Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 23:10:38 +0100
From: Chris Burford <cburford-AT-gn.apc.org>
Subject: M-I: Contradiction and fluidity


At 02:23 PM 10/7/97 -0400, S. Chatterjee  wrote:

[Re: Zizek on PKs]

>This world consists of phenomena (some simple, some complex) which
>are full of contradictions. So it is correct when analyzing a phenomena
>or a process that these contraditions have to be considered. However,
>at a given time and space, it is *crucial* and much more important
>(and difficult) to delineate the different aspects of the contradiction
>and also to find out which aspect is dominating at a *concrete* moment
>of time in a given process (since equilibrium between the aspects is 
>relative and temporary while the conflict is absolute). 



Without wanting to take sides in a personal way on this thread, as I have
not read all the posts, and without implying of course that I agree with
Sid on a number of important points, I just want to welcome the way he
argues this particular passage. 

The day before yesterday I was looking at the penultimate paragraph of the
Second, German, introduction to Capital in the Penguin edition, with Ben
Fowkes' translation which certainly seems to me to bring the point out
better than the Lawrence and Wishart edition translated by Samule Moore and
Edward Aveling.

This is the passage where Marx admits that he "coquetted" with the mode of
expression peculiar to Hegel, in the chapter on the theory of value.

He goes on, in the Fowkes translation:

"In its mystifed form, the dialectic became the fashon in Germany, because
it seemed to transfigure and glorify what exists. In its rational form it
is a scandal and an abomination to the bourgeoisie and its doctrinaire
spokesmen, because it includes in its positive understanding of what exists
a simultaneous recognition of its negation, its inevitable destruction;
because it regards every historically developed form as being in a fluid
state, in motion, and therefore grasps its transient aspect as well; and
because it does not let itself be impressed by anything, being in its very
essence critical and revolutionary."



One of the challenges is how to think dialectically without being
opportunist. 

Sid refers to "capitalism transforms into socialism and vice versa". I am
increasingly of the view that in the contradiction between labour and
capital, not only is this battle not totally won after an apparently
decisive revolution, but also that before a decisive revolution the battle
is not totally lost. In other words there is a contradiction between
capital and labour in which there is unity as well as struggle. It is vital
to know which side is predominant, but that does not mean that the
subordinate aspect is one with no power or influence at all, and without
the potentiality to grow by degrees quantitatively even if not qualitatively. 

Concretely, now, I have been submitting various posts from England, not in
order to show that Blair=socialism and we should all love him and Diana,
but that there are certain openings under the new government that can
perhaps be utilised , and they will be utilised better if people are
extremely vigilant about what the underlying class forces and implications
are. Is that reformism or a principled struggle for reforms? Well it will
have to be argued over concretely in each case. There are no simple
mechanical rules. It will be better argued over with an awareness of the
fluidity of the process and the need to analyse what is happening here, as
elsewhere, from the standpoint of contradiction.



Chris Burford

London.



     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---