The way I understand from studying Juche as well as Paul Cockshott's videos is that Juche says that the masses are the subject of history. Bourgeois philosophy projects the idea of subject onto individuals, as well as business entities.
I'm very much looking forward to your further criticisms Althusser given that I found much value in his incites into the political origins of the revival of idealism within Marxist academic circles in the late 50's and 60's, take for example these passages from his introduction to the English edition of For Marx, "The denunciation of the ‘cult of personality’, the abrupt conditions and the forms in which it took place, have had profound repercussions, not only in the political domain, but in the ideological domain as well. In what follows I shall deal only with the ideological reactions of Communist intellectuals. The critique of Stalinist ‘dogmatism’ was generally ‘lived’ by Communist intellectuals as a ‘liberation’. This ‘liberation’ gave birth to a profound ideological reaction, ‘liberal’ and ‘ethical’ in tendency, which spontaneously rediscovered the old philosophical themes of ‘freedom’, ‘man’, the ‘human person’ and ‘alienation’. This ideological tendency looked for theoretical justification to Marx’s Early Works, which do indeed contain all the arguments of a philosophy of man, his alienation and liberation. These conditions have paradoxically turned the tables in Marxist philosophy. Since the 1930s Marx’s Early Works have been a war-horse for petty bourgeois intellectuals in their struggle against Marxism; but little by little, and then massively, they have been set to work in the interests of a new ‘interpretation’ of Marxism which is today being openly developed by many Communist intellectuals, ‘liberated’ from Stalinist dogmatism by the Twentieth Congress. The themes of ‘Marxist Humanism’ and the ‘humanist’ interpretation of Marx’s work have progressively and irresistibly imposed themselves on recent Marxist philosophy, even inside Soviet and Western Communist Parties." He goes on explain how these philosophical trends were reinforced by the leadership of the Soviet Union dropping of, what I would argue was already an incredibly doctrinaire and politically conservative form of 'Marxism,' in favor of embracing a bourgeois-humanist one. What interested me about this was not some self-indulgent academic exercise but to try to explain how, in this current juncture, we have a situation in which almost the entire Marxist movement have abandoned materialism and embraced, to a greater or lesser extent, idealist identity politics. I have repeatedly been denounced by former Marxist comrades for employing 'class-reductionism' and 'vulgar-materialism' with the constant snide refrain that I'm 'not thinking dialecticlly.' So, while Althusser had been something of shining light for me in trying to navigate out of this mess we're in, I look forward to the opptunity to hear your criticisms so I can continue to combat these reactionary ideas on a stronger philosophical foundation.
As I said in the video, Althusser did great work in his polemics of the 1960s against humanist deviations. His take that the subject is constituted by ideology at first seemed a step towards materialism, but over the last decade or so I have come to the conclusion that his 'problematisation' of the subject is only partial. He still accepts that subjects exist, but we only have this as a philosophical premise not a scientific result. How is it established that they exist?
this was really interesting i'd suggest Merleu-Ponty's concept of the 'embodied subject' which overcomes the latent cartesian dualism in the term 'subject' by itself.
All subjects are bodies. It is on the bodies of her subjects that the queen imposes punishments. paulcockshott.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/blown.jpg?w=400&h=200&crop=1
Agreed, philosophers like Wittgenstein and Ponty would be invaluable to Marxist thought as they overcome the opposition between idealism and materialism by undermining the questions to which they answer to.
Subject seemed to have changed from Feudalism to Capitalism, where the subject to the king is now a 'legal person' under bourgeois law. Could the meaning change once again?
Perhaps. As I was trying to point out these usages also have national peculiarities. In English the term subject still meant and still means the subjects of the Queen. The queens created subjects by the ultima ratio regina, the cannon. It was in Germany under the impact of the French bourgeois revolution that you first get the transformation of the legal meaning of the term.
Check out (Jaroszewski, 1981) Socialism as a Social System especially chapters 5 and 6 Socialist Humanism and The Socialist Mode of Life. I have a free download link if you like
This will weed out the REAL socialists from the liberals. Liberals dont want to give up any liberties and rights in favor of responsibilities and duties. Thats why i say UBI is the best solution for the USA.
Hey, been reading over some classic marxist philosophy and thought you might like to know that the materialist dietzgen and Lenin both use the category of subject in their philosophic works. You can disagree with them but I think you'll have to do more than portray your idea as against althusser
Yes it gets into Marxism in the late 19th century early 20th. Perhaps via Dieztgen, but more probably because of the influence of German bourgeois philosophy as a background which the Marxists allowed to set the language of debate. It was striking to me when I went and checked the German Ideology to see that Marx and Engels did not use this language at all. This, I think, portrays the weakness of the DIa Mat which comes from Dieztgen versus the Historical Materialism of Marx.
@@paulcockshott8733 I would agree that it likely isn't due to dietzgen (although his philosophy was often distorted by reactionaries) because they still make up a very small peice of his larger works. I think its odd though to counterpose dialectical materialism to historical materialism is there a reason you do it? I will be doing a rereading of anti-duhring soon and will check to see if he uses the subject within it. Ultimately I felt like a polemic against the subject whether correct or incorrect could use more than 20 minutes and I hope to see more on the topic!
According to Althusser you can divide Marx into his younger "humanist" writings and his later "materialist" writings. But Marxist-Humanists say Althusser is wrong and Marx was a humanist all through his life.
I tend to side with Althusser on this, and really the critical decalage is 1845 and the German Ideology. There is more influence of Feuerbach before that. If you read Feuerbach's Essence as a Marxist you think - bloody hell this guy is completely blind to the class ideology in the Bible, but the young Marx seems to have himself have been blind to that failing in Feuerbach
sorry for being offtopic, but how can capitalists get profits from unpaid labour, if total wages are always lower than total product value? who can they sell it to? i understand not all of them make profit all the time, and there are crises and loans, but is that it? or is there more to it? i'm watching your video on the falling rate of profit and i can't wrap my head around it.
I think that Subjectivity can be used outside of the Capitalist categories, it is a more general term used to deny the existence of objective materialist laws. I believe that there are objective laws, but our evolutionary history has made us humans to care for our survival and well being. Thus from our point of view, we are the ones that matter. And we want to control nature by using her laws in our advantage. So even though it is an illusion that we have free will, that is all that matters for us.
The stuff about free will is in pre-capitalist juridical ideology not specifically bourgeois ideology. But the emphasis is different in bourgeois ideology you get the assertion of free will as the abstract ability of the property owner to dispose of their property without interference. In feudal ideology it is the freedom to chose to be dominated, the freedom to chose not to sin and thus to accommodate yourself to your servile position.
@@paulcockshott8733 I follow your point of view. There seems to be a parallel notion of subjectivity that is derived from complex systems theory , the role of the observer in constructing theories. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence#Objective_or_subjective_quality There seems to be other left theories that are of interest here, like postmodernism etc. that need to be "dealt" with. By the way, I am not an expert in any of the above, i need to understand them for practical purposes.
I'm not sure how this relates to the feuerbachian inversion of predicate and subject, which marx drew heavily from? Also curious if the category of scientific subject is subject ;) to the same distortion as the category has recieved in philosophy? Althusser's ideas regarding an epistemic break from ideology could mean that the catergory of a scientific subject is not as latent with ideological distortion and could be used by marxist. Although not in the althusserian form.
It seems to me that the problem is more in the injection of capitalist ideology into the term. The general idea of a 'self' which distinquishes itself from the world external to it seems to be a product of the shift from natural to social history, which Feuerbach alludes to and Plekhanov draws out. It may be possible to have a more scientific use of the concept distinct from its historical forms, but I'm not educated enough to formulate it.
By scientific subject do you mean subject in the sense of 'subject matter', or 'the subject of this essay'? This use apparently is attested in English from the mid 1500s
Juche thought is also directly translated to 'subject' thought.
The way I understand from studying Juche as well as Paul Cockshott's videos is that Juche says that the masses are the subject of history. Bourgeois philosophy projects the idea of subject onto individuals, as well as business entities.
I'm very much looking forward to your further criticisms Althusser given that I found much value in his incites into the political origins of the revival of idealism within Marxist academic circles in the late 50's and 60's, take for example these passages from his introduction to the English edition of For Marx,
"The denunciation of the ‘cult of personality’, the abrupt conditions and the forms in which it took place, have had profound repercussions, not only in the political domain, but in the ideological domain as well. In what follows I shall deal only with the ideological reactions of Communist intellectuals.
The critique of Stalinist ‘dogmatism’ was generally ‘lived’ by Communist intellectuals as a ‘liberation’. This ‘liberation’ gave birth to a profound ideological reaction, ‘liberal’ and ‘ethical’ in tendency, which spontaneously rediscovered the old philosophical themes of ‘freedom’, ‘man’, the ‘human person’ and ‘alienation’. This ideological tendency looked for theoretical justification to Marx’s Early Works, which do indeed contain all the arguments of a philosophy of man, his alienation and liberation. These conditions have paradoxically turned the tables in Marxist philosophy. Since the 1930s Marx’s Early Works have been a war-horse for petty bourgeois intellectuals in their struggle against Marxism; but little by little, and then massively, they have been set to work in the interests of a new ‘interpretation’ of Marxism which is today being openly developed by many Communist intellectuals, ‘liberated’ from Stalinist dogmatism by the Twentieth Congress. The themes of ‘Marxist Humanism’ and the ‘humanist’ interpretation of Marx’s work have progressively and irresistibly imposed themselves on recent Marxist philosophy, even inside Soviet and Western Communist Parties."
He goes on explain how these philosophical trends were reinforced by the leadership of the Soviet Union dropping of, what I would argue was already an incredibly doctrinaire and politically conservative form of 'Marxism,' in favor of embracing a bourgeois-humanist one.
What interested me about this was not some self-indulgent academic exercise but to try to explain how, in this current juncture, we have a situation in which almost the entire Marxist movement have abandoned materialism and embraced, to a greater or lesser extent, idealist identity politics. I have repeatedly been denounced by former Marxist comrades for employing 'class-reductionism' and 'vulgar-materialism' with the constant snide refrain that I'm 'not thinking dialecticlly.'
So, while Althusser had been something of shining light for me in trying to navigate out of this mess we're in, I look forward to the opptunity to hear your criticisms so I can continue to combat these reactionary ideas on a stronger philosophical foundation.
As I said in the video, Althusser did great work in his polemics of the 1960s against humanist deviations. His take that the subject is constituted by ideology at first seemed a step towards materialism, but over the last decade or so I have come to the conclusion that his 'problematisation' of the subject is only partial. He still accepts that subjects exist, but we only have this as a philosophical premise not a scientific result. How is it established that they exist?
this was really interesting
i'd suggest Merleu-Ponty's concept of the 'embodied subject' which overcomes the latent cartesian dualism in the term 'subject' by itself.
All subjects are bodies. It is on the bodies of her subjects that the queen imposes punishments. paulcockshott.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/blown.jpg?w=400&h=200&crop=1
Agreed, philosophers like Wittgenstein and Ponty would be invaluable to Marxist thought as they overcome the opposition between idealism and materialism by undermining the questions to which they answer to.
Mr Cockshott could you indicate the means by which you could consult the Great Soviet Encyclopedia ? I cannot find it anywhere online it seems
Plzzzzzzz translate it in hindi language
Quite beyond my ability. But if you want to subtitle it, I can enable the subtitles on request
Professor Cockshott, thanks for your lecture. Do you have any experience with Evald Ilyenkov’s work?
No, I have never read Ilyenkov though I have heard other people say to me that some of the things I say in lectures sound like Ilyenkov.
Another scientific precise concise gem from Dr. Paul!
Very interesting and informative video as usual Paul 👍👍
I like how he starts speaking French like it's nothing
Subject seemed to have changed from Feudalism to Capitalism, where the subject to the king is now a 'legal person' under bourgeois law. Could the meaning change once again?
Perhaps. As I was trying to point out these usages also have national peculiarities. In English the term subject still meant and still means the subjects of the Queen. The queens created subjects by the ultima ratio regina, the cannon. It was in Germany under the impact of the French bourgeois revolution that you first get the transformation of the legal meaning of the term.
What books are a good source of this material?
General theory of Law and Marxism by Pashukanis
Check out (Jaroszewski, 1981) Socialism as a Social System especially chapters 5 and 6 Socialist Humanism and The Socialist Mode of Life. I have a free download link if you like
@@PoliticalEconomy101 can you post that
@@paulcockshott8733 Sure
ia802809.us.archive.org/7/items/SocialismAsASocialSystem/Socialism%20as%20a%20Social%20System.pdf
This will weed out the REAL socialists from the liberals. Liberals dont want to give up any liberties and rights in favor of responsibilities and duties. Thats why i say UBI is the best solution for the USA.
Hello, I was wondering if you have read Mike Macnairs "revolutionary strategy" and if so what you think about the book.
paulcockshott.co.uk/reality/polemic/notesonmcnair.pdf
Hey, been reading over some classic marxist philosophy and thought you might like to know that the materialist dietzgen and Lenin both use the category of subject in their philosophic works. You can disagree with them but I think you'll have to do more than portray your idea as against althusser
Yes it gets into Marxism in the late 19th century early 20th. Perhaps via Dieztgen, but more probably because of the influence of German bourgeois philosophy as a background which the Marxists allowed to set the language of debate. It was striking to me when I went and checked the German Ideology to see that Marx and Engels did not use this language at all. This, I think, portrays the weakness of the DIa Mat which comes from Dieztgen versus the Historical Materialism of Marx.
@@paulcockshott8733 I would agree that it likely isn't due to dietzgen (although his philosophy was often distorted by reactionaries) because they still make up a very small peice of his larger works. I think its odd though to counterpose dialectical materialism to historical materialism is there a reason you do it?
I will be doing a rereading of anti-duhring soon and will check to see if he uses the subject within it. Ultimately I felt like a polemic against the subject whether correct or incorrect could use more than 20 minutes and I hope to see more on the topic!
According to Althusser you can divide Marx into his younger "humanist" writings and his later "materialist" writings. But Marxist-Humanists say Althusser is wrong and Marx was a humanist all through his life.
I tend to side with Althusser on this, and really the critical decalage is 1845 and the German Ideology. There is more influence of Feuerbach before that. If you read Feuerbach's Essence as a Marxist you think - bloody hell this guy is completely blind to the class ideology in the Bible, but the young Marx seems to have himself have been blind to that failing in Feuerbach
sorry for being offtopic, but how can capitalists get profits from unpaid labour, if total wages are always lower than total product value? who can they sell it to? i understand not all of them make profit all the time, and there are crises and loans, but is that it? or is there more to it? i'm watching your video on the falling rate of profit and i can't wrap my head around it.
You need to look at the video on reproduction schemes. That explains it.
@@paulcockshott8733 thanks a lot, i will !
Actually in German it is called Rechtssubjekt, not Rechtsubjekt.
Thanks for the spelling correction
@@paulcockshott8733 You're welcome. You just missed the interfix, so it's not that important.
I think that Subjectivity can be used outside of the Capitalist categories, it is a more general term used to deny the existence of objective materialist laws.
I believe that there are objective laws, but our evolutionary history has made us humans to care for our survival and well being. Thus from our point of view, we are the ones that matter.
And we want to control nature by using her laws in our advantage.
So even though it is an illusion that we have free will, that is all that matters for us.
The stuff about free will is in pre-capitalist juridical ideology not specifically bourgeois ideology. But the emphasis is different in bourgeois ideology you get the assertion of free will as the abstract ability of the property owner to dispose of their property without interference. In feudal ideology it is the freedom to chose to be dominated, the freedom to chose not to sin and thus to accommodate yourself to your servile position.
@@paulcockshott8733 I follow your point of view. There seems to be a parallel notion of subjectivity that is derived from complex systems theory , the role of the observer in constructing theories.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence#Objective_or_subjective_quality
There seems to be other left theories that are of interest here, like postmodernism etc. that need to be "dealt" with.
By the way, I am not an expert in any of the above, i need to understand them for practical purposes.
It's like reading Foucault all over again XD (another great lecture, will share around as always)
I'm not sure how this relates to the feuerbachian inversion of predicate and subject, which marx drew heavily from?
Also curious if the category of scientific subject is subject ;) to the same distortion as the category has recieved in philosophy? Althusser's ideas regarding an epistemic break from ideology could mean that the catergory of a scientific subject is not as latent with ideological distortion and could be used by marxist. Although not in the althusserian form.
It seems to me that the problem is more in the injection of capitalist ideology into the term. The general idea of a 'self' which distinquishes itself from the world external to it seems to be a product of the shift from natural to social history, which Feuerbach alludes to and Plekhanov draws out. It may be possible to have a more scientific use of the concept distinct from its historical forms, but I'm not educated enough to formulate it.
By scientific subject do you mean subject in the sense of 'subject matter', or 'the subject of this essay'? This use apparently is attested in English from the mid 1500s
@@paulcockshott8733 I guess I would mean more like the subject of an experiment.
@@paulcockshott8733 like "test subject A has a blood glucose of 184"
@@LoganMillett in this case it is the old feudal sense of the word, the rats, or mice are subjected to the domination of the experimenter.