On the Nature of Thought (HM 1.1)

What did Aristotle mean when he asked the question:  What is the correct way to think?

Contrary to what is usually the first concluded answer, Aristotle cared very little about what biases you had in your life that cause you to think one way or the other.  Instead, Aristotle was questioning the method of existence in logic, epistemology, which then carries over into how to think logically about existence.  Aristotle's famous three laws are as follows:

1) The Law of Identity:  Each existence is identical with itself  (A is A)
2) Law of Noncontradiction:  Each existence is not different from itself (A is not non-A)
3) Law of Excluded Middle:  No existence can be both itself and different from itself (Any X is either A or non-A, but not both at once).

It should be clear that the foundation of existence for Aristotle is self-identifying reification (recognition of the self).  This can be credited to his teacher and primary influence, Plato.  His laws make the same point from three different angles: Positively, it says that a thing can only be what it is.  Negatively, it says that a thing cannot be what it is not.  Dichotomously, it says that there are only two alternatives:  A or non-A.

Most of these perspectives we see as general 'truisms', meaning that they are commonly accepted as facts of existence.  They can be summed up by Descartes' "I think therefore I am."  In Descartes' simple sentence he places thought prior to existence.  It is thus only through the identification of the self that the self can claim its existence.

The historical materialist however, points out that these so-called 'truisms' are held chiefly because they are reproduced regularly by society's educational system as the standard way of thinking about existence.  As this note hopes to show, Aristotle's view is not necessarily false...but it is rather oversimplified.

Let us start with what John Somerville used to explain the breakdown in Aristotle's logic, a piece of paper.  According to Aristotelian logic, the paper is paper (A is A); it is not different from paper (A is not non-A); and anything that exists must either be paper or not be paper (and X is either A or non-A, but not both).  However, if we watch the paper's existence over a long period of time we are forced to question whether or not Aristotle was in fact correct.  We know, just by scientific reasoning, that after thousands of years...even if the paper was isolated from interaction....it would be very different from what it is now; in fact it might not even be paper anymore.

The paper would have changed chemically and physically to such an extent that it would literally become something else than it originally was.  As Somerville said, it would "crumble into dust."  The point to get here is that everything is constantly becoming something else, and thus Aristotle's first law is overly simplistic in its assertion about the primacy of something's existence.  For if one were to seriously ask "at what point does the paper cease to be paper and become something else?" the answer would be:  Constantly.  More importantly, the more we examine a particular object, like paper, we are forced to the conclusion that not only are changes always taking place, but that changes are taking place throughout all parts of the object in question.

Scientific examinations helps to explain this further.  Quantum dynamism and contemporary physics tells us that the paper is in fact made up of mostly "empty space" in which a series of billions of particles are spinning and interacting with one another, held together within a electromagnetic field.  As Somerville points out, "the empty space itself must not be thought of as nothingness...but as a field possessed with definite properties.  All these things and events--the billions of highly activated particles, the field that has specific effects on them, the positive and negative forces at work which defines the field, the opposing combinations of units pushing and pulling in different directions....all of this is not something that takes place *ON* the paper.....it **IS** the paper."

The simplification of Aristotle's first law derives from its neglect of the concept of "rate of change."  When the "total rate" of the paper's existence is not too long...say....one minute to 10 years.....the paper is usable as paper and can be further used as paper.  These are only SOME of the factors that are important in understanding the paradoxical but pervasive dynamics whereby each thing is busy changing itself; is in a process of becoming something else 24-hours a day, non-stop.

The historical materialist holds that in a universe such as this, where units are constantly shifting from one state of existence to the next, the basic rules of correct thinking should reflect the basic situation of change.  This is not a method of thinking where the static and changeless take center position in thought while change plays a secondary role.  Rather it is one in which change is the essence and the core of existence, while it is the static "stabilities" that are merely passing and temporary.  "The process whereby each thing is changing its identity is primary, continuous and absolute; it is the identities reached that are secondary, temporary, and relative."

Thus the historical materialist has a new set of laws from which to derive the ontological question of "what is correct thinking?"

1) The Law of Strife, Interpenetration, and Unity of Opposites.  (A is A, and it is also non-A)

The reason each thing is in a constant process of growth and change is that each particular "thing" is made up of opposing forces and different interacting elements.  Simply, these are called "opposites" but the traditional Marxist or Dialectician will refer to them as "antitheses".  These different forces and opposing elements do not exist side by side, "like neighbors each of whom goes his own way without having any vital relationships to the other.  If that were the case, no complex "thing" would be formed that we would be likely to identify with a name, no 'unity' of elements would emerge."  Rather these opposing forces form a tight knit that balances together and "maintains itself as a pattern for a sufficient period of time to be distinguishable" from other "things".  THIS...is what accounts for the fact that every "thing" has a history.

The crude materialist however would reject that such a notion of existence applies to ideas.  Ideas, to the crudely undialectical materialist, represent nothing more than abstracted fantasies of material existence.  To combat this, let us again use Somerville's explanation with reference to "constitutionality":
"There is, indeed, one set of actual facts, one state of affairs that is objectively and absolutely the case in all fields. But there are different and competing theories, conceptions, and laws, all derived from ideas, offered in a continuing effort to explain these facts.

People ordinarily think of ideas as an isolated unit. But quickly it can be realized upon reflection that this unit is made up of different elements, interrelated in a certain way. In fact, the very definition of an idea is a statement of some of the chief elements and types of relationship present. Let us take the following idea of constitutionality as a supposed 'absolute idea.'

Let us use the following definition of constitutionality: the logical compatibility of a law or an action with the provisions of a constitution. We see at once that this idea would not...indeed it could not...exist except as a combination of elements, which are themselves other ideas, or aspects of other ideas.

In other words, if we did not understand the idea of logical compatibility, that of law, and that of a constitution itself, we would not be able to understand the idea of constitutionality...just as..if we could not physically identify hydrogen and oxygen, we would not be able to put them together in a certain proportion in order to produce water. Every idea has a specific ***content*** as an idea, quite apart from the fact that ideas also represent abstractions from material things.

Formal Logic, established by Aristotle, tells us that while we may move from one idea to another, ideas themselves are static...like the primary aspects of reality. This is essentially the same view as that taken of biological species prior to Darwin's work: the species exist side by side, but all are fixed; none grew out of others.

The dialectician thus holds that there is no reason for taking this view in the case of ideas when a view of this kind is taken in one field, it influences and encourages the taking of it in another. In any case, he points to the fact that such ideas as "logical compatibility", "law", and "constitution" undergo radical changes during the course of time; and he maintains that it is better, in a scientific sense, to explain a process of this kind as a growth or evolution than to deal with it as an unexplained transition between unalterable and unconnected absolute static entities."
In short, the first law of thought in historical materialism is a generalization, the point of which is to sum up change as the common basis to every level of existence.

If the first law identifies that everything that exists has a history that can be traced, thus revealing quantitative changes, the second law expressed that history is not only quantitative, but also qualitative.

2) The Law of Transition from Quantity to Quality (A becomes non-A, which then redefines A)

We can understand this law by simply referring to quantitative and qualitative changes in a single thing:  water.  When we increase the temperature of water, within certain limitations, we see a quantitative change.  The water remains water:  but it becomes a hotter liquid; it's particles moving at faster rates.  If however, this quantitative change continues...that is...if the temperature continues to be raised...a transition to a gaseous state occurs and a new qualitative condition emerges.  Steam is not simply water that is hotter than it was before; it has new definite properties that are not possessed by the liquid water.  Likewise, if the temperature is lowered beyond a certain point, another qualitative change takes place, this time into a solid.  Again:  The chemical properties of ice are not merely an "increased" or "decreased" degree in the properties of the liquid water; as a solid....ice contains chemical properties that water does not.

In other words, what this law is saying is that every accumulation of quantitative changes must eventually lead to some qualitative shift.  The old qualities are transformed into new ones.  It is also suggesting that the only means for producing these qualitative changes are shifts in the quantitative changes of the old qualities.  Thus history is not a simple "one-dimensional program" in which late developments can simply be "reduced" to earlier qualitative states.  The new qualitative differences contain within themselves new internal contradictions; new "opposites", new "antitheses", and new "quantitative rates of change".

3) The Law of the Negation of the Negation (A is constantly being redefined)This law requires somewhat of a more lengthy description, which will be found in HM 101.3.  For now, it is best to summarize the first two rules and how the third affects them both.  The first rule highlights that everything has a history.  The second rule emphasizes that this history is based upon a transition in quantitative conditions to qualitative ones.  The third rule, in a basic summation, emphasizes that the history established by Rule (1) and described by Rule (2)...never ends.  History does not stop.  Time does not stop.  Thus the only constant, is change.



Historical Materialism 101.1:  On the Nature of Thought.

By Joshua Morris.   Heavily Influenced by John Somerville's "The Philosophy of Dialectical Materialism"

An Old Paper Written as an Undergrad: Purge of the CIO

         

           After the introduction of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, the labor movement took on a radical transformation as large union federations like the CIO were forced to reevaluate their membership and their role as a union supporter.  The Taft-Hartley law was a response to the 1946 general strike, and was passed by a conservative congress not long after the events had winded down.  President Harry Truman attempted to veto the act however, his decision was overturned by the same congress.  Specifically the act mandated that all trade union leaders must sign an oath against communism, which in turn had a radical effect on the way the CIO addressed its members and approached the subject of communism.  In the long term, the act was designed as an anti-communist buffer which would slowly weed out radical sects within the labor movement by forcing union leaders to concede to certain political and social demands.  In the short run it was a well orchestrated charade in the midst of the Red Scare.  We can see the differences in ideological approach during this time by looking at two ideologically opposed newspapers, the Los Angeles Times and the Daily Worker.  The result of the Taft-Hartley law was the violent split of the CIO into right and left wings, each boldly defending their beliefs; and both the Daily Worker and the LA Times succeed in presenting the material for each respective side.  Quickly during the year of 1949 and early 1950, the CIO began to purge its’ left wing.  As we look into how each narrative is constructed about the CIO purges, we see that the LA Times embodies the ideals of middle class Americans who still see Communism as a ‘red menace’, while the Daily Worker promotes the ideologically enforced socialist attitude with emphasis on the might of the working class people.

            The two newspapers used in this analysis have the opposing character needed for such a critical examination of differing ideologies and differing societal goals.  In June of 1949 the Los Angeles Times featured an article explaining how a CIO member, Max Perlow, had officially announced his resignation from the Communist Party however, explicitly states that he did it only to follow the law and avoid persecution.[1]  The LA Times was very open about actions taken which did not actually get rid of communist ideology within the CIO.  Another article by LA Times Editor Joseph Park highlighted this trait by stating that unionism itself is of ‘communist influence’ and that “non-radical Marxists are and can be just as destructive as militant communists.”[2]  These early 1949 articles clearly show the attitudes present in the LA Times’ editorial staff, and the majority of articles which featured a critique on communism or the Communist Party typically labeled the groups collectively as ‘Reds’.

            The Daily Worker portrayed a much different perspective on the CIO purges.  Published by the Communist Party, the Daily Worker embodied the traditions of most Comintern-based political organizations.  Focusing on the lives of workers during this era, the Daily Worker presented the purge as a movement by a specific sect within the CIO, namely its bureaucratic right-wing leadership.[3]  Throughout the purging era, the Worker had continued a special article section titled ‘The Truth About the CIO Unions on Trial’, which attempted to guide the knowledge for working-class individuals searching for idealistic understandings of the ongoing crisis.  Using the excuse that the CIO’s right wing exists merely due to the early support of the left wing and all the workers during the 1940s, the Daily Worker sided with the entire working class; pointing to CIO leader Philip Murray as the instigator and asserting that “it is not the Union who has changed” rather, it was the leadership.[4]  The primary distinction between the two newspapers is thus cause of the purge, guided by opposing interpretations of society’s ultimate goal.  Now we will actually look into specific opposing articles on certain parts of the CIO’s purge.

            Early in February 1949, the LA Times featured an article which set the stage for the next few months, and kept labor-minded individuals clung to headlines.  Entitled, ‘CIO to launch Red Mop-up’, the Times was preparing to highlight the CIO’s purge of its own unions over the next few months.[5]  Clearly indicating its impartiality, the article’s usage of ‘Reds’ made the public aware of which side the Times’ editors were batting for.  Not left out of the loop for long, the Daily Worker responded quickly by calling the purge a “20^th century Uncle Tom”, a hypocrisy orchestrated by the right-wing leaders of the CIO and sanctioned by the United States government.[6]  These two articles were the first to mention the purge, and the differences between their perspectives never varied much over the next 12 months.  Later, in November of the same year, the Times published another article which announced the aspects of the purge itself titled ‘CIO to Document Left-Wing Purge’, and listed the areas of the CIO which it had been investigating.[7]  This article was unique because it hinted at the idea that those unions who end up purged might form a 3^rd labor federation led by the United Electrical Workers, one of the most radical sects within the CIO. 

            In May of 1949, the CIO began its effort to ‘clean’ up the federation by removing the radical sects and unions who supported ‘socialist beliefs’, a term used very vaguely.  The CIO first targeted the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers union.  The LA Times approaches this purge with very little radicalism, stating that the CIO is entitled to “a stronger trade union built on being an important, well respected part of our American democratic system.”[8]  In this way the CIO leadership is tying the ideology of ‘Americanism’ to the principals on Unionism.  Seeing this type of reference in the Times is not abnormal, prior to the late 1950s the newspaper did a lot of effort to tie Americanism into its own ideals.[9]  The Daily Worker, however, approaches the policy as the first use of the Taft-Hartley act by the CIO to enforce “Truman Loyalty.”[10]  Focusing more on the effects felt by workers in this situation, the Daily Worker highlighted how employees and union members were given ten days to consider their options or lose their jobs.[11]  What we see here is a clear distinction between how both news sources approach a given labor study.  The LA Times is short and to the point, explaining the corporate decision to clean up their federation in accord with American idealism; while the Daily Worker expressed directly the effects of this CIO proposition on the workers.  These opposing approaches are what characterize most of the differences between smaller articles on similar subjects at the time.

            By January of 1950 the purges had spread across all the left wings of the CIO, orchestrated by CEO Philip Murray.  Seen as a mid-century ‘Andrew Carniage’, both the CPUSA and the Daily Worker had little faith in Murray’s leadership and never attempted to portray him as an ally of the working class.  The Worker showed Murray as a conservative unionist, one who believed that many of the left wing sectors of the CIO were in league with the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA).[12]  At the end of January, Murray was pushing the purge to the entire California Charter, whom he felt had allied itself directly with CPUSA.  The Daily Worker explains this as merely a “continuation of the political purge launched by the right wing”[13], and says it was justified by the national CIO’s adoption of new rules aimed specifically at orchestrating a purge of certain ‘undesirables’.[14]  Here the Worker is accusing the CIO’s leadership of corruption, something many workers at the time had considered about their own unions but never really saw it in action.  The LA Times on the other hand, focused its article on the resistance led by the California Charter and, primarily, the United Electrical Workers.  They label the California wing of the CIO explicitly as communist and emphasize workers’ resistance to organized cooperation.[15]  This shows the differences in partisanship to the subject by both sources; while the Daily Worker looks at coercion and internal corruption within the National CIO, the LA Times looks at the resistance by the California CIO and suggests that this resistance is proof of undesired activities.

            Near the end 1949 and the beginning of January 1950, the biggest headlines from both the Times and the Worker were fixated on the development of the strike put forth by the United Mine Workers.  The LA Times had been covering the issue for a few months, but the Daily Workers’ publication of the article ‘Truman Threatens Miners’ really embodied the socialist interpretation of Taft-Hartley injunctions.  Using the federal government and union official John L. Lewis as the leaders of this anti-labor action, the Daily Worker explains the outcome of the strike as a movement demanding proper negotiations between union leaders and management.[16]  Specifically, the Worker states that blame was placed on the union itself by President Truman, rather than on workers.  This is unique because the Worker stated the government, specifically the President, blamed the labor movement itself rather than the unjust feelings of a few mine workers.  The LA Times’ article, published slightly before the Worker’s, frames the UMW’s strike as damaging to both business and social infrastructure.  Mentioning very little about the plight of mine workers during their strike, the LA Times seemed to focus on the societal handicaps caused by strikes rather than address ways to avoid them.[17]  It is quite clear at this point that the Worker shares the attitudes of the working class as a whole, whereas the LA Times shares the perspectives of most average middle-classed Americans.

            After the mining incident, mining executive Howard Young took it upon himself to ask congress for aid in avoiding another large strike.  This article, featured in the LA Times, spoke directly to middle class Americans in a language that avoided working-class grievances.  Placing the strike’s blame directly on “communist infiltration”, Howard Young demands a new, stricter version of the Taft-Hartley Act in order to ensure that no “more” infiltration takes place.[18]  The article also quotes Howard as labeling the entire CIO as “communist dominated”, making it appear as if no level of sanctions will be satisfactory for neither the Union movement nor its leaders.[19]  Remarkably the Worker says nothing about Howard’s statements.  The article by the Times was published in late February, however the Worker says nothing more about the workers’ strike until late June.  However this could mean something even more important, that the Worker was not interested in catering to the words or advice of the business/managerial class.  Something very characteristic of socialist literature, the omitting of certain perspectives aided the newspaper in framing its articles along a specific ideological intent.

            Ultimately the purging of the CIO caused many hardships on both management and the working class.  Management was forced to watch as unions carried out a government-sanctioned ‘clean up’ of their own organizations, while many working class families were uprooted by accusations of radicalism.  The two opposing newspapers, the Daily Worker and the Los Angeles Times, did a good job at providing a two-sided look into specific events during the purge.  What we find after looking at these events is that the Worker is strongly sided with the labor movement and working class individuals; while the LA Times is more ambiguous about its audience but frames its articles in a fashion that most middle class Americans would understand.  Both sources however, do a very good job at trying to display the audience of the other as the main problems instigating the purges.  By looking at both sources though, one can determine for themselves which side of the story fits them while at the same time can learn about their opposing ideology’s interpretations.  Looking at opposing sources is an excellent way to broaden ones understanding of a specific socio-political conflict, and also helps us remember where our history actually comes from.

Bibliography

Berry, Abner. "CIO Right-Wingers Spawn a 20th Century Uncle Tom." The Daily Worker March 1949: 2.

"California CIO Defies Murray Ouster Order." The Los Angeles Times 31 January 1950: 8.

"CIO Radio Union Purge Indicated." The Los Angeles Times 2 May 1949: A2.

"CIO to Document Left-Wing Purge." The Los Angeles Times 6 November 1949: 2.

"CIO to Launch Red 'Mop Up' in LA." The Los Angeles Times 20 February 1949: 32.

"CIO Union Officer Quits Communists." The Los Angeles Times 6 June 1949: 32.

"Congress Aid Asked Against Labor Reds." The Los Angeles Times 20 February 1950: 32.

Cooper, Ruby. "Big Firm Orders Worker Purge." The Daily Worker 15 May 1949: 1.

 "The Truth about the CIO Unions on Trial." The Daily Worker Thursday January 1950: 2.

"Lewis Orders 100,000 Back to Work." The Los Angeles Times 1 January 1950: 1.

"Murray Revokes Charter of California CIO Council." The Daily Worker 25 January 1950: 1.

Park, Joseph. "Communist Purges May be just Marxian Civil Wars." The Los Angeles Times 29 May 1949: A4.

"Truman Threatens Miners." The Daily Worker 26 January 1950: 1.

---

[1] "CIO Union Officer Quits Communists." The Los Angeles Times 6 June 1949: 32

[2] Park, Joseph. "Communist Purges May be just Marxian Civil Wars." The Los Angeles Times 29 May 1949: A4

[3] "The Truth about the CIO Unions on Trial." The Daily Worker Thursday January 1950: 2

[4] "The Truth about the CIO Unions on Trial." The Daily Worker Thursday January 1950: 2

[5] "CIO to Launch Red 'Mop Up' in LA." The Los Angeles Times 20 February 1949: 32

[6] Berry, Abner. "CIO Right-Wingers Spawn a 20th Century Uncle Tom." The Daily Worker March 1949: 2

[7] "CIO to Document Left-Wing Purge." The Los Angeles Times 6 November 1949: 2

[8] "CIO Radio Union Purge Indicated." The Los Angeles Times 2 May 1949: A2

[9] Wikipedia.org

[10] Cooper, Ruby. "Big Firm Orders Worker Purge." The Daily Worker 15 May 1949: 1

[11] Ibid

[12] "Murray Revokes Charter of California CIO Council." The Daily Worker 25 January 1950: 1

[13] Ibid

[14] Ibid

[15] "California CIO Defies Murray Ouster Order." The Los Angeles Times 31 January 1950: 8

[16] "Truman Threatens Miners." The Daily Worker 26 January 1950: 1

[17] "Lewis Orders 100,000 Back to Work." The Los Angeles Times 1 January 1950: 1

[18] "Congress Aid Asked Against Labor Reds." The Los Angeles Times 20 February 1950: 32

[19] "Congress Aid Asked Against Labor Reds." The Los Angeles Times 20 February 1950: 32

The Value of Listening

               There is so much information to get out of people just by listening to their stories.  With the historiography of American Communism, you cannot get a better assessment of the lives of its most devoted followers than by simply listening to their histories.  Usually when we learn history, we experience it through a particular lens; that of the methodology taught and reinforced by the dominant schools of thought in history.  Part of these methods emphasize primary sources, but they also give weight and support to journals, personal testimony, and heavily researched secondary works.

               I remember when I presented my oral history research at the 2013 North AmericanLabor History Conference, and my panel chairperson quickly protested the utility of oral histories in understanding history.  “People cannot be trusted,” was the basic argument.  But part of this stems from an inability to understand why we listen to oral histories.  We do not necessarily collect, interpret, and listen to these histories to understand the absolute, objective assessment of history.  In fact, the entire process of doing oral history depicts this kind of a goal as a utopian fantasy:  No one has an absolute, objective assessment of history.  And this can be logically extended to all kinds of sources, though it is generally not done this way in Academia.

               Oral History teaches us that in order to understand, or even get close, to this idea of an “objective assessment of history,” we must first subject ourselves to the experiences of individuals.  Only by relating these subjective experiences will the real history come forth.  Let’s continue this mission by continuing to work with oral histories and personal testimonies.  If you have an opinion, make it known.  Let yourself be heard, but also…..be willing to listen.