Re-Starting the Book Group

What would everyone want to read first? The only stipulation that I put forward for the first discussion is that the reading must be from Marx and that it must be available online so that everyone may obtain it. There are several websites that offer Marxist literature and I can provide a source if necessary.

My first motion is to present The German Ideology as the first option.

I've just spoken to Vasco Gonçalves and he is interested in the group and has also voted for the German Ideology for the moment. We'll have a real vote after all the options have been proposed.

I'm also interested in engaging in discussions in the Book Study Group. Count me in.

Egalitarian is in as well. Any other takers?

The first reading is The German Ideology by Karl Marx. It will be discussed this Thursday to give everyone time to read the thing. I'm looking forward to everyone's participation!

It has been voted upon by a majority of the current members of the Book Group that the first reading shall indeed be Part 1 of The German Ideology. The discussion shall take place on Thursday.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Count me in

There's two days until the first discussion everyone! I'm looking forward to the discussion.

Just a Reminder,
Red Aegis

Ps: If you haven't gotten permission to be in the group yet contact the RSFEC.

What time do we begin?

People usually start getting online around four or five hours from now. We'll start then, but the discussion may last until tomorrow though.

Let us start by discussing the first part of section A. This part of section A that I'm referring to is from the start of the section until the first sub-section: 1. History.

In this section Marx goes through the basics of Historical Materialism as the preferred method of analyzing consciousness and it's basis as the preferred method. It is postulated that the Old and New Heagelian philosophers both start with abstract concepts that are then projected onto the world in a manner that seeks to make the model as close to the object as possible. This is viewed by the Old Heagelians as a mode in which humanity sees it's interconnectivity. In that of the New, it is seen as a posibility to re-define things in order to escape from the current arrangement of things through viewing the world differently. What Marx intends to do is view the world from premises not conjured in the mind but those seen and experienced in reality, empirical data.

Through seeing the world through this empirical data one can see that man is defined by his measurable impact on the world: what he produces and how he produces it. The changes in these characteristics of man are caused by changes in technology, means of production as well as how different socio-economic relations propagate themselves.

The manner in which changes of technology affects man is that it changes the division of labor among people. Marx goes on to say that due to these divisions separate groups can be classified by their interests in propagating their mode of subsistence and not so much as transcending their mode of subsistence due to the rigidity of these groups boundaries. These relations to the means of production also determine the distribution of power among these differing groups.

The differing in power affects the prevailing property rights of any given location and time. This may be seen in the example of the tribe's head in a tribal setting commanding anything he sets his eyes upon or with the development of private property when communities started to develop.

This development of private property was able to develop due to the division of labor according to Marx. With different groups doing different tasks within a community, one 'owned' what one used to do one's task. With the differing of ownership there develops a power gap and classes emerge.

Even ideas are a product of labor and affect the world.

Now for my questions that arose during my reading of that section. What effect does the self-reflexive nature of ideas have when applied to the concrete world of the means of production? Cannot ideas effect change on the world through the alteration of individuals' subjective consciousness? Would this not qualify as ideas shaping the world and therefore suggest a combination of materialism and idealism?

bump

Bump... we need to get this going again!

Red Aegis wrote:Let us start by discussing the first part of section A. This part of section A that I'm referring to is from the start of the section until the first sub-section: 1. History.

In this section Marx goes through the basics of Historical Materialism as the preferred method of analyzing consciousness and it's basis as the preferred method. It is postulated that the Old and New Heagelian philosophers both start with abstract concepts that are then projected onto the world in a manner that seeks to make the model as close to the object as possible. This is viewed by the Old Heagelians as a mode in which humanity sees it's interconnectivity. In that of the New, it is seen as a posibility to re-define things in order to escape from the current arrangement of things through viewing the world differently. What Marx intends to do is view the world from premises not conjured in the mind but those seen and experienced in reality, empirical data.

Through seeing the world through this empirical data one can see that man is defined by his measurable impact on the world: what he produces and how he produces it. The changes in these characteristics of man are caused by changes in technology, means of production as well as how different socio-economic relations propagate themselves.

The manner in which changes of technology affects man is that it changes the division of labor among people. Marx goes on to say that due to these divisions separate groups can be classified by their interests in propagating their mode of subsistence and not so much as transcending their mode of subsistence due to the rigidity of these groups boundaries. These relations to the means of production also determine the distribution of power among these differing groups.

The differing in power affects the prevailing property rights of any given location and time. This may be seen in the example of the tribe's head in a tribal setting commanding anything he sets his eyes upon or with the development of private property when communities started to develop.

This development of private property was able to develop due to the division of labor according to Marx. With different groups doing different tasks within a community, one 'owned' what one used to do one's task. With the differing of ownership there develops a power gap and classes emerge.

Even ideas are a product of labor and affect the world.

Now for my questions that arose during my reading of that section. What effect does the self-reflexive nature of ideas have when applied to the concrete world of the means of production? Cannot ideas effect change on the world through the alteration of individuals' subjective consciousness? Would this not qualify as ideas shaping the world and therefore suggest a combination of materialism and idealism?

This sums up chapter one really well. I'll go venture onto chapter two now.

Egalitarian wrote:This sums up chapter one really well. I'll go venture onto chapter two now.

I've read most of what is displayed of The German Ideology on the marxists.org webpage. The rest I couldn't read because my book contains information not included on the webpage which follows the sections I have hitherto read. (I prefer not to skip sections.)

Thus far, in the book, Marx offers a cognitive, succinct, eminent, and an aphoristic analysis of history and proletarian relations within it. As an addition, he criticizes the anathema of his time, known as Saint Bruno, and his sly attempts to replicate excerpts from the works of Stirner and Hegel, in an attempt to give longevity and false character to his worldview with his takings.

My admiration of the forestalling advice against the vogue that is presented throughout the book continues to flourish. If we learn from history, surely we are propelled not to repeat it or provide fodder to the contemporary establishment. Thereby, it is meant that proletarians must come to the realization of a materialist self-consciousness overview in order to save themselves from the laborious economic facility incited by private property. The shared utilization of such an outlook would spark the underlying class of civilization to facilitate the transition of productive powers into a mode which benefits them via revolutionary means.

Posthumously, socialists continue to convince me of the essential conditions necessary for economic congruence; it primarily includes the abolition of the division of labour. My premonition of further economic inequality among the working class is something shared by socialists and that I have acquired from them which the working people themselves cannot afford to be ignore for the sake of their own unexploited future. Marx expands this vital point.

Inverse activity is common within the title, and so is profundity. The serfdom of antiquated times of pre-industrial advancement attest to the desperation of labourers in order to secure a monetary future for themselves. Inclined to settle, they had served the guild system lords, who all too soon turned on them, and thereby caused them to seek shelter among the towns, where eventually the serfs became guilty of the same crimes of former feudal masters. Manufacture arose by the subsequent bourgeoisie, who possessed much influence over the identity of the state, which must be abolished, as Marx states. It is at such a time that town and country can be reunited.

It is a truly insightful read, I must say.