Marxism-Thaxis] Another Old Thread: Marx conceiving of nature dialectically Charles Brown cbrown at michiganlegal.org Sat Feb 19 14:54:39 MST 2005
Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Old Thread: Dialectics of Nature Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Applied Dialectics of Change Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here's some of the later thread debating the dialectics of nature. CB ^^^^^^^ M-TH: Re: Abstract & concrete people/s Charles Brown marxism-thaxis Mon, 07 Dec 1998 09:57:08 -0500 * >>> Andrew Wayne Austin <aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu> 12/06 7:22 PM >>> List, I don't know what is relevant about Godena expelling people on Marxism-Sciences. He didn't expel me, anyway. As I recall people were expelled because they broke the rules. But, again, who cares about this. I left the list because people were advancing absurd theories employing dialectics to explain astronomical phenomena ________ Charles: Everyone is familiar with the term the "fixed stars" in the sky. It is interesting to me how the develop of astronomical science recently has demonstrated less and less fixity to the stars. This is a development in the direction of a dialectical structure. ________ Second, as Bhaskar and others have pointed out, while the concept of contradiction might be used as a metaphor for any sort of tension or strain, its specific meaning, not only for Marx, but generally, refers to human action and human things. Why muddy the water by creating a self-sealing line of reasoning? _________ Charles: I am trying to figure our whether you are saying that Marx and Engels have a different position on this issue . Are you ? In his Scientific Realism and Human Emancipation, Bhaskar notes four broad sorts of contradictions (I think it is found in here, but it has been a while since I read this book): (1) logical inconsistencies (traditional logic only recognizes contradiction in logical operation) (2) oppositions between tendencies inherent in social forces of relatively independent origins (3) historical/temporal contradictions, oppositionals that emerge from the operation of some thing or situation (such as class struggle) and (4) structural/systemic contradictions, involving contradictions between things that exist at two different levels of reality. The latter two are dialectical. These are all present in Marx's work, and they possess two features generally: (a) they are real oppositions and (b) they can be described in terms of oppositions. While I have my problems with Bhaskar's own theory of society (it is too subjective), his interpretation of Marx's work is pretty good. Bhaskar has been an important figure in stressing the fact that what was unique about Marx's theory was what concerned with history and society. _________ Charles: For a contrary view see. _Dialectical Contradictions: Contemporary Marxist Discussions_ Marxist Educational Press 1982 and Lenin's Philosophical Notes On Dialectics. ________________ Third, following Carver's argument, while Marx admired Darwin's argument, particularly because it showed how biological science could advance a process of change non-teleologically, he did not adopt this logic for his own study of society (except for metaphorically in some places in Capital), nor did he appear to think that his method had much to help with Darwin's argument.Indeed, it was *Engels* who made the parallel after Marx's death. _______ Charles: No, we discussed this on LBO. I believe Marx wrote a letter that directly contradicts you. For now in the Afterword to the Second German Edition to Vol.I of Capital Marx, quotes a Russian reviewer of Capital who said "in his (Marx's) opinion ever historical period has laws of its own... As soon as soiciety has outlived a given period of development, and is passing over from one given stage to another, it begins to be subject also to other laws. In a word, economic life offers us a phenomena analogous to the history of evolution in other branches of biology..." Marx says, "Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but th dialecical method ? " See also, "Karl Marx's Study of Science and Technology" by Pradip Baksi in Nature, Society and Thought" Vol. 9, No. 3 (Believe I saw a brief article of Andy's in that journal once) The importance of understanding this is that it shows that Marx held that an evolutionary theory that operated on a logic different from the logic of historical development in the social realm was completely (or nearly completely) valid. ________ Charles: Don't see this demonstrated. ______ Charles: The dialectics in both is that they see the world as changing rather than fixed. The basis of change ,the contradiction, is different in each. Had Marx believed that the dialectic was a universal principal, one found in the natural world, then he would have admonished Darwin's theory not praised it. ________ Charles: Darwin's theory is not fully dialectical Stephen Jay Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium makes Darwinism more fully dialectical,as it adds revolutions to the evolution. However, Darwin's theory was welcomed by Marx as relatively dialectical compared to creationism with no change. And of course , Darwin was materialist. The big thing Marx and Engels liked about Darwin is that it was a big victory for materialism and it had some motion (dialectics) too. __________ ________ The fact that he did not adopt natural selection for his study of society, but approved of it - indeed, thought of it as a breakthrough - in the study of the natural world demonstrates clearly that Marx did not hold the view that Engels and the dialectical materialists do about the matter. ___________ Charles: Dialectics as different forms in different sciences. Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. ______ Fourth, and this is one thing that was made clear in the debate so long ago on M-S, is that it is Engels and Lenin's take on the dialectic that extends it to the natural world is not Marx's view. Lenin's reflection theory of knowledge is particularly important here, since his view that the dialectic in the universe could be reflected in consciousness and that therefore it existed independently of cognition and praxis - a position of passive, contemplative materialism - was eventually dropped by him. Lenin, after studying Hegel, repudiated the reflection theory and moved to a position - at least in his notebooks - that pushes Engels' view aside and reasserts (to a degree) Marx's historical materialism. This is why Lenin always quotes Engels instead of Marx in his earlier work because Marx's views tends to run contrary to Engels, and Lenin favored the simplicity of Engels. Lenin remarked after studying Hegel, and I have noted this several times, that he regards Marxists since Marx to have been ignorant of what into their ideology the fact that Lenin himself, after studying dialectics, came to a different conclusion than Engels. __________ Charles: Engels studied Hegel when he and Marx were young Hegelians. I find it funny all these people who think they know Hegel better than Engels. Engels demonstrated his understanding of Hegel and dialectics in _Ludwig Feuerbach_ . The Engels case is particularly disappointing, since his work was so brilliant in the earlier years of his life. But towards the end, in my view, without the constraining force of Marx's presence, Engels slipped back into a positivism and vulgar materialism. Engels thus takes the dialectic as a mechanical method and imposes it over everything with the result of believing he finds the dialectic in everything. As Avineri pointed out decades ago, Engels does not understand the dialectic as a thing immanent in the thing itself, and thus his sledgehammer method of applying dialectics as a logical method leads him to produce a science inferior to the mainstream science of its day. _________ Charles: This is not the opinion of Stephen Jay Gould, Levins , Lewontin or JBS Haldane. __________ Fifth, to take Mary Hesse' brilliant line of discourse on this, the pragmatic criterion demonstrates the utility of modern natural science. Dialectical materialism, by contrast, has been a failure. There is no need to reformulate modern science method in terms of dialectical materialism. It is a superficial exercise, anyway. ________ Charles: This is obscure. What is the name of the essay ? ______ Dialectical materialists believe they can grasp the dialectics that allegedly exists independent of history. This is objectivist idealism and is explicitly rejected by Marx. _________ Charles: I would describe your error as a dualist. You are half dialectician half metaphysician. Of course, metaphysics reduces to idealism ultimately. Marx contradicts you directly, as in the quote above. I'll find some more. Charles Brown --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu --- M-TH: Re: Abstract & concrete people/s Charles Brown marxism-thaxis <mailto:marxism-thaxis> Mon, 07 Dec 1998 10:05:29 -0500 I am substantially in agreement with what Chris says below. Of course, this debate has gone on other places besides Marxism-and-Sciences. I gave some references for other sources in my post in response to Andy. I know Andy's style is to use extremely derogatory language to describe opposing views. But he's one of us anyway, Guess we just have to live with it. Of course, it doesn't add any substance to Andy's arguments. We all know that. Charles Brown Detroit >>> Chris Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org> 12/06 5:02 PM >>> >>>> Andrew Wayne Austin <aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu> 12/05 3:28 PM >>> >On Sat, 5 Dec 1998, Charles Brown wrote: > >>Charles: I guess I vaguely remember that. Let me ask you this. Do you >>then mean that "things", society would stop changing ? Doesn't this >>contradict fundamental Marxism ? It's fundamental dialectical >>understanding of the universe ? Everything changes eventually, There are >>no eternal constants. AND change is rooted in contradiction. >>Therefore..... > >I don't think that things will stop changing, no. But I think we have to >be careful when we apply the word contradiction to everything. If >everything is contradicted, then the word is meaningless. I doubt if Andy will change his position and I am broadly in agreement with Charles. As a result of the polemic on Marxism-and-Sciences I modified my position slightly. The orthodox "Marxist-Leninist" position of the Third International and its loyal descendants is that dialectical materialism is universally applicable and contradictions are to be found everywhere in the universe. Strictly speaking though I would now say it is an assertion that contradictions can be found everywhere. And I would prefer to say this, that that they "are" everwhere. The best way I understand this, is that reality, including very much inanimate reality, consists of swirling patterns of matter in motion. The patterns that stay around long enough to be observed are usually self-organising in some form or other. These can be best analysed from a number of different perspectives to appreciate the different forces going into the dynamic. There are not necessarily only two (which is sometimes rather strongly suggested by "contradiction") The German word used for contradiction is "Gegensatz", not "Gegenteil". Gegensatz suggests not an absolute logical absurdity but a contrasting aspect. It occurs many times in the first volume of Capital but gets translated away in English. Andy is firmly against using the term contradiction for anything other than human affairs and I see no necessity to, or possibility of, making him think otherwise, just because he may express lack of respect for his opponents on this matter. One of those got expelled by Louis Godena for creating a hostile atmosphere. (But some of Louis Godena's remarks suggest that he may think Engels, who is more associated with "dialectical materialism" than is Marx, was also weak on reformism). Water is precisely one of the examples of inanimate contradiction taken by Engels and Lenin. Not only can qualitative phase changes be observed with changes of temperature, but its liquid structure at normal temperatures for our environment, despite its light molecular mass (lighter than carbon dioxide) is the result of the contradictory interaction between its molecules, which can form links in a dozen different ways, but most often forms long hydroxyl chains ("water"). A stone has a contradiction between its hardness and immobility on the one hand and the vibration of its atoms at molecular level. Under certain external forces, such as a blow, or ice expanding in a crevice, this internal contradiction may change in quality, and the stone will apparently miraculously shatter. The ability of early hominids to master this contradiction (beautiful axes can be found that are 1/2 a million years old, way before Homo Sapiens Sapiens) was indispensible to our evolutionary development. Our brains developed the ability to master contradiction far earlier than they were able to master what passes as scientific reasoning nowadays. Andy seems to regard the finding of contradiction in the inanimate world as about as sophisticated as the thinking of pre-Neanderthals. Which could literally be the case, but he writes as if it is an affront to Reason. Chris Burford London. --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu --- M-TH: Marx conceiving of nature dialectically Charles Brown marxism-thaxis <mailto:marxism-thaxis> Mon, 07 Dec 1998 10:55:09 -0500 *Andy and List, The following is quoted in "Marx's study of Science and Technology" by Pradip Baksi in Nature, Society and Thought vol9, no.3 Marx in a letter dated 22 June , 1867 to Engels. "You are quite right about Hoffman. Incidentally, you will see from the conclusion to my chapter III, where I outline a transformation of the master of a trade into a capitalist as a result of purely _quantitative_ changes - that _in the text_ there I quote Hegel's discovery of the _law of the transformation of a merely quantitative change into a qualitative one_ as being attested by history and natural science alike." Charles Brown Detroit --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu --- ________________________________ M-TH: Re: Abstract & concrete people/s Andrew Wayne Austin marxism-thaxis Charles, By contradiction Marx means some pretty specific things. But it needs to be pointed out that in a preface or afterword to Capital Marx refers to capitalism as a contradicted mode of production implying that there are modes of productions which are not contradicted. Communism is such a mode of production posited by Marx. That contradiction (or noncontradiction) in production modalities is specific to particular forms of social formation is the core of Marxian theorizing. For Marx, there are only specific contradictions and particular laws of development in historical systems, not suprahistorical contradictions or laws. Marx emphasizes in the Grundrisse that to speak of general contradictions, general production, and so forth, independent of historical context, and failing to recognize that these abstractions are only mental events, is idealism. Laws are applied to the understanding of social forms only after the laws have been abstracted from concrete social formations through comparative analysis (either among historical system or within the division of labor of a historical system). It would not be possible under Marx's system to posit any universal laws of dialectics. This is antithetical to core of the Marx method. Andy Marx conceiving of nature dialectically Andrew Wayne Austin marxism-thaxis Fri, 11 Dec 1998 16:41:58 -0500 (EST) Previous message: M-TH: Marx conceiving of nature dialectically Next message: M-TH: THE AFTERMATH OF L Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Charles Brown wrote: >"You are quite right about Hoffman. Incidentally, you will see from the >conclusion to my chapter III, where I outline a transformation of the >master of a trade into a capitalist as a result of purely _quantitative_ >changes - that _in the text_ there I quote Hegel's discovery of the _law >of the transformation of a merely quantitative change into a qualitative >one_ as being attested by history and natural science alike." Quantitative and qualitative changes are descriptions of transformations of matter and energy, of structure and content. I am quite familiar with the quote. Qualitative change is found in the natural world. In chemistry when two substances are mixed together they may form a qualitatively different entity. So H2O is different than the sum of its parts (2 Hs and 1 O). What Marx is saying here is that the observation of qualitative change is common in all science. The claim you and others make is that contradiction of fundamental. What is the fundamental contradiction between H and O? Moreover, Marx discusses Hegel's "law of the transformation of a merely quantitative change into a qualitative one," but does not say that this is a universal dialectic or part of a universal dialectic. Andy M-TH: Re: Marx conceiving of nature dialectically marxism-thaxis marxism-thaxis Sat, 12 Dec 1998 04:19:50 EST ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Re: M-TH: Marx conceiving of nature dialectically On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Charles Brown quotes Marx: >"You are quite right about Hoffman. Incidentally, you will see from the >conclusion to my chapter III, where I outline a transformation of the >master of a trade into a capitalist as a result of purely _quantitative_ >changes - that _in the text_ there I quote Hegel's discovery of the _law >of the transformation of a merely quantitative change into a qualitative >one_ as being attested by history and natural science alike." 11/12/98, Andy writes: Quantitative and qualitative changes are descriptions of transformations of matter and energy, of structure and content. I am quite familiar with the quote. Qualitative change is found in the natural world. In chemistry when two substances are mixed together they may form a qualitatively different entity. So H2O is different than the sum of its parts (2 Hs and 1 O). What Marx is saying here is that the observation of qualitative change is common in all science. The claim you and others make is that contradiction of fundamental. What is the fundamental contradiction between H and O? Moreover, Marx discusses Hegel's "law of the transformation of a merely quantitative change into a qualitative one," but does not say that this is a universal dialectic or part of a universal dialectic. Andy --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.econ.utah.edu --- Steve responds: Andy, dialectical laws are fundamental and universal, they are about self- change, the inner life if you like, that which animates matter itself - all things, all phenomena, including its higher forms in chemistry (H + 0), life and society. The fundamental/universal the laws of dialectics serve to animate a human understanding (at this stage of our development) of how ALL matter SELF- CHANGES, and evolves. At a lower level of philosophical understanding comes the simple mixing of things - of H and O - but which itself operates all the laws of dialectics anyway. H+O is a description of a thing not an explanation, a simple, mechanical (chemical) process. Dialectics sees the central driving force, the life of all phenomena, of all things, of all matter, of nature, society and thought; as operating in CONTRADICTION, as a unity of opposites 'within' each thing. But when any 'thing' is under investigation, besides the key question of empirical study of the thing, we are looking at the parts of a seemingly separate TOTALITY. A dialectical approach would see how the part makes the whole and the whole makes the parts - and how they mutually condition, or MEDIATE, each other. It really is seeing totality, change, contradiction and mediation as the principles or key terms of the dialectic. But then we go on to the three laws of dialectics which I'm sure you've come across before, and described many times in classic works: the unity of opposites (really another way of saying contradiction), the transformation of quantity into quality, and the negation of the negation. By the way, there is a very good book recently out by John Rees, a leading member of the SWP (IS) in Britain: it is called 'The Algebra of Revolution - the Dialectic and the Classical Marxist Tradition'. I would highly recommend it as probably the best all-rounded explanation of the dialectic that I know. This is not a plug for a group I am in - I most certainly have differences with that political tradition. However this book is good - perhaps because it is so separated from their general politics. But if anyone out there knows why a major book by a leading SWP theoretician should be published by the commercial Routledge, and not by the SWP house-publishers, Bookmarks, I'd like to know? Yours for Communism - Steve Myers Andrew Wayne Austin marxism-thaxis Sat, 12 Dec 1998 10:58:12 -0500 (EST) Steve, I understand the position of objective idealism that many Marxist take up about dialectics. I am not saying that Engels did not take up this view. My point is simply that this is not Marx's position, and it is contrary to what Marx argues. Marx's dialectical method of investigation is not a religion in disguise. Andy M-TH: Re: Marx conceiving of nature dialectically marxism-thaxis marxism-thaxis Sun, 13 Dec 1998 06:24:34 EST In a message dated 12/12/98 16:27:06 GMT, aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu writes: Steve, I understand the position of objective idealism that many Marxist take up about dialectics. I am not saying that Engels did not take up this view. My point is simply that this is not Marx's position, and it is contrary to what Marx argues. Marx's dialectical method of investigation is not a religion in disguise. Andy Gerry D writes: Andy, This assertion of yours 'My point is simply that this is not Marx's position, and it is contrary to what Marx argues' needs a bit of proving. It is, in fact, the central theme of all those who have attacked Marxism philosophically, beginning with Lukacs and going through the likes of Sartre, Althusser and so-called 'Modern Philosophers'. The notion that the division of labour between Marx and Engels represented the difference between the dialectical method and 'a religion' is ludicrous. How was it that Marx never spotted what Engels was up to? Anyone who has bothered to study Engels' dialectics will be aware that he is fully in accord with Marx's views. Even the minimal task of reading the small pamphlet by Engels 'Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of classical German Idealism' will be obliged to read Marx's 'Thesis on Feuerbach' at the back and see their complete unity on this vital question. To suggest otherwise is usually the basis of a full onslaught on Marxism itself. Next to attacking Engels, comes the attack on Plekhanov, then on Lenin, Trotsky and the Russian Revolution. I do not say that you are doing this but we have just experienced just this familiar trajectory from our ex-comrades in Workers Action. First Jonathan Joseph put forward his attack on dialectical materialism, then Nick Davies proceeded to thrash the Lenin, Trotsky and post-Trotsky Trotskyists. So your path is well trodden. If thinking and being are two separate things then we are free to think and do as we will. Idealism and not dialectical materialism is the guiding factor. The subject becomes the object and the object becomes the subject and the world cannot be changed at all, or it will change anyway - either way we do not need to fight to give revolutionary leadership to the masses because that is a 'objective' factor. Is dialectical materialism a religion? In a way you have identified your real antipathy to the subject. Religion is a complete, integrated world outlook. The philosophical rational of the bourgeoisie cannot really be called an ideology at all. Bourgeois nationalism preaches defence or your own nation and ruling class is implicitly chauvinists and racist. All serious philosophy since Marx must attack dialectical materialism from within, must bowdlerise it and confuse the left intellectuals drawn to the side of the working class in struggle. Religion is always a necessary ideological prop for the bourgeoisie and they cannot abolish it - witness the failure of the French Revolution in this regard and Napoleon's reinstatement of religion as a weapon of control and reaction. Marxism also is an integrated world outlook, like religion. It claims there is an integrated unity in conflict between humanity and nature, that we are part of nature, its conscious part, that we are in fact nature conscious of itself. Only Marxism can replace religion as a world outlook and hence the antipathy of the bourgeoisie and petit bourgeoisie to dialectical materialism. No matter that its modern day proponents are small and scattered nonetheless this is OUR MOST POWERFUL IDEOLOGICAL WEAPON and we need to learn, develop and educate others and ourselves in it. This is integral to the Trotskyist Group's orientation on Marxist Renewal. It is so important that those in different groups and those in none who understand the importance of this should collaborate in a 'Friends of the Dialectic' or some such as Trotsky proposed in 1939. Any takers? Gerry Downing M-TH: Re: Marx conceiving of nature dialectically Rob Schaap marxism-thaxis G'day Thaxists, I'm with Andy! It's been a while ... Marx's 'materialist method', as he called it, necessarily depends on 'real, active men' and their 'ideological reflexes'. This is because, as Marx says in his attack on Feuerbach, 'The chief defect of all materialism up to now is that the object, reality, what we apprehend through our senses, is understood only in the form of the object ... NOT AS SENSUOUS HUMAN ACTIVITY, AS PRACTICE ... ' Without Marx's humanism (I'm with Fromm in seeing this proposition as an instance of humanism), there's no Marxist materialism. SeeyaTuesdee, Rob. M-TH: Re: Marx conceiving of nature dialectically Charles Brown marxism-thaxis Sun, 13 Dec 1998 18:28:21 -0500 Previous message: M-TH: Marx conceiving of nature dialectically Next message: M-TH: Re: Marx conceiving of nature dialectically Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- >>> Rob Schaap <rws at comserver.canberra.edu.au> 12/13 6:24 AM >>> G'day Thaxists, I'm with Andy! It's been a while ... Marx's 'materialist method', as he called it, necessarily depends on 'real, active men' and their 'ideological reflexes'. This is because, as Marx says in his attack on Feuerbach, 'The chief defect of all materialism up to now is that the object, reality, what we apprehend through our senses, is understood only in the form of the object ... NOT AS SENSUOUS HUMAN ACTIVITY, AS PRACTICE ... ' _________ Charles: And the thing is to change the world and practice (experimentation and industry) is the ultimately test of truth (epistemological test) for Marxism (. I say that's the unity of ethics and epistemology). But what about before humans existed ? It was not human practice that made the sun, n'est-ce pas ? The changing of the world that went on in the age of dinosaurs was based on a different dialectic, not historical materialist contradictions. _________ Without Marx's humanism (I'm with Fromm in seeing this proposition as an instance of humanism), there's no Marxist materialism. ________ Charles: My position is humanist. In fact, I am ultimately anthropocentric. Ultimately, I don't care about the changes in the natural world , the dinosaurs or the sun, EXCEPT AS HOW IT IMPACTS HUMANITY. To me the heart of Marxism is species-being. Humans can only CHANGE THE WORLD THROUGH PRACTICE by knowing the laws of nature, which are dialectical. The issue of the non-teleology or non-direction of natures dialectics came up before in this on another list ( Jim Heartfield there ?) I answered that. The teleology of the change of nature is "imposed" by we humans. We only care about the direction of change in the natural world IN RELATION HUMANITY. In other words, the natural universes changes and dialectics only gain teleology or a purpose IN RELATION TO HUMANS. We have to fit into that movement. That's the famous "mastery of nature as key to freedom". But nature's movement only gains meaning in relation to humanity. Charles M-TH: Re: Abstract & concrete people/s Charles Brown marxism-thaxis Sun, 13 Dec 1998 17:33:24 -0500 Previous message: M-TH: Russia news Next message: M-TH: Re: Abstract & concrete people/s Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- >>> Andrew Wayne Austin <aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu> 12/11 4:31 PM >>> Charles, By contradiction Marx means some pretty specific things. _________ Charles: I'm not sure what you mean. The truth and reality are always concrete. But that doesn't mean Marx doesn't have a general concept of contradiction. __________ But it needs to be pointed out that in a preface or afterword to Capital Marx refers to capitalism as a contradicted mode of production implying that there are modes of productions which are not contradicted. ________ Charles: Capitalism has antagonistic classes. Communism, primitive and future, didn't and won't have class contradictions. But, that doesn't mean that there will no longer be ANYcontradictions between humans and nature. I gave you an example: the sun will eventually burn out. That will exterminate our species, just as much as failure to hunt well would have exterminated us long ago. The old contradiction was need food/don't have food. It was solved. The new one would be need sun/don't have sun. Less spectacularly than the sun burning out would be new diseases or even a meteor shower like what the dinosaurs had. These are different types of contradictions because they are not internal to human society like class contradictions. Exploitation is a contradiction rooted in an organization of society that was a basis for overcoming some contradictions, but produced new contradictions between people. Now we can see that society can still accrue to itself the benefits derived from class formed society without the classes. So we can discard the class contradictions. But that will not be an eternal utopia without new challenges or contradictions. _______ Communism is such a mode of production posited by Marx. That contradiction (or noncontradiction) in production modalities is specific to particular forms of social formation is the core of Marxian theorizing. ________ Charles: The difference is between social contradictions which are not forced by our contradictions with nature, but by irrational human traditions, and contradictions that are between human society and nature. The latter are the motivation for change or development too. For Marx, there are only specific contradictions and particular laws of development in historical systems, not suprahistorical contradictions or laws. _________ Charles: For Marx and the rest, contradictions are what make history "move", of course. But further, there are different contradictions at different levels. The "history" you are talking about is the history mentioned in the first sentence of _The Manifesto of the Communist Party_. That is the history that is a history of the CONTRADICTION of class struggle. Before that, before there were classes or class struggle, there was not stasis or non-movement and non-development. There was not non- change in primitive non-class society. There was a different contradiction that was a motive for change. For example, the development from the old to the new stone age, was based on some other CONTRADICTION than class struggle. As materialists, we would expect this transition from one "primitive" mode of production to another to be the result of a contradiction between that mode and nature. Marx emphasizes in the Grundrisse that to speak of general contradictions, general production, and so forth, independent of historical context, and failing to recognize that these abstractions are only mental events, is idealism. Laws are applied to the understanding of social forms only after the laws have been abstracted from concrete social formations through comparative analysis (either among historical system or within the division of labor of a historical system). It would not be possible under Marx's system to posit any universal laws of dialectics. This is antithetical to core of the Marx method. _________ Charles: Thinking logically about the first sentence of _The Communist Manifesto_ demonstrates that Marx's attitude toward this issue is,none other than, contradictory. For if HISTORY ( all history in all of its DIFFERENT epochs) is a history of class struggle; then there is a generalization made by Marx and Engels about contradictions in history. The class struggle type of contradiction is transhistorical, as it was termed in one thread here a while ago. Class struggle contradictions are both specific in slavery, feudalism and capitalism and have something in common. That is that they are CLASS contradictions. Because both primitive and future communisms do not have antagonistic classes, their 'movement" , the change in them ( and EVERYTHING changes; nothing lasts for ever; even future communism will change) is rooted in different types of contradiction. But "CONTRADICTION" is a general term used to describe all of the different underlying motivations for change in these different forms of society; and all CHANGE or MOTION , period. Charles Andy M-TH: Marx conceiving of nature dialectically Charles Brown marxism-thaxis Sun, 13 Dec 1998 18:06:56 -0500 Previous message: M-TH: Re: Abstract & concrete people/s Next message: M-TH: Re: Marx conceiving of nature dialectically Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- >>> Andrew Wayne Austin <aaustin at utkux.utcc.utk.edu> 12/11 4:41 PM >>> On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Charles Brown wrote: >"You are quite right about Hoffman. Incidentally, you will see from the >conclusion to my chapter III, where I outline a transformation of the >master of a trade into a capitalist as a result of purely _quantitative_ >changes - that _in the text_ there I quote Hegel's discovery of the _law >of the transformation of a merely quantitative change into a qualitative >one_ as being attested by history and natural science alike." Quantitative and qualitative changes are descriptions of transformations of matter and energy, of structure and content. I am quite familiar with the quote. Qualitative change is found in the natural world. In chemistry when two substances are mixed together they may form a qualitatively different entity. So H2O is different than the sum of its parts (2 Hs and 1 O). What Marx is saying here is that the observation of qualitative change is common in all science. The claim you and others make is that contradiction of fundamental. What is the fundamental contradiction between H and O? ________ Charles: The contradiction is not between H and O. The contradiction is between the quality of the substances before they are mixed and after. For one thing, here we have two gases turning into a liquid. Gases and liquids are opposites here. A qualitative change is something turning into its opposite or the unity and struggle of opposites. ________ Moreover, Marx discusses Hegel's "law of the transformation of a merely quantitative change into a qualitative one," but does not say that this is a universal dialectic or part of a universal dialectic. ________ Charles: You had said that Marx didn't believe that dialectics applies to the natural world, as Engels did in _The Dialectics of Nature_. This statement is evidence contraction your assertion about Marx and his difference from Engels. Charles Brown Detroit This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis