When I was learning about "intellectual masturbation", an expert in "intellectual masturbation" who had first learned about it taught me that as a political ideology Marxism was based on science. Marxism was not occult or faith, and Marx was not a necromancer or prophet or good news messenger. Marxism was built on the premise that society was not just a collection of people with their thoughts, words, and actions. Social life was not chaotic as it seemed by naked eye. What looked like a mess, actually structured in such a way to form a unity interwoven that it was impossible to be separated. Finding and understanding the structure is the purpose of Marxism. In knowledge, of course we need simplicity. For that we have to separate various aspects and reality composer elements and lock it into concepts. But the separation is just part of the way of knowledge, the way to capture the reality behind its appearance. Like all representations, separation and outcome, -- namely the concept and theory -- are not reality, only the representation used in the "intellectual masturbation" to understand the community's dynamics. A set of concepts and theories which are constructed by Marx-Engels and later they are called "historical materialism".
For the sake of the continued enjoyment of "intellectual masturbation", I then asked him about what was meant by "materialism" in the historical materialism. I asked it to him because -- in my mind --the first sense hint of materialism were matters related to rah-rah, having fun, to accumulate the wealth, and the belief that everything in this world was only material things. No soul, no spirit, and all the clutter which is believed as the super-natural. I'm not interested at all in materialism if its meaning is just like that. How come? You know I have aspirations; a kind of ideals that I think it is good and will be realized in the running of my life with all means. One of them is that people have to change in such a way into a society that is not only prosperous, but also fair. A society in which there is no oppression and exploitation of man by man.
"Oh, I do not mean so," he said. He said, 'materialism' refers to the premise developed by Marx, that the powers and material relations of production and reproduction of society's existence determining the society's dynamics in general, including the forms of political relations and worldview. It means, all things considered reasonable by most people is valid without exception in society, including the views of good man, good family, or good political system, for example, actually conditioned by the appearance and dynamics of the forces of production from the terms of the existence of society. Not a social consciousness determines social existence of the people, but on the contrary.
Judging from the order of the existence of society, there must be people in this world who think and act towards each other. Because people are not spirits, and the world in which they live is also not heaven, of course they need a means of living. Because magic or miracles can not create food, clothing, and others who are required to live - as the bodies - in a sustainable manner, then a collection of people should produce it. In producing the means of life, they are inevitably confronted with nature as the only source of power. In the context of face to face with nature and its neighbor, the community created the means as well as the relations of production social in managing it.
In producing the means of life, they are inevitably confronted with each other through particular production social relationship. Now, for example, there are people who can stay alive without directly dealing with nature with their hands. Because they are living things, although they do not have to work to meet the needs of their life, but they will not be able to survive without other people who deal directly with nature through their work. Both parties are bound to one another in a relationship.
Their social relationships with people who work producing the means of life, according to the Marxists, is the relations of production. The relations of production is not something determined by divine power, but it is conditioned by the strength of the existing production material. The relations of production is not determined by the will and desire of individuals. When the power of the material is low, ie when the technology is so simple, so that almost no surplus can be generated, it is not the people's choice when they cooperate with one another to produce the means of life. But when the power of material production is so great so that resulting in surplus, it is not the people's choice if they then are divided through divisions of labor with consequences on work distribution of the working class. Only at the level when the surplus overflow and the overflow is then channeled more to groups that do not work, then there is the possibility for the people can live without working, but by taking over the work result of other party.
Changes in the productive power leads to changes in production relations. Changes in relation to change the position of people in different spheres of the world. Certain worlds condition people how to perceive and act on themselves and others. So, "materialism" in historical materialism refers to the viewpoint on the power that shape the dynamics of society and its institutions and its worldview. For materialists, not social institutions, awareness, and worldviews that exist in the community or specific social groups that determine the appearance and dynamics of material relations and the relations of production, but on the contrary. Hence also, the struggle of the people in the realm of material becomes the keys of changes in whole society. That was the first lesson I learned when I first learned Marxist intellectual masturbation from an expert.
Wow, then I wonder to myself, "How long does it takes to ejaculate after masturbation intellectual?"
If such theory is practiced through masturbation by the Marxist intellectual who never bother to hold a committee meeting for hours until dawn in preparing protests of trade unions, never sweat in coordinating the counteraction against low wages, then what will be obtained is not satisfaction, but dizziness, because like masturbation in general, what can be done only make-believe reality through abstract concepts. Unlike the original intercourse, masturbation builders can only fondle the structure and tendencies of invisible capitalistic exploitation, not body heat which is directly felt by the senses. Moreover, during the process of shadowing of intellectual masturbation that, then what is produced only new shadows in mind that its existence can only be enjoyed with new imagery as well. Of course, there is the exchange of the results of this imagery among intellectuals. But still, what is produced from this exchange is nothing more than shadows, though perhaps more elaborate reality that is being discussed. Moreover, there's no direct lessons that can be contributed to the process of direct intercourse with capitalism but the abstract concepts and theories. Yet for those who perform direct intercourse, what is needed is not concept and theory, but a potent recipe for praxis that can change the position of capitalist body in order to fit with the working class interests.
So, actually what is the importance of intellectual masturbation? As long as we believe that capitalism is nothing more than an events that takes place in front of our naked eyes, then in my opinion, there is no shred of contribution that can be drawn from the activities of intellectual masturbation. There's no such thing as the structure or exploitative mechanisms behind the behavior of people who go beyond and do not depend on the consciousness of individuals. As long as we believe the only reality of capitalism is concrete reality which can be directly "enjoyed", then, of course, intellectual masturbation is just a waste of time activities committed by the cowards with vagueness of its base end for the victory of working class struggle.
*** [CZ-013016]
What would happen to the world of life science if Charles Darwin (1809-1882) didn't publish The Origin of Species (1859) and The Descent of Man (1871)? Although humans appear through historical processes that present objectively, but the reality may be unable to be caught by humans with knowledge possessed. Maybe science knowledge we have today is still shrouded by dogmas without real evidence, such as what happened before medieval and the Renaissance. If Charles Darwin was not present with his startling statement about the origin of living things, then the flat earth, the sun around the earth, and two humans --- who from the beginning walked with their two feet in the Garden of Eden --- may still be the mainstay statements of teacher's at schools or in college campuses.
Darwin's statement opened the European intellectuals way of thinking at that time, although before he published his book, the evolution's idea had become the mainstream way of thinking of European intellectuals in the19th century. This way of thinking has been used both by the intellectual bourgeoisie as a weapon to fight against feudalism, until finally used also by the left intellectual to fight capitalism. Regardless of anyone using Darwin's way of thinking, one certain thing is that these works bring new nuances in science.
Historical Materialism and Social Evolution is a collection of the writings of well-known figures among the international left movement. The editors are Paul Blackledge, a lecturer at the School of Cultural Studies at Leeds Metropolitan University and also Graeme Kirkpatrick, a lecturer at the Northumbria University's Department of sociology. Paul Blackledge himself began this book by writing about the link between historical materialism and evolution. Ted Benton then continued with the historical development and the influence of evolutionary thinking in Germany in the 19th century.
Furthermore, Paul Nolan filled the posts about relevance and contribution of Darwinism in historical materialism of Marx and Engels. There was also Alan Carling with his long article on the debate over social evolution and development of Marxism. Alex Callinicos also appeared with the inscription about history, exploitation and oppression. Graeme Kirkpatrick and Giusseppe Tassone also completed discussion about Habermas. This collection of writings closed by Tony Smith who discussed about capitalism.
I'm just looking for a link between the evolution theory and its influence in Marxism, especially historical materialism. There's an advantages of Darwin's way of thinking that I think it is important to science and Marxism. This is related to his criticism of idealism and naivete way of thinking that will eventually drop the thinker into confusion. Darwin thought is not able to stand on its own. It needs the support of dialectical and historical materialism. Because, if evolutionist way of thinking only stands alone, so, indirectly it perpetuates and assumes that the capitalist system is a necessity and can't be changed through the active role of the organized agency.
Descent with Modification
Almost all of us have heard about the theory of evolution and often associate it with Darwin, although the understanding of evolution have been present before Darwin published his work, and in fact he himself preferred to call it as "descent with modification or change." Darwin argued that certain breeds tended to inherit characters like their ancestors. This character is inherited through genetic in certain populations, tends to open with variations. But there are also other characters in the population that if they can't adapt to environmental conditions, then they will be marginalized; selected and replaced by superior characters. This natural process is called natural selection. With such a model of evolution, Darwin gives an idea of survival of the fittest, or in other words the sustainability of life for organisms who is able to adapt to the existing natural conditions. This natural process taking place throughout the history of the development of organisms or living things.
In the previous era, Jean Lamarck (1744-1829) also had a similar view about this evolution. Lamarck argued that a trait possessed by an organism was able to turn directly and individually when dealing or adapt with its environment. He said that the animals changed according to the demands of nature around them, so that he named his theory as acquired characteristics. Ability or adjustment of an organism which is obtained during life, can be inherited to the offspring. In contrast to the understanding of Darwin, which asserted that evolution was a blind process without purpose. In the long term, Lamarck asserted that the characteristics of organism has a specific purpose to adapt to its environment. This is the difference between the views of Lamarck and Darwin on the evolution of living beings. According to Darwin, the nature of organism is genetically inherited through reproduction.
Darwin stated that the favorable traits would continue to be inherited in a generation to the next generation in a population, so that the traits which were not able to adapt to the existing natural demand would by themselves marginalized by superior traits in adapting. Ultimately, this creates a view of Natural Selection which is dependent on three conditions. First, members of different species to each other, then the variations are able to be inherited. Secondly, all organisms produce more offspring than those who survive. Third, because not all the offspring survive, so they who are able to survive, generally will have the anatomy, physiology, or appropriate traits with the existing natural conditions
The important thing to also note is selection system in the understanding of Darwin moves without a definite direction, or in other words with blind process and also does not assert the levels in the development of living things history, because -- mechanically -- evolution moves without any purpose. So from the beginning, Darwin had escaped from a human-centric bias that put homo sapiens as the highest stage of organism's evolution.
Theory of Evolution and Marxism
We will see a line of intersection between evolution and historical materialism. Marx's theory of revolution dialectically related to the theory of social evolution, where it comes from and it's a reaction of natural evolution. Alan Barnard explains that there are at least two types of evolution: the evolution of biological and social evolution. Between both there's a technological evolution. This is similar to what is covered by Engels in The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man (1876) which states that the work is what brings people into change.
In short, animals only use their environment and give change with their presence alone. Humans with their changes make nature to be the fulfillment of their needs, they conquer it. This is decisive, the most basic differences between humans and other animals, and once again : the work gives these differences.
The work itself begins with the manufacture of certain tools. In this case, humans appear as tools maker, and this is what makes humans eventually have culture, because -- through work -- human ancestors know how to talk to each other, gradually affect the brain development, and ultimately produce the culture.
But, what is the condition of the human ability to create these tools? The answer can be found in the writings of Engels. Engels said that bipedalism (use legs to walk) was the answer. Then, what allows bipedalism in the ancestors of humans? The answer can be found in the Miocene (about 7 million years ago) as evidenced by the fossils of Sahelanthropus tchadensis aged around 7-6 million years ago. The fossils provide a clear picture of what was happening at the time. So, what actually happens in an environment where our ancestors live?
Habitat of human ancestry was African, but in the Miocene about 10-7 million years ago the earth to suck one side and pushed the rocks on the other side along the eastern Africa. This created a new form of earth known as the great rift valleys. There was also a drastic change in the Earth's climate when polar ice caps expanded. It had an impact on climate change, which caused the tropical rain forests were reduced and turned into a vast meadow. In Africa, several species of monkeys lived apart and did not hang out over millions of years with the species because they were blocked by the great rift valleys. In this context, the ancestors of chimpanzees chose to stay in the west valley and human ancestors pushed to the east, while most of the others to extinction. From there, emerged new types of primates who among of them were the ancestor of gorillas, chimpanzees and humans.
From the ecological pressure, ancient monkeys who chose to stay around the great rift valleys eventually adapted to the new environment, which was very different to previous environment. The new environment inhabited by human ancestors was a very difficult environment. The adaptation process was required, if it didn't want to become extinct due to natural conditions. Some adaptation process done among them was food consumed as well as the use of bipedalism, which in turn, affected the development of other body, such as the use of hands to make the tools till the brain development and social organizations.
When humans born on earth and form a social organization, then the subsequent development is, a social organization itself experiences some changes. The forms of society -- on one hand -- an adaptation of the existing environmental conditions. While on the other hand, nature is conquered and adapted to the circumstances of society itself. Those Bushmen who were still hunting and gathering, the Eskimos who were still hunting, the nomads in Mongolia or the people in Los Angeles who choose to jam every morning and afternoon certainly have a process of adaptation each with their nature and with the mode of production being exists. From here, we can see that the changes and development of society will be different from one another.
Why there are still some people who live in the mode of different production from us? Marvin Harris says that one reason is the setting or population control in a group, especially in the hunting-gathering groups. In the hunting-gathering groups, when production increases, the population reproduction will increase. Increased reproduction will result these groups should intensify production for subsistence. Therefore, some communities still maintain their production patterns respectively to maintain the group stability.
This is an important thing we need to know: we can't equate all forms of present-day society with the development of society we leave today. The relation of wage labor which becomes the basis of capitalism is indeed a relation that dominates our lives today, but it does not mean the previous relation has been lost completely. Therefore -- from the beginning -- nothing is fixed, even the shape of society itself. Different environmental conditions create a culture in a given society is also different from other communities.
Back to Engels, what needs to be emphasized is the human hand, not just a means to produce something or to work, but the result of the work itself. This is a prerequisite of human labor, which in turn is able to tame nature, ranging from animal domestication, making irrigation until to build a skyscraper buildings. Dialectical nuances given by Engels in these words to prove that although this nature is conditioning the human, but humans are also able to condition their nature within certain limits. For example, with factory waste or the relentless deforestation, humans actually provide the preconditions for the destruction of nature they occupy more quickly.
An understanding of the evolution theory inherited by Darwin evidently affected the next thinkers, even gave rise to movements that affected the European and world history. These effects provided a new color in the class struggle in Europe, especially in Germany, when each class in society at that time began to use Darwin's way of thinking to justify the interest of each class. Ranging from liberals who wanted to subvert entirely the feudal order, until a socialist party that tried to subvert capitalism itself such as Marx and Engels.
However, along with the development of socialist movement, there was a split in it: the mechanical Marxists that fully reduced historical materialism to the theory of evolution, and the voluntarist Marxism. The mechanistic considers the downfall of capitalism is a necessity, although without the active participation of organized agency.. Conversely, the voluntarist assumes the primary role of agency is more than just a passive product of an objective historical process. It can be concluded, the first circle interprets Marxism deterministically, while the second is a product of perspective theory of evolution; non historical materialism.
There are two problems in the way of thinking between the mechanical and the voluntarist. The first, as evolutionists in general, they assume that what exists today is the natural order of society. The difference is, the mechanical believe that the internal contradictions of capitalism will inevitably bring the collapse of capitalism. Meanwhile, the voluntarist problems is blind trust in the agency ability to change the history course without seeing the structure where the agency is located. This view will only bring their followers into idealism.
In the midst of the debate, Lenin and Trotsky appeared to bridge the gap between the two sides. Lenin bridged the gap between subjective moments (which was represented by the voluntarist) and objective (represented by the mechanical) in the historical process through revolutionary practice. With this, Lenin raised again what was asserted by Marx in the first Theses on Feuerbach (1888), namely, "the most important weakness of all existing materialist (including Feuerbach) is that the things, reality, sensory stuff are imagined just as form of an object, or part of contemplation, not as sensuous human activity itself, practically". What Lenin wanted to say is that social life is basically a practical, it is also the result of particular human activity and human can transform the social life, but remains in the limits prescribed by material reality. For example, human can change the stone becomes such a diverse sculpture, but can't turn it into exactly like eggs, because the eggs are outside the boundaries of a given material reality as the stone.
Thus, Lenin had a role in breaking the barrier wall on both sides by means of dialectical thinking. It was then added to by Trotsky who exemplified the Russian Revolution in 1917. With the entry of Lenin into the "chain of objective historical forces", it created the acceleration of learning process in Bolsheviks and eventually there was Russian revolution in 1917 that could affect the objective conditions, even changed it. It can be concluded, without Lenin, the revolution will be difficult or even impossible to be realized. In this case, Trotsky links the objective and subjective moments by providing a mediation, namely through the Bolsheviks as a revolutionary political party. According to him, the individual will be able to have a role in the historical process only if they are able to condition class consciousness collectively to change the existing order.
So, now we know that evolution and historical materialism have a unique relationship, especially in the historical development of mankind. Evolution gives us an understanding of the objective history of living organisms development on Earth. It also gives a real awareness yet slightly bitter, humans only piece part for nature and their presence is just very coincidental. Meanwhile, historical materialism gives us a view of a condition in which humans -- who because of their evolution -- in certain circumstances make it possible to perform the reverse reaction against their nature.
A dangerous thing of evolution is an understanding of historical development, including the inevitability of capitalist society. Because on the one hand it thinks mechanically, then consequently, evolution will tend to perpetuate order being exists. Therefore, with historical materialism, the evolutionary way of thinking can be offset. At the end of our understanding, the relation between theory of evolution and historical materialism is important to be applied in the way of thinking, not just to think itself, but also in the realm of praxis.
Structure problem and agency or the objective conditions and the subjective role is indeed a recurring debate to understand Marxism. But do not worry, there are Lenin and Trotsky, right? Both are influential in the struggle for revolution. On one side, the objective conditions indeed conditioning subjective factors, but on the other hand -- to borrow the Althusser's term -- subject or agency is also able to perform reciprocal to the objective conditions with limits that have been set previously. It should be added, the agency's role to carry out reciprocal to the objective conditions can only happen if the agency is part of a particular media. In the struggle for socialism, of course, revolutionary party is the most appropriate media.
Finally, we must emphasize that the order today is not the default since the dawn of Homo sapiens, nor an order that falls from the sky, but a history which is filled with evolution and revolution. Our order today is the result of creation, precisely is human work, on time and under certain conditions. Therefore, we can't only stare in front of laptop screen, waiting for the destruction of capitalism while reading this article. But it doesn't mean we also have to go to remote islands to establish communes (vacation), chanting "Do it yourself!", or to create an armed guerrilla groups and go to the zoo and occasionally shooting at the animals there, for example. What we need now is to strengthen the basis of Marxism to use scientific knowledge and existence of a revolutionary political party with the aim to overthrow capitalism, then to replace it with a more advanced system: socialism.
ISIS appearance adds to a string of terror to the world. Why is ISIS so free to act? Is there a "global conspiracy" that deliberately designs the world's panic?
Syrian crisis that has lasted for 5 years seems to be more complicated and prolonged. In the sense, as long as ISIS still studded with funds and weapons, the peace will never be come true there. Moreover, if the U.S. and its Western allies remain half-hearted as it is now.
I believe, in the terms of weaponry and personnel, United States only takes a few days to finish ISIS. Remember, in the 1967 war, Israel was alone, but it was able to make Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon to its knees within 6 days. The larger countries -- in terms of population and territory -- were even forced to give up some of their land to Israel. In that war, the Israeli war machines were almost entirely made in America.
Then, when the United States entered directly, large-scale massacres against the Iraqi army and the civilian population was inevitable. Imagine this, operation Desert Storm to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, which lasted from January 17 to 28 February 1991, causing more than 100 thousand people were killed, almost all the victims killed were soldiers and Iraqi civilians. When this bloody operation carried out, President of Iraq at the time -- Saddam Hussein -- was in his heyday, as well as the military behind him. He could only be moping when he saw his military forces was destroyed.
So, when the ISIS now seems so powerful in the face of the West, I think it's because there's a global conspiracy behind it, as had happened in Afghanistan when it was occupied by the Soviet Union. At that time, in the 1980s, the West gave financial support and weapons on a large scale to help the Mujahideen against Soviet forces.
In the context of Syria, the global conspiracy started with the Arab Spring, a huge wave of pro-democracy movement in the Arab world that could topple the dictatorship in Tunisia and Egypt. The movement also builds confidence which is widespread throughout the world : that all authoritarian regimes in the Middle East will soon collapse.
United States and its allies see the movement as an opportunity to destroy the power of Russia's ally that still reigns in Syria, the Ba'ath socialist party under the leadership of president Bashar al-Assad. The U.S. then conspiring with Turkey to train and equip the pro-democracy rebels and the moderate Islam in Syria. Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had already admitted it openly, that at first, the rebel forces in Syria funded by the United States.
Great military pressure on the rebels was eventually pushed Bashar -- who in fact he is a secular and Western-educated -- to raise Shia solidarity to gain support from Iran.
In a further development, it turns out, the West's help is misplaced. As a result, anti-democratic radical rebel forces even getting bigger. Among these is the Al-Nusra Front or Jabhat al-Nusra, which now becomes an important part of ISIS forces. This extreme group in intelligence operations likened as a trained agent who denies its operator.
Now Turkey itself even in a difficult position, in a sense, Turkey worries the act of ISIS can undermine its country's security, especially Turkey now also becomes a favorite transit region for those who are going to or away from Syria.
But on the other hand, Turkey benefited from the animosity between ISIS with the Kurds. A number of Kurdish regions has even been occupied by ISIS. Of course this makes Turkey happy because during the Kurdish uprising, thousands of soldiers and civilians Turkey have been killed beaten by Kurdish bullets and bombs. This fact makes Turkish government see that the biggest security threat to the country is the armed uprising of Kurds.
Turkey also sees, there are petrodollar and political rulers in the Arab world behind ISIS. They support ISIS as they aim to liberate Iraq and Syria from the grip of the Shiites, because they themselves are Sunni. This is why Turkey's current Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mevlut Cavusoglu is so insistent that ISIS issue should be resolved through cooperation with Middle East countries, which are also the main markets of his country.
Meanwhile pressure is also increasingly hard for Turkey to be more serious in preventing people who want to cross to Syria. UN security council data through the monitoring team of the UN's sanction implementation which was released late last year said that about 15,000 people from over 80 countries entered Syria and Iraq fought alongside ISIS via Turkey.
Turkey also allegedly bought oil from ISIS and becomes a pathway for the smuggling of weapons and war equipment. Hoshyar Zebari -- Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister of Iraq -- has revealed that ISIS controls a number of oil fields in Syria and Iraq. Oil from the fields are then smuggled through land brokered by Turkey.
To relieve the pressure from international community, Turkish government now do seems to be more serious in dealing with the border crossers, including checks on all the goods which they bring from or to Syria. But, as long as Kurdish rebels still undermines the Turkey security and uses Syria as its military base, then Turkey will still prefer supporting ISIS, because the ISIS attacks against Kurdish military camps give more sense of security to Turkey.
Thus, it's impossible for the US and its Western allies have different views with Turkey, related to the involvement of authorities in oil-rich countries in ISIS. Together with Turkey, the United States see the economic and diplomatic relations with these countries are too valuable to be ignored, if it is done only for ISIS.
On the evening of 13 November 2015, a series of coordinated terrorist attacks — consisting of mass shootings, suicide bombings, and hostage-taking — occurred in Paris, the capital of France, and its northern suburb, Saint-Denis. And as before, chorus of criticisms and condemnations directed to terrorists and sympathy and deep sorrow directed toward innocent victims. Although I also feel sympathy and condolences for the victims, here I want to write down the other side of this terror events, namely the issue of identity. This can only be explained through a series of terror cases that have occurred since the early 2000s, precisely when the hijacked planes hit the twin towers of World Trade Center. Since then, the trend of terrorism began and constantly reproduced through a range of 'medium', thus forming imaging in the spaces of imagination.
Word of terror, indeed, contains direct accusations or indirectly to one or several parties. If there is a terror group, then it means, there is a group that wants peace, as well as pluralism. This is one form of identity issues that appears more "sexy" to this day.
Thus, when a "terror" event is found, the thing that immediately comes to mind is a bunch of people who behave in a barbaric, in the name of religion -- in this case Islam -- turban on head, thick beard, carrying a weapon and then attack innocent civilians. As if the image of this model is indeed the factory settings that have been "self-evident", unquestionable.
From there, we already know how various media presenting it to the public. A dish that is not free from bias and value. Preaching for the sake of preaching is done intensely about how evil the terrorists who do it and loudly campaigning the spirit of pluralism and peace, by pointing to groups who campaigning for it.
From there also, we as the public world, "automatically" confirm and condemn the barbaric terrorist group, inedible by religious indoctrination, as well as use it as legitimate acts of violence. Yes, the terror group that has tarnished Islam face in the world's eyes. They act based on hatred and blind fanaticism.
This is also reinforced by campaigns of tolerance, pluralism, inter-religious peace that is often regarded as an alternative for solving the conflict culturally. Not surprising, indeed, if we look at the ideas offered, namely on how to live religion flexibly, rational, open and moderate. By doing so, it's normal, if we look at the assumptions of these circles in seeing the problem's root of religious radicalism. Namely, excessive hatred and blind fanaticism, reading the Qur'an textually or scripturalist, unable to respond to modernity with open, thus creating a radical extreme behavior.
However, for me, pluralism and tolerance solutions offered exclusively become inadequate because they ignore the dynamics of socio-political structures. It is seen from so many readings on radical behavior or "terror" that just dwell on the reading of mere doctrine, without supposing concrete reality that underlies it.
Surprisingly, readings performed by Maxime Rodinson actually quite shocking : that it almost does not exist, or very few factors inherent in Islam's teachings which makes it left behind when compared with other teachings. In fact, structural dynamics -- political conflict, colonialism, the West supremacy over the non-West -- that causing the backwardness of Muslims.
Rodinson's conclusion indicates -- implicitly -- that to read Islam that just dwell on the doctrine does not answer why Islam can show the face of such radical and extreme: in case, it is assumed as a result of inability to accept Western modernity internally. Also, the above shows the existence of such orientalis framework which penetrates into the realm of thought of pro-plural and tolerant activists. And this is not free value, because it is always concerned with the relation of capital and knowledge.
Orientalists often use Weberian analysis in explaining the decline of Islam and Muslim community, namely: irrational attitude, personal, and religious. Then it should be made an institutionalization of society in order to be rational, impersonal, and secular. Weberian framework has consequences for the exclusion of religion from political sphere into the realm of cultural and ritual. We know the movement of Islamic fundamentalism in Middle East and Liberation Theology in Latin America can show the emancipatory element of a religion in response to social inequality, but the element of emancipation is viewed negatively. With Weberian framework, religion is considered intrusive and hinder the process towards the establishment of an advanced society, in the sense of rational, impersonal, and secular.
So, there's no doubt, if we look at how the work done by the inter-faith peace activists and pluralist, then they already feel "comfortable" with issues related to identity, without moving to the analysis of the issues of real inequality problems, which it actually is conditia sine qua non for acts of violence. Terror case in Paris finally is just seen just an issue of identity, namely the conflict between Muslims and the West, between the religious and the secular, between personal and impersonal, between rational and irrational, regardless of the economic and political colonization factors that have been so sadistically done by the capitalist class and its comprador elite to this day.
If the situation has been like this, then pluralism and peace only stale discourse with epistemological and axiological that do not have the clarity of case.
*** [CZ - Paris France 111915]
Narcissus fell in love with himself and soon died. At the age of 15, the handsome-faced child was taken by his mother to Tiresias, the seer. In Metamorphosis, Ovid's poem composed around Rome in the 4th century BC, described that blind fortune teller was saying something strange, "If this child does not know himself, he will live a long life."
Furthermore, Narcissus became a grown man. Women and men in love with her, but he did not care about any of them, including the angel of the earth who lived in the jungle and river. One of them was Echo. One day, she saw Narcissus hunting through the fields. Echo was smitten. She followed him wherever he went by stealth. Her love was so burning, like a fire burning the sulfur, but she could only silence. She could not seduce. The angel has been cursed by a goddess. Echo could not talk, she was just able to repeat the other person's voice.
And that was what happened when Narcissus got lost. Narcissus shouted, "Who's around here?". In the bush, Gema was silent, repeating, "Around here?". There's no other word. Whenever Narcissus spoke, only his echo answered. Finally, he called out, "Come, come here, two of us!".
"Two of us!" Echo squealing happily, because it was only the most appropriate sentence to her heart. She came out of the bushes then suddenly embraced Narcissus, but Narcissus avoided Echo. He immediately went away. The angel was embarrassed, sad. Finally she decided to wander away. Her body was so very thin. As narrated in Metamorphosis, her bones became stones. Echo only lived as a lagging voice, a voice that couldn't express its own desires.
Indeed, Narcissus had caused many broken hearts. That was why the goddess Nemesis intended to punish him. When hunting, the handsome man steps directed to a clear trough, surrounded by moss and soft grass. Overheating by the trip and plagued by thirst, Narcissus bowed his face toward the water, wanted to take the water. But when he gazed into the trough, there was "another thirst awakened". A view of the skyline! He was amazed and fell in love with what he saw: a very handsome face. He kissed the shadow of it, then he put his hand into the water. Of course, nothing could be touched.
But Narcissus was still staring. He felt the shadow wanted to be kissed, wanted to get a hug, and always be with him. When he smiled, the shadow was also smiling. When he cried, a shadow on the water's surface was also crying.
"Moron! Why do you try to catch a passing shadow in vain? What you're looking for is not exist anywhere. What you see is just a reflective shadow. There's no part of you in it. It comes to live with you, go with you, if you can go!".
Narcissus was gradually conscious: he -- who in love to himself -- did not know what to do. In desperation, his tears dripping. His tears moving the lake's surface. The shadow disappeared. He felt lost. Waiting. Staring. In a state of very tired, he was lying on the edge of the trough. There his death came, closed his beautiful eyes forever.
And that's exactly as predicted by Tiresias, the fortune teller: when the handsome young man recognizes himself, his age will not be long.
Now, 2000 years later, women, men, nation, religion, and who knows what else, should listen to this story. "Recognize yourself" ("I am him," Narcissus said to himself when looking at his shadow), has a serious illusion.
But, Narcissism has infiltrated into us, often -- in the vague expression of vague -- we feel we have managed to find the "identity", or we want to get it while we always just look at us. Or, to use the words of Ovid on Narcissus : We desire ourselves.
Should we say, in selfie age, in an age when people perpetuate their faces, that narcissism is a short walk to various death? Faces that we see in the mirror (and on camera) are just misleading pictures. Since the boy saw himself there -- in the "mirror stage" -- according to Lacan's psychoanalysis he just actually --- to repeat sentences in Metamorphosis --- captured "passing shadow". Its perspective is "useless". A shape reflected by the glass is actually does not save a part of ourselves.
But what can I say. Since childhood we are shaped by convention, particularly in language and the temporary need to confirm about "me" and "you". There are subjects. There are objects. We also build the world based on illusion. We forget that there's -- in Lacan's words -- "the shadows of ego to move on." We forget, we can identify something just because there's "who-else", "not-me". "Dog" is known as the "dog" because the dog is not "cat", not "deer ", not "tiger ". No definition.
In other words, the dog and I get in shape because we are not alone. Narcissism of identity, in every woman, man, nation, religion, and "I", whatever, forget about this one: Tragedy began when Narcissus was alone on the edge of the lake, even he did not want to be accompanied by Echo.
*** [CZ-lacalifusa 090115]
Residents of Haut-Uele district, Democratic Republic of Congo, move along battered roads at dusk. The road network in Orientale Province, in northeastern DRC, is severely neglected leaving many villages to survive as islands in the middle of dense forest. The lack of roads means that very few goods and supplies are available in the area and those that are brought in are incredibly expensive. There is no mobile phone network, medical clinics or other signs of development. ─ Pete Muller
Mmmm ... there must be something wrong with my eyes today. I'm feeling a wave of sensuality and masculinity in the bush, and it seems, it is not because of the Ebola virus, may be caused by other types of viruses. Ahem, ahem. Ah, it's time to transition into a female monkey. Haa ... I feel like I want to bite you, Pete, slightly and briefly... mwah!
I am back! Just need a little time to say something, and this is not so important. That since the first time I saw this photo, since I could smell the scent of sensuality, as well as masculinity in the bush, ... , now I move here to regain one important thing to say: tolerance. And I'm bringing it for you to know.
In his article, Regionalisation in Africa: Integration and Disintegration, Daniel Bach highlighted the failure of globalization and multilateralism in the welfare and security in Africa continent. Conflicts inherited from colonialism era left a series of problems, especially related to the border area and sovereignty, coupled with extreme poverty that drives a lot of human rights violations and crises such as civil wars. The problem of blurred boundaries will certainly trigger a civil war, also causes a variety of international organized crime such as trafficking network of illegal drugs, money laundering and terrorism. Especially for terrorism problem, Africa is an easy target of terrorists because in addition to the blurring of state boundaries, also supported by the weak rule of law. In economic field, Africa can be classified as periphery region. This means Africa does not enjoy (just a little) the impact of production progress, although Africa is more stable on global monetary instability, as evidenced by its strength in Asian crisis in the late 1990s, and this condition is a feat in itself considering Africa status as periphery country.
Outside of Africa's economic status, Africa's strength in international politics is still taken into account, particularly in the vote of international organizations such as the UN and WTO. Africa's position in international organizations is more visible in the face of regional organizations than the power of individual states. Regionalism in Africa is characterized by many regional organizations or sub-regional economic communities, in which the authority and its members sometimes overlap. This organization may include inter and non-governmental institutions.
With so many intergovernmental organization (IGO) , there's a cohesive integration in economic and political fields. This integration is claimed as a success of IGO, even though this integration emerged as intervention of NGOs and the government's failure to realize the security and prosperity in Africa. This overlap arises because the gap between institution-building and policy implementation. To make it easier in differentiating institutional functions and implementation of policies, Bach distinguished regionalism and regionalization definitions. Regionalism is defined as ideas, programs, and goals to transform the social area into a regional scale, because it is the implementation of the program required an institution-building and formal settings. Conversely, regionalization describes the process and results of regionalism, the emphasis is on interaction rather than a formal setting.
Regionalism Africa first appeared as its struggle to liberate itself from colonialism and white domination, for example the Front Line States, Southern African Development Coordination Conference (SADCC) and Pan Africa formed in the twentieth century. The guerrilla movement then began the birth of Organisation of African Unity (OAU) through Addis Ababa Charter. OAU capacities ranging from conflict resolution that emerged after Cold War and colonialism, namely the territorial boundaries that raising a series of conflicts in Rwanda, Uganda, Congo. In carrying out its functions, the OAU to guarantee non-intervention in internal issues of member countries, which is then used by authoritarian regimes to oppress their people. This triggered the desire to establish African Union (AU). AU was formed on August 9, 2002 with a focus on security sector, economic development, and stability of African region. Because it was more focused on the search of more effective mechanisms for conflict mediation, then the AU member states could intervene in special cases, for example genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Pan Africa's state-centric then led to a new form of regionalism which was called the New Partners hip for Africa's Development (NEPAD). The birth of NEPAD was a form of people's disappointment against the claims of president of South Africa -- Thabo Mbeki -- who transforming Pan Africa for the sake of political strategy. NEPAD is encouraging Africa on international trade and opening the door for investors as well as economic growth and appreciation of human rights, democracy and rule management, sectors that have not been touched by regional organization established by the government.
The number of regional and sub-national organizations that emerged subsequently led to overlapping members which resulted in bloc-building and the adoption of European and the U.S. values. In addition to simply imitate the west, it turned out, regionalism project didn't touch the area of regionalization. Regionalization further clarified the government's failure to reinforce the control of territory. Clashes with government organizations occured in a variety of angles. First, the majority of regionalism emerged in sub-national level, which contrasts with pan-African ideals. Second, overlapping capacity of government and non-government organizations. Regionalism in Africa generally reflected the broad dynamics between trans-state and trans frontier networks. Trans-state networks hampered the institutionalization of state and territory control, because it increased regionalism through monetary and fiscal differences, so it didn't require harmonization of policies through formal institutions. Government and non-government disharmony then further weakened the existing regionalism integration.
This diversity of actors then increasingly punctuated by Timothy Shaw with his trilateral structure analysis, namely the state, corporations and communities. He agreed with Bach that government with formal rules couldn't address the needs of its member countries. Then African regionalism was more informal with the corporation and the community as the main driving force. This was referred to by Shaw as meso-regionalism. To simplify the complexity of African regionalism, some indicators such as issue areas, the level of integration and diversification of actors can be used.
Security had become a major focus of the beginning of regionalism Africa, mainly due to the internal conflict so easily spread to regional scale, such as Angola crisis that spread to Great Lakes and Congo. To overcome this situation, the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) was formed, involving not only the country but also corporations and communities. As a result, sanctions were now not only be imposed by the state. Non-state groups could freely carry out their activities, because regional organizations that has been formed no need to involve the whole territory or population, community and the resources of the countries involved.
If Bach saw regional non-governmental organizations as a counter to malfunction state, then according to Shaw, transnational network doesn't have to contradict with formal regional institutions, because they could be in charge of different issues. For example, the state may provide legal protection in the implementation of democracy, thus, have a positive impact on the accountability of consultants and NGOs, although there are times when the NGO has its own policy autonomy, independent of the government.
If the government defines the region according to the limits of sovereignty, then corporate and community have their own understanding of the defining regionalism as unfounded ecology, ethnicity, NGOs, professional associations, and so forth. The Corporation defines regional according to the corporate structure such as branches, distribution lines, franchise, and infrastructure such as electricity and water, plumbing lines, and transportation for corporate networks.
Shaw saw the prospect of African regionalism with increasing meso-regionalism, such as communities in the Great lakes, Nile Valley and the Rift Valley. Because it involves complicated trilateral structure, then regionalism is not necessary to benefit all three elements at once. In addition to focusing on trilateral structure, regionalism Africa also marked by economic and political integration that can provide benefits and threats, especially the emergence of more and more thriving illegal sector on a regional scale, such as money laundering.
In looking at the African regionalism, I personally see this process as a failure of Africa in developing patterns prevailing in the West, such as the European Union with the elimination of its economic protection. This "pilot" is inseparable from the euphoria of globalization as well as the historical experience of Africa which generally been under the Europeans occupation, so that -- indirectly -- European values are also carried away. The values -- if forced to be applied -- will certainly fail, given the Africa's geographical situation, demographic and cultural are much different from Europe. To promote the welfare and security of Africa, then the first step is to increase the economic growth of the mineral resources sector. Considering Africa as one of the major suppliers of gold, uranium, diamonds and cobalt world, then nationalization of mining companies and good governance will be the best solution for African economy. Furthermore, the regional organization of government and non-government should go hand in hand.
I am not agree with Bach and Shaw who see Africa as a meso-regionalism regionalism. Analysis of meso regionalism can't be separated from sub-national relations and transnational organizations, whereas Africa's sub-national organization relationship itself does not involve the state as a national organization. Moreover, African regional cooperation grows from a common political destiny, geographic and language among communities in a country, that is the main characteristic of micro-regionalism. Therefore, I prefer looking at Africa's regionalism in micro level.
*** [CZ-lacalifusa 071715]
In the second half of 1920, after the Communist's massacre by Kuomintang, Mao Zedong not only to move to Hunan but also did some sort of empirical research. Mao did "sort of go down" to determine the social conditions of China. Based on the study, list of social groups (Mao called it a class) that could be a friend or foe in the struggle for China liberation based on Marxist theory was made.
For Mao, heartache because the Kuomintang betrayal did not necessarily lead him to go to a traditional healer, or perhaps asking whether constellations of the communists was so unlucky so they could be deceived by the Kuomintang tactics, or whether the emblem on their flag was not in accordance with feng shui or anything. No. Mao also not re-memorizing Manifesto quotations and sought guidance from the master then preaching about the weakness of faith. Mao just wanted to know what kind of social structures at hand in the struggle, about those who in the future revolution could be counterparty and who could be friends, with investigating it directly on the existing conditions. And Mao searching for it in the Chinese social reality, not in England in the nineteenth century, nor in Russia.
Mao was considering the practice of empirical research was as important as the practice of organizing the resistance. Marx himself taught that empirical research was not only to build a solid foundation for the theory, but also as a way of banging theory to reality and to test how sturdy it was in practice.
Perhaps the lovers or haters think Marx teaches a kind of dogmatism. Erroneous! Please read it again in 1872 Preface. Marx said that, indeed, the general principles which would be published in Communist Manifesto (which saying that the production base which created the political and ideological communities and throughout history was the history of class struggles) still applied equally, same as when the first Manifesto published in 1848, but "the application of the principle in practice would depend on historical terms".
Marx did not hesitate to say that "programs (in the Manifesto) here and there has become obsolete" by the passage of time. Marx did not hesitate to say "even in outline it is still appropriate, but in practice is outdated" and "the working class can't simply take over the existing state machine and use it for their own purposes". So, let alone to glorify his past writings. Marx expressly said, "This Manifesto is a document of history, not a cookbook for dispensing revolution."
How could Marx come to this conclusion? On March 1848, a few weeks after the Manifesto was published, the revolution broke out in Paris and the European countries from Germany to Italy. Not more than a year, the storm of revolution swept away from Europe. Working class militia slaughtered or dispersed. Engels himself -- who had become artillery lieutenant of militia workers -- had to go through rural France to avoid pursuit by the troops. Figures of revolution, including Marx and Engels had to evacuate if they did not want to be punished or die. In 1850 until 1852, a revolution occurred again in France. In 1870, the legendary Paris Commune established, but its lifespan was just two months. Everything failed. Bourgeois returned to power. Hundreds of thousands of communists slaughtered. Marx became an outcast, without citizenship. Marx got a conclusion in 1872 preface to the Manifesto from his historical investigations on this revolution. Marx wrote at least two treatises, Eighteen Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and Class War in France in 1870. Engels also did the same thing in the treatise of Revolution and Counter-revolution in Germany and the Peasant War in Germany, coupled with their studies on the Paris Commune.
From the empirical-historical research, Marx came to the conclusion that the reality was often too stubborn to be changed by the will of theory and theoretical. In theory, the story should not be like this, but like that. Yes, theoretically, maybe it's true . But we must remember that the strength of theory lies in the abstraction. Theory relies on the reality that has been stripped its actual contexts. Reality becomes merely an abstract object, an object regardless of place and time frame. Like squeezing the fruit, in every abstraction, there must be something missing. If you do not get rid of the things with ceteris paribus law or "all the different considered irrelevant", then it is not an abstraction, but the description.
Although the theory has flaws, but the practice still need a theory. Without abstraction, we will get stuck in the empirical and actual realm of the temporary and changeable reality. Indeed there is oppression and exploitation which is clearly visible in front of us. There's expulsion of population for the sake of cement factories expansion, acquisition of farmers' land for the sake of mining, the arrest of women who were demonstrating to resist eviction, or cuts in allowance and low wage contracts in the factories. All of this is still part of our life's reality under democracy and capitalism. Nothing wrong with this assumption. We must participate in the fight against this kind of oppression.
This presumption becomes wrong when we judge it is the only reality that is called oppression, and resistance to all visible current events is the only form of resistance. Why it is wrong? Because when the oppression is not directly in front of us, when exploitation is not as clear as spoliation on the roadside, we assume it is no more oppression. If so, we become easily carried away by the images that make our mind calm, because by naked eye, there is no more oppression. All issues are considered completed when they -- who were previously regarded as oppressors -- comes with smile, face to face and talk politely, and bring CSR funds to build toilets or ECD. Then we can clean up the banner, close our coordination meeting notes, and take a coffee break while continuing daily life.
In the era of social media such as now, when all should be photographed in order to be uploaded to the Internet and displayed, assuming that the only reality is what is experienced directly as this is becoming the norm. But not all of reality can be photographed and uploaded on facebook, instagram, or twitter. The reality is not only what is absorbed by sensory; nor just what we experienced personally. There is a reality behind the visible and can only be captured with a thorough investigation of reality that goes beyond the momentary appearance. The reality is that the structure and tendencies that investigations not only requires the collection of empirical data, but also the framework of rational thinking which can uncover behind the real thing. How can we look at social class for which can be perceived by the senses is only people and their behavior? How can we see the the invisible oppression and exploitation for what can be perceived by the senses is simply the absence of police, as well as the propriety of corporate representatives, for example?
Indeed, one of Marxism's cornerstone is the spirit of perseverance against all oppression and exploitation. Previous socialist movement also firm about this. But passion alone is not enough to help us to dismantle oppression and exploitation. Indeed, capitalism is oppressive and exploitative system. But oppression and capitalist exploitation does not always manifest in the form of coarse visible, such as land grabbing guarded by police or dismissal without benefits. Capitalism is not exhausted explained by the actions of people directly benefited by it like this. Capitalism is a system, a structural reality that will not be immediately obvious when we just glare at its daily practice. What is revealed only a small part, the actual empirical realm of capitalism which is often deceptive. There is another realm that must be investigated beyond the day-to-day practice. Equalizing the realm of the visible with the actual reality is not only degrading human evolution (to the level of ape), but also makes the spirit of resistance becomes easily fooled by the splendor of "development". Capitalism will not collapse when George Soros later will die or when wages rise. Capitalism will stay fit, as long as the structure of wage-labor relations remains a cornerstone of the economic system's operation. That's why Marxism, unlike other forms of socialism, also equipped its spirit of resistance to the theory, or exactly on science. With knowledge means to call back the capacity for abstract thinking in its operations. Marx said, if its appearance was similar to its reality, then all science became redundant. Science is needed because the realm of its appearance is not the same as its reality.
With knowledge also means that we must continue to go back to reality, purify ourselves from dogma, honest and disciplined in the search for truth. In the knowledge we should not hesitate to correct what ever concluded previously. Thus we can approach the truth. Nothing is instant in knowledge and struggle. Knowledge and movement, theory and practice, is like winning and losing in the struggle against capitalism.
Marx once said in the Manifesto, "The victory, especially the defeat, surely teaches us about the ineffectiveness many kinds of "quack medicine", as well as preparing the way to get a more complete view about the liberation condition of working class."
But, of course, all of this will be valid if we throw away the notion or acceptance of Marxism as a sect.
***
Because we instantly get: f(a + b) = (a + b)5= a5 + 5a4b + 10a3b2 + 10a2b3 + 5ab4 + b5, so, when we wrote a5 + 5a4b + 10a3b2 + 10a2b3 + 5ab4 + b5- a5 , we scratch again early function a5, which is the beginning of its series. Consequently, what applies, for example, in the (x + h)4 + a(x + h)3 – x4 – ax3, include the revocation of these terms and the first of x4 and ax3 of the binomial (x + h)4 + a(x + h)3 .
Karl Marx contribution to philosophy and social sciences is well known, especially in the criticism of political economy and socialism. Most educated people know Marx wrote Das Kapital. The students of philosophy may have also read, or at least have heard their professors mentioned Paris manuscripts 1844 or the German Ideology. The Marxists also can quickly guess that quote "The solid expands into the air, the sacred things profaned" or 'The workers will not lose anything other than their fetters" is derived from the Communist Manifesto. But only a few people know that Marx is the author of two quotations above.
Dry sentence without literature is a mathematical notation, right? Is it true that this sentence was written by Marx? Ah, maybe it's just gossip. Marx has written about differential calculus? If true, for what he wrote? Is there no more important issue than that?
Not many people know Marx wrote mathematics. Even if there are those who have heard rumors about it, surely they will ask the link between reviewing differential calculus with political socialism, or at least with a critique of capitalism.
Until now there has never been a scholar here to review what is known as the manuscripts of Mathematics. Marx's mathematical manuscripts? Yes. It is a collection of Marx's manuscripts about various math from derivative function, differential concept, historical of calculus methods, about Taylor and Maclaurin's theorem, concerning the limits and limiting values, and so on.
These manuscripts written between 1858 until before his death in 1883. Half -- including his two original writings -- related to differential calculus. The rest are the notes and quotations from his reading sources about elementary algebra, trigonometry, analytic geometry, and the theory of permutations and combinations.
Marx also made records about infinite series, Newton's theory of binomial equations, and other branches of the high-level algebra. Marx was not only familiar with a dozen university textbooks on calculus, but also with treatises on methods of calculus by Isaac Newton, Leonhard Euler, Colin Maclaurin, and JL Lagrange. Marx also read the mathematics works of Leibniz, Brook Taylor, and Dennis Poisson.
At least two of his original treatise, Marx was explaining -- for himself -- the issue of infinitesimal or very small numbers. What the heck is it? Well, for example is the function f (x) = 1/x. For very large values of x, then the value of 1/x is very small to almost zero. The difference between the 1/ x with zero or 1/ x - 0 for very large x is very small or infinitesimal numbers.
In mathematics, the notation symbolizes it is epsilon (Greek alphabet). Marx described it as the difference changes from the value of change, for example from x to x1 or from y to y1. This difference, in differential calculus or derivative, is considered very small. The pioneers of differential calculus such as Newton and Leibniz considered derivative (or differential function) as the ratio of two infinitesimal or (y1 – y)/(x1 – x). Marx criticized this, he tried to look for mathematical principles.
In unfinished essay on the history of differential calculus methods, Marx explained that the definition of differential or derivative has experienced concept evolution in three stages, namely the mystical stage (Newton-Leibniz), rational stage (D'Alembert), and algebra phase (Lagrange). According to a fellow mathematician, Marx has gone beyond the third stage and found the fourth stage, namely the operational phase. So, a friend of mine seemed a little hasty when he said, "Engels somewhat exaggerated when he declared at Marx's funeral that Moor (Marx's nickname) "has reached new findings in the various fields of his study, including mathematics". Marx may be a polymath, but it seems, not in terms of mathematics.
Indeed, because of the influence of mathematical innovations in Continental Europe for Marx studies is very limited, some of his notes seem old-fashioned, even primitive for modern readers. That is why there is a comment that Marx donation is really very small and can be ignored for the debate about the basics of calculus. His writings are so late. Why? Because the key issue has been sorted out before his writing is done.
Since the 1820's decade Augustin-Louis Cauchy cleared this calculus basic problem, and Karl Weierstrass already tightened the logical foundation of calculus when Marx had just learned calculus. Unfortunately, Marx did not read the works of these two figures of modern calculus. But it was just because of historical accident.
Marx studied mathematics in various university library in Britain. In fact, people in the UK campus at the time were Newton's followers. Nationalism made them arrogant, therefore they usually underestimated anything that came from European mainland (ie French and German), including innovative methods of both figures who modernizing the calculus.
Another of his bad luck, the only friend who had studied mathematics -- Samuel Moore, the translator of Das Kapital -- his math was also somewhat lagging. But, because Marx did not read Cauchy (France) and Weierstrass (Germany), and the fact that Marx was not a mathematician, his understanding of the emblem on the infinitesimal as operational as developed by Cauchy showed the sophistication of his thinking, right? From what he wrote, Marx has a solid understanding of algebra. Indeed, in his presentation, Marx made a few mistakes assumptions. But his mistake was also made by the mathematician whose works were studied by Marx, right?
Alright it is true, Marx once wrote mathematics. But then what is the link between all of that with Marx's thought as a whole? Is not mathematical reasoning based on formal logic, the logic of which ejecting contradictions and contradictory movement from its vocabulary as it applies in dialectical logic that supposedly is the core of Marx?
Indeed, Marx said that mathematics could be used to calculate the movement: "algebraic methods ... [is] the opposite of differential method", because the first one is the analysis of quantities static while the second is the analysis of dynamic quantities.
Even so, the difference of both methods come with the same logic, quantitative logic that can not be read at things qualitative, contradictory such as structure and tendencies, for example, right? And if it is so, if the math just useful in quantitative matter, does its utilization in Marxism not violate the teachings of Marx political economy in particular and materialist dialectic in general? Lest it will plunge us into the same hole with the neoclassical economists who are good at tinkering with mathematical models but blind to the economic realities of their own?
On 22 November 1882, less than four months before Marx died, Engels sent a letter to Marx reported his discussions with the sole of their mathematical friend, Samuel Moore. In the letter, Moore criticized algebraic method analysis and more inclined to geometrical explanation. Marx wrote back to Engels. He promised to send his writings on the history of differential calculus methods. At the end of the letter, the ailing Marx, wrote, "The sun is shining brightly, it's time for sightseeing, there is no time now for math, but I will be back later in the methods of differential, occasionally, in detail."
Indeed, on that day the sun was bright. But not with his health. His wife has been buried on the previous year. The working class movement which he wanted longingly into the motor revolution would not go forward, just running in place. Crises did not undermine capitalism, the monster. Afflicted with pain and lack of hope,walking was not enough to make Marx became fit again. On March 5, 1883 he died. Leaving promises, even though they were not false, but could not be fulfilled all.
Now I'm still guessing what is his answer to the questions above?
Unlike the opinion of many people, both blasphemer or devotees, Marxism is not something that has been completed. Interpretation of Marx is not completed on Vladimir Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky. They are not the priests who have been able to in all the writings of Marx. In their lifetime Paris manuscripts1844, The German Ideology, and Grundrisse has not been "discovered" yet.
The three newly published after they all died. Let alone to read it, maybe they did not know it at all. What about the other texts of Marx's handwriting? Other than archivist at the International Institute of Social History (IISH) Dutch, handwritten manuscripts of Marx on agriculture, chemistry, history of technology, geology, biology, and physiology not ever be read by people. Treatise on the history of Britain, Ireland, and Germany, the manuscript on the history of philosophy and military were not all published. Ethnological notes written in conjunction with his time learning new calculus published in 1972. But for the audience, the book edited by anthropologist Lawrence Krader with 450 pages was just a third of all records of Marx's ethnological.
Marx's mathematics manuscripts exist after the publication in Moscow in 1968. A full English translation of the 1968 edition was published in 1994. Indeed, the English translation once published in 1983, but it only covers part I of the 1968 edition that the amount is not more than 1/3 only. And it turns out, of the latest investigations, Moscow 1968 edition does not include all the mathematical manuscripts of Marx. It is said that there are about 400 pieces of manuscript folio are still as archives at the International Institute of Social History (IISH), the Netherlands, not including text notes, comments, and Marx quotations on probabilistic and statistical theory.
Coupled with the parts of "mathematical calculations" which will be added to Volume 2 and 3 Das Kapital, but it turns out, it's not inserted by Engels to the issue of Volume 2 and 3, then Marx's whole writing about mathematics is still hidden to many people. So, what about Marx's answers to the relation of mathematics and critique of capitalism or analysis of historical materialism regarding whether mathematical social sciences contrary to the political-economic thought? I have no idea.
Nevertheless, the wisdom that can be learned here is: Marx is not yet finished. He is not a statue with its contents and its aspects already in sight, ready to be examined until the pores. During this time, what we think as a solid sculpture, it turns out, just a skeleton, a prototype, or simply sketch. It is indeed a matchless hubris, walking around the market while ranting "this is the true Marxism until doomsday" while blaspheming or adoring. From the story above, let alone to make a thorough interpretation, even its reports have not all been found. Therefore, the doors of ijtihad must be kept open. Tolerance (not relativism) must be developed. In this context, let's "rediscover our Marxism" in an attempt to fill the framework of Marxism.
***
"Thank you for your perception! I like your romantic side, even if I do not always comment and I'm glad that you're in my circle of friends." (Courtesies by: Wolfgang A. Gerhardt)
Wolfgang A.Gerhardt : May be you like this Sunday collage
Cisca Zarmansyah : Before today, there never was a person doing this to me. You create a simple matter to look special. This is a special thing for me.
Cisca Zarmansyah : Thank you. I love it. I love you, my friend. ♥
"When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent. I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent. I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out. I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews, I remained silent. I wasn't a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out." - Martin Niemöller
, now I move here to regain one important thing to say: tolerance. And I'm bringing it for you to know. 
