What makes the dialectical materialist method superior? It explains more

Scan page 8

The beginning of the 1848 revolution in France. An example of class contradictions exploding.

"Human societies, like stars, are characterized by revolutionary explosions separated by periods of apparent stability. During the stable periods the opposing forces continue to develop until the balance shifts, a revolution erupts, and a qualitatively new kind of social order emerges, based on a more advanced This is the fifth and final chapter in a series of articles on dialectical materialism-the philosophical foundation of Marxism. The articles are based on classes given by Cliff Conner at a Socialist Action national educational conference in August 1989.

In previous articles, the author traced the history of philosophy from the time of the ancient Greeks, contrasting the outlook of materialism to that of idealism.

Last month, Conner described how Aristotle, in attempting to formulate the laws of thinking, devised the basic laws of formal logic. In the early 19th century, the German philosopher George Hegel came up with a new system of logic, "dialectics," in order to better explain the constant process of change. He found a precedent for dialectical thinking among the first Greek philosophers, such as Heraclitus.

So far, we have not progressed beyond Heraclitus's contention that everything is in flux. Hegel went further, going beyond the mere assertion of change, by investigating and describing, in a general way, how things change.

According to the mechanical way of looking at the world, the fundamental mechanism of change is impact—the interaction of one body bumping into another. Change, in this view, is something that is caused by forces external to a body.

Hegel had a very different view of the world. If he had a model of reality, it was not the machine but the organism. The kind of change he was interested in was organic development-processes of birth, growth, and death.

To a dialectical thinker, an entity is not a homogeneous clump of inert matter but a dynamic unity of opposites containing opposing forces within itself that are in continuous struggle against each other. Change occurs as a result of the interaction of these forces; for example, when they become unbalanced and one overpowers the other.

All this may seem highly metaphysical, perhaps even mystical. Hegel, after all, was an idealist. To see how all of this applies to the material world, let us consider some specific examples.

You might think that if these abstractions about inner forces applied to anything, it would be to biological or 8 SOCIALIST ACTION social organisms rather than to stable physical objects like tables or chairs. But how stable are tables and chairs? Most of them only last a few years, or a few hundred years at most.

Stars and nations as models Let's consider a much more stable class of objects: the stars of the firmament, which are apparently stable over billions of years. The story of stellar evolution is another addition that Frederick Engles, the close collaborator of Karl Marx, would surely want to make if he could put out a new addition of his book, "Dialectics of Nature."

The typical history of stars has been found to consist of a series of extremely violent explosions separated by long periods of stability. During a stable period, the star consists of a massive globe of material producing energy by nuclear fusion. The energy of the nuclear fusion process creates an outward pressure on the star's material. But the gravitational force of the star's material creates an inward pressure. These two forces balance each other and the star remains stable for a few billion years until the nuclear fuel begins to give out and the fusion process slows down.

Then the gravitational forces get the upper hand, the star implodes with tremendous violence, the energy of the implosion ignites a higher-level type of fusion reaction, and the process begins again on a higher level.

When stars appear stable, then, they are essentially a unity of two opposed forces, a unity of opposites; and when stars change, it is due to an interaction between those two forces that combine to create a new and qualitatively different kind of IANUARY 1992 system of production."

star.

Now let's consider another kind of object—a social organism. These days the most typical form of organization of human society is the nation state. Nation states have traditionally been perceived as homogeneous entities. This is where patriotic ideology comes from-the idea that all French people, for example, have essentially the same interests and that any threat to those interests comes from outside.

A country like France, however, is better understood not as a homogeneous entity, but as a dialectical entity—a unity of opposites. The opposites are the capitalist class and the working class. These iwo classes are tied together into a single productive system by bonds of mutual dependence they need each other-and at the same time they are locked in struggle against each other because in the final analysis their class interests are irreconcilable. The whole thing is a living contradiction.

What makes this dialectical model better than the patriotic one is that it explains more. Above all, it can account for social change. Human societies, like stars, are characterized by revolutionary explosions separated by periods of apparent stability. During the stable periods the opposing forces continue to develop until the balance shifts, a revolution erupts, and a qualitatively new kind of social order emerges, based on a more advanced system of production.

Quantity into quality

Another of Hegel's insights into the process of change is usually summed up in the ponderous phrase: "The transformation of quantity into quality." tion of water into steam. If water is heated, its temperature changes by numerically measurable increments. If its temperature rises degree by degree from 97 degrees Centigrade, to 98, to 99, the water has changed in that it has gotten hotter, but it is still water. Add one degree, however, to 100 degree Centigrade, and it ceases to be water. It becomes steam; it is transformed into something qualitatively different. A qualitative leap has occurred, a revolutionary transformation.

Atomic bombs and nuclear reactors have given us an unsurpassable illustration of this law, and Engels would surely have appreciated this one, too. When the nuclear fuel is brought together, if there is less than a certain exact amount, which is called the "critical mass," nothing will happen. But if a little more fuel is added, and a little more, and a little more, eventually the "critical mass" will be reached and the nuclear chain reaction will be initiated.

1 was reminded of the transformation of quantity into quality by an article I read in the newspaper about resort beaches in New Jersey. Health inspectors periodically check the ocean water for fecal coliform bacteria. They measure it in parts per milliliters of water. If it is below 200 parts, they allow the beaches to remain open, above that number, they close them down. Some resort owners were caught throwing chlorine tablets into the ocean just before the inspectors were due to arrive.

It was a futile attempt, as it turned out, to prevent a transformation of quantity into quality, but it was rather remarkable to see capitalists sneaking around trying to "'unpollute" the environment.

"Which side are you on?"

In previous articles in this series I have been focussing on contradictions and showing the positive benefits of fuzzy logic and so forth. But the point is not that we should throw up our hands and say, "Oh, what the hell—if everything is in flux, we'll never get a handle on it, so why bother?" The point is to recognize the existence of contradictions and change so as to be able to take them into account. It is also important to remember that the laws of formal logic are still of great value, as long as we don't treat them as absolutes.

Earlier I used a line often used in arguments: "Well, which is it? You can't have it both ways." And I said that this is an appeal to the formal-logic law of the excluded middle. I didn't mean to imply that it is always a false statement. In some cases it can support a valid position; in others a false one. The difference lies in the specific cases at hand.

For example:

"Way down in Harlan County There are no neutrals there You'll either be a union miner Or a scab for J.H. Blair.

Which side are you on, boys, Which side are you on?"

The song says there are only two sides-there is nothing in-between. Which side are you on? It's a classic application of the law of the excluded middle, and one that all Marxists would defend as valid Although lines between categories are never absolute, it is often possible to recognize categories that are sharply enough bounded for all practical purposes. It is usually possible to distinguish clearly between existing species of animals, for example, while recognizing that in their evolutionary history the dividing lines were not absolute.

Likewise, in the class struggle it is possible to recognize the class line—the boundary separating the capitalist class from the working class—to avoid crossing it. In general, to cross a picketline of striking workers is to cross the class line and be on the wrong side of the struggle.

But even this general rule is not absolute. In 1968, the teachers' union in New York City called a reactionary strike, a racist strike against the Black and Puerto Rican communities; in that situation class-conscious workers were duty-bound

Scan page 9

"Lenin and the Bolshevik Party used Marxist ideology as a guide-as a means of trying to figure out what to do next at every step along the way. Stalin's use of Marxist ideology turned it upside down. To Stalin it was not a guide to policy, but a method of generating phony excuses to justify, after the fact, any policy he ...Dialectics (continued from previous page)

to cross the picketlines. Fortunately, such exception to the general rule are rare In electoral politics, we recognize a class line separating the interests of the working class from those of both the Democratic and Republican parties. For us, it is matter of principle not to support any Democratic or Republican politician. This is not an a priori moral absolute; it is a practical conclusion based on historical analysis of the role of those parties as organ of capitalist-class rule.

But in some political situations the class line is more complex that a simple boundary between capitalists and workers. When the Kremlin intervened in Eastern Europe and the Stalinists said: "Which side are you on?" we said, "We're on the side of the workers who are fighting against you."

This would seem to be a simple enough matter of class solidarity, but it must be remembered that Stalinists are not the only ones who have taken a reactionary position on that question. The leaders of the Cuban Revolution have also gone wrong in this regard, as has the Socialist Workers Party.

These few rather familiar examples should be enough to illustrate the point that the logic of political strategy and tactics cannot be reduced to formulas. An understanding of dialectical logic won't provide a ready-made procedure for cranking out answers to tactical questions, but it can help to avoid the pitfall of over-formalism.

The most common manifestations of formalistic thinking are sectarianism and ultra-leftism. A group like the Spartacist League, for example, certainly doesn't have a monopoly on sectarianism, but it is probably the most familiar practitioner of whąt Lenin called the "infantile sickness" of ultra-leftism.

The Spartacists are famous for their ultimatistic slogans and their inability to collaborate with any other political forces. Who can forget their slogan for the anti-Vietnam War movement: "All Indochina Must Go Communist Now!" The all-ornothing character of their demands reflects an unwavering attachment to the law of the excluded middle.

The Spartacists are also known for insisting upon a full revolutionary socialist program as a condition for their participation in political action coalitions. This is the hallmark of sectarianism, and it, too, flows from a formalistic, all-ornothing approach to politics. To their way of thinking, you either wave the banner of socialist revolution in every demonstration or you are a betrayer. There is no middle ground.

This approach to politics is characterized by its invariant nature. It essentially puts forward the same answers at all times and all places: "Socialism Now!"_ "Revolution Now!" It doesn't take changing situations into account.

The possum syndrome When I first came across this kind of political behavior it reminded me of something I'd seen when I was growing up in Tennessee. One day I came across a possum, and somebody had tied its back leg to a tree with a rope about 20 feet long. I watched this possum for a while. It walked slowly straight ahead until the rope stopped it and it couldn't go any further. Then it would turn back in the opposite direction and go until the rope stopped it again. Then it would turn back But they called essentially the same demonstration over and over again throughout the course of the war.

In 1969 and 1970, when the Socialist Workers Party was mobilizing millions of people against the war, the Workers World Party was still organizing the same narrow "anti-imperialist" demonstrations. They were against imperialism, so they went in a straight line toward their goal and although it was completely ineffective, they kept doing it again and again. I called that the "possum syndrome."

In politics, the shortest distance between two points is not always a straight line. We can express this "possum syndrome" in formal logic terms. As the possum sees it, there are only two alternatives. Either you are going straight toward your goal, or you're not going toward your goal at all. Nothing else is possible; the middle is excluded.

But of course, in politics, there are always other alternatives. Sometimes a tactical retreat is necessary. Sometimes an indirect route is the best way to reach a goal. wanted to implement."

every step along the way. Stalin's use of Marxist ideology turned it upside down. To Stalin it was not a guide to policy, but a method of generating phony excuses to justify, after the fact, any policy he wanted to implement.

One of Stalin's protegés, Trofim Lysenko, appealed to dialectics against the science of genetics. He said that if nature is dialectical, then genetics must be false. In the abstract, Lysenko's point was at least plausible. According to dialectics, the are no absolute categories, no rigid boundaries in nature. But the guiding principle of genetics is that there is an impassable barrier separating living organisms from the genetic material they carry, their DNA.

This means that if you "pump iron" and build up huge muscles, that won't have any effect at all on the genes you pass on to your children. They won't be-born more muscular; if they want big muscles, they'll have to "pump iron" themselves.

Lysenko violently disagreed with this proposition. He claimed that he could improve Soviet agriculture rapidly. He said he could create new, superior species of wheat by subjecting seeds of wheat to environmental stresses. The biologists who understood genetics-and there were some good Marxists among them-told him it was nonsense. Lysenko responded that the laws of dialectics insured that he could not be mistaken. But, of course, he was. And since he had Stalin on his side, his policies were adopted and the geneticists were harshly repressed.

Lysenko treated the laws of dialectics as a priori truths to be imposed on nature. This is the method of idealism, and Lysenko proved once again that it doesn't give worthwhile results.

Setting Hegel right-side up I have alluded a number of times to some of the conclusions of modern physics. Ever since the beginning of the 20th century, there has been a strong current of opinion to the effect that these findings constitute a refutation of materialism. The discovery that atoms are not hard particles like tiny little billiard balls was cheered by idealist philosophers as a vindication of their idealism.

The peculiarity of matter at the subatomic level, however, only refutes mechanical materialism—and the viable alternative to mechanical materialism is not idealism but dialectical materialism.

In conclusion, dialectics was originally developed by Hegel in the framework of an idealist philosophy. Marx and Engels took Hegel's abstractions and put them right-side up, on their feet, as they said, by incorporating dialectical logic into a materialist view of the world. This was a philosophy well-suited to Marx's purpose of interpreting the world as a prerequisite to changing it.

Dialectical materialism conceives of capitalist society not as a perpetualmotion machine in mechanical equilibrium, but as an organism with a finite lifespan. Bourgeois ideologists consider revolutions to be aberrations, unnatural disturbers of the natural order. But in fact, nothing is more natural than the qualitative leap that we call a revolution.

The bourgeois ideologist denies the contradictions of capitalist society. We not only recognize contradictions, we also anticipate that they will deepen to the point of crisis, bringing about the opportunity for a revolutionary reconstruction of society.

When that opportunity arrives, we want to be prepared for it. Those who are locked into formal logic will assume that a small socialist organization will not have a large role to play in a revolutionary situation. But dialectical thinkers know that acorns grow into oak trees and that in revolutionary situations it is possible for small organizations, if they know what they're doing, to grow rapidly in size and influence. Therein lies the dialectical source of our revolutionary optimism.

In last month's issue, I began this discussion on dialectics with a dramatic quotation from Charles Dickens's "A Tale of Two Cities:" "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...

I'll end this series with a quotation from the "Communist Manifesto" by Marx and Engels: " ...everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air..."