What is materialism? | The ABCs of Marxist Philosophy (Part 1)

There are many ways to categorise philosophy, but at the most fundamental level, all philosophies are either idealist or materialist. Marxist philosophy is fundamentally materialist, that is to say, it believes the material universe is the only universe, and that mind is a product of it.

Get involved with Socialist Appeal today!

Follow us on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Soundcloud:

[davidball]

Excellent comrade. It's almost mystical, that these teachings come at the right time, by the right teachers.

[SpecialKtoday]

Fantastic video! Looking forward to the rest of the series!

[lonniejockstrap]

This is a great video to start with for me. Very well explained. So well explained even I can understand it and have been encouraged to watch further. Thank you.

[aman_insaan]

Great..
Never compromise with quality..
Short episodes will serve as capsules..
We would like to dive deep into this.
Try as long you can emphasize on each smaller and particular aspect.
Try to bring some criticisms by idealists. And of course refute it as it will provide a whole and multidimensional view of the philosophy.
I am tired of just hearing rhetorics like "everything is connected", "development happens through contradiction", "unity of opposites", "matter over mind"..
We are tired of this.
Tell us why this. I pretty much acknowledge myself as a Marxist but very much confused when it comes to philosophy.
Everyone is keen to tell this happens that way.
Tell me why this happens that way.
Btw, this video was one of best. It emphasises more on "why"... Liked it..👍🏽

[rowan]

This was so helpful for me, I'm new to Marxist theory so I'm excited to watch the full series. Thank you!

[knowledge]

This is the first explanation of materialism, and especially it's importance to Marxism, that has made sense to me. Explaining materialism vs idealism and why idealism has historically dominated really made this clear. Thank you

[robheusd]

One underlying question to this issue is: what is matter. In the field of science that studies matter (physics) enormous progress has been made, getting rid of the mechanical materialist conception, and developed a much more richer description of how nature works on the lowest levels, esp. in the field of quantum mechanics, quantum field theory. The picture described by quantum mechanics is however rather bizarre md counter intuitive, and involves concepts like the uncertainty principle (we can't know exactly the position and momentum of a particle at the same time, the more preciese we measure one value, the less preciese comes the other value) and the famous particle-wave duality. Contemorary logic would claim that something is either a wave or a particle, but nog both, while quantum mechanics shows that both features of matter are present, and it depends on the experiment which feature we actually observe like in the double sllit experiment. In the double slit experiment we can show that electrons can behave like waves (showing wave like features like interference), but as soon as we try to measure which path the electron took, the interference pattern disappears, and we get the particle like behaviour of the electron. In the field of gravity, the development of general relativity does away wth the concept of gravity as a force, and instead insists that gravitation is explained by the curvature of spacetime itself, and that measurements of space and time are dependent on both the intertial reference frame and curvature of space-time, getting rif of the newtonian view of absolute space and time. And apart from cuvature of space, modern cosmology insists on the idea that space can also stretch causing light waves to redshift due the spacetime expansion over long cosmological distances.
As to this modern understanding, some idealist have argued that matter as such does no longer exist, and quantum mechanics has definately proven that physical reality is observer dependent. For example as exemplified in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. However that position is not uphold by many physicists, and instead of arguing that quantum mechanics shows that physical reality is observer dependent (dependent on consciousness) they argue that the measurement itself is a physical process which determines the outcome of a measurement, and does not depend on consciousness, and as such poses no opposition to the materialst point of view. In current day physics however, the term matter has a different meaning then the philosophical term matter. Physics defines matter as composed of elementary particles (the ingredients of the Standard Model of physics) ie. leptons (the constituents of ordinary matter, like electrons, protons, neutrons) and bosons (force carying particles like photons resp. for the electro-magnetic phenomena, W and Z particles resp. for the electroweak force (nuclear decay), and gluons assoiated with the strong nuclear force (holding the nucleus together), and the Higgs boson (responsible for part of the masses of the other particles).
The Standard model might not be the complete picture, as some physical/cosmological theories require other particles to exist, for example the dark matter hypotheses (the anomalous rotatiion curves of galaxies, gravitational lensing of large objects like galaxy clusters) which tries to explain these phenomena at the basis of massive particles that do not interact with the electromagnetic force, but which do act gravitationally. Some other unknown ingredient of the universe is dark energy, which is the current explenation for the accelerated expansion of the universe. But current physics has no understanding of what this dark energy in fact is, but its existence was postulated based on Einsteins equation of general relativity of a constant, called lambda, initially thought of by Einstein to keep the universe stable (not collapsing or expanding), but in current cosmological models used to explain the opposite - why the universe expansion accelerates. Roughly speaking, dark energy is a contant energy density with a negative pressure, causing gravity to act repulsively. Neither dark matter nor dark energy are understood very well, and might also indicate that the current understanding of gravity is somehow wrong, although it has proven very difficult to alter general relativity.
It is often argumented that the current model of the universe proofs that the materialist conception of nature is wrong, because it would somehow proof that matter itself is not eternal, and that matter, time and space have had some definate origin. But there is no reason to suppose that, and what we see on the scale of the observable universe is in fact analogous to what we see every where else, namely that every material structure is always in a state of change and development, nothing stays the same, and that also includes plamnets, stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters etc. Neither of them impose the need for some kind of absolute begin to space time and matter, and the observable universe we inhabit, which itself is assumed to be part of a much larger structuire, and since we see that it develops on large time scales (expansion of space time and the chemical compositon - the relative abundances of the elements in the universe change over time due to nucleosynthsis in stars) - which requires that the material structure (of which the observale universe is a part) has some begin in time and probably also an end, but that unerstanding does not imply that the universe itself must have had a begin in time and/or that reality itself is not material.

[ishineandburn]

I'm not sure about the pessimism of Plato, looking down at the masses...

[FakeNewsHunter]

BTW: Getting a good feeling of what materialistic (and dialectic) thinking and analysis is, is well shown in the essay of of Frederick Engels 1876 *"The Part played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man"*

link to the full text following ...ff

[rmdir]

Would you not say that to call the ancient Greek philosophers "materialist" in a strict sense, is a stretch. Take for example Orphism, which led to the thought system we would now call "Greek" philosophy. The Pythagoreans too, could not be called "materialist" as they were in essence, a religious cult.
And of course, the mystery religions themselves, stemming from the eleusinian mysteries.
Curious on anyone's thoughts regarding this. I am a little confused going forward.

[JOSELUIS]

This video justifies the truth of materialism using historical and political evidences. What about at a fundamental level?, i.e. by applying science and analytical reasonig to address issues like brain-mind causation or "hard problem", some contemporary philosophers like Bernard Kastrup, the auhtor of "Why Materialism is baloney", challenge materialism.

[wlxlhmk]

Can you please do an intellectual property abolition video soon? This is the most important activist aim for working class people!!

And IP abolition is the most important aim to liberate artists and inventors and make them all better off financially.

[cmbr]

Current studies in physics do not seem to support your definition of materialism, more precisely “unambiguous materialism”. The notion that the objective world is inside of myself & that the natural environment is beyond every subjective reality is wrong headed. They are intertwined. When Marx quotes Freybak “the point is to change it”, what does “it” mean. If it means the cultural reality then it can be changed by considering the orphan, the widow, the infirm and slave. However, if it means the natural environment you’ve got a problem. Personally, I support any actions that supports persons. When such actions are of sustainable design, then all the better.

[pursuitofthegrind]

Your promoting Marxism?? Are you nuts?

[barnabasch]

Let's assume you and I have two separate tribes. You have 10 people and I have 10 people. We both have the same amount of resources. You distribute your resources equally and the same responsibilities to everyone. I assign the resources unequally, and favor those who perform better. You don't have to be a genius to realize who will be more successful and happy. The goal of life itself is to be unequal.