Marxist Intellectual Masturbation

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]

Evolution and Revolution: Darwin's Theory in Marxist Political Thought

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.

***
Readings
■ Marx and Darwin: Two great revolutionary thinkers of the nineteenth century 
■ Marx and Engels...and Darwin? The essential connection between historical materialism and natural selection 
■ Marxism And Darwinism 
■ Marxism and Darwinism
■ Barnard, A. (2011). Social Anthropology and Human Origins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
■ Blackledge, P., & Kirkpatrick, G. (2002). Historical Materialism and Social Evolution. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
■ Callinicos, A. (2004). The Revolutionary Idea of Karl Marx. London: Bookmarks Publications. - VIDEO : The revolutionary ideas of Karl Marx - Alex Callinicos
■ Engels, F. (1972).  The Origin of The Family, Private Property and The State. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
■ Harris, M. (1978). Cannibals and Kings: The Origins of Cultures. Glasgow: William Collins Sons & Co Ltd.
■ Lasker, G. W. (1973). Physical Anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
■ Lewin, R. (2005). Human Evolution : An Illustrated Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
■ Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1998). The German Ideology. New York: Promotheus Books.



[CZ-PF 121315]

Revolutionary Patience

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.
***


[CZ-lacalifusa071015]

Marx & Maths

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.
***




[CZ-lacalifusa 062315]

Marxism and Chicken and Egg

Surely you've heard this popular puzzle, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?". Apparently, this question has no answer. But, I think the puzzle is nice also to be the question, "What is the link between egg and chicken puzzle with Marxism?

My close friend said, "The relation between egg and chicken is dialectical, Ma Chérie! We can't determine which came first. Your question is not intellect. Let's think carefully. Both are just making it up, as taught by Martin about dialectics, co-relative, the one presupposes its existence on the other in an inseparable relationship. Anyone who tries to prioritize one over the other will fail because there is no earlier and the later. We will undoubtedly fall on determinism and reductionism when imposing ontological preliminaries of one of them. Hell No! As the educated Marxists, we must stay away from the bourgeois science totem!"


Very clever! His answer sounded like an ardent Marxist answer. Of course, my friend was basing his answer on the most fundamental dialectic's principles, which is called the doctrine of internal relations. Everything constitutive to everything else. Because I smiled heartily at him, he continued to add his argument from a corpus of Marxism, "Engels teaches that the dialectic is working in mind, nature, and society. Chicken and egg dialectics is a proof that our nature is a dialectical reality. Marx also teaches us that not individual units but relationships that filled the most basic niche of reality, doesn't he? Capital is social relations, not an entity. Similarly with the superstructure base. If we do not believe in dialectics, "he said," We are not Marxist!"


Another friend whispered to me. He gave another answer about the chicken and eggs puzzle. The proof? Well, Gallus (genus name of all kinds of birds, including Gallus gallus domesticus) is family member of Galliformes, one of the Aves class member in animal kingdom. Its ancestor is Archaeopteryx, a type of dinosaur that lived about 150 million years ago. Dinosaurs reproduced by eggs that incubated outside the parent. It means, before chicken appeared in biological evolutionary tree, egg came first. So, for any chicken at all, eggs already exist in nature. So, the egg came first than chicken.

His answer also sounded like a Marxist answer. He was basing his answer on the material conditions of relation existence. For him, outside the internal relations of chicken and egg "at this time", there's external relation which allows altogether the existence of internal relations, namely the evolution fact that the eggs which are incubated outside the parent has existed earlier than the chicken evolution from phylogeny of previously laying species.

With emphasis on materiality of the existence of individual things relation, his view is also historical. There is the origin of relational matters: chicken and eggs, employer and servant, or capitalist and proletariat. If Marxism is a materialist worldview, then based on my friend's view, he can be regarded as a Marxist, right?

According to my materialist's friend, dialectical answer above sounds naive. Although it sounds like an ardent Marxist argument, but it's wrong at the most fundamental thing. The mistake lies in prioritizing dialectic materialism above. The answer implies that the relationship is everything compared to the materiality of existence which linked by the relationship. Arguably the answer is more Hegelian than Marxian.

According to my friend, this is one of contemporary Marxist diseases in this country, petty bourgeois disease that preaching dialectic blindly and hence claiming to be a Marxist. According to him, before dialectic, Marxism is a materialist. Dialectical is only predicate or just the nature of materialism. Just because "dialectical materialism" is one word, it does not mean automatically to equalize the degrees between materialist and dialectical into symmetrical relation.

If this happens, Marxism can fall into the abyss of unforgivable idealism and will also be indistinguishable from Marxism's enemies. Ignoring the materialistic nature of Marxism for dialectic that may sound more intelligent can remove the basis of Marxism altogether.

Furthermore, he said that the dialectic could be dangerous without materialism, for example, the link between the existing and the mind, between reality and desire. As in chicken and eggs relation, in the link between the existing and the mind, the reality and the will, of course, there is an internal relation between them. That between the reality and the will or there's a linkage between the existing and the mind, it does not have to be denied, because the linkage that allows the ideological criticism as operated by the economic-political critique of Marx and sociology of contemporary knowledge.  But what needs to be emphasized is that the link between them is not symmetric as in Hegel's doctrine about internal relations. If the relation is symmetric, then we can just start from the opposite case of economic-political criticism. We can get caught up in the young Hegelian disease who thinks that the conversion of mind and will can change the reality. That the categories of political economy (mind), for example, is related to the condition of the material / class so that neoclassical economics is nothing more than the reflection of capitalist will class over the economic reality in which they live and fight to win the battle against the proletariat class, maybe it's true. But just changing the categories (knowledge or awareness of people on reality) does not automatically resolve the problem at reality level.

Abandonment in the presence of external links of the internal relations of individual things can lead to militant daydream to -- for example -- love. Love is certainly a relationship that links two individuals desire internally to each other. But before any of this relation and its internal dynamics, there is a prerequisite material in the form the existence of desire from a real person to the real thing outside of oneself, as well as a place for passion is intended. "Love," Marx said, "Can't have a reference to the internal development [merely] because love can't be built a priori, because its development is a real thing that takes place in the sensory world and between real individuals. In addition, because the "beloved" is sensory object, and if Criticism pretends to recognize an object, it takes at least an object without senses".

It means, just the desire and the will to love will not change the reality that a person is still single. There are prerequisites for any external material at all internal relations of two categories in love. And these prerequisites precede as well as support (supervene) the will and relation of two categories in love later.

In the "science" of humanities, the position of my dialectical friend who does not understand the meaning of love, dreamily, manifests into the thought of idealistic anthropologists such as Franz Boas, Durkheim, or Lévi-Strauss who said that human and culture were one existence package.

"Let's look at the evidence of cultural evolution," he said. "One of empirical evidence for the existence of a symbolic capacity is non-utilitarian archeological objects of human creation, whose function is not for subsistence or survival alone. Why is this used as the benchmark? If just the capacity to use (and make) the tools, all great apes and some species of monkeys also use the tools in subsistence activity and retain their lives. Only human who can produce non-utilitarian objects such as daily meme on facebook or potpourri of Engels. Because the objects not directly related to actual-empirical subsistence, then it means their existence involves a symbolic system or meaning, no matter how simple it is.

If this is the benchmark, we can take the oldest evidence in the form of tiny statue which depicts the figure of a fat woman (because breasted woman, fat because distended stomach). From the oldest evidence, the "culture" has just appeared no older than 40 thousand years ago, whereas the existence of homo genus has existed since two million years ago. If we narrow it to the emergence of Homo sapiens, then its own species already exist in the form as fully as we are at 165 thousand years ago. It means, there is a delay of several tens of thousands of years before cultured capacity appears. So, where is the "culture" during the time if it is true that people and culture have existed, hand in hand from the beginning?

What is missing from the observations of pan-culturalism (and of course my dialectical friend) is that the culture is human culture. Culture presupposes a human being first. There are material conditions that must be met prior to any culture at all. "These conditions", Marx said, "Relying on "human's physical organization". And now the science of evolution gives us a lot of evidence that humans are products of nature, the evolution result of their ancestral ape without culture. The next materialist question will be, "How culture arises entirely from the evolution of uncultured creatures? The answer must be sought from the scientific investigation of material conditions which allows its emergence, not to take for granted the existence of inherent culture in humanity. In this way, this materialist tactics closes the opportunity for "mystery" to the explanation of human and cultural as well as asserts a historical perspective, because everything is seen to have its origins.

Thus, the dialectic must be abandoned? "Of course not," my dialectical friend said. "Dialectic is useful in probing the structural problems when the problem's origin is considered completed. But if the problem is origin, and in political class struggle at the level of ideological, the origin is in connection with the legitimacy of individual things existence, then materialism -- which allows the historical point of view -- must become its commander."

Based on the opinion of my materialist friend above, then there are at least two lessons can be learned. First, Marxist prioritizes materialism than the dialectics, emphasizing on material reality rather than categorical relations which links it later, or we can be a kind of a stubborn Marxist who imposes the "thought" of Marx and Engels or Great Russia at the material reality we face today here. If it's indeed so, then Marxists will not make any difference with Mystics.

Second, in an effort to confirm the Marxist materialism, we also must be familiar with the findings of natural science and work hard to make it a weapon in the long battle against idealism, or we will easily fall when the enemy shoot us only with one bullet from the findings of strong natural sciences into our Marxist theoretical building. You certainly remember Lenin's advice, "The troops who are not trained to use all the weapons, all the means and methods of warfare such as owned by their enemies means reckless."

Although it does not directly connect with the above explanation, it will be nice if integrated science as preached by Martin as a Marxist program in our ideological battle begins to be initiated, to strengthen resistance to supernatural explanations or supra-historical without imposing reality on our revolutionary eagerness solely. Only materialism can help us today. And to arrive at a thorough materialism, some friends, including me, well, I may have to start it with love; by trying to leave the life of radical single and start loving someone other than myself, and all the daydreams of my romantic nights but sometimes painful. However, Marx said, "Love is the first thing earnestly teach us to believe in the objective world outside ourselves".
***

C'est l'histoire d'une poule pas plus grosse qu'un oeuf. Elle a grandi normalement jusqu'à posséder une petite taille semblable à celle d'un oeuf. Cela n'est pas inquiétant, elle n'en éprouve ni plus de honte, ni plus de crainte, une poule pas plus grosse qu'un oeuf n'a pas plus de chance d'être croquée par un prédateur qu'une autre. La poule pas plus grosse qu'un oeuf ne craint rien, elle n'a pas peur, elle a tout pour elle, elle est belle. Poussin, elle avait déjà la taille d'un oeuf. En grandissant, elle s'est développée et a changé et s'est transformée, elle a vu ses couleurs se métamorphoser. Elle est devenue une petite poule jolie pas plus grosse qu'un oeuf. Elle a gardé la taille qu'elle avait, elle pouvait entrer dans un oeuf, elle entre encore dans un oeuf, la petite poule jolie pas plus grosse qu'un oeuf. Elle est séduisante avec sa petite taille et toutes ses couleurs et ses formes de grande poule pas plus grosse qu'un oeuf. Elle pond un oeuf pas plus petit qu'un oeuf, de la taille d'un oeuf de poule. Elle a tout pour plaire. Ses petite poussins ne sont pas plus grands qu'elle. Ils grandissent, ils se transforment, ils gardent la hauteur d'un oeuf. Elle est belle la pondeuse et la souriante petite poule avec ses rouges oranges et dorés. Elle était jaune, poussin, jaune clair quand elle était dans l'oeuf. Elle a grandi, elle est devenue jolie avec ses couleurs rougeoyantes, elle a bien changé, assez jolie et assez petite pour tenir toujours dans un oeuf. Un oeuf blanc crème, coquille. La poule pas plus grosse qu'un oeuf est rouge orange et ronde. Quand elle dort, elle ressemble à un oeuf rouge.
***
L'Oeuf - Christophe Tarkos

[CZ-lacalifusa032215]

Russian Postmodernism

For students of theories of culture and philosophy, the term of "philosophy of language" will ignite their memories for names such as Ferdinand de Saussure, Roland Barthes and the 'poststructuralist' as Jacques Derrida. By this term they will be reminded of the series of themes: about how arbitrarily the relationship between sign and meaning, about how meanings are prepared by differential relationship between the sign, about how consciousness is structured by signs, and so on. For students of Marxism, the term of "philosophy of language" is also reminded them of another theme, namely about how ideology is not simply a reflection of the economic interests of social classes, but it is shaped and constrained by language as realm of differences between the marks. Since almost the last century, the development of Continental philosophy shows strong influence of meaning's association of "philosophy of language" like this. Among Marxists, this consciousness began since Valentin Voloshinov in 1930 -- who firstly showed that the ideology of "structured like a language" -- until Slavoj Zizek at the beginning of 21st century who showed that our desires were socially structured via mechanism of language.


But in conventional narrative of "philosophy of language" as a consolidation of poststructuralism's history, there is one name that is rarely mentioned : Joseph Stalin. "Philosophy of language" or what is now tends to be equated with the notion of "poststructuralism" is not a short trip from Geneva to Paris (from Saussure to Derrida), but twisting journey from Geneva to Paris via Moscow. In the corner, Stalin is playing a role. I do not claim that without Stalin  then there will be no poststructuralism and postmodernism (which is derived from poststructuralism). What I claim is that without Stalin then our picture of poststructuralism history and postmodernism formulation won't be complete.

Long before joining the Russian Left, Stalin was a poet. His expertise was in lyric poetry: about trees, wind and night. His lyric poems admired by famous Romantic poet from Georgia, Ilia Chavchavadze. Even some of them were published in the most influential literary journals in Russia in pre-Soviet era, Iveria. But his systematic reflections on new language appeared much later, after he joined the Russian Left, after he took power after Lenin's death. Marksizm i voprosy yazykoznaniya ("Marxism and Problems of Linguistics") is a short book about the nature of language, published in 1950. In it, Stalin considered the language's status within framework of Marxian's thought.

He criticized the deterministic view of Soviet linguist, Nicholas Marr. The linguists argued that language was merely superstructural phenomena. It means, the economic reality completely determines the phenomenon of language, changes in economic reality necessitates a change in total reality of language. Therefore, Marr argued that class differences were also reflected in differences in language. The transition from capitalist production's modus to socialist in Russia must be followed by a linguistic revolution, namely the removal of bourgeois Russian language and its transformation into a "proletariat language". Stalin criticized Marr assumptions. Language was not a superstructural effect of economic reality.

In his work, Stalin explained how language was the product of a historical social relations and cross-class patterned. He gave some historical illustrations, among others, about French in the era before and after 1789 Revolution. While the Revolution marked the transition to a capitalist feudal order, France language was still more or less the same. Indeed there's a new vocabulary and new idiomatic phrases after Revolution in 1789, but the French language syntax remains the same. Similarly with Russia language condition before and after October Revolution of 1917. This shows, for Stalin, how changes in class composition does not necessarily result in a change of language. From here Stalin drew the conclusion that the language couldn't be regarded as a superstructural effect of the base. In addition, Stalin also learned how language had emerged since pre-formation of social classes era (communal production mode). This further confirms his conclusion that the language goes beyond logic of class.

If language is not one of superstructure components, then where is the language in Marxian historical materialism's scheme? At the base? Not really. Stalin saw that language similar to the means of production, as well as factory machinery. There is no such thing as "bourgeois machine" or "proletarian machine". There is only a machine that can be used in capitalist or socialist system of labor division. Meanwhile the machine itself, in-itself, is neutral in class. Similarly with language, according to Stalin. Neutrality is possible because the language already existed before class, ie since the primitive communal society. Language is a "social space" where the production and reproduction of community life occur. Therefore, based on the conclusions of Stalin, the language is not part of superstructure and base because language is a forum where both are being realized. Ideology and reproduction mechanism fulfillment are considered, expressed and discussed through the language. Because language is a place where all social relationships occur, then the language underlies all social phenomena, including the base and the superstructure. Language can't be blamed on political economy basis and ideologically. In other words, in  postmodernist phraseology, language has a "relative autonomy" of the base and superstructure.

In addition to affirming the language"autonomy" of economistic reduction, Stalin also showed that the language was involved in structuring the ideology and public awareness. This is because all of the conversations and reflections should be through medium of language. Therefore, the structure of ideology and culture have always been contaminated by language. There is no pure thought without language. Therefore, there is no ideology without language. This outlook anticipates language approach which later popularized by the structuralist and poststructuralist of France.

There are three things donated by Stalin to poststructuralism and postmodernism:

1. Rejection of the reduction of language problem in class problem and political economy in general.
2. Recognition of language as basic vehicle for social interaction surrounding (and hence also beyond) base and superstructure.
3. Recognition of constitutive language characteristic to consciousness, culture and ideology.

Through the three main ideas, Stalin opened the way for the growth of a variety of language approaches  about community that will characterize French intellectual panorama since the 1960s. With that, Stalin contributed to roll what is commonly known as "Linguistic Turn" in contemporary Continental philosophy. Thus, Stalin - 'the Voldemort'of postmodernist - is precisely the one who makes postmodernism possible.

What can be learned from the 'case of Stalin'? The most brilliant, of course, is that the writing of poststructuralism and postmodernism history need to be overhauled and enriched. However, this case also teaches us something important about the relationship between Marxism and 'the outside of Marxism'. It is clearly, that Marxism -- the general theory of society development -- is not a theory of everything. There are many things uncovered by Marxism, such as: the composition of subatomic of baryons, the properties of alkali metal, semantic implications of studies in pragmatics (pronouns which are rooted in the identity of speakers) and many other things.

To study domain outside Marxism, Marxists often take one of these two options: to impose Marxism theory scheme into it (vulgar gesture) or do not care at all its implications for Marxism (agnostic attitude). Both options are equally problematic. The first option will only generate a pseudo-science, while the second option will deprive Marxism of its roots in the totality of reality. In the case of Stalin, the first choice tends to the fore. This can be seen in Stalin's involvement in the Lysenko affair.


In the early 1930s, Stalin was fascinated by the view of Trofim Lysenko, a Soviet biologist who believed that wheat production could be enhanced through the creation of new breeding techniques. Lysenko justified this technique with a myriad of Marxist jargon and vulgarly  imposed the "law of dialectics" to biological sciences.

Stalin gladly sponsored him to do "agricultural revolution" in the whole of Russia. Lysenkoism proved unsuccessful and realized nothing more than a pseudo-science. Therefore, the choice of Stalin's linguistic problems arguably is more satisfying. With his theory of language, Stalin seemed to give the wind for linguistics and guarantee the immunity from party bureaucratic intervention. Stalin's assurance was immediately greeted by various branches of other studies such as mathematics and logic. Experts mathematics and logic could decipher his teachings without necessarily associated with a class analysis and Marxian political economy. It means, acknowledging "the outside Marxism 'is a step forward. For Marxist intellectual tasks is not to impose Marxism in every way, but finding Marxism in all things, finding the components of the knowledge of non-Marxist which -- if they are assembled and projected macro -- will generate and fulfill Marxism. Here we need to draw a critical inspiration from postmodernist of Kremlin.
***


[CZ-lacalifusa022315]

Proletariat

One day in 2010, a woman from the North to pay more than a million dollars to buy some dogs. And we were stunned: China no longer Mao. I do not know whether there are still people who remember Mao Zedong who ever impassioned talk about the "proletariat", "bum proletariat", and "semi-proletariat", the poor who will liberate China from "a state of semi-feudal and semi-colonial".

It seems, now, what is liberating -- or ensnaring? -- is money and desire, and with it a lot of boundaries breached. Woman of the North, such as the China Daily wrote, on that day sent 30 Mercedes-Benz cars to the airport to pick up animals ordered. She was definitely one of the existing 835,000 millionaires in the People's Republic with a population of around 1.33 billion. She was definitely part of the 0.06 percent of the abundant life and did not feel guilty or embarrassed in the country which on half a century ago was rocked by the "Proletarian Cultural Revolution".

Half a century ago the Maoists militants even ready to kill a pig owned by a neighbor with a grenade. Pig is a sign of bourgeois class. In the early 21st century the rich pay the Tibetan Mastiff breed dog with an expensive price. As a result, we have never understood that the Chinese still consider themselves "communist" but living with such sharp social inequality.

Of course it should be noted, the Gini index, which shows that inequality, in China has begun to decline. Now almost 40.8. The lack of unequal distribution of wealth in China is even approximately equal to circumstances in the most unequal capitalist country, namely the United States, and far worse than the UK, which recorded a Gini coefficient of 36.

Presumably the shadow of Marx never pedaling again at Mausoleum of Mao in Beijing. Marx considered the private properties (Mastiff dog, Mercedes-Benz, lean pork, or a piece of land) as the sources of human alienation from the work process. He once proclaimed that it was precisely the workers -- who do not have nothing, except "chains which bind them" -- who would be the pioneers driving to a future free from isolation. But now Marxism in China has become a museum of prehistoric objects. And we do not know where are they: the proletariat.

Since the beginning, actually "Proletariat" is indeed an odd social class in China. In an article in 1926, "Analysis of the Classes in Chinese Society", Mao admitted, the proletariat only amounted to two million. Industrial workers were mainly working on the railroad, mining, transportation, marine, textiles, and shipbuilding, "and a very large number of whom were enslaved in a foreign capital enterprise". But, as a true Marxist, Mao believed the working class was the "most progressive", deserve to be "the power to lead the revolutionary movement". Because, unlike the others, industrial workers live and work centered around the same location. More importantly, Mao wrote, "They have lost their means of production, they only have two hands."

But the problem that arises immediately afterwards is, how the working class, not the majority position, can use their perspective - which, according to Marxism is special - to be the standard of society at large? We know, Mao -- after Lenin -- considered it was important (not just workers, but also the role of the farmers) to move the Revolution. Mao would not say the inland was part of what Marx called the "Hamlet Imbecility". But the farmers, also the most dispossessed, always wanted to have land. They however did not want to celebrate the heroism of people who didn't have anything.

The desire is "bourgeois". In the end it can't be muffled. We can't say that human nature is to want the owner and getting greedy, but Marx had an error when he considered the private property by itself was the cause of human alienation, when people prioritized what belonged to them and no longer be a host of things and work.

In Chinese political development, alienation takes place when human crouched in front of the fruit of their own hands. This time not belong to themselves, but rather something which is almost entirely social: a symbolic system, words, slogans, and doctrine. Also the organization, either in the form of daily life control of neighboring units or the more glorious is Communist Party.

In China, the dictatorship of proletariat is different from what is imagined by Marx. When he composed his history theory, Marx took into account that at some stage of the capitalism development, the proletariat class would be abundant. Petty bourgeoisie would be swallowed up by the big bourgeoisie and, like the workers, they ultimately did not have anything else. The poor become the majority.

But, with very small number of industrial workers in the middle of the others, what happens is an anxious dictatorship. It should be defensive and offensive at the same time. It should be reassuring. It should be tight, in the management of the body and crowd's mind. Finally it's broken, too. Party should stay in power, but its proletarian ethos has been removed. Liberation is not coming from those who do not have anything, but of have and desire to have. Together with that, all the odd and insanely can occur, also an other alienation: 30 Mercedes-Benz cars to fetch the dog.

Perhaps we need to ask, what belongs and does not belong to man can be free.
***
[CZ-lacalifusa050514]
 

Marxism, Postmodernism, When There's No More Revolution

"Reshaping life! People who can say that have never understood a thing about life—they have never felt its breath, its heartbeat—however much they have seen or done. They look on it as a lump of raw material that needs to be processed by them, to be ennobled by their touch. But life is never a material, a substance to be molded. If you want to know, life is the principle of self-renewal, it is constantly renewing and remaking and changing and transfiguring itself, it is infinitely beyond your or my obtuse theories about it." ― Boris Pasternak, Doctor Zhivago

At first in 1917, then in 1993. Two major events -- related to the "reshape life" agenda -- have changed the world's surface like two odd seismic waves, because there were destroyed after it, and there was formed.

The first was a revolution in the name of Marxism, which took place as the "ten days that shook the world", as described by John Reid about the October Revolution that began at St. Petersburg, Russia. The second was a change that was also rocking, although almost no burst of rifle: Russia (and to a certain extent was also China) canceling a lot of things on the Marxism agenda, something which actually began in 1989, when the Berlin Wall torn down by the crowd.

Two changes, two major shocks:  Marxism is the hope and important belief for about a century and a half, something so clear, unequivocal, riveting and transmit inspiration. But Marxism in its form which tested in a social transformation turns out quickly fragile. Over the past few years it has been widely discredited, and almost all over the world it's not heard any more about the Marxist plan to "change the world". What remains is "to explain the world", especially in journals and seminars thinking, when the left-wing political declines or change themselves in various directions.

So, what the hell we face and can be done? This question is important. Not my intention to talk about the "end of history" now, but it seems a clear trend, especially near us: after Marxism knocked out and defeated, what replaces (in Russia , Eastern Europe, in China) is a kind of pragmatic attitude, a working that does not prioritize the issue properly or not according to a doctrine or principle, good or not according to the teachings. Its legitimacy criteria is almost entirely associated with the outcome or performativity.

In its various variations, actually what is happening now is a sort of world embourgoisement : a process that reveals the characteristics of modernity which known in the history books when the European bourgeoisie took the role and changed the surface of the earth "in accordance with its image", to borrow the words of the Communist Manifesto. In other words, it becomes more and more involvement of rationality, in the sense of freedom from illusion and superstition, and the widespread desecration of social and natural environment, as well as the rise of the ethos of scientific objectivity.

But of course not everything is alluring, freeing : rationality that arises in the process such as what is mainly referred to by Weber as Zweckrational , "the instrumental action", kind of rationality that applies when we choose the most efficient way towards the appointed destination. Rationality in this sense is found in the economic and administrative efficiency improvements. Rationality can also cover a larger area : the enactment of a coherent and systematic order above the bustle and the manifold of beliefs, motives, circumstances, and experiences. With this rationality, the formal laws enacted, the rules imposed to anyone and at any time is also applied. Thus, modern bureaucracies are born, also the ideas and the ability to control and planning. Also: demolition over individual impulses, over the imagination and symbolic life that sometimes bubbling everywhere like shrubbery.

Pessimism, or skepticism, or defense to the rationalization process is not only belong to Weber, of course. In the West, a number of thinkers and poets repeatedly play the grief and disappointment when -- in the words of Walter Benjamin -- "talk about progress, to the world which is sinking to the rigidity of death".

In a simple, it can be said that "the instrumental action", as formulated by Habermas in the Theory of Communicative Action, associated with the "paradigm of consciousness philosophy", associated with the conception of  "undialogic subjectivity" which is the core in Western thought since Descartes: This world presented to the subject is a path to the desired destination by the subject. Reason, thus, growing in relations framework of means and ends, formed by the subject's urge to master an environment which in essence is beyond himsel/herself. Thought means also cornprendre or begriefen, to catch, to grasp, to master, to "tame".

The indication about it of course not only by Habermas and also not a new thing. In this century we have heard it from Heidegger and then -- since the last few decades -- from the thinkers who were classified into the "poststructuralist", and even from Marxist thinkers, especially from the two leading representatives of the Frankfurt School, Adorno and Horkheimer.

I must add the word "even" because while Marxism is a major criticisms of the current modernity since two centuries ago, it is generally not a sad voice, ala Weber, in observing the ongoing "modernism project" since the Enlightenment. Even although now many voices of Marxists, or " Marxisan "will blast embourgoisement world", Marx himself (when he was talking about in 1853 as a result of colonial rule in India) showed a tendency to see the penetration of capitalism, which was brought by European colonialists in the "Asiatic mode of production" had a progressive role, because changing the mode of production and introduce technology.

Why? In my opinion it will be more clear if we follow the endless contention, until now, among Marxist thinkers and various types of "postmodern thought". In other words, can we now talk about fixing or "reshape life" while still feeling "breath" and "heart" of life, while still realizing that life is "out of reach of my incompeten theory and your incompeten theory" as indicated by Yuri Zhivago in Pasternak's famous novel?


We know what happens to Marxism, a theory that by Zhivago regarded as "incompetent". What happens to Marxism is its failure to address the paradox of modernity as Weber stated, that the "rationalization" or the rise of rationality in life -- which in the Enlightenment seen as "progress" -- at the same time also gives birth to what Marx called the "reification" (Verdinglichung), one case of repressive alienation and alienate the human.

Marxism also is an expression of "the loss of world's charm", and there is an intention of tremendous human emancipation. This understanding has optimism in his head. For Marx, we know, a classless society will be born after the collapse of capitalism and  human freed from state when belonging, relationships and human action turns into belonging, relationships and actions of the things produced by humans who become independent of humans, even organizing human life. In other words, the liberation of reification. This description of reification is then developed by Lukacs in History and Class Consciousness. He considered it as a widespread alienation occured in a capitalist society and developed market economy.

The same thing also expressed by two Marxist thinkers of the Frankfurt School, Adorno and Horkheimer, although in writing Dialectic of Enlightenment Adorno and Horkheimer performed with different conclusions and arguments, fundamentally. They, while revising Marx, seeing that the logic of capitalism modernization was in itself not be heading toward collapse or Verelendung, but (as said by Weber) the emergence of a system of instrumental rationality and closed administrative.

Way out of it, as shown in Adorno's thought -- and in this case he tried to bring Marxist optimism -- is removing the liberating potential of human civilization which has been hidden by changing the society, which for Adorno means to smuggle the instrumental rational under rational aesthetic, and thus to make the aesthetic as a paradigm of the thought process.

The idea of  "true reason" --  which does not constrict human, which is a "confirmation" --  for Adorno is actually not just a fantasy.

But when Marx and Lukacs then see the victory of "instrumental action" as a consequence of various circumstances associated with the stage of history, Adorno and Horkheimer removing the concept of reification of specific historical contexts. Adorno and Horkheimer see the "instrumental action" problem as something that crosses the history. "They," in Habermas word, "plunge the mechanism that leads to the reification of consciousness into the anthropological basis of living things history", ie, to the fact that there is a need or necessity of living things to reproduce themselves through the nature. This grows a tendency which is not related to time and place, the tendency to dominate humans and nature, which finds its culmination when capitalism reaches its advanced stage.

It can be said, that the authors of Dialectic of Enlightenment, especially for Adorno, the way of thinking gives birth to the concept which is the root of a rationalization process that will inevitably end up with a fully rationalized system to power and the end of the autonomous subject.

But how Marxism can liberate humans from that? Adorno and Horkheimer offer a transformation of society, a revolution that gives birth to true reason and assertive in life. I myself do not understand how it will happen. We have heard enough about the failure of old Marxist utopia, and we also worthy to doubt the new Marxist utopia. Adorno and Horkheimer, Marcuse as well, with their Frankfurt School, appeared in the late 1920s, after the disappointment over communist revolution in Germany in the year 1920-21. The revolution failed, although Germany was an industrial society. So they tried to overcome the bottleneck of Marxism. But I remember what was said by Sartre in the Critique of dialectical About Reason, about the bottleneck.

Because Marxism wants to change the world , then there's a rift, separation between theory and practice. Marxism -- a philosophical interpretation of man and history-- inevitably must reflect an unwavering commitment to the plan. The result -- according to Sartre -- is the "idealistic violence over existing facts".

"Many years", Sartre said, "Marxist intellectuals believe that they serve the party by way of distorting the experience, regardless of the details that make awkward, with greatly simplify the data and above all by conceptualizing an event even before studying it."

In other words, Marxism is ultimately an affirmation for instrumental action, and in turn, tends to pour out everything using the mechanism, because in the name of revolution, which is absolute, it is inevitable.  Revolution does require self absolutization, sucks everything under and around it, but that's its weaknesses. As said by Marleau-Ponty about 40 years ago in Adventures of the Dialectic, the soleness on revolution is "Believes that it is absolute, and because of the belief then it becomes unabsolute".

Such inherent contradiction which then causes Marxism gives birth to a kind of reification process when it develops as an ideology and as an essential part of the power system. Vaclac Havel actually described the situation when he said that the mask of ideology "offered to human the illusion of identity and morality, while making them easier to break away from these things."

Especially when seen from the view of those who live in the "Third World". The root of all is ploretariat idealization. It started when Marxism put ploretariat in a universal position. For Marx, the proletariat is as he stated in A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right (1844), "A class that abolishes all class, a society which has a universal character because its sufferings are universal".

But it is not very easy to explore the universality argument over the proletariat. In Marx's later writings, after the German Ideology (written 1845-46) and the Communist Manifesto (1848), Marx's explanation is that proletarian revolution will not be the work of a minority. Because the workers do not have anything "other than the chains which bind them", then when they are in power they will not give birth to the new oppressed class.

But the ultimate and universal position of the proletariat becomes problematic since the end of last century. At the end of the 19th century, German socialist leader Eduard Bernstein no longer see the possibility of the working class to be the class which ended the history. He said, "Farmers do not sink, the middle class is not disappearing, the crisis is not evolving into larger." Bernstein will no longer see the real proletarian revolution. In the second half of the 20th century even Marxist thinkers including Frankfurt School began to put the expectations of social change was no longer by the proletariat, and when the student protest movement in France and Germany occurred in the late 1960s, the position of the universal proletariat was not even mentioned anymore.

In the other camp, Lenin displayed his argument that ultimately it was the transformation of "working class" notion, also when the prospect of "working class revolution" was not readily apparent to the eye. Lenin departed from the will to bring about a revolution in Russia, a society that had not had enough of the proletariat. In Lenin's argument, Russia needed a "two-stage revolution" and the argument was then guiding the principal theory of Communists in the "Third World". According to Lenin, as he put it in Two Tactics of Social Democracy (written in Geneva 1905), in a society such as Russia, what was better borne by the working class was not capitalism, but the "insufficient development of capitalism". Hence in Russia, what should take place first is stage of "Bourgeois Democratic" revolution, and then followed by the stage of   "Socialistic Proletariat" revolution.

In the first phase, what is to be destroyed is "all remnants of the old order that prevents the development of capitalism broad, free and fast". In those days the working class unite with the bourgeois class, but the "proletariat" should not "let the revolution's leadership in the hands of the bourgeoisie". In this case Lenin did not quite explain, how the working class, which was the minority, could assume themselves as entitled to lead the democratic revolution. In my opinion, here begins to appears what's happening with the notion of "the proletariat". It has experienced the "idealization".

Lenin's What Is To Be Done? (1901) have shown that the proletariat experience was eventually replaced by the proletarian class consciousness. The role of theory became central.

"Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement", Lenin said. And as a consequence, the theoreticians, intellectuals became decisive. "There will be no Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. Awareness should be brought to them from outside", Lenin said, like Kautsky. At the same time, revolution organization "should consist principally and first of all by those who consider their revolutionary activities as a profession". In the end we know, "the proletariat" as a concrete reality has been replaced by a concept.

This "idealization" in turn evolved into "Idolization", or proletariat idolatry, one thing that causes even in Mao Zhedong analysis of Chinese society and the Chinese revolution -- a staple grip for general program of the Communist Party of China -- still calls the necessity of "proletarian leadership" in the second stage of the revolution.

So what was said by Lyotard is understandable, in a debate in London in 1985: " No one has ever seen the proletariat". In Lyotard's argument, the question of the proletariat is a question of knowing whether these words should be understood in terms of the Hegelian dialectic, while hoping to find something in the experience that fits with the concept, or the term "proletariat" is the name of Ideas of Reason, the name of a subject that should be released? "If what is meant by" the proletariat "is the last", Lyotard said, "We must let go of the pretension that we can bring something in the experience that fits the term."

Here it seems we are entering an epistemological problem that will ultimately related to the emancipation agenda, with the desire to "Reshape life", to use the words of Yuri Zhivago. One part of Lyotard's reaction to the latest book Christopher Norris, The Truth about Postmodernism (1993) states that our problems around post-structuralism is because it dismissed the important and relevant description. Post structuralism, in the Norris word, "Trying to block any reference to knowledge and real-world experience", whereas people talking with the notion of "class", for example, because based on "political ethics" and "cognitive", in an attempt to "record the various discriminatory measures."

The question then is, how do we look at and talk about other people. On the one hand, it is not easy for us to free ourselves from rationality which generating the concept, we even need it. On the other hand, we have witnessed an "idealization" of a concept, and as generally idolatry, what happens is alienation. We have witnessed the concept identification over the object which led to "bitter sacrifice over qualitative diversity of experience".
***
[CZ-lacalifusa050714]

Some romantic quotations I like of Pasternak's book

■ "All customs and traditions, all our way of life, everything to do with home and order, has crumbled into dust in the general upheaval and reorganization of society. The whole human way of life has been destroyed and ruined." — p:421 (Lara)

■ "The war is to blame for everything, for all the misfortunes that followed and that hound our generation to this day." — p:422 (Lara).

■ "It was a clear, frosty autumn night. Thin sheets of ice crumbled under his steps. The sky, shining with stars, threw a pale blue flicker like the flame of burning alcohol over the black earth with its clumps of frozen mud." — p:113.

■ "In the foreshortened view from the bunk it looked as if the train were actually gliding on the water. Only here and there was its smoothness broken by streaks of a metallic blue, but over all the rest of its surface the hot morning sun was chasing glassy patches of light as smooth and oily as melted butter that a cook brushes with a feather on a pie crust." — p:246.

■ "Although victory had not brought the relief and freedom that were expected at the end of the war, nevertheless the portents of freedom filled the air throughout the postwar period, and they alone defined its historical significance." — p:544.

With a gentle strains of this music, I want to tell you, dahling, "In the end, war and revolution always produce suffering, but, nonetheless, both are needed in order to build something better in the future: freedom."

And please, do not kiss me with your erotic style when we're dancing a waltz with this song, because it makes me want to laugh out loud when I see your facial expressions. You do not inherit the Russian masculinity at all, you know? ehheheh ... and I want to step on your feet, ugly! ahahha ...


Always love yah, mwah!