Ask a Red III

[Terxpahseyton]

That is not true. Dialectics proposes that nothing is unrelated, that within every observable phenomena there is a unity of opposites. With these opposites ging toe to toe, there the law of transformation, where minute quantitative changes lead to visible qualitative changes, thereby leading to a negation of the negation. I learned this in physics class by studying boiling water as it turned into steam' changing its state. When you apply this anysis to social studies, yu get dialectical and hostorical materialism.

I have always been confused by dialectical materialism as well, but that description is helpful. Am I understanding correctly that the negation of the negation means the dissolution of a contradiction (brought by opposing forces)? Its a bit weird of a term.
If yes, that would be enlightening enough for me regarding what it says.
Yet, I still find it problematic. I recently myself thought, that in the absence of a higher power which gives some kind of purpose and hence direction, the only "purpose"/direction left is one of opposing forces clashing. And the only way to bring such a clash to its conclusion is the negation of the negation.
Based on this I am inclined to accept dialectical materialism as an accurate description of the direction reality will be taking. However, isn't there a considerable problem in transferring this direction from physics to the social world, based on the ambivalence and contradictory nature of social interaction? For instance a molecule will have clearly defined properties and will behave in a limited number and understood ways. From that follows a clear idea in what ways a molecule clashes in its properties with other molecules. By that the ways a molecule is dialectical engaged becomes clearly defined.
With social interaction, it is not possible to clearly define all properties and additionally, those properties may change over time. But what makes dialectical analysis in social settings really difficult is that the opposing forces defined have to be abstractions. And that means that the abstracted antagonisms don't tell us the whole story, but only the one from the POV from which the abstraction originates. That for instance would be the abstraction of capitalists and workers.
The effect of this necessity to abstract is that one can come up with numerous abstract concepts of opposing forces, which in reality may overlap or even contradict themselves, mudding the waters further.
In the end, it is not clear to me why dialectical materialism has to be interpreted making use of the abstraction of the antagonism of workers and capitalists and why this abstraction is supposed to be reliable.

 

[luiz]

Tell that to my biology, physics and chemistry professors! Tell that to a pot of boiling water. Read VI Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-Criticism wherein he discussed the application of dialectics to the natural sciences. You can also read Thomas Huxley, Albert Kammerer and Charles Darwin. You can't change the laws of nature, amigo.

I know more about the natural sciences than Lenin and Karl Marx combined, and then squared. Not only because I actually studied them, but because I did so in the 21st Century.

And as such I can safely say that what you think is a "law of nature" is actually cheap pseudo-science, coupled with non trivial doses of pure nonsense.

For instance, why don't you prove that social change follows the pattern of boiling water?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

I have always been confused by dialectical materialism as well, but that description is helpful. Am I understanding correctly that the negation of the negation means the dissolution of a contradiction (brought by opposing forces)? Its a bit weird of a term....However, isn't there a considerable problem in transferring this direction from physics to the social world, based on the ambivalence and contradictory nature of social interaction? For instance a molecule will have clearly defined properties and will behave in a limited number and understood ways. From that follows a clear idea in what ways a molecule clashes in its properties with other molecules. By that the ways a molecule is dialectical engaged becomes clearly defined.
With social interaction, it is not possible to clearly define all properties and additionally, those properties may change over time. But what makes dialectical analysis in social settings really difficult is that the opposing forces defined have to be abstractions. And that means that the abstracted antagonisms don't tell us the whole story, but only the one from the POV from which the abstraction originates. That for instance would be the abstraction of capitalists and workers.
The effect of this necessity to abstract is that one can come up with numerous abstract concepts of opposing forces, which in reality may overlap or even contradict themselves, mudding the waters further.
In the end, it is not clear to me why dialectical materialism has to be interpreted making use of the abstraction of the antagonism of workers and capitalists and why this abstraction is supposed to be reliable.

Sill, you may be right. However, dialectical and historical materialism (DHM) deals with opposing social forces that are defined, and in this gray world, I find comfort that I do have an adversary. However, since there is no one way of describing how the world works, scientific socialists have adopted DHM because it is simply the best way to identify and fight those who perpetrate injustice. It sounds to the unpracticed like a simplification of very complicated problems, and I don't mean to trifle with or replace any religious ideology, however, when you, like me, have a group of low-income workers in your office who can't pay their rising utility costs, it is not hard to find out who is reponsible, when the government policy that exists to protect those workers is NOT being enforced.

I hope this helps. Mao's On Practice for a brief description of DHM.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

I know more about the natural sciences than Lenin and Karl Marx combined, and then squared. Not only because I actually studied them, but because I did so in the 21st Century.

And as such I can safely say that what you think is a "law of nature" is actually cheap pseudo-science, coupled with non trivial doses of pure nonsense.

For instance, why don't you prove that social change follows the pattern of boiling water?

Dear luiz you may be right.

You forget that Lenin was a scientist , a social scientist. His brother, Sasha, was a biologist. The third brother, Dmitri, was a medical doctor. Two of my best friends (and fellow organizers) are career biology and hydrology professionals. So, first prove to me that the physical properties of boiling water have changed in 100, 200 or 300 ,years, and I will accept your credentials for being better natural scientist. Old isn't wrong. You may not like gravity, but it's the LAW.

That being said. If you are postulating that dialectics cannot explain the natural sciences, then how could I possibly prove to you that social change follows the pattern of boiling water? You know how water boils -- it does not all boil at once, and it does not stay boiled. I maintained steam boilers for 9 years and while the boiler is cooking, steam condenses on the sidesof the cold radiators and pipes and returns through a Hartford loop back to the boiler. Like boiling water, social movements don't change things all at once, it is a process, and there are setbacks, but the process is always in motion

If you will listen to that explanation, I will answer your posts. But I am not convinced you are willing to listen. You are not asking questions about socialism or communism, you are baiting.

 

[luiz]

Dear luiz you may be right.

You forget that Lenin was a scientist , a social scientist. His brother, Sasha, was a biologist. The third brother, Dmitri, was a medical doctor. Two of my best friends (and fellow organizers) are career biology and hydrology professionals. So, first prove to me that the physical properties of boiling water have changed in 100, 200 or 300 ,years, and I will accept your credentials for being better natural scientist. Old isn't wrong. You may not like gravity, but it's the LAW.

That being said. If you are postulating that dialectics cannot explain the natural sciences, then how could I possibly prove to you that social change follows the pattern of boiling water? You know how water boils -- it does not all boil at once, and it does not stay boiled. I maintained steam boilers for 9 years and while the boiler is cooking, steam condenses on the sidesof the cold radiators and pipes and returns through a Hartford loop back to the boiler. Like boiling water, social movements don't change things all at once, it is a process, and there are setbacks, but the process is always in motion

If you will listen to that explanation, I will answer your posts. But I am not convinced you are willing to listen. You are not asking questions about socialism or communism, you are baiting.

Gravity still exists, but now we know a lot more about it than Newton did. Likewise, whatever Lenin's brother understood of biology is now hopelessly outdated.

My "problem" with using dialectics to explain everything is that it is putting the cart ahead of the horses. It is not scientific to come up with theory of everything; the fact that water boils in a certain way (which I'm unsure Marx or Lenin understood) tells us nothing of how social change occurs. There's no reason why it should tell us anything about social change. It certainly doesn't tell us anything about biology either. You may draw nice analogies between boiling water and revolutions (the analogy is so obvious it's rather poor), but from there to concluding that the same mechanism governs both phenomena is not only a huge leap; it is pseudo-science.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Gravity still exists, but now we know a lot more about it than Newton did. Likewise, whatever Lenin's brother understood of biology is now hopelessly outdated.

Perhaps our understanding of gravity has changed, but those properties exist whether we know about them or not. That was Lenin's point. "Today, we discover that coal tar contains alizarin, did that mean that yesterday it did not?" That is dialectical materialism. And it is quite dialectical to believe, as you imply, that our increased understanding of a phenomenon allows us to do utilize that phenomenon for the public good, n'est pas? e.g. an increased undertsanding of gravity, along with other scientific knowledge has allowed us to go to the moon, fly faster than ever, built better machines.

Why do you study sciences, anyway?

My "problem" with using dialectics to explain everything is that it is putting the cart ahead of the horses. It is not scientific to come up with theory of everything;

Right, good point. But as you see what I wrote the SiLL, I am not trying to explain everything, I am applying my understanding of dialectical and historical materialism to my work to better society. I did not create the social and economic forces that force millions in the US into poverty and homelessness, but I know where they come from. Unity of opposites. I know that the more I organize the more the effect of those inequitable conditions are diminished - law of tranformation; and someday I will end those inequitable conditions -- negation of the negation.

the fact that water boils in a certain way (which I'm unsure Marx or Lenin understood) tells us nothing of how social change occurs. There's no reason why it should tell us anything about social change. It certainly doesn't tell us anything about biology either

Really? My example was of a steam boiler SYSTEM, i.e. how the principle of boiling water had practical use value in keeping you warm in the winter. My knowledge of how water boils kept people from freezing to death. What exactly, luiz, are you doing with your vast scientific knowledge? What will be your legacy?

You may draw nice analogies between boiling water and revolutions (the analogy is so obvious it's rather poor), but from there to concluding that the same mechanism governs both phenomena is not only a huge leap; it is pseudo-science.

Believe what you want. But it is not a mechanism that controls what people do, it is what they believe. Communists are not gurus or hypnotists, we are scientific socialists. We use what we have to get what we need.

Good discussion, though, don't you think? The Ancient Greek method of reaching the truth was by presenting opposing viewpoints -- they called it dialego that is, "dialectics." That is the basis of all modern debate, as well. Or, am I being really old-fashioned.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

.
So my question regarding all this is: What do you see as the role of a red, or at least of yourself, TODAY? How do you attempt to bring about the changes you want to see? How do you fight ignorance, within and without any organization you may be associated with? The powers that be naturally try to stop it. There are common people who see everything you do as evil. Then there are those, as I described, by your side who lack understanding but have a great energy to them, and surely will cause problems. A complex issue, to be sure, but one that must be addressed if any progress is to be made.
Spasiba

Wow, West 36.
Let me start by saying that there are many like you who felt disheartened by the Occupy movement, and having myself met with some of these organizers, they ended up working with the workers' organizations I work with because we were doing something. We were organizing.

Working as a red within a group that is not red is a political act and is necessary. Lenin insisted on a revolutionary being full time, but it was not for everyone to BE a revolutionary. That was his split with the others in his party in 1903. Martov, his personal friend, said that ANYONE should be able to join the party and call themselves a revolutionary, as long as they paid dues and accepted the program. Lenin said that one had to work within a party organization fulltime in order to a member of the Party. There's the rub. There will always be more people than party cadre. BUT the struggle is of, by and for the people.

The solution is to form organizations that do work among the people. Organizations that deal with day-to-day needs of people, while building working class leadership, autonomous working class leadership to run those organizations. These are not "fronts," these are organizations that do what they say, whose goals are what they are. But, because they are started by communists, these organizations can work towards the goals without compromising communist principles and can demonstrate communist principles in practice, while finding those more amenable to the struggle for working class solidarity on an international scale.

The other fact, while communist disdain to conceal their aims and views, you have to talk about your communism without the "current hackneyed formula" as noted by the 1st condition for Parties to enter the Third International (1920). Your agitation and propaganda, while maintaining a truly communist character, MUST be written and said in a way that makes the NEED for struggle apparent to anyone, understandable by anyone. If you met me in person, you would not know I was a red. We're supposed to be clandestine.

Anyway, hope that helps.

 

[Agent327]

That is not true. Dialectics proposes that nothing is unrelated, that within every observable phenomena there is a unity of opposites. With these opposites ging toe to toe, there the law of transformation, where minute quantitative changes lead to visible qualitative changes, thereby leading to a negation of the negation. I learned this in physics class by studying boiling water as it turned into steam' changing its state. When you apply this anysis to social studies, yu get dialectical and hostorical materialism.

What you are mentioning is a law of physics, not dialectic. Such laws as you mention have not yet been detected in human relations, which is what we are talking about now. Laws of physics cannot be simply applied to interhuman relations. And as was clear from my quote of what dialectic materialism entails, it is not so much an analysis, but more of a prediction of what will happen in the development of capitalism. A prediction that, despite several crises, has yet to come true. That capitalism undergoes certain cycles has been noticed by several economists (the Kondratieff cycle is most known, but it was noticed before he gave a name to it).

In regards to how a society transitions to communism via a whithering away of the state, that is not easy to answer in a post -- but youasked, so here goes:

Under socialism, the means of production are socially owned, and the government wields its authority by a mandate from the people. Institutions of government are set up to deal with the problems that come up -- distribution of resources, provision of medical care, education, etc. Since you still have the old classes, the class antagonisms still exist, i.e. the former ruling class still owns a lot and therefore the government is there to prevent the former ruling class from exploiting the working class, while society unlearns the old habits of every person for themselves and learns how to solve common problems, common social problems together.

Once -- and this takes a long time and takes different forms in different places -- you resolve the class contradictions, you will start to have no need for a government of people.

I hope this is a start to answering that question.

So it is assumed that class antagonism will whither away. That is not really satisfying either. It seems so me, as long as you have states, any society that lacks one is at a disadvantage. I also don't quite see how class antagonism - which is only one of many antagonisms endemic to human nature - will as a matter of cause "whither away". It basically assumes some universal good will among all men - something which doesn't really exist, then.

So my question of How? basically revolves around what practical methods might possibly be applied to have such a future come about.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

So it is assumed that class antagonism will whither away. That is not really satisfying either. It seems so me, as long as you have states, any society that lacks one is at a disadvantage. I also don't quite see how class antagonism - which is only one of many antagonisms endemic to human nature - will as a matter of cause "whither away". It basically assumes some universal good will among all men - something which doesn't really exist, then.

So my question of How? basically revolves around what practical methods might possibly be applied to have such a future come about.

Don't speak of human nature. What do you know of human nature? You know how humans behave in capitalism, in a situation of perpetual class struggle. Without Diamat, a weapon you refuse to wield, you cannot pretend to know what human nature "really" is!

This is the ultimate strength of Marxist position: Marx did not postulate that humans had endemic natural traits, but rather that man was fully the product of his environment. If raised to be selfish and self-centered, he will behave as such and only ever see the world as such. If he is raised to be selfless and think and care for others, he will do so. If he is raised to disdain cities, then like the Mongols, he will build his caravans in the squares of the cities he conquers, rather than take up residence in their houses and use them as they were intended. If he is raised to see turquoise as the most valuable of objects, but does not worship gold in the slightest, then he will think in such a way. Man is fully malleable in the social regard. The capitalist position cannot deal with this concept, because its core moral defense is this imagined position that man naturally behaves in the manner most befitting the capitalist mode of production. If that were so, then why did capitalism not arise until the 18th century? Why did capitalism face such vehement resistance, from monarchies, from aristocrats, from common peasants who disdained to be forced from their traditional way of life in the fields into dusty warehouses with fixed work schedules? Why did the Belgian seamstresses throw their clogs into the gears of looms, if this was the most natural way of human existence?

Class antagonisms are no more "endemic" than classes themselves are. The antagonism exists because of the class difference. Remove the classes, and the antagonisms between the now-nonexistent classes must also disappear. This is not a difficult concept. You are insistent upon making it one.

Perhaps a quote from Trotsky will help, in the abstract:

"What is man? He is by no means a finished or harmonious being. No, he is still a highly awkward creature. Man, as an animal, has not evolved by plan but by spontaneously, and has accumulated many contradictions. The question of how to educate and regulate, of how to improve and complete the physical and spiritual construction of man is a colossal problem which can only be understood on the basis of socialism...To produce a new, "improved version" of man - that is the future task of communism. And for that we first have to find out everything about man, his anatomy, his physiology, and that part of his physiology which is called his psychology. Man must look at himself and see himself as a raw material, or at best as a semi-manufactured product, and say: "At last, my dear homo sapiens, I will work on you."

 

[ReindeerThistle]

What you are mentioning is a law of physics, not dialectic. Such laws as you mention have not yet been detected in human relations, which is what we are talking about now. Laws of physics cannot be simply applied to interhuman relations. And as was clear from my quote of what dialectic materialism entails, it is not so much an analysis, but more of a prediction of what will happen in the development of capitalism. A prediction that, despite several crises, has yet to come true. That capitalism undergoes certain cycles has been noticed by several economists (the Kondratieff cycle is most known, but it was noticed before he gave a name to it).

So it is assumed that class antagonism will whither away. That is not really satisfying either. It seems so me, as long as you have states, any society that lacks one is at a disadvantage. I also don't quite see how class antagonism - which is only one of many antagonisms endemic to human nature - will as a matter of cause "whither away". It basically assumes some universal good will among all men - something which doesn't really exist, then.

So my question of How? basically revolves around what practical methods might possibly be applied to have such a future come about.

To put it quite simply, as Cheezy is pointing out, you organize the working class to the disadvantage of the rulng class -- by creating action-oriented groups that chip away at the structure until you have a big enough force to strike a big blow. I deal a lot wiyh necessties and the fact that bourgeos institutions of government don't follow their own laws and we hit them there.

 

[Mouthwash]

Don't speak of human nature. What do you know of human nature? You know how humans behave in capitalism, in a situation of perpetual class struggle. Without Diamat, a weapon you refuse to wield, you cannot pretend to know what human nature "really" is!

This is the ultimate strength of Marxist position: Marx did not postulate that humans had endemic natural traits, but rather that man was fully the product of his environment. If raised to be selfish and self-centered, he will behave as such and only ever see the world as such. If he is raised to be selfless and think and care for others, he will do so. If he is raised to disdain cities, then like the Mongols, he will build his caravans in the squares of the cities he conquers, rather than take up residence in their houses and use them as they were intended. If he is raised to see turquoise as the most valuable of objects, but does not worship gold in the slightest, then he will think in such a way. Man is fully malleable in the social regard. The capitalist position cannot deal with this concept, because its core moral defense is this imagined position that man naturally behaves in the manner most befitting the capitalist mode of production. If that were so, then why did capitalism not arise until the 18th century? Why did capitalism face such vehement resistance, from monarchies, from aristocrats, from common peasants who disdained to be forced from their traditional way of life in the fields into dusty warehouses with fixed work schedules? Why did the Belgian seamstresses throw their clogs into the gears of looms, if this was the most natural way of human existence?

Class antagonisms are no more "endemic" than classes themselves are. The antagonism exists because of the class difference. Remove the classes, and the antagonisms between the now-nonexistent classes must also disappear. This is not a difficult concept. You are insistent upon making it one.

Perhaps a quote from Trotsky will help, in the abstract:

"What is man? He is by no means a finished or harmonious being. No, he is still a highly awkward creature. Man, as an animal, has not evolved by plan but by spontaneously, and has accumulated many contradictions. The question of how to educate and regulate, of how to improve and complete the physical and spiritual construction of man is a colossal problem which can only be understood on the basis of socialism...To produce a new, "improved version" of man - that is the future task of communism. And for that we first have to find out everything about man, his anatomy, his physiology, and that part of his physiology which is called his psychology. Man must look at himself and see himself as a raw material, or at best as a semi-manufactured product, and say: "At last, my dear homo sapiens, I will work on you."

Um... can you run that by any psychologist in the world and tell me if they agree with Marx?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Um... can you run that by any psychologist in the world and tell me if they agree with Marx?

I can tell you that I wouldn't not agree with "any pyschologist.". They are generally not dialecticians. Psychiatrists, however, are MDs, much of what they say I can sink my teeth into.

 

[Masada]

Um... can you run that by any psychologist in the world and tell me if they agree with Marx?

I thought nurture was pretty solidly winning the debate?

 

[tokala]

I thought nurture was pretty solidly winning the debate?

At the very least there is solid evidence that a lot of traits that could be considered "human nature" vary as a function of culture.

Why Americans are the WEIRDest people in the world

Review paper the article is referring to, pointing out that Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic societies are occupying an outlier position for a lot of traits of "human nature":
http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/43616/1/626014360.pdf

 

[ReindeerThistle]

At the very least there is solid evidence that a lot of traits that could be considered "human nature" vary as a function of culture.

Why Americans are the WEIRDest people in the world

Review paper the article is referring to, pointing out that Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic societies are occupying an outlier position for a lot of traits of "human nature":
http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/43616/1/626014360.pdf

I will likely look at the paper, but read Open Veins of Latin America by Eduardo Galleano. he deal quite a bit with the European idea of human nature. It helps to have guns, steel, and small pox.

 

[innonimatu]

innonimatu

To the above I ask this:
What are your qualifications for answering questions about communism and socialism?

Since you ask I'll tell you plainly that I'm too cynical to be a communist, even if I sympathize with all the goals. What moves me to post here is disgust at the propaganda, deceit and manipulation used to favour the capitalist status quo. If I think I can enlighten some of the people who were deceived and come asking questions here, I'll try to. But usually I'm happy to see others more experienced than me at the issues discussed here do it.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

At the very least there is solid evidence that a lot of traits that could be considered "human nature" vary as a function of culture.

Why Americans are the WEIRDest people in the world

Review paper the article is referring to, pointing out that Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic societies are occupying an outlier position for a lot of traits of "human nature":
http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/43616/1/626014360.pdf

Okay, what I thought all along. Nurture is clearly winning this debate. See Marx's 11th thesis on Feuerbach -- Heretofore philosophers have sought to understand the world, the point, however, is to change it.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Since you ask I'll tell you plainly that I'm too cynical to be a communist, even if I sympathize with all the goals. What moves me to post here is disgust at the propaganda, deceit and manipulation used to favour the capitalist status quo. If I think I can enlighten some of the people who were deceived and come asking questions here, I'll try to. But usually I'm happy to see others more experienced than me at the issues discussed here do it.

Okay. Anti-capitalism is a political position. I am in favor of any movement that exists to fight the existing social structure. If I have something to teach, I will. I am also not too old to learn.

Thanks for responding to my post.

 

[luiz]

Okay, what I thought all along. Nurture is clearly winning this debate. See Marx's 11th thesis on Feuerbach -- Heretofore philosophers have sought to understand the world, the point, however, is to change it.

Of course, even if nurture is "winning the debate" (though it is hardly the only factor), Marx couldn't know about it. He didn't understand anything about genetics; he had no access to controlled statistical studies on human behavior.

I find it very silly when someone say: "see this ancient Greek philosopher was right all along! quantum physics says X, just like he did! He knew it!".
No he didn't.

Likewise, Marx couldn't possibly have anything useful to say about the "nature x nurture" debate, unless you credit him with prophetic powers. If he was right it is pure luck. He didn't conduct any scientific experiments to test his hypothesis. He didn't read anything about scientific experiments testing those hypothesis. In short, he didn't know. And if anyone wants to learn anything useful about that debate, Marx is not an useful source.

 

[aelf]

I'm starting to think that the human nature argument that liberals espouse doesn't square with the narrative on the virtue of hard work as the capitalist's claim to ownership. To begin with, there seems to be a distinct lack of individuality in the ideological belief in individualism and self-interest. I mean, if you're going to typecast people according to strong common motives, then it makes sense to see people as belonging to concrete and distinct classes, seeing that the interests of workers and the capitalist class are different.

So how can you fail to see class antagonisms? If workers are self-interested, as dictated by the belief in the universality of self-interest as part and parcel of human nature, then why wouldn't they band together to oppose the capitalists, at least to some degree? So then being against labour movements is simply taking the side of the capitalist and his interests (out of some form of self-interest, naturally, perceived or otherwise), and the entire narrative about the virtue of hard work is simply a self-righteous moralising excuse for this act of choosing sides.

What do you guys think about this hypothesis?