Per Rasmussen wrote:
> I did not understand for sure what the meaning was. What Javad said?
>
Your question seems to imply that Javad has confused you. This is
not your fault for instead of clarifying the matter, our DM scholar
may have muddied the waters.
Javad had previously written
> For example, let us consider the
> dialectical identity of evolution and revolution. Each moment of
> this dialectical identity, "evolution" or "revolution", is itself
> and not itself at the same time. In other words, "evolution" is
> "evolution" and "revolution" at the same time; and also,
> "revolution" is "revolution" and "evolution" at the same time.
To which I had asked:
"So the proletariat is the proletariat and also the bourgeoisie at
the same time, and the bourgeoisie is the bourgeoisie and also the
proletariat at the same time?" (Leaving God and Devil aside for now).
Now he replies:
>Third, in dialectical-materialism, in addition to having a
>dialectical identity of opposites, one also talks about its
>historical-material resolution. For example, "the bourgeoisie" and
>"the proletariat" are the necessary poles of a dialectical identity
>of opposites in the same relation and at the same time. The question
>for our "dialectician" of Dover-type is the following: What is "the
>same relation"? "The same relation" is an economic relation
I did not ask what was the relation between the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat - it is a relation of exploitation and domination. You
had written earlier:
>In other words, "evolution" is "evolution" and
>revolution" at the same time; and also, "revolution" is
>revolution" and "evolution" at the same time.
I merely replaced the word "evolution" by "proletariat" and
"revolution" by "bourgeoisie". If you do that you will get what I
had written earlier. Yet you now write:
>The
>bourgeoisie", by its own economic definition and historical-material
>existence assumes and produces its own opposite economic defintion
>and historical-material existence in the form of "the proletariat",
>and vice versa. In this sense, a dialectical-materialist must state
>that "the bourgeoisie" is "the bourgeoisie" and "the proletariat" in
>the same relation and at same time. And what is its resolution? In
>the abolition of both classes.
That is, the proletariat and bourgeoisie are now different. So they
are the 'same' (identity; interpenetration is a better word) and also
different. 'Sameness' and difference. The word 'same' has to be
interpreted correctly here. And each determines its essence by the
other. That is without the proletariat, there would be no existence
of the bourgeoisie and vice versa. That is they are internally
connected, intrinsically linked. Is this what you mean?
Here is a question. According to DM, every
process in nature, society and thought is dialectical, i.e., is
propelled by a struggle of opposite tendencies. Consider a lion
fighting with a buffalo. Is this a dialectical or non-dialectical
process? If the former can you provide a dialectical
materialist interpretation of this process of fighting?
>Lenin, a great dialectical-materialist, says: "Here already we have
>DIALECTICS (as Hegel's genius recognised): the individual is the
>UNIVERSAL (cf. Aristoteles, METAPHYSIK, translation by Schwegler,
>Bd. II, S. 40, 3. Buch, 4. Kapital, 8-9: "denn naturlich kann man
>nicht der Meinung sein, dass es ein Haus (a house in general) gebe
>ausser den sichtbaren Hausern," "some Greek [I cannot type them]").
>Consequently, the opposites (the individual is opposed to the
>universal) are identical: the individual exists only in the
>connection that leads to the universal. The universal exists only in
>the individual and through the individual. Every individual is (in
>one way or another) a universal. Every universal is (a fragment, or
>an aspect, or the essence of) an individual"(On the Question of
>Dialectics). Lenin's brilliant understanding of the dialectical
>unity of opposites is clear completely; thus, I have no additional
>remark on it.
Thousands of years before Hegel, the Vedanta philosophy
had realized the connection between the individual and the universal.
But here I am interested in your more concrete explanation of the
relation between the individual and the universal. What is the nature
of this relation?
Sid
_______________________________________________
Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
