stuff that is not as it seems. But even if reality was as it seems, and appeared directly as such, it might not be easy to understand. There is nothing hidden about for example the law of gravitation. But formulating a law, and making the appropriate calculations, required the full efforts of Isaac Newton, the greatest genius in the history of the world. Things are quite different for example with quantum mechanics. Marx was thinking of the way capitalism hides its operations be for example commodity fetishes, and thus does not appear as it actually is. But just because things do appear as they actually are does not necessarily render science superfluous. A small point in philosophy of science work perception however you want to slice it. 29 mins · Unlike · 2 Ed Cidd Justin S., your idea is almost right, but why you think that gravity is kind of obvious!!?? Of course science , thought and philosophy were needed to proposed the relaton known as Newtons law etc...In social sciences the social interests, the particular place in society might give difficulties, but in natural sciences we dont study perceptions, but more complex object~subject relations... 17 mins · Like Ed Cidd Calixto G. , i think hegemony is used in Gramscy for all class society where consensus of the exploted ones is present together with coersion. 14 mins · Like Justin Schwartz My point is that things don't have to be hidden to require science. It's not as if the essence of gravitation doesn't coincide with its appearance. It's appearance us manifest, not hidden to anyone who can make the appropriate observations and calculations. That is, however, fabulously difficult. In contrast the essence of the market is concealed by its appearance of Freedom, Equality, consent, and Bentham, to quote Cap. 1. Nothing hides gravitation except our own difficulty in seeing and understanding it the cases are quite different. 11 mins · Like · 1 Charles Brown Science is a social, not individual , process. It takes the direct observations of many individuals and communication between them to "observe" what is not apparent or does not "appear" to one individual. This is another level at which Marx's statement is true of science. The main error of positivism is that it often , unconsciously perhaps, poses "science" as the individual observer, individual empirical scientist, individual witness of the facts. Objective evidence must be observed by many individuals, socially. This is a line between Engels' philosophical idealism and materialism as well. See Lenin's discussion of subjective idealism and materialism in _Materialism and Empirio-Criticism_ 2 mins · Edited · Like