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
