Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 22:55:26 -0500 (EST) From: Viraj Fernando <viraj-AT-interlog.com> Subject: M-I: Dialectics of Nature Comrade Andrew, Now that you have revealed who you are and what you are, I will stop my strategic game that I played with you a) to get out the real concepts that you talk about. b) to try and explain to you what marxian system really is. c)This is the main task: To use you, and keep you pinned down, and thereby getting me an opportunity to extend the discussion on dialectics and its immense relevance to class struggle. I have succeeded in this. Comrade Joao Paul Monte has joined in, the fire is kindled! In fact I was conducting the proletarian class struggle within the list. By the setting of parameters what I did was I blocked all your escape roots. I was going to refute all your false notions one by one. I was going the explain to you how hard it was to convince you what the materialist dialectics are. This is why I was killing you with kindness. I observed your dedication to the cause. How much effort you put in. How valuable you would be if your concepts became right. But comrade, I must tell you in your heart you may be a marxist, but certainly not in your head. Also, I had to be absolutely intellectually honest, otherwise you can't do this business. This is why I did not hesitate to point out the false positions of comrade Chaterjee. Just because he was defending dialectical materialism I could not be silent about the subjective element (the objective reality getting interpreted by the historically determined social consciousness) in materialist dialectics as enunciated by Marx in Thesis I of Fuerbach. This is the most important point, that differentiates marxist materialism from all other kinds of materialism. It is precisely to lay emphasis on this fact and no other that reason that marxian materialism has been termed Historical Materialism, materialism prefixed by the word *history*. But as time went on, people vulgurised the concept. They came to give a literal meaning to it. (This is why I was going to divest you of your bourgeois concepts and get you to use marxist categories like form and content, etc etc. and also to get you out of the tendency to give literal meanings). Just like you, they thought, by historical materialism it means that it concerns interpretation of history materialistically. Interpretation of history materialistically may not necessarily be marxist. There are so many non-dialectical materialisms. The vulgarisers had irredeemably divested the subject-object aspect of marxian materialism, and also the dialectical aspect. Faced with this contradiction, and to save the sitaution, Plekanov had to relabel the package as dialectical materialism. Now the historical connection (the subject-object aspect) is not on the label. Then vulgarisations started and the subject-object aspect got lost. In addition there is the confusion that Marx's Historical Materialism is not equal to Dilalectical materialism. This is how it is in dialectics. I think we should reformulate it as "historico-materialist dialectics" and give it a try. It does not matter whatever you call it, this is the marxian system. Even this name does not do justice to the system. One of the most important elements is not represented. That is the concept of the *real abstract*. Without this Marx would not have derived his concept of the value of money in the Capital. So if you think that the Capital is a great book, to understand it you must understand the concept of the *real abstract*. If you do not understand the concept of the *real abstract* you will continue to think that because of the immense successes of undialectical science, marxism is not applicable to science. We marxists are in a dilemma. There are abstract numbers like 360 degrees and 24 hours appearing in science. Idealists say they are apriori or were given by God. We know it is false, but we are in a desparate situation in not being able to explain. We say that these have been derived by man in social practice but we can't explain how. It was the same for the value of money. Following Aristotle's initiatives, Marx solved the riddle. In regard to the above too, we have to follow the same route. If we think that by the application of Reimann Geometry and Differential equations we can solve these then we are going on a false trail. Like Marx we have to follow the social consciusness to its very beginning and decipher how man has derived these by *simple* relations of astronomy, and explain how from them, these numbers have got abstracted. Now these numbers stand alone and *appear* not to have any relation to anything external. Until we find the we decipher these and eplain how these were derived is social practic, dialects and pure sciences can not merge. Until this is done we can not attack the God given system of Newtonian Absolute Time and Absolute Space. Marx and Engels knew the significance of this. That is why Engels engaged in that valiant effort - "Dialectics of Nature". I must also tell you something. If you want to be a true Marxist, start reading Engels first. Read, read, read. Read "Ludwig Fuerbach and the outcome of Classical German Philosophy". You will get the rythm odf dialectics in there. Then move over to Marx and Lenin. Plekhanov's Fundamental Problems of Marxism is good. Do not think you can learn Marxism second hand. (Louis Proyect posted a list of books recently to that add Anti-Duhring). If you read Sohn-Rethel go back to Marx and verify and understand. Do not go to Lukacs and others for clarification. It is fashionable to read and talk of Althuser, Lukacs etc. But before going to them first exhaust Marx, Lenin, Engels. Start using Marxist categories of thought. As I said if you use bourgeois concepts, then your own understanding gets distorted. The debate is over, call it what you like, condescention, patronising or whatever you like. You are a valuable comrade who can contribute very much to our cause. Sorry I am talking to you like this, it may hurt your pride. But these things have to be told. If I do not use this opportunity, the opportunity is lost for ever. You will be tirelessly working in the list day, day out, but your efforts wasted. When it comes to proleterian cause I have to now shed off the bourgeois courtsies and talk direct to you and explain. That can't be helped. If I called you names and abused you, and acted in a sectarian manner, then the debate would have degenerated and ended, and opportunity lost to talk to you, and also more important lost the opportunity to talk dialectics in this list. It is all upto you. Either go to the originals of Marxism and become a willing student of it and contribute to the proletarian cause or collect bourgeios concepts and make salads out of them. Remember as comrade Joao said this list has an immense potential for the proletarian cause. You see the class struggle is one the factory floor and also all over. It is in the superstructure too. Class struggles operate in philosophical, political, juridical, scientific, cultural, all such spheres as well. This realm is dominated by the bourgeoisie. This bastion we have to attack. Side by side the by proleterain class struggle on the factory floor, we have to carry out an incessant UNDERMINING of this superstructure. And bourgeois thought into confusion. This is an essential complement to a revolution. Without this complement there is no hope for a revolution. You see, the mental grip of the bourgeiosie on the people thousand time more intensive than Marx's time. They carry of their domination through television, wrtten media, information highway. Every minute every second their indoctrination is going on. They obscure the class interests of the people. For instance, now there are no "wage earners" but "tax payers", all in league with the bourgeiosie. That's how they want us to feel and think like. Our task is to widen this gap between the ruling ideas of the ruling class and the proleterians. As we go on in this undermining proceess, when our ideas are sufficiently spread, then they will take the form of a material force. That is they will talk and think in proleterain terms as "wage earner" and how they are exploited, and not how the poor people receiving social assistance are a menace and such like. They will stop thinking about what they ahve in common with the bourgeoisie, and they will start to look for the differences. This is the trend of thought we have to initiate here and there to end up in the big conflageration. What was Marx doing? He identified the necessity of this complement. While he left others, to attend to day to day matters of the direct proleterain struggle, he sat at the bastion of British Imperialism, the epitomy of the plunder and exploitation of the nations - the British Museum. From within this bastion he was planning his "conspiracy" to UNDERMINE the superstructure at the philosophical level. Engels,the business man ("exploiting the workers" instead of joining their day to day struggles) went on an attack on another front- Science. We must understand the relevance of their aims and objectives, and use this list to propagate our struggles on these two fronts Philosophy and Science. We can do it. Bourgeoisie have given us the weapon - the internet- they did not know what they were doing, when they did it. Best regards/ Viraj --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005