Viva Argentina: contradictions
JOEFREEMEN at aol.com
JOEFREEMEN at aol.com
Sat Dec 22 22:15:25 MST 2001
May her working class movement prosper.
May her most enlightened elements reconstitute themselves into wider
May her most enlightened elements seek out the vanguard section of the
working class and recruit these individuals into political circles - fighting
detachments of the working class.
May her enlightened elements find a warm hand of militant solidarity in all
countries and we collectively strive to create appropriate international
forums that match our current stage of development and interactivity of
Victory to the Peoples demand for Food and debt liquidation.
Victory for the full Restoration of Pensions
Victory over imperial financial strangulation and humiliation.
>Is there a difference between an "ordinary" contradiction - say an argument
between >two people and a "dialectical contradiction?"
The word contradiction embraces a concept disclosing how all movement in
nature and society takes place. Although we used the word contradiction in
daily life as basically meaning affirmative and negative, the standpoint of
Marx and Engels imparts depth to the concept contained in our use of this
word. What is called contradiction from the standpoint of Marx and Engels and
within the intellectual movement identified as "Marxist" is a conception of
nature and society called "the law of the unity and conflict of opposites."
When you and I - or anyone else for that matter, disagree, we are not in
contradiction as a theoretical concept, but in our everyday language we say
"hey we have a contradiction here." The law of the unity and struggle of
opposites is called the law of contradiction in "short speak."
The law of the unity and struggle of opposites, taken as the totality of the
chief distinguishing features of how matter moves and thinks is referred to
as dialectics. Dialectics is the theoretical framework for disclosure of a
real process and was abstracted - taken, from how man/women observed and
understood nature and society to behave.
The theoretical framework of Marxist is called dialectical materialism or
materialist dialectics because existence is assumed - understood as the
starting point of reference, to be material by its very nature and not the
result of the existence of God or the idea of God. Hence "materialism."
One of the features of how matter is understood to behave is called the law
of quantity and quality or qualitative transformation on the basis of
quantitative change. In "short speak" many folks will say "quantitative
changes lead to qualitative changes." In real life there is no such thing as
quantity, rather all matter is a specific quantity that exists in
relationship to something else. For example "weight" has no "weight" and as a
concept exist as a measurement of relationships between things. Likewise
quantity has no "quantity" but is a concept of relationships. Quality is the
same because quality has no quality. Everything in nature and society is a
specific quality that exists in relationship to other qualitatively different
things, which manifest themselves in specific quantities.
When speaking of contradictions one is stating that matter is composed of
opposing currents of self-moving "energy" which is why matter moves and
evolves from one state to another. Atomic structure is talked about on the
basis of positive and negative charged particles as chief distinguishing
features. I vaguely remember in one of my old science classing that atoms are
understood to "unite" on the basis of the opposite motion of electron
structure as one form of the unity of matter and within the unity that is the
atom you have opposite charged particles. These are just some examples of the
field of study that is the standpoint of Marx and Engels.
I am not a very good theoretical Marxist and feel myself slowly approaching
the edge of the cliff from which many a Marxist have leaped to their
theoretical death. My understanding of the standpoint of Marx and Engels was
developed in political organizations years ago and hence there can be no
claim to "objective" Marxism on my part. There are some books by which one
can make an independent study of the subject.
Frederick Engels "Anti Durhing" is a brilliant display of the application of
materialist dialectics in numerous fields and a must read for anyone seeking
an understanding of this revolutionary approach to nature and society.
Capital Volume I is Marx's application of dialectics in the "flesh." Karl
Marx "Preface to a Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy" is where
he "let the dogs out." Mr. Lenin's "Three Source and Three Component of
Marxism" is an excellent introduction to the method of Marx. Mr. Stalin's
"Dialectical and Historical Materialism" is without precedence as an
introduction to the main features of the materialist dialectic of Marx and
Engels, with extensive quotes from the works of Marx and Engels.
Way back in July 1974 the old Communist League reprinted "A Textbook of
Marxist Philosophy" prepared by the Leningrad Institute of Philosophy under
the direction of Mr. Shirokov, and of all the philosophic books read over the
past thirty years, this one is consider best. It is true that the text is
ideologically thick and illustrated with the internal struggle taking place
in the Soviet Union at the time, but nowhere have I encountered such an
excellent exposition of "The dialectic of the 'Leap'" (Section III page
311), "Analysis of the Movement of the Contradiction of a process from its
beginning to its End" (Chapter I Section II page 177), and "Contradiction
and the Evolutionary Leap" (Section II part VII page 294). There is a
brilliant exposition on the place of antagonism in contradiction, which was
repeated and summarized in some of my recent post.
My understanding of the standpoint of Marx and Engels provides me with an
intense directional sense of change but does not provide one with ready-made
solutions to unfolding social problems. Rather one is provided with an
approach to social phenomena. For example, it is an axiom of communist that
at every stage of the development of capital a sector of the capitalist class
writes the economic and political agenda for the class as a whole. This
formulation - and I am trying to get away from quoting from memory and using
what I think is a quote, which more than not is wrong, was taken from - I
think, Engels "Revolution and Counter Revolution in France" or was it
Germany? The point is that if a relatively new sector of capital that is
being called globalism, is writing the agenda, what are its chief
characteristic features and its polarity must exist in the working class
because capital and labor are the unity of commodity production under
capitalist relations of production.
I cannot see this process when walking outside my door, but it must exist
because of the law of the unity and struggle of opposites and the place of
antagonism in contraction. Capital cannot move beyond its partial resolution
- achieve synthesis as a higher form of social production, because it is a
contradiction between social production and private appropriation and therein
exist the antagonism. Capital in the industrial sector created proletarians
in the industrial sector, or rather this polarity arose as the unity of
industrial production. Capitalist increasingly divorced from the production
process must engender proletarians increasingly divorced from the production
This process of polarization has been expressed not simply as massive
unemployment over the last decade - which fooled many Marxist but not the
most destitute sector of the proletariat, but as polarization between wealth
and poverty. Four hundred people controlling more wealth than 3.5 billion
human being on earth is the epitome of criminality!
Almost anyone that actually reads the writings of Marx and Engels, and reread
them after a year of two, can begin mastering their method, especially if the
reading is done from the standpoint of trying to understand modern society
and what is taking place in front of us. Forget all that "Third Wave" crap
and the writings of Mr. & Ms. Toffler - "Future Shock" - 1970, "The Third
Wave" - 1980, "Powershift" and "War and Anti-War" in the mid-90's, and
"Creating a New Civilization in the late 1990's. Their vision is flawed and
does not view commodity production as a distinct phase of social production.
The fact of the matter is that people don't have enough money and can't enter
the market to buy the products modern technology creates. This is a
no-brainer. They fail to understand simply contradictions and construct a
future society arising on a basis devoid of the antagonism of class society.
Argentina is not suffering from technology or a lack of technology, but from
speculative capital ruthless exploitation and the people want food and an end
to debt. Life solves the heck out of a lot of theoretical questions.
There are only two different kinds of contradictions I am aware of and they
are ones that are characterized as antagonistic and non-antagonistic. Marx
and Engels founded the science of society and this science provides the
framework and analytic tools for specialized fields of study.
Marx and Engels wrote the program for the working class and it is "victory
to the working class in its current struggle." This is made absolutely clear
in the Communist Manifesto. The shortest path to victory is along the rails
of class-consciousness and an understanding of the science of society.
The idea of the permanence of a social system of commodity production is
sinning against reality. Just as the Middle Ages - feudal social relations of
production, gave way to a higher form of social production, capitalism must
give way to a higher form of social production. Selfish class interest of the
profiteering capitalist holds society back. Their collapse and fall is
inevitable. Trying to sell products with a little labor - because of
technology, means its polar opposites appears in the form of people with
little consuming means - purchasing power, because they can't sell their
labor for an amount of value (wages) needed for exchange, because a smaller
and smaller amount of living labor is need in production. That's the
dialectic of the contradiction.
It like trying to get whiskey out of a bottle of wine; trying to find gold in
a silver mine and trying to get fish out of a lake that ain't got no more
fish in it.
Argentina peoples - the working class ain't got no money man. The bourgeoisie
got all the money.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism