American Communism as a topic can seem paradoxical in a few ways. For one, it overtly seems strange to associate the adjective "American" with the noun "Communism." But there are deeper paradoxes; such as the notion that Communism can exist in America as a genuinely "American" concept--isolated from the Soviet Union and the international Communist movement. There is also the dynamic of multiple "communisms" existing in America, represented by a series of organizations: The Socialist Party of the USA, the Communist Party of the USA, the Revolutionary Communist Party, and the Communist Party of Canada.
At this year's 2015 North American Labor History Conference (nalhc.wayne.edu), it looks like there will be a panel dedicated to Communist activism in North America. Even better, it seems that we might have direct insider commentary on the panels. This puts American Communism into what I consider to be a new perspective; one that includes Communism across all of North America. But why stop there?
We could go further, and link socialist movements in Latin America to the overall theme of American Communism. Why? Because socialist movements on the American continents were unique affairs; merely framed contextually by the Cold War between East and West. Who are we, for example, to deem the socialist movements of Latin America and the United States as solely the result of foreign influences? How are we to conclude, absolutely, that socialist campaigns could not originate from the specific conditions of American societies?
It is my view that we cannot do these things without simultaneously denying the whims and desires of local populations.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
The Third Law of Dialectics: HM 101.3
It's time yet again for a short exposition on historical materialist
philosophy to encounter and understand one of the most important general
laws of dialectical logic: The third law, that of the negation of the negation.
We touched on the first two laws in HM 101.1, but before moving onto a
full explanation of the third law, I thought it necessary
to emphasize the limitations of Aristotelian logic. Doing so should
help the reader rid themselves of the oversimplified perception of a
static and unchanging universe, which will then help them cope with the
antithesis of this logic, presented by the third rule.
The third rule, put in strict terminology, is as follows:
3) The Law of the Negation of the Negation: The logical growth and extension of past conditions, quantitative and qualitative, into a new state which renders the old both irrelevant and meaningless.
As was stated in 101.1, the third law represents merely the suggestion that the history established by the first law and explained by the second is shown, by the third, to have no terminal "end point". But consider the true implications being suggested by this law: It is a complete an utter rejection of all forms of 'constants', 'coincidences', 'luck', and 'happenstance.' In short, there is not only a meaning behind all developments, but that this meaning itself is not static and unchanging; rather 'meaning' moves, changes, and fluxes in the same manner that existence does.
The third law suffers from one negative drawback; it is hinged upon 19th century German terminology. This is in part a byproduct of Russian socialists failing to generate their own socialist culture and thus their own meanings, but it is also in part because the most influential early writers of dialectical theory were all German. However, the language can be put into more familiar terminology without much difficulty.
The word 'negation' refers to the rejection or replacement of an old condition with a new condition. As established by the second law however, this replacement is not isolated; rather it is dialectically interwoven by quantitative and qualitative changes. Hegel used a flower to describe this process:
A seed is 'negated' by the sprout. The sprout is then 'negated' by the stem. The stem further 'negated' by the bud. Finally, the bud is 'negated' by the flower, which finalizes itself as the true expression of the plant. However, despite this constant process of negation, the seed, the stem, and the flower all remain part of the same organism: a plant.
Thus the emergence of every new quality and/or state constitutes a 'negation' of something that was previously present. The point of the third law, in using the term twice, is that the story does not end with the death of the plant. The death of the plant is itself a negation, and during the course of the plants life it typically generates seeds to justify its own negation. As such, the plant lives on, so-to-speak, through its generational contributions.
It is very important, when considering the totality of these laws, that they are presented as conclusions arrived at through empirical, factual evidence found at all levels of existence. They are not presented as opinions or as "a priori principles, whose truth or validity is independent of their existence." Rather they are presented as facts of existence to which we all subjectively relate.
Consider the physical law of gravity. Gravity is a concept that people understood long before it was calculated with precision and given a direct origin. Newtonian physics became the standard explanation for what people previously understood through their subjective relativism. Historical materialism, through its three primary laws of dialectics, makes the same assertion for social and mental development: It is merely an explanation, in scientific language, for conditions and experiences that we are all aware of....but have only been aware of in a relative and subjective sense; like gravity before Newton gave it a definite name and a definite origin (which itself boils down to the mere existence of something: matter).
Most importantly, and certainly more important than the relativistic nature of thought, is that though these laws are regarded as empirical generalizations; it is not to be claimed that the specific laws can be identified at any particular moment, that contradictions and qualitative shifts can be both observed and declared in the same instant. In short, the laws of change at each level cannot be predicted. The existence of change as a constant can be accepted in general, but the specific content of the contradictions within a particular change cannot be stated in advanced or revealed as some determinist truth.
Like all of science, investigations do not take place in a methodological vacuum. They have a guide and a perspective, and this guide must come from a summation of what has been empirically observed to be true. As Somerville explained, "The Marxist does not seek to replace nor add something to the scientific method. He instead seeks to base himself on what is contained within it."
Hope you enjoyed.
The third rule, put in strict terminology, is as follows:
3) The Law of the Negation of the Negation: The logical growth and extension of past conditions, quantitative and qualitative, into a new state which renders the old both irrelevant and meaningless.
As was stated in 101.1, the third law represents merely the suggestion that the history established by the first law and explained by the second is shown, by the third, to have no terminal "end point". But consider the true implications being suggested by this law: It is a complete an utter rejection of all forms of 'constants', 'coincidences', 'luck', and 'happenstance.' In short, there is not only a meaning behind all developments, but that this meaning itself is not static and unchanging; rather 'meaning' moves, changes, and fluxes in the same manner that existence does.
The third law suffers from one negative drawback; it is hinged upon 19th century German terminology. This is in part a byproduct of Russian socialists failing to generate their own socialist culture and thus their own meanings, but it is also in part because the most influential early writers of dialectical theory were all German. However, the language can be put into more familiar terminology without much difficulty.
The word 'negation' refers to the rejection or replacement of an old condition with a new condition. As established by the second law however, this replacement is not isolated; rather it is dialectically interwoven by quantitative and qualitative changes. Hegel used a flower to describe this process:
A seed is 'negated' by the sprout. The sprout is then 'negated' by the stem. The stem further 'negated' by the bud. Finally, the bud is 'negated' by the flower, which finalizes itself as the true expression of the plant. However, despite this constant process of negation, the seed, the stem, and the flower all remain part of the same organism: a plant.
Thus the emergence of every new quality and/or state constitutes a 'negation' of something that was previously present. The point of the third law, in using the term twice, is that the story does not end with the death of the plant. The death of the plant is itself a negation, and during the course of the plants life it typically generates seeds to justify its own negation. As such, the plant lives on, so-to-speak, through its generational contributions.
It is very important, when considering the totality of these laws, that they are presented as conclusions arrived at through empirical, factual evidence found at all levels of existence. They are not presented as opinions or as "a priori principles, whose truth or validity is independent of their existence." Rather they are presented as facts of existence to which we all subjectively relate.
Consider the physical law of gravity. Gravity is a concept that people understood long before it was calculated with precision and given a direct origin. Newtonian physics became the standard explanation for what people previously understood through their subjective relativism. Historical materialism, through its three primary laws of dialectics, makes the same assertion for social and mental development: It is merely an explanation, in scientific language, for conditions and experiences that we are all aware of....but have only been aware of in a relative and subjective sense; like gravity before Newton gave it a definite name and a definite origin (which itself boils down to the mere existence of something: matter).
Most importantly, and certainly more important than the relativistic nature of thought, is that though these laws are regarded as empirical generalizations; it is not to be claimed that the specific laws can be identified at any particular moment, that contradictions and qualitative shifts can be both observed and declared in the same instant. In short, the laws of change at each level cannot be predicted. The existence of change as a constant can be accepted in general, but the specific content of the contradictions within a particular change cannot be stated in advanced or revealed as some determinist truth.
Like all of science, investigations do not take place in a methodological vacuum. They have a guide and a perspective, and this guide must come from a summation of what has been empirically observed to be true. As Somerville explained, "The Marxist does not seek to replace nor add something to the scientific method. He instead seeks to base himself on what is contained within it."
Hope you enjoyed.
Monday, June 1, 2015
Historical Materialism 101.2
"Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime."
-Aristotle, from "Politics", Book II
This
is a well known, well liked, and heavily shared quote from Aristotle in
his 2nd major work on political economy. It's liked primarily because
of its simplicity and its use of formal logic to convey this simplicity
in a manner that most people can understand quickly, without
re-reading. It is a general statement about why people revolt against
conditions, and why people engage in what the State deems as 'criminal
behavior'. Without carefully considering the logic behind the message
however, it is easy to fall victim to Aristotelian
"oversimplifications", as some philosophers have called them, with
respect to the elements of history, causality, and creation.
Let's consider Aristotle's proposition here combined with his typical "formal" logic. It is necessary to approach Aristotle's conclusion beginning with his own logic, and then to show the oversimplification made which fails to express the full story.
Poverty, according to Aristotelian logic is one definite thing and cannot be anything else. (A = A). Simultaneously, Poverty is incapable of being two things at once (it cannot be poverty and non-poverty; Any X can only be A or non-A, but not both). The same must be concluded of the other terms used; 'parent', 'revolution', and 'crime'. Formal logic tells us that these categories are and have always been; the reasoning resulting from Platonic idealism: Their 'existence', so-to-speak, derives from our thinking about them. We observed their existence and gave them meaning; a meaning whose existence in our own minds is greater than the physical existence of the 'things' in question.
If this is true, according to Aristotle, then the word 'parent' most certainly fits as an application, or a bridge, between isolated categories: The words 'poverty', 'parent', 'revolution', and 'crime' all exist as separated, static categories that are fundamentally "unchanging" according to Aristotle. Revolution is revolution; crime is crime, and poverty is poverty. The linkage between these is the 'parent', which also sits outside the categories of all other terms used.
Poverty is the 'parent' in the sense that it 'creates' revolution and crime. The concept of 'creation' here is key for Aristotelian logic. The creation of these two sub-components, 'revolution' and 'crime', appears to happen out of nothingness. The key word that Aristotle does NOT use, and would never use, is 'cause'. 'Poverty', according to Aristotle, did not CAUSE 'revolution' and 'crime', it CREATES it; just like your parents created you, and like how the Gods created man.
The historical materialist however has history as the basis of causality. For the dialectician, there is no such thing as 'unchanging forms' and 'static categories' that retain absolute meanings and references.
Consider the following: 'Poverty' CAUSES 'revolution' and 'crime'. This sentence is wholly different from Aristotle's in that there is a timeline; a history. We begin at one point (A= Poverty), and we move into another point (B=Revolution and crime); the shift made possible not by a single instant of creation, but rather through a process of causality; of progress; of development.
In this sense, 'Poverty' is not static, unchanging, uniform. Rather, 'Poverty' is something that naturally transitions (as a material state of existence) into a new form of existence; that being a 'revolutionary' and a 'crime-ridden' existence. The previously-suggested 'unmoving' categories of 'poverty', 'revolution' and 'crime' are suddenly shown to have a direct connection with one another...and there is no need for a third static-party, the 'parent', to act as the 'creator' of something out of nothing. Rather, poverty does not create anything...it causes forces already in motion to act upon one another to shift into a new condition: that of revolution and/or crime. Hope you enjoyed 101.2. More to come.
-Aristotle, from "Politics", Book II
Let's consider Aristotle's proposition here combined with his typical "formal" logic. It is necessary to approach Aristotle's conclusion beginning with his own logic, and then to show the oversimplification made which fails to express the full story.
Poverty, according to Aristotelian logic is one definite thing and cannot be anything else. (A = A). Simultaneously, Poverty is incapable of being two things at once (it cannot be poverty and non-poverty; Any X can only be A or non-A, but not both). The same must be concluded of the other terms used; 'parent', 'revolution', and 'crime'. Formal logic tells us that these categories are and have always been; the reasoning resulting from Platonic idealism: Their 'existence', so-to-speak, derives from our thinking about them. We observed their existence and gave them meaning; a meaning whose existence in our own minds is greater than the physical existence of the 'things' in question.
If this is true, according to Aristotle, then the word 'parent' most certainly fits as an application, or a bridge, between isolated categories: The words 'poverty', 'parent', 'revolution', and 'crime' all exist as separated, static categories that are fundamentally "unchanging" according to Aristotle. Revolution is revolution; crime is crime, and poverty is poverty. The linkage between these is the 'parent', which also sits outside the categories of all other terms used.
Poverty is the 'parent' in the sense that it 'creates' revolution and crime. The concept of 'creation' here is key for Aristotelian logic. The creation of these two sub-components, 'revolution' and 'crime', appears to happen out of nothingness. The key word that Aristotle does NOT use, and would never use, is 'cause'. 'Poverty', according to Aristotle, did not CAUSE 'revolution' and 'crime', it CREATES it; just like your parents created you, and like how the Gods created man.
The historical materialist however has history as the basis of causality. For the dialectician, there is no such thing as 'unchanging forms' and 'static categories' that retain absolute meanings and references.
Consider the following: 'Poverty' CAUSES 'revolution' and 'crime'. This sentence is wholly different from Aristotle's in that there is a timeline; a history. We begin at one point (A= Poverty), and we move into another point (B=Revolution and crime); the shift made possible not by a single instant of creation, but rather through a process of causality; of progress; of development.
In this sense, 'Poverty' is not static, unchanging, uniform. Rather, 'Poverty' is something that naturally transitions (as a material state of existence) into a new form of existence; that being a 'revolutionary' and a 'crime-ridden' existence. The previously-suggested 'unmoving' categories of 'poverty', 'revolution' and 'crime' are suddenly shown to have a direct connection with one another...and there is no need for a third static-party, the 'parent', to act as the 'creator' of something out of nothing. Rather, poverty does not create anything...it causes forces already in motion to act upon one another to shift into a new condition: that of revolution and/or crime. Hope you enjoyed 101.2. More to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)