Matter, Propagation, Pluralization

Marx and Engel's insistence, in the German Ideology, on methodical observation of the concrete activities of concrete humans, is somewhat betrayed by the generalization of such processes as 'Matter', which is as much as an abstraction from them as is 'Spirit'.  They thereby fail to discern, as has been previously discussed, the factor of physical sexual drives in the traditional hostility towards Matter.  Now, they do recognize Propagation as one of three "fundamental conditions" of History, but by conflating the three, they miss an opportunity to gain a greater insight from that particular condition into the essential character of Matter.  For, as is, Matter, for them, is either indeterminately dynamic, or else, is constituted by some of the same abstract moments, e. g. Negation and Contradiction, that are native to Hegel's concept of Mind.  In contrast, the concrete observation of reproduction reveals a process of Pluralization, which, once attributed to Matter, becomes a necessary condition of any Materialist concept of Socialism.

Materialism, Reproduction, Tyranny

At the beginning of the German Ideology, included in Marx's introduction of Materialism, are the terms "reproduce", "increase of population", and "intercourse".  Now, while the actual context of these usages is the exploitation of the working class, they are a reminder that a significant factor in the traditional Theological aversion to Materialism is the tyranny of not the leisure classes, as Marxism asserts, but of the senses, e. g. Buddha, Augustine, etc.  Still, the biological means of production, i. e. the reproductive organs, evince that the Social Atomism that grounds Capitalism is a fiction that abstracts from the actual function of parts of the individual human body.

Materialism and Ordinalism

According to Monism, there is one Substance, and according to Dualism, there are two Substances.  In contrast with each is what can be called 'Ordinalism', according to which there are two fundamental elements, ordered as superior and inferior in some respect.  A chronic confusion in the history of Philosophy is that nearly all systems, whether classified as 'Monist', or as 'Dualist', are, in fact, Ordinalist.  For, typical of Monism is the suppression of an inferior element, often via the dismissal of it as 'irreal' in some respect, e. g. Multiplicity, for Parmenides, Individuals, for Schopenhauer, etc.  Similarly, typical of Dualism is a denigration of one of its Substances, often via the thesis of a unilateral interaction between them, e. g. most Mind-Body theories, Kant's Noumenon-Phenomenon pair, etc. but perhaps more often via a normative distinction, e. g. Manichean Light vs. Dark, God vs. the Devil, etc.  Now, Marxism is no exception from this traditional confusion.  He presents his Materialism as Monist, but never quite explains how e. g. Form, Consciousness, Ideas, etc., each of which plays a role in his system, is, are only Matter.  Indeed, the dynamic factor in his system, Negation, which is distinct from the positive Matter to which it is attributed, is indistinguishable from the ex machina visitations in the systems that it presumably inverts, e. g. Spirit, Mind, etc.  So, Marxism includes a suppressed element, which, according to Marx himself, is a symptom of Ideology in what he seeks to supplant.

Materialism and Form

It is difficult to conceive how Marx might disagree with Hegel's characterization of Labor as an imposition of Form.  But, the traditional correlate of Form is Matter, and, in at least one prominent system, i. e. Platonism, Form and Idea are identical.  So, a challenge to Marxism is to accommodate Form in Materialism, e. g. to derive Form from Matter.  Now, Dialectical Materialism neither answers nor avoids the challenge, since Dialectic is a Form, i. e. is a pattern, whether of Ideas or of Matter.  What the formidability of that challenge indicates is the inadequacy of any Monism, whether Spiritualism, Idealism, or Materialism, to the Form-Matter duality.  In other words, Marx can no more conceive of Labor as Form-imposing without a guiding Idea, than Hegel can conceive of it without a physical agency to accomplish it, or at least in the absence of a proof of a psychokinetic power of Consciousness.

Consciousness, Psychokinesis, Labor

In the Phenomenology, Hegel attributes Labor, i. e. the process of imposing form on an outer object, to Consciousness.  In the Philosophy of Right, this process constitutes taking possession of an object, but in this case the Mind uses an "instrument", as he characterizes it in #48--"the body".  So, presumably, in his system, Consciousness has the power of psychokinesis, and contingently resorts to physical means to take possession of the products of Labor.  Analogously, therefore, it is the employer of physical means of Labor who is the owner of what is thereby produced, according to Hegelianism.  So, if the the Capitalist's claiming of possession of the fruits of the Labor of others is unjust, the required correction is undoing of the original Mind-Body split, but necessarily an inversion of the subordination of the latter to the former.

Self-Consciousness and Means of Production

With the positing of 'I exist' as the fundamental proposition of Modern Philosophy, a variety of Idealism is established as its predominant theory, and the duality of Self-Conscious as its central problem.  Treatments of the problem have ranged from the extraction from it of a cosmic Dialectic, to the extrapolation from it of an infinite hall of mirrors.  But, because of its self-imposed limitation of not accepting the existence of anything outside the egological sphere, such Idealism cannot recognize the embodiment of Self-Consciousness in any simple tool.  Now, any tool, as an extension of its user, is Subjective, and, as something that can itself be worked on, is Objective.  So, it tends to confirm the thesis of Parallelism, that Subject and Object are two corresponding but non-coinciding perspectives on one and the same entity.  In other words, the tool demonstrates that a finite entity in a plural world can both act and be acted upon, a mundane characteristic in the light of day that gets mystified when interiorized.  But, the mysterious apparent tension of the Self-Consciousness therein is not between the I-Subject and the I-Object, as Idealists usually take it to be.  Rather, the instability experienced is the resistance of its duality to the futile attempts at a Monistic reduction of it by the I that is entertaining it.  Now, a tool is a means of production.  So, to the Marxist, the Means of Production is the locus of not only Capitalist exploitation, but of the resolution of the contradiction of Idealism, as well.

Property and Means of Production

Following his introduction, in Philosophy of Right, of grasping and form-imposition, as modes of "taking possession", Hegel next considers the use of an object.  Now, insofar as using an object requires grasping it, and taking possession is a means to use, the latter is prior to and presupposed by grasping.  Furthermore, if he were thinking dialectically in these passages, he might discover the synthesis of the use of an object with the imposition of form on another, e. g. in, as he himself presents, agricultural and raw material processes.  In other words, implicit in these passages on the topic of Property is the concept of the Means of Production, the conspicuous absence of explicit recognition of which is significant from a Marxist perspeective.