Latest revision as of 01:19, 4 August 2025

CURRICULUM OF
THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF MARXISM-LENINISM
PART 1

THE WORLDVIEW AND PHILOSOPHICAL METHODOLOGY OF MARXISM-LENINISM

For University and College Students

Not Specializing in Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh Thought

FIRST ENGLISH EDITION

Translated and Annotated by Luna Nguyen

Foreword by Dr. Vijay Prashad

Introduction by Dr. Taimur Rahman

Edited, Annotated, and Illustrated by Emerican Johnson

Proofread by David Peat

Additional Contributions and Editorial Support by Iskra Books

Published in association with The International Magazine

File:T-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-2.png

1 License
2 Support for This Work
3 Dedication and Gratitude
4 Foreword
5 Preface to the First English Edition
6 Introduction
7 Editor’s Note
8 A Message From The International Magazine
9 Notes on Translation
10 Guide to Annotations
11 Original Vietnamese Publisher’s Note
12 Original Vietnamese Preface
13 Table of Contents
14 Introduction to the Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism
- 14.1 I. Brief History of Marxism-Leninism
  - 14.1.1 1. Marxism and the Three Constituent Parts
    - 14.1.1.1 Annotation 1
  - 14.1.2 2. Summary of the Birth and Development of Marxism-Leninism
- 14.2 II. Objects, Purposes, and Requirements for Studying the Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism
15 Chapter 1: Dialectical Materialism
- 15.1 I. Materialism and Dialectical Materialism
  - 15.1.1 1. The Opposition of Materialism and Idealism in Solving Basic Philosophical Issues
  - 15.1.2 2. Dialectical Materialism — the Most Advanced Form of Materialism
    - 15.1.2.1 Annotation 55
    - 15.1.2.2 Annotation 56
- 15.2 II. Dialectical Materialist Opinions About Matter, Consciousness, and the Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness
16 Chapter 2: Materialist Dialectics
- 16.1 I. Dialectics and Materialist Dialectics
  - 16.1.1 1. Dialectics and Basic Forms of Dialectics
  - 16.1.2 2. Materialist Dialectics
- 16.2 II. Basic Principles of Materialist Dialectics
- 16.3 III. Basic Pairs of Categories of Materialist Dialectics
- 16.4 IV. Basic Laws of Materialist Dialectics
17 Chapter 3: Cognitive Theory of Dialectical Materialism
- 17.1 Annotation 210
- 17.2 1. Praxis, Consciousness, and the Role of Praxis in Consciousness
- 17.3 2. Dialectical Path of Consciousness to Truth
  - 17.3.1 a. Opinions of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin about the Dialectical Path of Consciousness to Truth
  - 17.3.2 b. Truth, and the Relationship Between Truth and Reality
18 Afterword
- 18.1 Part 2: Historical Materialism
- 18.2 Part 3: Political Economy
- 18.3 Part 4: Scientific Socialism
- 18.4 Moving Forward
- 18.5 Advice on Further Study
- 18.6 Creative Application of Dialectical Materialism and Materialist Dialectics
- 18.7 In Closing
- 18.8 In Solidarity,
19 [Appendices]
- 19.1 Appendix A: Basic Pairs of Categories Used in Materialist Dialectics
- 19.2 Appendix B: the Two Basic Principles of Dialectical Materialism
- 19.3 Appendix C: the Three Universal Laws of Materialist Dialectics
- 19.4 Appendix D: Forms of Consciousness and Knowledge
- 19.5 Appendix E: Properties of Truth
- 19.6 Appendix F: Common Deviations From Dialectical Materialism
20 [Back Matter]
- 20.1 Glossary & Index

License

This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

You are free to:

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format

Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material

The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

Under the following terms:

Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.

ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

The full text of this license is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

“Step by step, along the struggle, by studying Marxism-Leninism parallel with participation in practical activities, I gradually came upon the fact that only socialism and communism can liberate the oppressed nations and the working people throughout the world from slavery.”
- Ho Chi Minh

Support for This Work

Translating, annotating, and typesetting this book has taken three years, which would not have been possible without the support of our supporters on GoFundMe. GoFundMe is also the reason we are able to make the digital version of this entire text available for free online. We would therefore like to recognize all of our supporters:

Zach L.	Jake B.	Katia S.	Jimi C.
Kathryn S.	Matthew S.	Manuel V.	Luiza S.
Timothy P.	Joshua E.	Sarah K.	Sarah F.
De’Vonte T.	Corey K.	Aidan M.	Danion S.
Douglas H.	Justin F.	Blake P.	Liam H.
Ayodele E.	Jesse T.	Patrick O.	Mendel A.
Stephanie P.	Christopher R.	Daniel H.	Marcos F. T.
Bryan D.	Helios A. C.	Ryan P.	Peter L.-D.
Jeff H.	Michael M.	Matthew P.	Abby L.
Matheus G. P.	Ellenore M.	Duy V.	Erin P.
Luke F.	Jason T.	Georgio M.	Astor C.
Ayo E.	Michael E.	Noah B.	Alex E.
David B. G.	Heath H.	Ian H.	Simon L.
Joel V.	Boyles B.	Jackson M.	Andrew H.
Jake B.	Ashley C.	Karen N.	Robert D.
K. Masunungure	Daniel S.	Mckenzie P.	Chandler F.
Daniel A.	Aadil B.	Julianna D. P.	Audrey M.
Ville I.	Joshua R.	Kyle R.	Larry V. K. III
Ariel G.	Maximilian H.	Peter F.	Zero P.
Aaron L.	John P.	Josh P.	Daniel G.
Jason T.	John M.	Kayla D.	Dmitri S.
Crescenzo P.	Matthew L.	Lindsay H.	Jeremy A. C.
Antonio R.	Glenn A.	Adam M.	Anthony M.
Roger W.	Edward C.	Dennis C.	Amiad H.
Hunter S.	Caitlin B.	Griffin M.	Mat C.
Joseph Z. B.	Aaron W.	Nicholas H.	Pastor J.
Cam S.	Benjamin S.	Brandon H.	Richard M.
Adam K.	Michael C.	Ashley E.	Robert D.
Olga C.	Megan B.	Simon C.	Alexandria J.
Roberto P.	Manuel G. F.	Jonis F.	Darsius ACAB
Gerard D.	Sam W.	John G.	Anna N.
Voltie M.	James H.	Eric R.	Anthony Z.
Kaylee C.	Kevin P.	Audrin T.	Joshua B.
Edil F.	Calum S.	Nam T.	Kyril W.
Zeke T.	Jesse R.	Orhan M.	Morgan H.
Gideon S.	Taylor H.	Ross P.	Tarana I.-M.
Saumya I.	Siddharth P.	Sam P.	Dirk K.
Jason G. A., Jr.	Melinda K.	Jillian R.	Jacob N.
Richard H.	Shane F.	Derric A.	Robyn M.
Lachlainn H.	Marc G.	Blaine H.	The Slopstache

There is still plenty of work to be done to complete the translation of this entire curriculum. If you would like to financially support our efforts, you can support us at:

BanyanHouse.org

Dedication and Gratitude

This book is dedicated to all the backers of the GoFundMe campaign that raised the funds to allow me to translate this text. What I initially believed would be a straightforward three-month process of translating ended up taking over three years of not just translation but also research, study, review, annotation, editing, proofreading, peer review, and more — with the incredible support of a full team of talented comrades — in order to make sure that everything would be digestible and intelligible for audiences outside of Vietnam. So, sincerely, thank you to everyone who backed this project for your patience, support, and encouragement.

Thank you to my husband and comrade, Emerican Johnson, who helped me throughout the translation process, and who did such a fantastic job editing, annotating, and illustrating this text. He was my constant dialectical companion as we grappled together with the spirit and meaning of the writings of Marx, Lenin, and Engels that are the bedrock of this text.

Thank you, also, to Iskra Books for the absolutely vital work they have done in helping us to edit this book and hold it to a high standard. We literally could not have done it without you. In particular, thank you to Ben Stahnke for organizing and cheerleading us through to the end, and to David Peat, for the painstaking, meticulous, and no-doubt frustrating work of proofreading our very, very, very imperfect writing!

Thanks also to The International Magazine, who have provided guidance and suggestions throughout the process of developing this translation. I have had the opportunity to work with The International Magazine on various projects and I can recommend no better monthly periodical for internationalist communists to learn about socialist movements around the world.

We owe a great deal of gratitude to Dr. Vijay Prashad and Dr. Taimur Rahman for taking the time to read through our translation and, in addition to providing their feedback and encouragement, also taking the time to write the foreword and introduction to the text. I know that you are both extremely busy with your own important literary, academic, and political work, so this assistance is so very much appreciated.

Finally, I would like to thank the Vietnamese intellectuals and experts who have done such an amazing job at taking hundreds of texts and distilling them down into the original volume which I have translated here. The elegance and precision with which they have been able to capture the essence of Marxism-Leninism is a monumental contribution to the workers of the world, and I only hope my translation does their work justice.

March, 2023
Luna Nguyen

Foreword

In December 1998, Fidel Castro addressed the Young Communist League’s 7^th Congress in Havana, Cuba. The Soviet Union and the Communist state system in Eastern Europe had collapsed, which greatly weakened the cause of socialism. Not only was Cuba hit hard by the loss of its major trading partners and political ally, but socialists in general were penalised by the lethal argument made by the imperialist sections that “socialism had been defeated.” After 1991, Fidel revived the phrase “Battle of Ideas,” which was had been used in The German Ideology by Marx and Engels. To the Young Communists, Fidel said:

We must meet, in the heat of the battle, with the leading cadres to discuss, analyse, expand on, and draft plans and strategies to take up issues and elaborate ideas, as when an army’s general staff meets. We must use solid arguments to talk to members and non-members, to speak to those who may be confused or even to discuss and debate with those holding positions contrary to those of the Revolution or who are influenced by imperialist ideology in this great battle of ideas we have been waging for years now, precisely in order to carry out the heroic deed of resisting against the most politically, militarily, economically, technologically and culturally powerful empire that has ever existed. Young cadres must be well prepared for this task.

Bourgeois ideology had tried to sweep aside its most fundamental critique – namely Marxism – by saying that “socialism had been defeated” and that Marxism was now obsolete. Marxist criticisms of the “casino of capitalism” – as Fidel called it – were being set aside both inside and outside the academy, with neoliberal policy confident enough to ignore each and every criticism. Fidel argued that young communists must learn the fundamentals of Marxism – including both dialectical and historical materialism – and must learn this in a way that was not religious thinking but would allow them to become “new intellectuals” of the movement, not those who repeat dogma but who learn to understand the conjuncture and become “permanent persuaders” for socialism (the two phrases in quotations are from Gramsci’s prison notebooks). The general ideological confidence of the cadre was not clear, and that confidence and their clarity needed to be developed in a project that Fidel called the Battle of Ideas.

During this period, communists around the world conceded that the demise of the Soviet Union had created a serious dilemma for the left. Not only were we penalised by the argument that “socialism has been defeated,” but our own arguments to explain the turbo-charged drive toward globalisation and neoliberalism and to make the case for a socialist alternative were not strong enough. One indication of that weakness was the 2001 World Social Forum meeting held in Brazil, which promoted the slogan – Another World is Possible, a weak slogan in comparison to a more precise slogan, such as – Socialism is Necessary. Young people drifted into our ranks in this decade, angered by the wretched social conditions created by the permanent austerity of neoliberalism, but bewildered about how to transform the political environment. The lack of Marxist political education was felt by socialist forces across the world, which is why many parties around the world began to revive a conversation about internal political education for cadre and active engagement with other social forces regarding the pressing issues of our time. Fidel called these two processes – internal education for the Party and external engagement on the dilemmas of humanity – the Battle of Ideas.

In line with this broad direction, the government of Vietnam worked with the national publishing house Sự Thật (The Truth) to develop a curriculum for universities and colleges in the country. They developed this order of study along five subject areas: Marxist-Leninist Philosophy, Marxist-Leninist Political Economy, Scientific Socialism, Vietnamese Communist Party History, and Ho Chi Minh Thought. This project worked to educate an entire population that would be able to understand the world in a rational and factual manner, outside the illusions of bourgeois ideology. Four years later, Communist Party of Vietnam adopted a resolution to take this work forward, and – under the leadership of Professor Nguyễn Viết Thông – produced this textbook that brought together the many themes of Marxism into focus for the introductory student and cadre. A book such as this is never easy to create, since it must introduce a form of thought that is critical of the foundations of bourgeois ideology – so it is a critique – but at the same time it provides a worldview to understand the actual world in which we live – so it is a science. The text must, therefore, show how bourgeois thought is partial and at the same time how socialist thought, creatively applied, will allow one to have a firmer grip of reality and be able to participate in fighting to transcend the obstinate facts of human indignity that are reproduced by capitalism. No manual such as this is without its flaws and without its limitations, but no education can start without a manual such as this one. The Vietnamese comrades have done a great service to the left movement by producing a text such as this, which can be used for study and then used as a model to develop similar texts in different parts of the world.

Ho Chi Minh, whose interpretation of Marxism and whose ideas about the Vietnamese Revolution, are all over this text once said: “Study and practice must always go together. Study without practice is useless. Practice without study leads to folly.” There can be no better injunction to get to work, to study and develop one’s theoretical armour and to use that theory as the guide to one’s work in the Battle of Ideas and in the battle for the streets, because this unity between theory and action is indeed praxis (thực tiễn), not just practice, but conscious human activity. That is what Fidel encouraged in his lectures on the Battle of Ideas.

Dr. Vijay Prashad.
5 March 2023
Caracas, Venezuela.

Preface to the First English Edition

The text of this book constitutes part one of a four-part curriculum on Marxism-Leninism developed and published by the Ministry of Education and Training of Vietnam. This curriculum is intended for students who are not specializing in the study of Marxism-Leninism, and is intended to give every Vietnamese student a firm grounding in the political philosophy of scientific socialism.

The entire curriculum consists of:

Part 1: Dialectical Materialism (this text)

Part 2: Historical Materialism

Part 3: Political Economy

Part 4: Scientific Socialism

In Vietnam, each part of the curriculum encompasses one full semester of mandatory study for all college students. Each part builds upon the previous, meaning that this text is the foundation for all political theory education for most college students in Vietnam.

However, it is important to note that this is not the first encounter with dialectical materialism which Vietnamese students wil have had with these ideas, because Vietnamese students also study dialectical materialism, historical materialism, political economy, and scientific socialism from primary school all the way through high school.

As such, the text of this book — in and of itself — would probably seem overwhelmingly condensed to most foreign readers who are new to studying dialectical materialism. Therefore, we have decided to extensively annotate and illustrate this text with the information which would have been previously obtained in a basic Vietnamese high school education and/or provided by college lecturers in the classroom.

It is our desire that these annotations will be helpful for students who hope to learn these principles for application in political activity, but we should also make it clear to academic researchers and the like that our annotations and illustrations are not present in the original Vietnamese work.

We hope that this book will be useful in at least three ways:

As a comprehensive introductory textbook on dialectical materialism and for selfstudy, group study, classroom use, cadre training, etc.
As a quick and easy to reference handbook for reviewing the basic concepts of dialectical materialism for students of theory who are already familiar with dialectical materialism.
As a companion book for further reading of theory and political texts rooted in dialectical materialist philosophy.

Also, please note: because this book is intended to be used as a quick reference and handbook for further study, there are many instances where we duplicate references, quotations, and other such information. We hope that this repetition may be an aid for study by reinforcing important concepts and quotations.

This book — Part 1 of the curriculum, which focuses on the universal philosophical system of dialectical materialism — serves as the foundation of all political theory and practice in the Vietnamese educational system as well as in the Communist Party of Vietnam and other organizations such as the Ho Chi Minh Communist Youth Union, the Women’s Union, the Farmer’s Union, the Worker’s Union, etc. Dialectical materialism is the framework for theory and practice as well as the common lens through which Vietnamese socialists relate, communicate, and work together.

This book focuses almost exclusively on the written works of three historical figures:

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels... who initially developed the universal philosophy of dialectical materialism by synthesizing various pre-existing philosophical, political, economic, and historical tendencies including the idealist dialectical system of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, the political economics of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, the materialist positions of Ludwig Feuerbach, and countless others.

...and Vladimir Illyich Lenin, who further developed and defended dialectical materialism, expanded the analysis of imperialism, demonstrated how to apply dialectical materialism to local material conditions specific to Russia at the turn of the 20^th century, and made many other important contributions to dialectical materialist theory and practice.

Obviously, there are countless other writers, revolutionaries, philosophers, and scientists who have contributed to dialectical materialism and scientific socialism. This book focuses primarily on Marx, Engels, and Lenin, because these figures laid the foundations and formulated the basic principles of the philosophy of dialectical materialism and the methodology of materialist dialectics which are most universally applicable in all endeavors.

It is our desire that translating this important work into English will lead to further study, understanding, and appreciation of dialectical materialism as an applied philosophy which socialists can find value in returning to periodically. At the end of the book, we offer a glossary of terms which doubles as an index, appendices with summaries of important concepts and principles, and an afterword, in which we offer advice for further study and application of dialectical materialism.

At the time of publication, we are already in the process of translating and annotating Part 2 of this curriculum, which focuses on historical materialism, with the hopes of eventually releasing the full curriculum. Once it is complete, it will also be made available at BanyanHouse.org — where we also invite questions, constructive feedback, and suggestions.

Introduction

Just a generation ago, Vietnam was the site of the most brutal war of the 20^th century. More tonnage of bombs were dropped on the Vietnamese people than were dropped by all sides combined throughout the Second World War. In addition, countless acts of cruelty were used to scorch the very soil of the nation. By the end of Vietnam’s Resistance War Against Imperialist USA (known to the world as “the Vietnam War”), Agent Orange, napalm, and unexploded munitions had left a land deeply scarred and a people traumatised by decades of death and murder. The impression one had was that although Vietnam had won the war, it was so badly devastated that it could not hope to win the peace. But, miraculously, Vietnam is winning this war today, as the Vietnamese economy has become one of the fastest growing in the world and quality of life for the people is improving at a pace which could scarcely have been predicted in 1975.

No one could have imagined that Vietnam would turn around so dynamically and rapidly. How did they achieve this economic miracle? How could this nation — so recently devastated by imperialism and war — possibly be able to reconstruct, revive, rejuvenate, and rebuild? That story is now unfolding before our eyes.

Vietnam’s development has not come without hardship, struggle, setbacks, and mistakes. The people of Vietnam have had to learn hard lessons through struggle and practice to develop and strengthen ideological and theoretical positions. In this manner, the philosophical development of Vietnam deserves study and attention from socialists around the world. To outsiders, Vietnam can appear to be rife with contradictions. As depicted by Western journalists, Vietnam is simultaneously a success story driven by capitalist markets and a failing socialist state. Every victory is chalked up to private enterprise, while every setback is attributed to socialism. In this sense, the media has failed to understand the essential character of the core contradictions which drive the development of Vietnam politically, socially, and economically.

Luna Nguyen has used social media and played an incredibly important role in helping the English speaking world understand the complexities of such contradictions that beguile so many academics and experts. She has helped to give an insider’s perspective on her own country’s path of development towards socialism.

Nguyen’s translation of Part 1 of this influential work, Introduction to the Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism, a textbook studied by university and college students across Vietnam, is yet another big step in the direction of making Vietnam’s understanding of their own country’s development available to the English reading world.

For me, as an outsider, it is fascinating not only to see how deeply Vietnamese society takes an interest in European philosophical development (referencing Hume, Hegel, Descartes, Marx, Engels, and so many other Europeans, almost as if they are figures seated in some ancient monastery in Fansipan), but, even more importantly, how they have assimilated that knowledge into the wider context of their own history, society, and culture. The textbook truly comes alive in all the parts where these ideas are shown to be relevant to Vietnam itself. For instance, the textbook stands out with discussions of Ho Chi Minh’s concept of “proletarian piety,” which artfully blends elements of Vietnamese culture with Marxist concepts of class consciousness, or the story of Chi Pheo, who stands as a sympathetic stand-in for the interpretation of the unique characteristics of the Vietnamese Lumpenproletariat. The book itself is an instance of the dialectic of the universal and the particular, the abstract and the concrete.

Just as importantly, it shows that, in Vietnam, Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh Thought are not mere perfunctory rituals that are repeated like a learnt formula for this or that exam; but that although the Vietnamese political economy in its current form certainly contains contradictions which must be negated in the process of building the lower stage of socialism, the government remains seriously committed to the goals, theory, and practice of Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh Thought.

Hence, I highly recommend this book, not merely because it is a well-illustrated and easy-to-read book on the principles of dialectical materialism, but more importantly because it offers an insight into how the Vietnamese government collects and synthesises the philosophical developments that are, on the one hand, the collective legacy of all of humanity, and, on the other hand, the concrete manifestations of a revolutionary theory of (and for the oppressed yearning for) freedom in every corner of the world.

March, 2023

Dr. Taimur Rahman

Editor’s Note

Working on this project has been one of the most illuminating experiences of my life. In translating this work, Luna has opened a door for English speakers into the wide world of Vietnamese scholarship and pedagogy as it relates to socialist theory and philosophy.

Luna and I have done our best to capture the original meaning and spirit of the text. Furthermore, as we have mentioned elsewhere, our annotations and illustrations are intended only to contextualize and expand on the core information of the original text similarly to the class/lecture setting for which the curriculum is intended.

In their lives, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were never able to finish clarifying and systematically describing the philosophy of dialectical materialism which their work was built upon. Engels attempted to structurally define the philosophy in Dialectics of Nature, but unfortunately that work was never completed since he decided to prioritize publishing the unfinished works of Marx after his untimely death.

I believe that this text is a great step forward in that work of systematically describing the philosophical system of dialectical materialism and the methodological system of materialist dialectics. I also believe it’s worth noting how the Vietnamese scholars who crafted this curriculum have embedded the urgent necessity of action — of creative application of these ideas — throughout the text in a way that I find refreshing and reflective of the works of Marx and Engels themselves.

As the text will explain, dialectical materialism is a universal system of philosophy which can be utilized to grapple with any and every conceivable problem which we humans might encounter in this universe. In Vietnam, dialectical materialism has been used to delve into matters of art, ethics, military science, and countless other fields of inquiry and endeavor. It is my hope that this book will, likewise, lead to a wider and fuller understanding and (more importantly) application of dialectical materialism in the Western world.

March, 2023

Emerican Johnson

A Message From The International Magazine

The International Magazine began in 2020 to connect international socialist movements and to strengthen the voice of oppressed people across the globe. We have been following the work of Vietnamese communists in their unique path towards peace, prosperity, and the construction of socialist values with a keen eye and much interest. It is with this spirit of international solidarity and a deep desire to learn from and share wisdom from our comrades around the world that we celebrate the release of this First English Edition of The Worldview and Philosophical Methodology of Marxism-Leninism Part 1: The Worldview and Philosophical Methodology of Marxism-Leninism.

Ho Chi Minh once said: “In order to build socialism, first and foremost, we need to have socialist people who understand socialist ideology and have socialist values.”

To this end, Vietnamese communists have expended tremendous resources building a curriculum on Marxist-Leninist philosophy and analysis which includes dialectical materialism, materialist dialectics, scientific socialism, historical materialism, and political economy. These topics are taught in primary and secondary schools and are mandatory subjects for all students attending public universities in Vietnam. Beyond that, Vietnam offers free degrees to students who wish to study Marxist theory and philosophy and Ho Chi Minh Thought (defined as the application of Marxist philosophy to the unique material conditions of Vietnam). In this manner, Vietnam has demonstrated a steadfast commitment to developing “socialist people” “with socialist values.”

We are, therefore, extremely excited to have worked with Luna Nguyen on the translation and annotation of Part 1 of the Vietnamese university curriculum on the worldview and philosophical methodology of Marxism-Leninism into English, which will make this unique perspective of socialist theory available to comrades around the world for the first time.

After having read through this volume, which outlines the fundamentals of dialectical materialism and materialist dialectics, we find the most important lesson to be the relationship between theory and practice. According to the Vietnamese scholars who authored the original text, Marxist-Leninist philosophy must be considered a living, breathing philosophy which requires application in the real world — through practice — in order to be made fully manifest.

We hope that readers of this volume will carry forward this guidance through practice which suits your material conditions, wherever you are in the world.

If you would like to learn the perspective of socialists from other nations around the world, we invite you to visit our website at InternationalMagz.com — the home of The International Magazine online. There, you will find articles written by comrades from a wide variety of backgrounds and nationalities with a clear bias towards anti-capitalism, anti-fascism, and anti-imperialism!

In solidarity,

The Editorial Team of The International Magazine

Notes on Translation

Vietnamese is a very different language from English, which has presented many challenges in translating this book. Whenever possible, I have tried to let the “spirit” of the language guide me, without altering the structure, tone, and formatting of the book.

One thing you will likely notice right away: this book is highly condensed! This is because most Vietnamese students are already familiar with these concepts. We have added annotations to try to make the book more digestible for those of you who are new to Marxism-Leninism, and these annotations are explained on the next page.

I have worked hard to try to make the language in this book consistent with the language used in popular translations of works from Marx, Lenin, etc., that would be familiar to English-language students of Marxism-Leninism. That said, different translators have been translating these texts into English for over a century, such that different word choices have been used to relate the same concepts, and even Marx, Engels, and Lenin used different terms to describe the same concepts in many instances (not to mention the fact that Marx and Engels wrote primarily in German, whereas Lenin wrote primarily in Russian).

As such, I have made it my first priority to keep the language of this translation internally consistent to avoid confusion and, again, to match the spirit of the original text as much as possible. As a result, you may find differences between the translation choices made in this text and other translations, but it is my hope that the underlying meaning of each translation is properly conveyed.

March, 2023

Luna Nguyen

Guide to Annotations

This book was written as a textbook for Vietnamese students who are not specializing in Marxism-Leninism, and so it is meant to be a simple and condensed survey of the most fundamental principles of dialectical materialism to be used in a classroom environment with the guide of an experienced lecturer. That said, a typical Vietnamese college student will already have been exposed to many of the concepts presented herein throughout twelve years of primary and secondary education. As such, in translating and preparing this book for a foreign audience who are likely to be reading it without the benefit of a lecturer’s in-person instruction, we realized that we would need to add a significant amount of annotations to the text.

These annotations will take the following forms:

Short annotations which we insert into the text itself [will be included in square brackets like these].

Longer annotations which add further context and background information will be included in boxes like this.

We have also added diagrams to our annotations, as well as a detailed glossary/index and appendices, which are located in the back of the book. We hope these will resources will also be of use in studying other texts which are rooted in dialectical materialist philosophy.

Original Vietnamese Publisher’s Note

In 2004, under the direction of the Central Government, the Ministry of Education and Training, in collaboration with Sự Thật [Vietnamese for “The Truth,” the name of a National Political Publishing House], published a [political science and philosophy] curriculum for universities and colleges in Vietnam. This curriculum includes 5 subjects: Marxist-Leninist Philosophy, Marxist-Leninist Political Economy, Scientific Socialism, Vietnamese Communist Party History, and Ho Chi Minh Thought. This curriculum has been an important contribution towards educating our students — the young intellectuals of the country — in political reasoning, so that the next generation will be able to successfully conduct national innovation.

With the new practice of education and training, in order to thoroughly grasp the reform of the Party’s ideological work and theory, and to advocate for reform in both teaching and learning at universities and colleges in general, on September 18^th, 2008, the Minister of Education and Training, in collaboration with Sự Thật, have issued a new program and published a textbook of political theory subjects for university and college students who are not specialized in Marxism — Leninism with Associate Professor and Doctor of Philosophy Nguyen Viet Thong as chief editor. There are three subjects:

Curriculum of the Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism

Curriculum of Ho Chi Minh Thought

Curriculum of the Revolutionary Path of the Communist Party of Vietnam.

Curriculum of the Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism was compiled by a collective of scientists and experienced lecturers from a number of universities, with Pham Van Sinh, Ph.D and Pham Quang Phan, Ph.D as co-editors. This curriculum has been designed to meet the practical educational requirements of students.

We hope this book will be of use to you.

April, 2016

NATIONAL POLITICAL PUBLISHING HOUSE — SỰ THẬT

Original Vietnamese Preface

To implement the resolutions of the Communist Party of Vietnam, especially the 5^th

Central Resolution on ideological work, theory, and press, on September 18^th, 2008, The Ministry of Education and Training has issued Decision Number 52/2008/QD-BGDDT, issuing the subject program: The Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism for Students Non-Specialised in Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh Thought. In collaboration with Truth — the National Political Publishing House — we published the Curriculum of the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism for Students Non-Specialised in MarxismLeninism and Ho Chi Minh Thought.

The authors of this text have drawn from the contents of the Central Council’s previous programs (Marxist-Leninist Philosophy, Marxist-Leninist Political Economy, and Scientific Socialism) and compiled them into national textbooks for Marxist-Leninist science subjects and Ho Chi Minh Thought, as well as other curriculums for the Ministry of Education and Training. The authors have received comments from many collectives, such as the Ho Chi Minh National Academy of Politics and Administration, the Central Propaganda Department, as well as individual scientists and lecturers at universities and colleges throughout the country. Notably:

Associate Professor To Huy Rua, Ph.D, Professor Phung Huu Phu, Ph.D, Professor Nguyen Duc Binh, Professor Le Huu Nghia, Ph.D, Professor Le Huu Tang, Ph.D,

Professor Vo Dai Luoc, Ph.D, Professor Tran Phuc Thang, Ph.D, Professor Hoang

Chi Bao, Ph.D, Professor Tran Ngoc Hien, Ph.D, Professor Ho Van Thong, Associate

Professor Duong Van Thinh, Ph.D, Associate Professor Nguyen Van Oanh, Ph.D,

Associate Professor Nguyen Van Hao, Ph.D, Associate Professor Nguyen Duc Bach, PhD. Pham Van Chin, Phung Thanh Thuy, M.A., and Nghiem Thi Chau Giang, M.A.

After a period of implementation, the contents of the textbooks have been supplemented and corrected on the basis of receiving appropriate suggestions from universities, colleges, the contingent of lecturers of political theory, and scientists. However, due to objective and subjective limitations, there are still contents that need to be added and modified, and we would love to receive more comments to make the next edition of the curriculum more complete.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Introduction to the Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism

I. Brief History of Marxism-Leninism

1. Marxism and the Three Constituent Parts

Marxism-Leninism is a system of scientific opinions and theories which were built by Karl Marx^[1] and Friedrich Engels^[2], and defended and developed by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin^[3]. Marxism-Leninism was formed and developed by interpreting reality as well as building on preceding ideas. It provides the fundamental worldview* and methodology of scientific awareness and revolutionary practice. It is a science that concerns the work of liberating the proletariat from all exploitative regimes with the ambition of liberating all of humanity from all forms of oppression.

Marxism-Leninism is made up of three basic theories which have strong relationships with each other. They are: Philosophy of Marxism-Leninism, Marxist-Leninist Political Economics, and Scientific Socialism.

Philosophy of Marxism-Leninism studies the basic principles of the movement and development of nature, society and human thought. It provides the fundamental worldview and methodology of scientific awareness and revolutionary practice.

Based on this philosophical worldview and methodology, Marxist-Leninist Political Economics studies the economic rules of society, especially the economic rules of the birth, development, and decay of the capitalist mode of production, as well as the birth and development of a new mode of production: the communist mode of production.

Scientific Socialism** is the inevitable result of applying the philosophical worldview and methodology of Marxism-Leninism, as well as Marxist-Leninist Political Economics, to reveal the objective rules of the socialist revolution process: the historical step from capitalism into socialism, and then communism.

Annotation 1

* A worldview encompasses the whole of an individual’s or society’s opinions and conceptions about the world, about ourselves as human beings, and about life and the position of human beings in the world.

** The word “science,” and, by extension, “scientific” in Marxism-Leninism has specific meaning. Friedrich Engels was the first to describe the philosophy which he developed with Marx as “Scientific Socialism” in his book Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.

However, it should be noted that the English phrase “scientific socialism” comes from

Engels’ use of the German phrase “wissenschaftlich sozialismus.”

“Wissenschaft” is a word which can be directly translated as “knowledge craft” in German, and this word encompasses a much more broad and general concept than the word “science” as it’s usually used in English.

In common usage, the word “science” in English has a relatively narrow definition, referring to systematically acquired, objective knowledge pertaining to a particular subject. But “wissenschaft” refers to a systematic pursuit of knowledge, research, theory, and understanding. “Wissenschaft” is used in any study that involves systematic investigation. And so, “scientific socialism” is only an approximate translation of “wissenschaftlich sozialismus.” So, “scientific socialism” can be understood as a body of theory which analyzes and interprets the natural world to develop a body of knowledge, which must be constantly tested against reality, with the pursuit of changing the world to bring about socialism through the leadership of the proletariat.

Even though these three basic theories of Marxism-Leninism deal with different subjects, they are all parts of a unified scientific theory system: the science of liberating the proletariat from exploitative regimes and moving toward human liberation.

2. Summary of the Birth and Development of Marxism-Leninism

There have been two main stages of the birth and development of Marxism-Leninism:

1. Stage of formation and development of Marxism, as developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

2. Stage of defense and developing Marxism into Marxism-Leninism, as developed by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

a. Conditions and Premises of the Birth of Marxism

Annotation 2

The following sections will explain the conditions which led to the birth of Marxism. First, we will examine the Social-Economic conditions which lead to the birth of Marxism, and then we will examine the theoretical premises upon which Marxism was built. Later, we will also discuss the impact which 18^th and 19^th century advances in natural science had on the development of Marxism.

- Social-Economical Conditions

Marxism was born in the 1840s. This was a time when the capitalist mode of production was developing strongly in Western Europe on the foundation of the industrial revolution which succeeded first in England at the end of the 18^th century. Not only did this industrial revolution mark an important step forward in changing from handicraft cottage industry capitalism into a more greatly mechanized and industrialized capitalism, it also deeply changed society, and, above all, it caused the birth and development of the proletariat.

Annotation 3

Marx saw human society under capitalism divided into classes based on their relation to the means of production.

Means of production are physical inputs and systems used in the production of goods and services, including machinery, factory buildings, tools, and anything else used in producing goods and services. Capitalism is a political economy defined by private ownership of the means of production.

Within the framework of Dialectical Materialism, all classes are defined by internal and external relationships [see The Principle of General Relationships, p. 107]; chiefly, classes are defined by their relations to the means of production and to one another.

The proletariat are the working class — the people who provide labor under capitalism, but who do not own their own means of production, and must therefore sell their labor to those who do own means of production: the bourgeoisie. As the owners of the means of production, the bourgeoisie are the ruling class under capitalism.

According to Marx and Engels, there are other classes within the capitalist political economy. Specifically, Marx named the petty bourgeoisie and the lumpenproletariat. Marx defined the petty bourgeoisie as including semi-autonomous merchants, farmers, and so on who are self-employed, own small and limited means of production, or otherwise fall in between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx described the petty bourgeoisie as:

... fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society... The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen.

Vietnam’s Textbook of History for High School Students gives this definition of the petty bourgeoisie in the specific context of Vietnamese history:

The petty bourgeois class includes: intellectuals, scientists, and small business owners, handicraftsmen, doctors, lawyers, and civil servants. The vast majority of contemporary intellectuals before the August Revolution of 1945, including students, belonged to the petty bourgeoisie. In general, they were also oppressed by imperialism and feudalism, often unemployed and uneducated.
The petty bourgeoisie were intellectually and politically sensitive. They did not directly exploit labor. Therefore, they easily absorbed revolutionary education and went along with the workers and peasants.
However, the intelligentsia and students often suffer from great weaknesses, such as: theory not being coupled with practice, contempt for labor, vague ideas, unstable stances, and erratic behavior in political action.
Some other petty bourgeoisie (scientists and small businessmen, freelancers, etc.) were also exploited by imperialism and feudalism. Their economic circumstances were precarious, and they often found themselves unemployed and bankrupt. Therefore, the majority also participated in and supported the resistance war and revolution. They are also important allies of the working class.
In general, these members of the petty bourgeoisie had a number of weaknesses: self-interest, fragmentation, and a lack of determination. Therefore, the working class has a duty to agitate and spread propaganda to such members of the petty bourgeoisie, organize them, and help them to develop their strong points while correcting their weaknesses. It is necessary to skillfully lead them, make them determined to serve the people, reform their ideology, and unite with the workers and peasants in order to become one cohesive movement. Then, they will become a great asset for the public in resistance war and revolution.

Marx defined the “lumpenproletariat” as another class which includes the segments of society with the least privilege — most exploited by capitalism — such as thieves, houseless people, etc.

In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx defined the lumpenproletariat as: “The ‘dangerous class’ (lumpenproletariat), the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society.” Marx did not have much hope for the revolutionary potential of the lumpenproletariat, writing that they “may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.”

Political Theories, an official journal of the Ho Chi Minh National Institute of Politics, discussed the lumpenproletariat in the specific context of Vietnamese revolutionary history:

It should be noted that Marxism-Leninism has never held that the historical mission of the working class is rooted in poverty and impoverishment. Poverty and low standards of living make workers hate the regime of capitalism, and causes disaster for workers, but the basic driving force behind the revolutionary struggle of the working class lies in the very nature of capitalist production and from the irreconcilable contradiction between the working class and the bourgeoisie.
Moreover, it should not be conceived that a class is capable of leading the revolution because it is the poorest class. In the old societies, there were classes that were extremely poor and had to go through many struggles against the ruling class, but they could never win and keep power, and did not become the ruling class of society.
History has proven that the class that represents newly emerging productive forces which are able to build a more advanced mode of production than the old ones can lead the revolution and organize society into the regime they represent. Fetishizing poverty and misery is a corruption of Marxism-Leninism...
The very existence of the lumpenproletariat is strong evidence of the inhumane nature of capitalist society, which regularly recreates a large class of outcasts at the bottom of society.

In the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, millions of Vietnamese people were forced to leave their homes in rural farmlands to work for plantations and factories which were owned by French colonialists. These workers were functionally enslaved, being regularly physically abused by colonial masters, barred from any education whatsoever, and receiving only the bare minimum to survive. As a result, under French colonial rule, about 90% of Vietnamese were illiterate and the French aimed to indoctrinate Vietnamese people into believing that they were inferior to the French.

The French colonialists also worked with Vietnamese landlords to exploit peasants in rural areas. Those peasants received barely enough to survive and, like the plantation slaves, were prohibited from receiving education. Because Vietnamese peasants and colonial slaves composed the majority of workers while being so severely oppressed and living in conditions of such abject poverty, it was difficult to fully distinguish between the proletariat and the lumpenproletariat in Vietnam during the colonial era.

During this time, Ho Chi Minh and other Vietnamese communists developed the philosophy of “Proletarian Piety.” The word “piety,” here, is a translation of the Vietnamese word hiếu, which originally comes from the Confucianist philosophy of “filial piety.” Filial piety demanded children to deeply respect, honor, and obey their parents. Through the concept of Proletarian Piety, Ho Chi Minh adapted this concept to proletarian revolution, calling for communists to deeply love, respect, and tirelessly serve the oppressed masses. This philosophical concept sought to unite the proletariat, lumpenproletariat, and petty bourgeoisie into one united revolutionary class. Even some feudal landlords and capitalists — who were, themselves, oppressed by the colonizing French — were willing to fight for communist revolution and were welcomed into the revolutionary movement if they were willing to adhere to the principle of proletarian piety. The working class and peasantry would lead the revolution, the more privileged classes would follow, and all communist revolutionists would serve the oppressed masses through sacrifice and struggle.

During this period, many novels were written and circulated widely which featured main characters who were members of the lumpenproletariat or enslaved by the French, such as Bỉ Vỏ, a story about a beautiful peasant girl who was forced to become a thief in the city, and Chí Phèo, the story of a peasant who worked as a servant in a feudal landlord’s house who was sent to prison and became a destitute alcoholic after being released. The purpose of these stories was to show the cruelty of the colonialist-capitalist society of Vietnam in the 1930’s and to inspire proletarian piety, including empathy and respect for the extreme suffering and oppression of the lumpenproletariat, peasantry, and colonial slaves. These stories also presented sympathetic views of intellectuals and members of the petty bourgeoisie: for instance, in the novel Lão Hạc, the son of a peasant leaves to work for a French plantation and the father never sees him again. The aged peasant becomes extremely poor and sick without the support of his son, and the only person in the village who helps him is a teacher, representing the intellectual segment of the petty bourgeoisie.

The writers of these novels were communists who wanted to promote the principles of proletarian piety. Rather than looking down on the most oppressed members of society, and rather than sewing distrust and contempt for the petty bourgeoisie, Vietnamese communists inspired solidarity and collaboration between all of the oppressed peoples of Vietnam to overthrow French colonialism, feudalism, and capitalism. Proletarian piety was crucial for uniting the divided and conquered masses of Vietnam and successfully overthrowing colonialism. Note that these strategies were developed specifically for colonial Vietnam. Every revolutionary struggle will take place in unique material conditions^[4], and the composition and characteristics of each class will vary over time and from one place to another. It is important for revolutionists to carefully apply the principles of dialectical materialism and materialist dialectics to accurately analyze class conditions in order to develop strategies and plans which will most suitably and efficiently lead to successful revolution.

The deep contradictions* between the socialized production force** and the capitalist relations of production*** were first revealed by the economic depression of 1825 and the series of struggles between workers and the capitalist class which followed.

Annotation 4

* See: Definition of Contradiction and Common Characteristics of Contradiction, p. 175.

** In Marxism, “socialization” is simply the idea that human society transforms labor and production from a solitary, individual act into a collective, social act. In other words, as human society progresses, people “socialize” labor into increasingly complex networks of social relations: from individuals making their own tools, to agricultural societies engaged in collective farming, to modern industrial societies with factories, logistical networks, etc.

The production force is the combination of the means of production and workers within any society. The “Socialized Production Force,” therefore, is a production force which has been socialized — that is to say, a production force which has been organized into collective social activity. Under capitalism, the “Socialized Production Force” consists of the proletariat, or the working class, as well as means of production which are owned by capitalists.

*** Marx and Engels defined “relations of production” as the social relationships that human beings must accept in order to survive. Relations of production are, by definition, not voluntary, because human beings must enter into them in order to receive material needs in order to survive within a given society. Under capitalism, the relations of production require the working class to rent their labor to capitalists to receive wages which they need to procure material needs like food and shelter. This is an inherent contradiction because a small minority of society (the capitalist class) own the means of production while the vast majority of society (the working class) must submit to exploitation through wage servitude in order to survive.

Examples of such early struggles include: the resistance of workers in Lyon, France in 1831 and 1834; the Chartist movement in Britain from 1835 to 1848; the workers’ movement in Silesia (Germany) in 1844, etc. These events prove as historical evidence that the proletariat had become an independent political force which pioneered the fight for a democratic, equal, and progressive society.

Annotation 5

Here are some brief descriptions of the early working class movements mentioned above:

Resistance of Workers in Lyon, France:

In 1831 in France, due to heavy exploitation and hardship, textile workers in Lyon revolted to demand higher wages and shorter working hours. The rebels took control of the city for ten days. Their determination to fight is reflected in the slogan: “Live working or die fighting!”

This resistance was brutally crushed by the government, which supported the factory owners. In 1834, silk mill workers in Lyon revolted again to demand the establishment of a republic. The fierce struggle went on for four days, but was extinguished in a bloody battle against the French army. About 10,000 insurgents were imprisoned or deported.

The Chartist Movement in Britain:

Chartism was a working class movement in the United Kingdom which rose up in response to anti-worker laws such as the Poor Law Amendment of 1834, which drove poor people into workhouses and removed other social programs for the working poor. Legislative failure to address the demands of the working poor led to a broadly popular mass movement which would go on to organize around the People’s Charter of 1838, which was a list of six demands which included extension of the vote and granting the working class the right to hold office in the House of Commons.

In 1845, Karl Marx visited Britain for the first time, along with Friedrich Engels, to meet with the leaders of the Chartist movement (with whom Engels had already established a close relationship). After various conflicts and struggles, Chartism ultimately began to decline in 1848 as more socialist-oriented movements rose up in prominence.

Workers’ Movement in Silesia, Germany:

In June, 1844, disturbances and riots occurred in the Prussian province of Silesia, a major center of textile manufacturing. In response, the Prussian army was called upon to restore order in the region. In a confrontation between the weavers and troops, shots were fired into the crowd, killing 11 protesters and wounding many others. The leaders of the disturbances were arrested, flogged, and imprisoned. This event has gained enormous significance in the history of the German labor movement.

In particular, Karl Marx regarded the uprising as evidence of the birth of a German workers’ movement. The weavers’ rebellion served as an important symbol for later generations concerned with poverty and oppression of the working class in German society.

It quickly became apparent that the revolutionary practice of the proletariat needed the guidance of scientific theories. The birth of Marxism was to meet that objective requirement; in the meantime, the revolutionary practice itself became the practical premise for Marxism to continuously develop.

- Theoretical Premises

The birth of Marxism not only resulted from the objective requirement of history, it was also the result of inheriting the quintessence* of various previously established frameworks of human philosophical theory such as German classical philosophy, British classical political economics, and utopianism in France and Britain.

Annotation 6

* In the original Vietnamese, the word tinh hoa is used, which we roughly translate to the word quintessence throughout this book. Literally, it means “the best, highest, most beautiful, defining characteristics” of a concept, and, unlike the English word quintessence, it has an exclusively positive connotation. Quintessence should not be confused with the universal category of Essence, which is discussed on p. 156.

German classical philosophy, especially the philosophies of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel^[5] and Ludwig Feuerbach^[6], had deeply influenced the formation of the Marxist worldview and philosophical methodology.

Annotation 7

German classical philosophy was a movement of idealist philosophers of the 18^th and 19^th centuries. Idealism is a philosophical position that holds that the only reliable experience of reality occurs within the human consciousness. Idealists believe that human reason is the best way to seek truth, and that consciousness is thus the only reliable source of knowledge and information.

One of Hegel’s important achievements was his critique of the metaphysical method.

Annotation 8

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that attempts to explain the fundamental nature of reality by classifying things, phenomena, and ideas into various categories. Metaphysical philosophy has taken many forms through the centuries, but one common shortcoming of metaphysical thought is a tendency to view things and ideas in a static, abstract manner. Metaphysical positions view nature as a collection of objects and phenomena which are isolated from one another and fundamentally unchanging. Engels explained the problems of metaphysics in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:

The analysis of Nature into its individual parts, the grouping of the different natural processes and objects in definite classes, the study of the internal anatomy of organized bodies in their manifold forms — hese were the fundamental conditions of the gigantic strides in our knowledge of Nature that have been made during the last 400 years.

But this method of work has also left us as legacy the habit of observing natural objects and processes in isolation, apart from their connection with the vast whole; of observing them in repose, not in motion; as constraints, not as essentially variables; in their death, not in their life. And when this way of looking at things was transferred by Bacon and Locke from natural science to philosophy, it begot the narrow, metaphysical mode of thought peculiar to the last century.

Francis Bacon (1561 — 1626) is considered the father of empiricism, which is the belief that knowledge can only be derived from human sensory experience [see Annotation 10, p. 10]. Bacon argued that scientific knowledge could only be derived through inductive reasoning in which specific observations are used to form general conclusions. John Locke (1632 — 1704) was another early empiricist, who was heavily influenced by Francis Bacon. Locke, too, was an empiricist, and is considered to be the “father of liberalism.”

Engels was highly critical of the application of metaphysical philosophy to natural science. As Engels continues in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:

To the metaphysician, things and their mental reflexes — ideas — are isolated, are to be considered one after the other and apart from each other, are objects of investigation fixed, rigid, given once for all. He thinks in absolutely irreconcilable antitheses... For him a thing either exists or does not exist; a thing cannot at the same time be itself and something else. Positive and negative absolutely exclude one another; cause and effect stand in a rigid antithesis one to the other.
At first sight this mode of thinking seems to us very luminous, because it is that of so-called sound common sense. Only sound common sense, respectable fellow that he is, in the homely realm of his own four walls, has very wonderful adventures directly he ventures out into the wide world of research. And the metaphysical mode of thought, justifiable and necessary as it is in a number of domains whose extent varies according to the nature of the particular object of investigation, sooner or later reaches a limit, beyond which it becomes one-sided, restricted, abstract, lost in insoluble contradictions. In the contemplation of individual things, it forgets the connection between them; in the contemplation of their existence, it forgets the beginning and end of that existence; of their repose, it forgets their motion. It cannot see the wood for the trees.

Dialectical Materialism stands in contrast to metaphysics in many ways. Rather than splitting the world into distinct, isolated categories, Dialectical Materialist philosophy seeks to view the world in terms of relationships, motion, and change. Dialectical Materialism also refutes the hard empiricism of Bacon and Locke by describing a dialectical relationship between the material world and consciousness [see: The Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness, p. 88].

For the first time in the history of human philosophy, Hegel expressed the content of dialectics in strict arguments with a system of rules and categories.

Annotation 9

Dialectics is a philosophical methodology which searches for truth by examining contradictions and relationships between things, objects, and ideas. Ancient dialecticians such as Aristotle and Socrates explored dialectics primarily through rhetorical discourse between two or more different points of view about a subject with the intention of finding truth.

In this classical form of dialectics, a thesis is presented. This thesis is an opening argument about the subject at hand. An antithesis, or counter-argument, is then presented. Finally, the thesis and antithesis are combined into a synthesis, which is an improvement on both the thesis and antithesis which brings us closer to truth.

Hegel resurrected dialectics to the forefront of philosophical inquiry for the German Idealists. As Engels wrote in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:

Hegel’s work’s greatest merit was the taking up again of dialectics as the highest form of reasoning. The old Greek philosophers were all born natural dialecticians, and Aristotle, the most encyclopaedic of them, had already analyzed the most essential forms of dialectic thought.

Hegel’s great contribution to dialectics was to develop dialectics from a simple method of examining truth based on discourse into an organized, systematic model of nature and of history. Unfortunately, Hegel’s dialectics were idealist in nature. Hegel believed that the ideal served as the primary basis of reality. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels strongly rejected Hegel’s idealism, as well as the strong influences of Christian theology on Hegel’s work, but they also saw great potential in his system of dialectics, as Marx explained in Capital (Volume 1):

The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.

Starting with a critique of the mysterious idealism of Hegel’s philosophy, Marx and Engels inherited the “rational kernel” of Hegelian dialectics and successfully built materialist dialectics.

Annotation 10

In order to understand the ways in which the critique of Hegel’s philosophy by Marx and Engels led to the development of dialectical materialism, some background information on materialism — and the conflicts between idealist and materialist philosophy in the era of Marx and Engels — is needed.

Materialism is a philosophical position that holds that the material world exists outside of the mind, and that human ideas and thoughts stem from observation and sensory experience of this external world. Materialism rejects the idealist notion that truth can only be sought through reasoning and human consciousness. The history and development of both idealism and materialism are discussed more in the section The Opposition of Materialism and Idealism in Solving Basic Philosophical Issues on page 48.

In the era of Marx and Engels, the leading philosophical school of materialism was known as empiricism. Empiricism holds that we can only obtain knowledge through human sense perception. Marx and Engels were materialists, but they rejected empiricism (see Engels’ critique of empiricism in Annotation 8, p. 8).

One reason Marx and Engels opposed the strict empiricist view was that it made materialism vulnerable to attack from idealists, because it ignored objective relations and knowledge that went beyond sense data. The empiricist point of view also provided the basis for the subjective idealism of George Berkeley [see Annotation 32, p. 27] and the skepticism of David Hume. Berkeley’s Subjective Idealism is empiricist in that it supports the idea that humans can only discover knowledge through direct sense experience. Therefore, Berkeley argues, individuals are unable to obtain any real knowledge about abstract concepts such as “matter.”

Similarly, David Hume’s radical skepticism, which Engels called “agnosticism,” denied the possibility of possessing any concrete knowledge. As Hume wrote in A Treatise on Human Nature: “I am ready to reject all belief and reasoning, and can look upon no opinion even as more probable or likely than another.” Hume’s radical skepticism lay in his empiricist belief that the only source of knowledge is sense experience; but Hume went a step further, doubting that even sense experience could be reliable, adding: “The essence and composition of external bodies are so obscure, that we mustnecessarily, in our reasonings, or rather conjectures concerning them, involveourselves in contradictions and absurdities.”

Later, in the appendix of the same text, Hume argues that conscious reasoning suffers from the same unreliability: “I had entertained some hopes (that) the intellectual world ... would be free from those contradictions, and absurdities, whichseem to attend every explication, that human reason can give of the material world.”

Engels dismissed radical skepticism as “scientifically a regression and practically merely a shamefaced way of surreptitiously accepting materialism, while denying it before the world.” Engels directly refutes radical skepticism in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:

... how do we know that our senses give us correct representations of the objects we perceive through them? ... whenever we speak of objects, or their qualities, of which (we) cannot know anything for certain, but merely the impressions which they have produced on (our) senses. Now, this line of reasoning seems undoubtedly hard to beat by mere argumentation. But before there was argumentation, there was action... And human action had solved the difficulty long before human ingenuity invented it. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. From the moment we turn to our own use these objects, according to the qualities we perceive in them, we put to an infallible test the correctness or otherwise of our sense-perception.

This concept of determining the truth of knowledge and perception through practical experience is fundamental to dialectical materialist philosophy and the methodology of materialist dialectics, and is discussed in further detail in Chapter 3, p. 204.

Another weakness of empiricism is that it denies the objectiveness of social relations, which cannot be fully and properly analyzed through sensory experience and observation alone. Marx saw that social relations are, indeed, objective in nature and can be understood despite their lack of sensory observability, and that doing so is vital in comprehending subjects such as political economy, as he observes in Capital Volume I:

(The true) reality of the value of commodities contrasts with the gross material reality of these same commodities (the reality of which is perceived by our bodily senses) in that not an atom of matter enters into the reality of value. We may twist and turn a commodity this way and that — as a thing of value it still remains unappreciable by our bodily senses.

In other words, Marx pointed out that no amount of sense data about a commodity will fully explain its value. One can know the size, weight, hardness, etc., of a commodity, but without analyzing the social relations and other aspects of the commodity which can’t be directly observed with the senses, one can never know or understand the true value of the commodity. The materialism of Marx and Engels acknowledges the physical, material world as the first basis for reality, but Marx and Engels also understood that it was vital to account for other aspects of rational knowledge (such as social relations). Marx and Engels believed that empiricist materialism had roughly the same flaw as idealism: a lack of a connection between the material and consciousness. While the idealists completely dismissed sense data and relied exclusively on reasoning and consciousness, the empiricists dismissed conscious thought to focus solely on what could be sensed.

It is important to note that, while Marx and Engels rejected empiricism, they did not reject empirical knowledge nor empirical data which is collected from scientific observation [see Annotation 216, p. 210]. On the contrary, empirical data was key to the works of Marx and Engels in developing dialectical materialism. As Lenin explained: “(Marx) took one of the economic formations of society – the system of commodity production – and on the basis of a vast mass of data which he studied for not less than twenty-five years gave a most detailed analysis of the laws governing this formation and its development.” And so, the dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels served to bridge the gap between idealism and materialism. They believed that our conscious thoughts are derived from material processes, but that consciousness can also influence the material world. This is discussed in more detail in the section “Materialism and Dialectical Materialism” on page 48.

Marx and Engels also criticized many limitations of Feuerbach’s methodology and viewpoint* — especially Feuerbach’s prescriptions for how to deal with social problems — but they also highly appreciated the role of Feuerbach’s thought in the fight against idealism and religion to assert that nature comes first, and that nature is permanent and independent from human willpower.

Annotation 11

* Viewpoint, point of view, or perspective, is the starting point of analysis which determines the direction of thinking from which problems are considered. Marx and Engels were critical of Feurbach’s hyper-focused humanist viewpoint.

Feuerbach’s atheism and materialism offered an important foundation for Marx and Engels to develop from an idealist worldview into a materialist worldview, which led them directly to developing the philosophical foundation of communism.

Annotation 12

Ludwig Feuerbach was one of the “Young Hegelians” who adapted and developed the ideals of Hegel and other German Idealists. Feuerbach was a humanist materialist: he focused on humans and human nature and the role of humans in the material world. Like Marx and Engels, Feuerbach dismissed the religious mysticism of Hegel. Importantly, Feuerbach broke from Hegel’s religious-mystical belief that humans descended from supernatural origins, instead describing humans as originating from the natural, material world.

Feuerbach also distinguished between the objectivity of the material external world and the subjectivity of human conscious thought, and he drew a distinction between external reality as it really exists and external reality as humans perceive it. Feuerbach believed that human nature was rooted in specific, intrinsic human attributes and activities. As Feuerbach explains in The Essence of Christianity: “What, then, is the nature of man, of which he is conscious, or what constitutes the specific distinction, the proper humanity of man? Reason, Will, Affection.”

Feuerbach explained that the actions of “thinking, willing, and loving,” which correspond to the essential characteristics of “reason, will, and love,” are what define humanity, continuing: “Reason, Will, Love, are not powers which man possesses, for he is nothing without them, he is what he is only by them; they are the constituent elements of his nature, which he neither has nor makes, the animating, determining, governing powers — divine, absolute powers — to which he can oppose no resistance.”

In his Collected Works, Feuerbach further explains that materialism is supported by the fact that nature predates human consciousness:

Natural science, at least in its present state, necessarily leads us back to a point when the conditions for human existence were still absent, when nature, i.e., the earth, was not yet an object of the human eye and mind, when, consequently, nature was an absolutely non-human entity (absolut unmenschliches Wesen). Idealism may retort: but nature also is something thought of by you (von dir gedachte). Certainly, but from this it does not follow that this nature did not at one time actually exist, just as from the fact that Socrates and Plato do not exist for me if I do not think of them, it does not follow that Socrates and Plato did not actually at one time exist without me.

Marx and Engels were heavily influenced by Feuerbach’s materialism, but they took issue with Feuerbach’s sharp focus on human attributes and activities in isolation from the external material world. As Marx wrote in Theses on Feuerbach: “The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism – that of Feuerbach included – is that... reality... is conceived only in the form of the object... but not as sensuous human activity.”

“Sensuous human activity” has a very specific meaning to Marx; it grew from two conflicting schools of thought:

The idealists believed the external world can only be understood through the active subjective thought processes of human beings, while the empiricist materialists believed that human beings are passive subjects of the material world. Marx synthesized these contradicting ideas into what he called “sensuous activity,” which balanced idealist and materialist philosophical concepts.

According to Marx, humans are simultaneously active in the world in the sense that our conscious activity can transform the world, and passive in the sense that all human thoughts fundamentally derive from observation and sense experience of the material world (see Chapter 2, p. 53). So, Marx and Engels believed that Feuerbach was misguided in defining human nature by our traits alone, portraying “the essence of man” as isolated from the material world and from social relations. In addition, Feuerbach’s humanism was based on an abstract, ideal version of human beings, whereas the humanism of Marx and Engels is firmly rooted in the reality of “real men living real lives.” As Engels wrote in Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy:

He (Feuerbach) clings fiercely to nature and man; but nature and man remain mere words with him. He is incapable of telling us anything definite either about real nature or real men. But from the abstract man of Feuerbach, one arrives at real living men only when one considers them as participants in history... The cult of abstract man, which formed the kernel of Feuerbach’s new religion, had to be replaced by the science of real men and of their historical development. This further development of Feuerbach’s standpoint beyond Feuerbach was inaugurated by Marx in 1845 in The Holy Family.^[7]

Marx and Engels believed that human nature could only be understood by examining the reality of actual humans in the real world through our relationships with each other, with nature, and with the external material world. Importantly, it was Marx’s critique of Feuerbach which led him to define political action as the key pursuit of philosophy with these immortal words from Theses on Feuerbach: “Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.”

The British classical political economics, represented by such economists as Adam Smith^[8] and David Ricardo^[9], also contributed to the formation of Marxism’s historical materialist conception [see p. 23].

Smith and Ricardo were some of the first to form theories about labor value in the study of political economics. They made important conclusions about value and the origin of profit, and about the importance of material production and rules that govern economies. However, because there were still many limitations in the study methodology of Smith and Ricardo, these British classical political economists failed to recognise the historical characteristic of value*; the internal contradictions of commodity production**; and the duality of commodity production labor***.

Annotation 13

* Historical Characteristic of Value

Marx generally admired the work of Smith and Ricardo, but saw major flaws which undermined the utility of their classical economic theories. Perhaps chief among these flaws, according to Marx, was a tendency for Smith and Ricardo to uphold an ahistoric view of society and capitalism. In other words, classical economists see capitalism as existing in harmony with the eternal and universal laws of nature, rather than seeing capitalism as a result of historical processes of development [see Annotation 114, p. 116]. Marx did not believe that the economic principles of capitalism resulted from nature, but rather, from historical conflict between different classes. He believed that the principles of political economies changed over time, and would continue to change into the future, whereas Smith and Ricardo saw economic principles as fixed, static concepts that were not subject to change over time. As Marx explains in The Poverty of Philosophy:

Economists express the relations of bourgeois production, the division of labour, credit, money, etc. as fixed, immutable, eternal categories... Economists explain how production takes place in the above mentioned relations, but what they do not explain is how these relations themselves are produced, that is, the historical movement that gave them birth... these categories are as little eternal as the relations they express. They are historical and transitory products.

** Internal Contradictions of Commodity Production

In Marxist terms, a commodity is specifically something that has both a use value and a value-form (see Annotation 14, p. 16), but in simpler terms, a commodity is anything that can be bought or sold. Importantly, capitalism transforms human labor into a commodity, as workers must sell their labor to capitalists in exchange for wages. Marx pointed out that contradictions arise when commodities are produced under capitalism: because capitalists, who own the means of production, decide what to produce based solely on what they believe to be most profitable, the commodities that are being produced do not always meet the actual needs of society. Certain commodities are under-produced while others are over-produced, which leads to crisis and instability.

*** Duality of Commodity Production Labor

In Capital, Marx describes commodity production labor as existing in a duality — that is to say, it exists with two distinct aspects:

First, there is abstract labor, which Marx describes as “labor-power expended without regard to the form of its expenditure.” This is simply the expenditure of human energy in the form of labor, without any regard to production or value of the labor output. Second, there is concrete labor, which is the aspect of labor that refers to the production of a specific commodity with a specific value through labor.

Marx argues that human labor, therefore, is simultaneously, an activity which will produce some specific kind of product, and also an activity that generates value in the abstract. Marx and Engels were the first economists to discuss the duality of labor, and their observations on the duality of labor were closely tied to their theories of the different aspects of value (use value, exchange value, etc.), which was key to their analysis of capitalism.

Smith and Ricardo also failed to distinguish between simple commodity production and capitalist commodity production*, and could not accurately analyse the form of value** in capitalist commodity production.

Annotation 14

* Commodity Production

Simple commodity production (also known as petty commodity production) is the production of commodities under the conditions which Marx called the “Simple Exchange” of commodities. Simple exchange occurs when individual producers trade the products they have made directly, themselves, for other commodities. Under simple exchange, workers directly own their own means of production and sell products which they have made with their own labor.

Simple commodity production and simple exchange use what Marx referred to as “C→M→C mode of circulation” [see Annotation 60, p. 59]. Circulation is simply the way in which commodities and money are exchanged for one another.

C→M→C stands for:

Commodity → Money → Commodity

So, with simple commodity production and simple exchange, workers produce commodities, which they then sell for money, which they use to buy other commodities which they need. For example, a brewer might make beer, which they sell for money, which they use to buy food, housing, and other commodities which they need to live.

In the C→M→C mode of circulation, the producers and consumers of commodities have a direct relationship to the commodities which are being bought and sold. The sellers have produced the commodities sold with their own labor, and they directly consume the commodities which they purchase with the money thus obtained.

Capitalist commodity production and capitalist exchange, on the other hand, are based on the M→C→M’ mode of circulation.

M→C→M’ stands for:

Money → Commodity → More Money

Under this mode of circulation, capitalists spend money to buy commodities (including the commodified labor of workers), with the intention of selling commodities for MORE MONEY than they began with. The capitalist has no direct relationship to the commodity being produced and sold, and the capitalist is solely interested in obtaining more money.

Capitalist commodity production, therefore, uses the M→C→M’ mode of circulation, in which capitalists own the means of production and pay wages to workers in exchange for their labor, which is used to produce commodities. The capitalists then sell these commodities for profits which are not shared with the workers who provided the labor which produced the commodities.

** Value-Form

This is one of the most important, and potentially most confusing, concepts in all of Marx’s analysis of capitalism. Marx explains these principles at length in Appendix of the 1^st German Edition of Capital, Volume 1, but here are some of the fundamentals:

One of Marx’s key breakthroughs was understanding that commodities have many different properties which have different effects in political economies.

Just as Commodity Production Labor exists in a duality of Concrete Labor and Abstract Labor (see Annotation 13, p. 15), commodities themselves also exist in duality according to Marx:

Commodities have both “use-value” and “value.”

Use-Value (which corresponds to Concrete Labor) is the commodity’s tangible form of existence; it is what we can physically sense when we observe a commodity. By extension, use-value encompasses how a commodity can be used in the material world.

Value, or the Value-Form, is the social form of a commodity, which is to say, it represents the stable relationships intrinsic to the commodity [see Content and Form, p. 147].

Note that this relates to the dialectical relationship between the material and the ideal [see The Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness, p. 88].

Value-forms represent relational equivalencies of commodities, i.e.: 20 yards of linen = 10 pounds of tea

These relational equivalencies are tied to the equivalent labor value (see Annotation 15 below, and Annotation 26, p. 23) used to produce these commodities. The value-form of a commodity is the social form because it embodies relational equivalencies:

1. The value-form represents the relationship between the commodity and the labor which was used to produce the commodity.

2. The value-form represents the relationship between a commodity and one or more other commodities.

As Marx explains in Appendix to the 1^st German Edition of Capital: “Hence by virtue of its value-form the (commodity) now stands also in a social relation no longer to only a single other type of commodity, but to the world of commodities. As a commodity it is a citizen of this world.”

Understanding the social form of commodities — the value-form — was crucial for Marx to develop a deeper understanding of money and capitalism. Marx argued that classical economists like Ricardo and Smith conflated economic categories such as “exchange value,” “value,” “price,” “money,” etc., which meant that they could not possibly fully understand or analyze capitalist economies.

British classical political economists like Ricardo and Smith outlined the scientific factors of the theories of labor value* and contributed many progressive thoughts which Marx adapted and further developed.

Annotation 15

* Adam Smith and David Ricardo revolutionized the labor theory of value, which held that the value of a good or service is determined by the amount of human labor required to produce it.

Thus, Marx was able to solve the contradictions that these economists could not solve and he was able to establish the theory of surplus value*, scientific evidence for the exploitative nature of capitalism, and the economic factors which will lead to the eventual fall of capitalism and the birth of socialism.

Annotation 16

* David Ricardo developed the concept of surplus value. Surplus value is the difference between the amount of income made from selling a product and the amount it costs to produce it. Marx would go on to expand on the concept of surplus value considerably.

Utopianism' had been developing for a long time and reached its peak in the late 18^th century with famous thinkers such as Henri de Saint-Simon^[10], François Marie Charles Fourier^[11] and Robert Owen^[12]. Utopianism sought to elevate the humanitarian spirit and strongly criticised capitalism by calling attention to the misery of the working class under capitalism. It also offered many far-ranging opinions and analyses of the development of human history and laid out some basic foundational factors and principles for a new society. However, Utopianism could not scientifically address the nature of capitalism. It failed to detect the Law of Development of Capitalism^[13] and also failed to recognise the roles and missions of the working class as a social force that can eliminate capitalism to build an equal, non-exploitative society.

Annotation 17

The early industrial working class existed in miserable conditions, and the political movement of utopianism was developed by people who believed that a better world could be built. The utopianists believed they could create “a New Moral World” of happiness, enlightenment, and prosperity through education, science, technology, and communal living. For instance, Robert Owen was a wealthy textile manufacturer who tried to build a better society for workers in New Harmony, Indiana, in the USA. Owen purchased the entire town of New Harmony in 1825 as a place to build an ideal society. Owen’s vision failed after two years for a variety of reasons, and many other wealthy capitalists in the early 19^th century drew up similar plans which also failed.

Utopianism was one of the first political and industrial movements that criticized the conditions of capitalism by exposing the miserable situations of poor workers and offering a vision of a better society, and was one of the first movements to attempt to mitigate the faults of capitalism in practice.

Unfortunately, the utopianists were not ideologically prepared to replace capitalism, and all of their attempts to build a better alternative to capitalism failed. Marx and Engels admired the efforts of the utopianist movement, and studied their attempts and failures closely in developing their own political theories, concluding that the utopianists failed in large part because they did not understand how capitalism developed, nor the role of the working class in the revolution against capitalism.

As Engels wrote in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:

(The) historical situation also dominated the founders of Socialism. To the crude conditions of capitalistic production and the crude class conditions correspond crude theories. The solution of the social problems, which as yet lay hidden in undeveloped economic conditions, the Utopians attempted to evolve out of the human brain. Society presented nothing but wrongs; to remove these was the task of reason. It was necessary, then, to discover a new and more perfect system of social order and to impose this upon society from without by propaganda, and, wherever it was possible, by the example of model experiments. These new social systems were foredoomed as Utopian; the more completely they were worked out in detail, the more they could not avoid drifting off into pure phantasies.

Engels is explaining, here, that — in a sense — the utopian socialists were victims of arriving too early. Capitalism had not yet developed enough for its opponents to formulate plans based on actual material conditions, since capitalism was only just emerging into a stable form. Without a significant objective, material basis, the utopians were forced to rely upon reasoning alone to confront capitalism.

In this sense, the early historical utopianists fell into philosophical utopianism in its broader sense — defined by the mistaken assertion that the ideal can determine the material [see Annotation 95, p. 94]. In believing that they could build a perfect society based on ideals and “pure fantasy” alone without a material basis for development, the utopians were, in essence, idealists. As Engels explained: “from this nothing could come but a kind of eclectic, average Socialism.” Engels concluded that in order to successfully overthrow capitalism, revolution would need to be grounded in materialism: “To make a science of Socialism, it had first to be placed upon a real basis.”

The humanitarian spirit and compassionate analysis which the utopians embodied in their efforts to lay out concrete features of a better future society became important theory premises for the birth of the scientific theory of socialism in Marxism.

- Natural Science Premise:

Along with social-economic conditions and theory premises, the achievements of the natural sciences were also foundational to the development of arguments and evidence which assert the correctness of Marxism’s viewpoints and methodology.

Annotation 18

Natural science is science which deals with the natural world, including chemistry, biology, physics, geology, etc.

Three major scientific breakthroughs which were important to the development of Marxism include:

• The law of conservation and transformation of energy scientifically proved the inseparable relationships and the mutual transformation and conservation of all the forms of motion of matter in nature.

• The theory of evolution offered a scientific basis for the development of diverse forms of life through natural selection.

• Cell theory was a scientific basis proving unity in terms of origins, physical forms and material structures of living creatures. It also explained the development of life through those relationships.

These scientific discoveries led to the rejection of theological and metaphysical viewpoints which centered the role of the “creator” in the pursuit of truth.

Annotation 19

For centuries in Europe, natural science and philosophy had been heavily dominated by theological viewpoints which centered God in the pursuit of truth. Descartes, Kant, Spinoza, and many other metaphysical philosophers who developed the earliest theories of modern natural science centered their religious beliefs in their philosophies. These theological viewpoints varied in many ways, but all shared a characteristic of centering a “creator” in the pursuit of philosophical and scientific inquiry.

Together, the law of conservation and transformation of energy, the theory of evolution, and cell theory provided an alternative viewpoint which allowed scientists to remove the “creator” from the scientific equation. For the first time, natural scientists and philosophers had concrete theoretical explanations for the origin and development of the universe, life, and reality which did not rely on a supernatural creator.

Marx and Engels closely observed and studied the groundbreaking scientific progress of their era. They believed strongly in materialist scientific methods and the data which they produced, and based their analysis and philosophical doctrines on such observations. They recognized the importance and validity of the scientific achievements of their era, and they developed the philosophy of Dialectical Materialism into a system which would help humans study and understand the whole material world.

In Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Engels explained that ancient Greek dialecticians had correctly realized that the world is “an endless entanglement of relations and reactions, permutations and combinations, in which nothing remains what, where and as it was, but everything moves, changes, comes into being and passes away.”

Engels goes on to explain that it was understandable for early natural scientists to break their inquiries and analysis down into specialized fields and categories of science to focus on precise, specific, narrow subject matters so that they could build up a body of empirical data. However, as data accumulated, it became clear that all of these isolated, individual fields of study must somehow be unified back together coherently and cohesively in order to obtain a deeper and more useful understanding of reality.

As Engels wrote in On Dialectics:

Empirical natural science has accumulated such a tremendous mass of positive material for knowledge that the necessity of classifying it in each separate field of investigation systematically and in accordance with its inner inter-connection has become absolutely imperative. It is becoming equally imperative to bring the individual spheres of knowledge into the correct connection with one another. In doing so, however, natural science enters the field of theory and here the methods of empiricism will not work, here only theoretical thinking can be of assistance.

As science grows increasingly complex, a necessity develops for a philosophical and cognitive framework which can be used to make sense of the influx of information from disparate fields. In Dialectics of Nature, Engels explains how dialectical materialism is the perfect philosophical foundation for unifying scientific fields into one cohesive framework:

Dialectics divested of mysticism becomes an absolute necessity for natural science, which has forsaken the field where rigid categories sufficed, which represent as it were the lower mathematics of logic, its everyday weapons.

So, Marx and Engels developed Dialectical Materialism not in opposition to science, but as a way to make better use of scientific data, and to analyze the complex, dynamic, constantly changing systems of the world in motion. While distinct scientific discoveries and empirical data are invaluable, each data point only provides a small amount of information within a single narrow, specific field of science. Dialectical Materialism allows humans to view reality — as a whole — in motion, and to examine the interconnections and mutual developments between different fields and categories of human knowledge.

These scientific principles confirmed the correctness of the dialectical materialist view of the material world, with such features as: endlessness, self-existence, self-motivation, and self-transformation. They also confirmed the scientific nature of the dialectical materialist viewpoint in both material processes and thought processes.

Annotation 20

Endlessness refers to the infinite span of space and time in our universe. Self-existence means that our universe exists irrespective of human consciousness; it existed before human consciousness evolved and it will continue to exist after human consciousness becomes extinct. Self-motivation and Self-transformation refer to the fact that motion and transformation exist within the universe independent of human consciousness.

Engels wrote of the scientific nature of the dialectical materialist viewpoint in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:

Nature is the proof of dialectics, and it must be said for modern science that it has furnished this proof with very rich materials increasingly daily, and thus has shown that... Nature works dialectically and not metaphysically; that she does not move in the eternal oneness of a perpetually recurring circle, but goes through a real historical evolution.

In conclusion, the birth of Marxism is a phenomenon which is compatible with scientific principles; it is the product of the social-economic conditions of its time of origin, of the human knowledge expressed in science at that time, and it is also the result of its founders’ creative thinking and humanitarian spirit.

b. The Birth and Development Stage of Marxism

Marx and Engels initiated the birth and development stage of Marxism from around 1842~1843 through around 1847~1848. Later, from 1849 to 1895, Marxism was developed to be more thorough and comprehensive, but in this early period of birth and development, Marx and Engels engaged in practical activities [Marx and Engels were not just theorists, but also actively supported and participated with various revolutionary and working class organizations including the Chartists, the League of the Just, the Communist League, the International Workingmen’s Association, etc.] and studied a wide range of human thought from ancient times on through to their contemporaries in order to methodically reinforce, complement and improve their ideas.

Many famous works such as The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (Marx, 1844), The Holy Family (Marx and Engels, 1845), Thesis on Feuerbach (Marx, 1845), The German Ideology (Marx and Engels, 1845–1846), and so on, clearly showed that Marx and Engels inherited the quintessence [see Annotation 6, p. 8] of the dialectical and materialist methods which they received from many predecessors. This philosophical heritage led to the development of the dialectical materialist viewpoint and materialist dialectics.

Annotation 21

There is a subtle, but important, distinction between Dialectical Materialism and Materialist Dialectics. This will be explained further in chapters I (p. 48) and II (p. 98).

With works such as The Poverty of Philosophy (Marx, 1847) and The Manifesto of the Communist Party (Marx and Engels, 1848), Marxism was presented as a complete system of fundamental views with three theoretical component parts.

Annotation 22

According to Lenin, the three component parts of Marxism (and, by extension, of Marxism-Leninism) are:

1. The Philosophy of Marxism: Including Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism
2. The Political Economy of Marxism: A system of knowledge and laws that define the production process and commodity exchange in human society.
3. Scientific Socialism: The system of thought pertaining to the establishment of the communist social economy form.

These are discussed in more detail in Chapter 2, p. 38.

In the book The Poverty of Philosophy, Marx proposed the basic principles of Dialectical Materialism and Scientific Socialism,* and gave some initial thoughts about surplus value. The Manifesto of the Communist Party laid the first doctrinal foundation of communism. In this book, the philosophical basis was expressed through the organic unity between the economical viewpoint and socio-political viewpoint.

Annotation 23

* Scientific Socialism is a series of socio-political-economic theories intended to build socialism on a foundation of science within society’s current material conditions [see Annotation 79, p. 81]. Scientific Socialism is the topic of Part 3 of the textbook from which this entire text has been translated, which we hope to translate in the future.

The Manifesto of the Communist Party outlined the laws of movement in history,* as well as the basic theory of socio-economic forms.

Annotation 24

* The laws of movement in history are the core principles of historical materialism, which is the topic of Part 2 of the textbook from which this entire text has been translated, which we hope to translate in the future.

The basic theory of socio-economic forms dictates that material production plays a decisive role in the existence and development of a society, and that the material production methods decide both the political and social consciousness of a society.

Annotation 25

Social consciousness refers to the collective experience of consciousness shared by members of a society, including ideological, cultural, spiritual, and legal beliefs and ideas which are shared within that society. This is related to the concept of base and superstructure, which is discussed later in this chapter.

The Manifesto of the Communist Party also showed that for as long as classes have existed, the history of the development of human society is the history of class struggle. Through class struggle, the proletariat can liberate ourselves only if we simultaneously and forever liberate the whole of humanity. With these basic opinions, Marx and Engels founded Historical Materialism.

By applying Historical Materialism to the comprehensive study of the capitalist production method, Marx made an important discovery: separating workers from the ownership of the means of production through violence was the starting point of the establishment of the capitalist production method. Workers do not own the means of production to perform their labor activities for themselves, so, in order to make income and survive, workers have to sell their labor to capitalists. Labor thus becomes a special commodity, and the sellers of labor become workers for labor-buyers [the proletariat and capitalist class respectively]. The value that workers create through their labor is higher than their wage. And this is how surplus value* is formed. Importantly, this means that the surplus value belongs to people who own the means of production — the capitalists — instead of the workers who provide the labor.

Annotation 26

* Surplus value is equal to labor value (the amount of value workers produce through labor) minus wages paid to workers. Under capitalism, this surplus value is appropriated as profit by capitalists after the products which workers created are sold.

So, in discovering the origin of surplus value, Marx pointed out the exploitative nature of capitalism [because capitalists essentially steal surplus labor value from workers which is then transformed into profits], though this exploitative nature is concealed by the money-commodity relationship.

Annotation 27

Under capitalism, a worker’s labor is a commodity which capitalists pay for with money in the form of wages. Workers never know how much of their labor value is being withheld by employers, which conceals the nature of capitalist wage-theft.

The theory of surplus value was deeply and comprehensively researched and presented in Capital^[14] by Marx and Engels. This work not only paves the way to form a new political-economic theory system based on the working class’s viewpoint, it also firmly consolidates and develops the historical-materialist viewpoint through the theory of socio-economic forms.

Annotation 28

Karl Marx explained that the goal of writing Capital was “to lay bare the economic law of motion of modern society.” By “laws of motion,” Marx refers to the origins and motivations for change within human society. Historical materialism holds that human society develops based on internal and external relationships within and between aspects of society. Historical materialism is the topic of Part 2 of the textbook from which this entire text has been translated, which we hope to translate in the future.

According to the theory of socio-economic forms [which is the basis of historical materialism], the movements and developments of human society are natural-historical processes based on dialectical interactions between forces of production and relations of production; between infrastructure basis [commonly referred to as “base” in English] and superstructure.

Annotation 29

The forces of production consist of the combination of means of production and workers within society. Under capitalism, the production force consists of the proletariat (working class) and means of production which are owned by the bourgeoisie (capitalist class).

Marx viewed society as composed of an economic base and a social superstructure. The base of society includes the material relationships between humans and the means of productions and the material processes which humans undertake to survive and transform our environment. The superstructure of society includes all components of society not directly relating to production, such as media institutions, music, and art, as well as other cultural elements like religion, customs, moral standards, and everything else which manifests primarily through conscious activity and social relations.

In the preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx explained:

In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will; these relations of production correspond to a definite stage of development of their material forces of production. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society — the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life determines the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.

RELIGION GOVERNMENT EDUCATION

POLITICAL ECONOMY NATURE

The base of society includes material-based elements and relations including political economy, means of production, class relations, etc. The superstructure includes human-consciousness-based elements and relations including government, culture, religion, etc.

In other words, Marx argued that superstructure (which includes social consciousness) is shaped by the infrastructural basis, or base, of society. This reflects the more general dialectical relationship between matter and consciousness, in which the material, as the first basis of reality, determines consciousness, while consciousness mutually impacts the material [see The Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness, p. 88]. So, the base of society — being material in nature — determines the superstructure, while the superstructure impacts the base. It couldn’t possibly be the other way around, according to the dialectical materialist worldview, because the primary driving forces of conscious activity are rooted in material needs.

The theory of socio-economic forms proves that the materialist viewpoint of history is not just a hypothesis, but a scientifically-proven principle.

Annotation 30

As Lenin explains in What the “Friends of the People” Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats:

Now — since the appearance of Capital — the materialist conception of history is no longer a hypothesis, but a scientifically proven proposition. And until we get some other attempt to give a scientific explanation of the functioning and development of some formation of society — formation of society, mind you, and not the way of life of some country or people, or even class, etc. — another attempt just as capable of introducing order into the “pertinent facts” as materialism is, that is just as capable of presenting a living picture of a definite formation, while giving it a strictly scientific explanation -until then the materialist conception of history will be a synonym for social science. Materialism is not ‘primarily a scientific conception of history’... but the only scientific conception of it.

Capital is Marx’s main work which presents Marxism as a social science by illuminating the inevitable processes of birth, development, and decay of capitalism; the replacement of capitalism with socialism; and the historical mission of the working class — the social force that can implement this replacement. Marx’s materialist conception of history and proletarian revolution continued to be developed in Critique of Gotha Programme (Marx, 1875). This book discusses the dictatorship of the proletariat, the transitional period from capitalism to socialism, and phases of the communism building process, and several other premises. Together, these premises formed the scientific basis for Marx’s theoretical guidance for the future revolutionary activity of the proletariat.

Annotation 31

When Marx refers to a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” he does not mean “dictatorship” to mean “totalitarian” or “authoritarian.” Rather, here “dictatorship” simply refers to a situation in which political power is held by the working class (which constitutes the vast majority of society). “Dictatorship,” here, refers to full control of the means of production and government. This stands in contrast to capitalism, which is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, in which capitalists (a small minority of society) have full control of the means of production and government.

c. The Defending and Developing Stage of Marxism

- Historical Background and the Need for Defending and Developing Marxism

In the late 19^th century and early 20^th century, capitalism developed into a new stage, called imperialism. The dominant and exploitative nature of capitalism became increasingly obvious. Contradictions in capitalist societies became increasingly serious — especially the class struggles between the proletariat and capitalists. In many colonised countries, the resistance against imperialism created a unity between national liberation and proletarian revolution, uniting people in colonised countries with the working class in colonial countries. The core of such revolutionary struggles at this time was in Russia. The Russian proletariat and working class under the leadership of the Bolshevik Party became the leader of the whole international revolutionary movement.

During this time, both capitalist industry and natural sciences developed rapidly. Some natural scientists, especially physicists, lacked a grounding in materialist philosophical methodology and therefore fell into a viewpoint crisis. Idealist philosophers used this crisis to directly influence the perspective and activities of many revolutionary movements.

Annotation 32

Imperialism

Lenin defined imperialism as “the monopoly stage of capitalism,” listing its essential characteristics as “finance capital (serving) a few very big monopolist banks, merged with the capital of the monopolist associations of industrialists” and “a colonial policy of monopolist possession of the territory of the world, which has been completely divided up.”

Subjective and Empiricist Idealism

In the late 19^th century, natural scientists were exploring various philosophical bases for scientific inquiry. One Austrian physicist, Ernst Mach, attempted to build a philosophy of natural science based on the works of German-Swiss philosopher Richard Avenarius known as “Empirio-Criticism.” Empirio-Criticism, which also came to be known as Machism, has many parallels with the philosophy of George Berkeley. Berkeley (1685 — 1753) was an Anglo-Irish philosopher whose main philosophical achievement was the formulation of a doctrine which he called “immaterialism,” and which later came to be known as “Subjective Idealism.” This doctrine was summed up by Berkeley’s maxim: “Esse est percipi” — “To be is to be perceived.” Subjective Idealism holds that individuals can only directly perceive and know about physical objects through direct sense experience. Therefore, individuals are unable to obtain any real knowledge about abstract concepts such as “matter”.

The philosophy of Empirio-Criticism, which was developed by Avenarius and Mach, also holds that the only reliable human knowledge we can hold comes from our sensations and experiences. Mach argued that the only source of knowledge is sense data and “experience,” but that we can’t develop any actual knowledge of the actual external world. In other words, Mach’s conception of empirio-criticism holds all knowledge as essentially subjective in nature, and limited to (and by) human sense experience. Mach’s development of Empirio-Criticism (which can also be referred to as empirical idealism or Machism)' was therefore a continuation of Berkeley’s subjective idealism. Both Berkeley’s Immaterialism and Empirio-Criticism are considered to be subjective idealism because these philosophies deny that the external world exists — or otherwise assert that it is unknowable — and, as such, hold that all knowledge stems from experiences which are essentially subjective in nature.

Mach argued that reality can only be defined by our sensual experiences of reality, and that we can never concretely know anything about the objective external world due to the limitations of sense experience. This stands in direct contradiction to dialectical materialism, which holds that we can develop accurate knowledge of the material world through observation and practice. Whereas Berkeley developed subjective idealist theological arguments to defend the Christian faith, Mach employed subjective idealism for purely secular purposes as a basis for scientific inquiry.

Note: all quotations below come from Lenin’s book: Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.

Vladimir Lenin strongly opposed Empirio-Criticism and, by extension, Machism, which was becoming popular among communist revolutionists in the late 19^th century, because it pushed forward idealist principles which directly opposed the core tenets of dialectical materialism.

Lenin believed that revolutionaries should be guided not by idealism, but by dialectical materialism. He believed that Empirio-Criticism and Machism consisted of mysticism which would mislead political revolutionaries.

Lenin outlined Machian arguments against materialism:

The materialists, we are told, recognise something unthinkable and unknowable — ’things-in-themselves’ — matter ‘outside of experience’ and outside of our knowledge [see: Annotation 72, p. 68]. They lapse into genuine mysticism by admitting the existence of something beyond, something transcending the bounds of ‘experience’... When they say that matter, by acting upon our sense-organs, produces sensations, the materialists take as their basis the ‘unknown,’ nothingness; for do they not themselves declare our sensations to be the only source of knowledge?

Lenin argued that this new form of Machist subjective idealism was, in fact, simply a rehashing of “old errors of idealism,” disguised and dressed up with new terminology. As such, Lenin simply reiterated the longstanding, bedrock dialectical materialist arguments against idealism [see Annotation 10, p. 10]. He was especially upset that contemporary Marxists of his era were being swayed by Machist Empirio-Criticism because he found it to be in direct conflict with dialectical materialism, writing: “(These) would-be Marxists… try in every way to assure their readers that Machism is compatible with the historical materialism of Marx and Engels.”

Lenin goes on to describe the work of philosophers such as Franz Blei, who critiqued Marxism with Machist arguments, as “quasi-scientific tomfoolery decked out in the terminology of Avenarius.” He saw Empirio-Criticism as completely incompatible with communist revolution, since idealism had historically been used by the ruling class to deceive and control the lower classes. In particular, he believed that Machist idealism was being used by the capitalist class to preach bourgeois economics, writing that “the professors of economics are nothing but learned salesmen of the capitalist class.”

Lenin was deeply concerned that prominent Russian socialist philosophers were adopting Machist ideas and claiming them to be compatible with Marxism, writing:

The task of Marxists in both cases is to be able to master and adapt the achievements of these ‘salesmen’... and to be able to lop off their reactionary tendency, to pursue your own line and to combat the whole alignment of forces and classes hostile to us. And this is just what our Machians were unable to do, they slavishly follow the lead of the reactionary professorial philosophy.

Lenin further explains how Empirio-Criticism serves the interests of the capitalist class:

The empirio-criticists as a whole... claim to be non-partisan both in philosophy and in social science. They are neither for socialism nor for liberalism. They make no differentiation between the fundamental and irreconcilable trends of materialism and idealism in philosophy, but endeavor to rise above them. We have traced this tendency of Machism through a long series of problems of epistemology, and we ought not to be surprised when we encounter it in sociology.

In the conclusion of the same text, Lenin explains why communists should reject Empirio-Criticism and Machism with four “standpoints,” summarized here:

1. The theoretical foundations of Empirio-Criticism can’t withstand comparison with those of dialectical materialism. Empirio-Criticism differs little from older forms of idealism, and the tired old errors of idealism clash directly with Marxist dialectical materialism. As Lenin puts it: “only utter ignorance of the nature of philosophical materialism generally and of the nature of Marx’s and Engels’ dialectical method can lead one to speak of ‘combining’ empirio-criticism and Marxism.”

2. The philosophical foundations of Empirio-Criticism are flawed. “Both Mach and Avenarius started with Kant (see: Annotation 72, p. 68) and, leaving him, proceeded not towards materialism, but in the opposite direction, towards Hume and Berkeley (see: Annotation 10, p. 10)... The whole school of Mach and Avenarius is moving more and more definitely towards idealism.”

3. Machism is little more than a relatively obscure trend which has not been adopted by most scientists; a “reactionary (and) transitory infatuation.” As Lenin puts it: “the vast majority of scientists, both generally and in this special branch of science... are invariably on the side of materialism.”

4. Empirio-Criticism and Machism reflect the “tendencies and ideology of the antagonistic classes in modern society.” Idealism represents the interests of the ruling class in modern society, and is used to subjugate the majority of society. Idealist philosophy “stands fully armed, commands vast organizations and steadily continues to exercise influence on the masses, turning the slightest vacillation in philosophical thought to its own advantage.” In other words, idealism is used by the ruling class to manipulate our understanding of the world, as opposed to materialism (and especially dialectical materialism) which illuminates the true nature of reality which would lead to the liberation of the working class.

At this time, Marxism was widely disseminating throughout Russia, which challenged the social positions and benefits of capitalists. In reaction to Marxism, many ideological movements such as empiricism, utilitarianism, revisionism, etc. [see: Appendix F, p. 252] rose up and claimed to renew Marxism, while in fact they misrepresented and denied Marxism.

In this context, new achievements of natural science needed to be analyzed and summarized in order to continue the authentic development of Marxist viewpoints and methodologies. Theoretical principles to fight against the misrepresentation of Marxism needed to be developed in order to bring Marxism into the new era. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin would fulfill this historical requirement with his theoretical developments.

- The Role of Lenin in Defending and Developing Marxism.

Lenin’s process of defending and developing Marxism can be separated into three periods: first, from 1893 to 1907; next, from 1907 to 1917; and finally from the success of the October socialist revolution in 1917 until Lenin’s death in 1924.

From 1893 to 1907, Lenin focused on fighting against populists^[15]. His book What the Friends of the People are and How They Fight Against the Social Democrats (1894) criticized the serious mistakes of this faction in regards to socio-historical issues and also exposed their scheme of distorting Marxism by erasing the boundaries between Marxism’s materialist dialectics and Hegel’s idealist dialectics. In the same book, Lenin also shared many thoughts about the important roles of theory, reality, and the relationship between the two.

Annotation 33

The populist philosophy was born in Russia in the 19^th century with roots going back to the Narodnik agrarian socialist movement of the 1860s and 70s, composed of peasants who rose up in a failed campaign against the Czar. In the late 19^th century, a new political movement emerged rooted in Narodnik ideas and a new party called the Socialist Revolutionary Party was formed. The political philosophy of this movement, now commonly translated into English as “populism,” focused on an agrarian peasant revolution led by intellectuals with the ambition of going directly from a feudal society to a socialist society built from rural communes. This movement overtly opposed Marxism and dialectical materialism and was based on subjective idealist utopianism (see Annotation 95, p. 94).

With the book What is to be Done? (1902), Lenin developed Marxist viewpoints on the methods for the proletariat to take power. He discussed economic, political, and ideological struggles. In particular, he emphasized the ideological formation process of the proletariat.

Annotation 34

In What is to be Done?, Lenin argues that the working class will not spontaneously attain class consciousness and push for political revolution simply due to economic conflict with employers and spontaneous actions like demonstrations and workers’ strikes. He instead insists that a political party of dedicated revolutionaries is needed to educate workers in Marxist principles and to organize and push forward revolutionary activity. He also pushed back strongly against the ideas of what he called “economism,” as typified by the ideas of Eduard Bernstein, a German political theorist who rejected many of Marx’s theories.

Bernstein opposed a working class revolution and instead focused on reform and compromise. He believed that socialism could be achieved within the capitalist economy and the system of bourgeois democracy. Lenin argued that Bernstein and his economist philosophy was opportunistic, and accused economists of seeking positions within bourgeois democracies to further their own personal interests and to quell revolutionary tendencies. As Lenin explained in A Talk With Defenders of Economism:

The Economists limited the tasks of the working class to an economic struggle for higher wages and better working conditions, etc., asserting that the political struggle was the business of the liberal bourgeoisie. They denied the leading role of the party of the working class, considering that the party should merely observe the spontaneous process of the movement and register events. In their deference to spontaneity in the working-class movement, the Economists belittled the significance of revolutionary theory and class-consciousness, asserted that socialist ideology could emerge from the spontaneous movement, denied the need for a Marxist party to instill socialist consciousness into the working-class movement, and thereby cleared the way for bourgeois ideology. The Economists, who opposed the need to create a centralized working-class party, stood for the sporadic and amateurish character of individual circles. Economism threatened to divert the working class from the class revolutionary path and turn it into a political appendage of the bourgeoisie.

The Encyclopedic Dictionary of Vietnam, published by the National Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam, defines opportunism, in this context, as “a system of political opinions with no direction, no clear path, no coherent viewpoint, leaning on whatever is beneficial for the opportunist in the short term.”

Lenin critiques opportunist socialism — referring to it as a “critical” trend in socialism — in What is to be Done?:

He who does not deliberately close his eyes cannot fail to see that the new “critical” trend in socialism is nothing more nor less than a new variety of opportunism. And if we judge people... by their actions and by what they actually advocate, it will be clear that “freedom of criticism” means “freedom for an opportunist trend in Social-Democracy, freedom to convert Social-Democracy into a democratic party of reform, freedom to introduce bourgeois ideas and bourgeois elements into socialism.”

The first revolution of the Russian working class, from 1905 to 1907, failed. Lenin summarized the reality of this revolution in the book Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution (1905). In this book, Lenin explains that the capitalist class in Russia was actively engaged in its own revolution against Czarist feudalism. In this context of this ongoing bourgeois revolution, Lenin deeply developed Marxist concepts related to revolutionary methodologies, objective and subjective factors that will affect the working class revolution, the role of the people, the role of political parties etc.

Annotation 35

From 1905 to 1907, Russia was beset by political unrest and radical activity including workers’ strikes, military mutinies, and peasant uprisings. Russia had just suffered a humiliating defeat in the Russo-Japanese war which cost tens of thousands of Russian lives without any benefits to the Russian people. In addition, the economic and political systems of Czarist Russia placed a severe burden on industrial workers and peasant farmers.

In response, the Russian proletariat rose up in various uprisings, demonstrations, and clashes against government forces, landlords, and factory owners. In the end, this revolutionary activity failed to overthrow the Czar’s government, and the Czar remained firmly in power until the communist revolution of 1917.

Lenin wrote Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution in 1905 in

Geneva, Switzerland. In it, he argues forcefully against the political faction within the Russian socialist movement that came to be known as the “Mensheviks.” The Mensheviks, as well as the Bolsheviks (Lenin’s contemporary faction) emerged from a dispute within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party which took place in 1903.

In the same text, Lenin argued that the Mensheviks misunderstood the forces that were driving revolutionary activity in Russia. While the Mensheviks believed that the situation in Russia would develop along similar lines to previous revolutionary activity in Western Europe, Lenin argued that Russia’s situation was unique and that Russian Marxists should therefore adopt different strategies and activities which reflected Russia’s unique circumstances and material conditions.

Specifically, the Mensheviks believed that the working class should ally with the bourgeoisie to overthrow the Czar’s feudalist regime, and then allow the bourgeoisie to build a fully functioning capitalist economy before workers should attempt their own revolution.

Lenin, on the other hand, presented a completely different analysis of class forces in Russia. He believed the bourgeoisie would seek a compromise with the Czar, as both feudal and bourgeois classes in Russia feared a proletarian revolution.

It’s important to note that Russia’s industrial workforce was very small at this time, and most Russians were peasant farmers. The Mensheviks believed Russian peasants would not be useful in a proletarian revolution, which is why they argued for allowing capitalism to be fully established in Russia before pushing for a working class revolution. They believed it was prudent to wait until the working class became larger and more dominant in Russia before attempting to overthrow capitalism. They believed that the peasant class would not be useful in any such revolution.

In contrast, Lenin believed that the peasants and industrial workers would have to work together to have any hope of a successful revolution. He further argued that an uprising of armed peasants and workers, fighting side by side, would be necessary for overthrowing the Czar.

From 1907 to 1917, there was a viewpoint crisis among many physicists. This strongly affected the birth of many idealist ideologies following Mach’s Positivism that attempted to negate Marxism [See: Annotation 32, p. 27]. Lenin summarized the achievements of natural science as well as historical events of the late 19^th century and early 20^th century in his book Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (1909). By giving the classical definitions of matter, proving the relationships between matter and consciousness and between social existence and social consciousness, and pointing out the basic rules of consciousness, etc., Lenin defended Marxism and carried it forward to a new level. Lenin clearly expressed his thoughts on the history, nature, and structure of Marxism in the book The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism (1913). He also talked about dialectics in Philosophical Notebooks (1914–1916) and expressed his thoughts about the proletarian dictatorship, the role of the Communist Party, and the path to socialism in his book The State and Revolution (1919).

The success of the October revolution in Russia in 1917 brought about a new era: the transitional period from capitalism to socialism on an international scale. This event presented new theoretical requirements that had not existed in the time of Marx and Engels’ time.

In a series of works including: “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder (1920),

Once Again on the Trade Unions, The Current Situation and the Mistakes of Trotsky and Bukharin (1921), The Tax in Kind (1921), etc., Lenin summarized the revolutionary practice of the people, continued defending Marxist dialectics, and uncompromisingly fought against eclecticism and sophistry.

Annotation 36

In Anti-Dühring, Engels identifies the historical missions of the working class as:

1. Becoming the ruling class by establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat.

2. Seizing the means of production from the ruling class to end class society.

Eclecticism is an incoherent approach to philosophical inquiry which attempts to draw from various different theories, frameworks, and ideas to attempt to understand a subject, applying different theories in different situations without any consistency in analysis and thought. Eclectic arguments are typically composed of various pieces of evidence that are cherry picked and pieced together to form a perspective that lacks clarity. By definition, because they draw from different systems of thought without seeking a clear and cohesive understanding of the totality of the subject and its internal and external relations and its development over time, eclectic arguments run counter to the comprehensive and historical viewpoints [see p. 116]. Eclecticism bears superficial resemblance to dialectical materialism in that it attempts to consider a subject from many different perspectives, and analyzes relationships pertaining to a subject, but the major flaw of eclecticism is a lack of clear and coherent systems and principles, which leads to a chaotic viewpoint and an inability to grasp the true nature of the subject at hand.

Sophistry is the use of falsehoods and misleading arguments, usually with the intention of deception, and with a tendency of presenting non-critical aspects of a subject matter as critical, to serve a particular agenda. The word comes from the Sophists, a group of professional teachers in Ancient Greece, who were criticized by Socrates (in Plato’s dialogues) for being shrewd and deceptive rhetoricians. This kind of bad faith argument has no place in materialist dialectics. Materialist dialectics must, instead, be rooted in a true and accurate understanding of the subject, material conditions, and reality in general.

Simultaneously, Lenin also developed his Marxist viewpoint of the factors deciding the victory of a social regime, about class, about the two basic missions of the proletariat, about the strategies and tactics of proletarian parties in new historical conditions, about the transitional period, and about the plans of building socialism following the New Economic Policy (NEP), etc.

Annotation 37

The early 1920s were a period of great internal conflict in revolutionary Russia, with various figures and factions wanting to take the revolution in different directions. As such, Lenin wrote extensively on the direction he believed the revolution should be carried forth to ensure lasting victory against both feudalism and capitalism. He believed that the October, 1917 revolution represented the complete defeat of the Czar, however he believed the proletarian victory over the bourgeoisie would take more time. Russia was a poor, agrarian society. The vast majority of Russians under the Czar were poor peasants. Industry — and thus, the proletariat — was highly undeveloped compared to Western Europe. According to Lenin, a full and lasting proletarian victory over the bourgeoisie could only be won after the means of production were properly developed. In Fourth Anniversary of the October Revolution, Lenin wrote:

This first victory [the October, 1917 revolution] is not yet the final victory, and it was achieved by our October Revolution at the price of incredible difficulties and hardships... We have made the start... The important thing is that the ice has been broken; the road is open, the way has been shown.

So, Lenin knew that the victory over the Czar and feudalism was only a partial victory, and that more work needed to be done to defeat the bourgeoisie entirely. He believed the key to this victory over the capitalist class would be economic development, since Russia was still a largely agrarian society with very little industrial or economic development compared to Western Europe:

Our last, but most important and most difficult task, the one we have done least about, is economic development, the laying of economic foundations for the new, socialist edifice on the site of the demolished feudal edifice and the semi-demolished capitalist edifice.

Lenin’s plan for rapidly developing the means of production was his New Economic Policy, or the NEP. The New Economic Policy was proposed to be a temporary economic system that would allow a market economy and capitalism to exist within Russia, alongside state-owned business ventures, all firmly under the control of the working-class-dominated state. As Lenin explains in Fourth Anniversary of the October Revolution:

At this very moment we are, by our New Economic Policy, correcting a number of our mistakes. We are learning how to continue erecting the socialist edifice in a small-peasant country.

He continues later in the text:

The proletarian state must become a cautious, assiduous and shrewd “businessman,” a punctilious wholesale merchant — otherwise it will never succeed in putting this small-peasant country economically on its feet. Under existing conditions, living as we are side by side with the capitalist (for the time being capitalist) West, there is no other way of progressing to communism. A wholesale merchant seems to be an economic type as remote from communism as heaven from earth. But that is one of the contradictions which, in actual life, lead from a small-peasant economy via state capitalism to socialism. Personal incentive will step up production; we must increase production first and foremost and at all costs. Wholesale trade economically unites millions of small peasants: it gives them a personal incentive, links them up and leads them to the next step, namely, to various forms of association and alliance in the process of production itself. We have already started the necessary changes in our economic policy and already have some successes to our credit; true, they are small and partial, but nonetheless they are successes. In this new field of “tuition” we are already finishing our preparatory class. By persistent and assiduous study, by making practical experience the test of every step we take, by not fearing to alter over and over again what we have already begun, by correcting our mistakes and most carefully analyzing their significance, we shall pass to the higher classes. We shall go through the whole “course,” although the present state of world economics and world politics has made that course much longer and much more difficult than we would have liked. No matter at what cost, no matter how severe the hardships of the transition period may be — despite disaster, famine and ruin — we shall not flinch; we shall triumphantly carry our cause to its goal.

With these great works dedicated to the three component parts of Marxism [see Annotation 42, p. 38], the name Vladimir Ilyich Lenin became an important part of Marxism. It marked a comprehensive developing step from Marxism to Marxism-Leninism.

d. Marxism-Leninism and the Reality of the International Revolutionary Movement

The birth of Marxism greatly affected both the international worker movements and communist movements. The revolution in March 1871 in France could be considered as a great experiment of Marxism in the real world. For the first time in human history, a new kind of state — the dictatorship of the proletariat state (Paris Commune) was established.

Annotation 38

The Paris Commune was an important but short-lived revolutionary victory of the working class which saw a revolutionary socialist government controlling Paris from March 18 to May 28, 1871.

During the brief existence of the Paris Commune, many important policies were set forth, including a separation of church and state, abolishment of rent, an end to child labor, and the right of employees to take over any business which had been abandoned by its owner. Unfortunately, the Paris Commune was brutally toppled by the French army, which killed between 6,000 and 7,000 revolutionaries in battle and by execution. The events of the Paris Commune heavily influenced many revolutionary thinkers and leaders, including Marx, Engels, and Lenin, and was referenced frequently in their works.

In August 1903, the very first Marxist proletariat party was established — the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. It was a true Marxist party that led the revolution in Russia in 1905. In October 1917, the victory of the socialist revolution of the proletariat in Russia opened a new era for human history.

In 1919, the Communist International* was held; in 1922, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic was established. It marked the alliance of the proletariat of many countries. With the power of this alliance, the fight against Fascism not only protected the achievements of the proletariat’s revolution, but also spread socialism beyond the borders of Russia. Following the lead of the Soviet Union, a community of socialist countries was built, with revolutions leading to the establishment of socialism in the following countries [and years of establishment]: Mongolia [1921], Vietnam [1945], the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea [1945], Yugoslavia [1945], Albania [1946], Romania [1947], Czechoslovakia [1948], East Germany [1949], China [1949], Hungary [1949], Poland [1956], and Cuba [1959].

Annotation 39

* The First International, also known as the International Workingmen’s Association, was founded in London and lasted from 1864–1876. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were key figures in the foundation and operation of this organization, which sought better conditions and the establishment of rights for workers.

The Second International was founded in Paris in 1889 to continue the work of the First International. It fell apart in 1916 because the members from different nations could not maintain solidarity through the outbreak of World War I.

The Third International, also known as the Communist International (or the ComIntern for short), was founded in Moscow in 1919 (though many nations didn’t join until later in the 1920s). Its goals were to overthrow capitalism, build socialism, and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. It was dissolved in 1943 in the midst of the German invasion of Russia in World War II.

These great historical events strongly enhanced the revolutionary movement of the working class all around the whole world. The people awakened and encouraged the liberation resistance of many colonised countries. The guiding role of Marxism-Leninism brought many great results for a world of peace, independence, democracy, and social progress.

However, because of many internal and external factors, in the late 1980s, the socialist alliance faced a crisis and fell into a recession period. Even though the socialist system fell into crisis and was weakened, the socialist ideology still survived internationally. The determination of successfully building socialism was still very strong in many countries and the desire to follow the socialist path still spread widely in South America.

Nowadays, the main feature of our modern society is fast and varied change in many social aspects caused by technology and scientific revolution. But, no matter how quickly and diversely our society changes, the nature of the capitalist production method never changes. So, in order to protect the socialist achievements earned by the flesh and blood of many previous generations; and in order to have a tremendous development step in the career of liberating human beings, it is very urgent to protect, inherit and develop Marxism-Leninism and also innovate the work of building socialism in both theory and practice.

The Communist Party of Vietnam declared: “Nowadays, capitalism still has potential for development, but in nature, it’s still an unjust, exploitative, and oppressive regime. The basic and inherent contradictions of capitalism, especially the contradictions between the increasing socialization of the production force and the capitalist private ownership regime, will never be solved and will even become increasingly serious. The feature of the current period of our modern society is: countries with different social regimes and different development levels co-exist, co-operate, struggle and compete fiercely for the interests of their own nations. The struggles for peace, independence, democracy, development, and social progress of many countries will still have to cope with hardship and challenges but we will achieve new progress. According to the principles of historical development, human beings will almost certainly go forward to socialism.”^[16]

Annotation 40

Historical materialism is the application of dialectical materialist philosophy and materialist dialectical methodology to the analysis of human history, society, and development. The principles of historical materialism, as developed by Marx, Engels, and Lenin, indicate that human society is moving towards socialism and will almost certainly — in time — develop into socialism, and then proceed towards a stateless, classless form of society (communism). These principles of historical materialism were initially formulated and discussed in several books by Marx, Engels, and Lenin, including:

• The German Ideology, by Marx and Engels

• Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, by Marx and Engels

• Karl Marx, by Lenin

The Communist Party of Vietnam has also declared:

“In the opinion of the Vietnam Communist Party, using Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh Thought as the foundation for our ideology, the guideline for our actions is an important developmental step in cognition and logical thinking^[17]. Achievements that the Vietnamese people have gained in the war to gain our independence, in peace, and in the renovation era, are all rooted in Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh Thought. Therefore, we have to ‘creatively apply and develop Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh Thought in the Party’s activities. We have to regularly summarise reality, complement and develop theory, and soundly solve the problems of our society.’”^[18]

Annotation 41

Ho Chi Minh Thought refers to a system of ideas developed by Ho Chi Minh and other Vietnamese communists which relate to the application of Marxist-Leninist philosophy and methodology to the specific material conditions of Vietnam during the revolutionary period.

There is no universal road map for applying the principles of Marxism-Leninism. How the philosophy of Marxism-Leninism should be applied will vary widely from one time and place to another. This is why Ho Chi Minh and other Vietnamese communists had to develop Ho Chi Minh Thought: so that scientific socialism could be developed within the unique context of Vietnam’s particular historical development and material conditions.

It is the duty of every revolutionary to study Marxism-Leninism as well as specific applied forms of Marxism-Leninism developed by revolutionaries for their own specific times and places, such as: Ho Chi Minh (Vietnam), Mao Zedong (China), Fidel Castro and Che Guevera (Cuba), etc. However, it must be recognized that the ideas, strategies, methodologies, and philosophies developed in such particular circumstances can’t be applied in exactly the same way in other times and places, such as our own contemporary material conditions.

The Renovation Era refers to the period of time in Vietnam from the 1980s until the early 2000s during which the Đổi Mới (renovation) policies were implemented. These policies restructured the Vietnamese economy to end the previous subsidizing model (which was defined by state ownership of the entire economy). The goals of the Renovation Era were to open Vietnam economically and politically and to normalize relations with the rest of the world. The Đổi Mới policies were generally successful and paved the way to the Path to Socialism Era which Vietnam exists in today. The goals of the Path to Socialism Era are to develop Vietnam into a modern, developed country with a strong economy and wealthy people, which will allow us to transition towards the lower stage of communism, which Lenin called “socialism.”

And, finally: “We have to be consistent with Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh Thought. We have to creatively apply and develop the ideology correspondingly with the reality in Vietnam. We have to firmly aim for national independence and socialism.”

II. Objects, Purposes, and Requirements for Studying the Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism

1. Objects and Purposes of Study

The objects of study of this book, The Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism, are the fundamental viewpoints of Marxism-Leninism in its three component parts.

Annotation 42

Remember that a viewpoint is the starting point of analysis which determines the direction of thinking and the perspective from which problems are considered. Also remember that Marxism-Leninism has three component parts:

1. The Philosophy of Marxism:

Including Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism

2. The Political Economy of Marxism:

A system of knowledge and laws that define the production process and commodity exchange in human society.

3. Scientific Socialism

The system of thought pertaining to the establishment of the communist social economy form.

These objects of study stand as the viewpoints — the starting points of analysis — of Marxist-Leninist philosophy and the three component parts of which it’s composed.

In the scope of Marxist-Leninist Philosophy [the first component part of Marxism-Leninism], these objects of study are:

Dialectical Materialism — the fundamental and most universal worldview and methodologies which form the theoretical core of a scientific worldview*. [See Part 1, p. 44]
Materialist Dialectics — the science of development, of common relationships, and of the most common rules of motion and development of nature, society and human thought. [See Chapter 2, p. 98]
Historical Materialism — the application and development of Materialism and Dialectics in studying social aspects. [Historical materialism is the topic of Part 2 of the textbook from which this entire text has been translated, which we hope to translate in the future.]

Annotation 43

* Remember that Scientific in Marxism-Leninism refers to a systematic pursuit of knowledge, research, theory, and understanding [see Annotation 1, p. 1]. Note, also, that Worldview refers to the whole of an individual’s or society’s opinions and conceptions about the world, about humans ourselves, and about life and the position of human beings in the world. This is discussed in more detail on page 44.

Thus, a scientific worldview is a worldview that is expressed by a systematic pursuit of knowledge of definitions and categories that generally and correctly reflect the relationships of things, phenomena, and processes in the objective material world, including relationships between humans, as well as relationships between humans and the world.

In the scope of Marxist-Leninist Political Economics [the second component part of Marxism-Leninism], the objects of study are:

The theory of value and the theory of surplus value.
Economic theory about monopolist capitalism and state monopolist capitalism.
General economic rules about capitalist production methods, from the stage of formation, to the stage of development, to the stage of perishing, which will be followed by the birth of a new production method: the communist production method.

Annotation 44

Marxist-Leninist political economics is the topic of Part 3 of the textbook from which this entire text has been translated, which we hope to translate in the future.

In the scope of Scientific Socialism [the third component part of Marxism-Leninism], the objects of study are:

The historical mission of the working class and the progression of a socialist revolution.
Matters related to the future formation and development periods of the communist socio-economic form.
Guidelines for the working class in implementing our historical mission.

The purposes of studying The Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism are:' to master Marxist-Leninist viewpoints of science, revolution, and humanism*; to thoroughly understand the most important theoretical foundation of Ho Chi Minh Thought, the revolutionary path, and the ideological foundation of the Vietnam Communist Party. Based on that basis, we can build a scientific worldview and methodology and a revolutionary worldview; build our trust in our revolutionary ideals; creatively apply them in our cognitive and practical activities and in practicing and cultivating morality to meet the requirements of Vietnamese people in the cause of building a socialist Vietnam.

Annotation 45

* The humanism of Marxism-Leninism differs greatly from the humanism of Feuerbach discussed in Annotation 12, p. 13. Marxist-Leninist humanism concerns itself with the liberation of all humans. As Marx and Engels wrote in The Communist Manifesto: “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”

2. Some Basic Requirements of the Studying Method

There are some basic requirements for studying the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism:

First, Marxist-Leninist theses were conceptualized under many different circumstances in order to solve different problems, so the expressions of thought of Marxist-Leninists can vary. Therefore, students studying the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism must correctly understand its spirit and essence and avoid theoretical purism and dogmatism.

Annotation 46

Marxism-Leninism should be understood as an applied science, and application of this science will vary based on material conditions. As Engels wrote in a personal letter in 1887, remarking on the socialist movement in the USA: “Our theory is a theory of evolution, not a dogma to be learned by heart and to be repeated mechanically. The less it is drilled into the Americans from outside and the more they test it with their own experience... the deeper will it pass into their flesh and blood.”

As an example, Lenin tailored his actions and ideas specifically to suit the material conditions of Russia under the Czar and in the early revolutionary period. Russia’s material conditions were somewhat unique during the time of Lenin’s revolutionary activity, since Russia was an agrarian monarchy with a large peasant population and a relatively undeveloped industrial sector. As such, Lenin had to develop strategies, tactics, and ideas which suited those specific material conditions, such as determining that the industrial working class and agricultural peasants should work together. As Lenin explained in The Proletariat and the Peasantry:

Thus the red banner of the class-conscious workers means, first, that we support with all our might, the peasants’ struggle for full freedom and all the land; secondly, it means that we do not stop at this, but go on further. We are waging, besides the struggle for freedom and land, a fight for socialism.

Obviously, this statement would not be specifically applicable to a society with highly developed industry and virtually no rural peasants (such as, for instance, the modern-day USA), just as Lenin’s remarks about the Czar would not be specifically applicable to any society that does not have an institution of monarchy.

As another example, take the works of Ho Chi Minh. Ho Chi Minh Thought is defined by the Communist Party of Vietnam as “a complete system of thought about the fundamental issues of the Vietnam revolution.” In other words, Ho Chi Minh Thought is a specific application of the principles of Marxism-Leninism to the material conditions of Vietnam.

One unique aspect of Vietnam’s revolution which Ho Chi Minh focused on was colonization. As a colonized country, Ho Chi Minh realized that Vietnam had unique challenges and circumstances that would need to be properly addressed through revolutionary struggle. Another unique aspect of Vietnam’s material conditions was the fact that the colonial administration of Vietnam changed hands throughout the revolution: from France, to Japan, back to France, then to the USA. Ho Chi Minh was able to dynamically and creatively apply Marxism-Leninism to these shifting material conditions. For instance, in Founding of the Indochinese Communist Party, written in 1930, Ho Chi Minh explains some of the unique problems faced by the colonized people of Indochina (modern day Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia) and proposes solutions specific to these unique material conditions:

On the one hand, they (the French) use the feudalists and comprador bourgeoisie (of Vietnam) to oppress and exploit our people. On the other, they terrorize, arrest, jail, deport, and kill a great number of Vietnamese revolutionaries. If the French imperialists think that they can suppress the Vietnamese revolution by means of terror, they are grossly mistaken. For one thing, the Vietnamese revolution is not isolated but enjoys the assistance of the world proletariat in general and that of the French working class in particular. Secondly, it is precisely at the very time when the French imperialists are frenziedly carrying out terrorist acts that the Vietnamese Communists, formerly working separately, have united into a single party, the Indochinese Communist Party, to lead the revolutionary struggle of our entire people.

During this period, the nations of Indochina were predominantly agricultural, prompting Ho Chi Minh to suggest in the same text that it would be necessary “to establish a worker-peasant-soldier government” and “to confiscate all the plantations and property belonging to the imperialists and the Vietnamese reactionary bourgeoisie and distribute them to the poor peasants.” Obviously all of these considerations are specific to the material conditions of Indochina under French colonial rule in 1930.

By 1939, the situation was changing rapidly. Ho Chi Minh was operating from China, which was being invaded by fascist Japan. He knew that it was only a matter of time before the Japanese imperial army would come to threaten Vietnam and the rest of Indochina. As such, Ho Chi Minh wrote a letter to the Indochinese Communist Party outlining recommendations, strategies, and goals pertaining to the precipitating material conditions. At that time, France had not yet been invaded by Germany, but Ho Chi Minh was very aware of the looming threat of fascism both in Europe and in Asia. He realized that rising up in revolutionary civil war against the French colonial administration would give fascist Japan the opportunity to quickly conquer all of Indochina, which is why he made the following recommendations in a letter to the Communist Party of Indochina in 1939:

Our party should not strive for demands which are too high, such as total independence, or establishing a house of representatives. If we do that, we will fall into the trap of fascist Japan. For now, we should only ask for democracy, freedom to organize, freedom to hold meetings, freedom of speech, and for the release of political prisoners. We should also fight for our party to be organized and to operate legally.

Once France fell to Germany in 1940, Indochina was immediately handed over to Japanese colonial rule. The Japanese army was brutal in its occupation of Vietnam, and the French colonial administrators surrendered entirely to the Japanese empire and helped the Japanese to administer all of Indochina. Ho Chi Minh returned to Vietnam in January of 1941 and participated directly with the resistance struggle against Japan until 1945, when the situation once again changed dramatically due to the Japanese military’s surrender to allied forces and withdrawal from Vietnam. He immediately took advantage of this situation and held a successful revolution against both the Japanese and French administrators. In the Declaration of Independence for the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh wrote:

After the Japanese had surrendered to the Allies, our whole people rose to regain our national sovereignty and to found the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. The truth is that we have wrested our independence from the Japanese and not from the French. The French have fled, the Japanese have capitulated, Emperor Bao Dai has abdicated. Our people have broken the chains which for nearly a century have fettered them and have won independence for the homeland.

As France began to make their intentions clear that they would be resuming their colonialist claim to Indochina, Ho Chi Minh began preparing the country for a new chapter in revolutionary struggle. In his 1946 letter to the people of Vietnam, entitled A Nationwide Call for Resistance, Ho Chi Minh wrote:

We call everyone, man and woman, old and young, from every ethnic minority, from every religion, to stand up and fight to save our country. If you have guns, use guns. If you have swords, use swords. If you have nothing, use sticks. Everyone must stand up and fight.

As these historical developments illustrate, Ho Chi Minh was able to creatively and dynamically apply the principles of Marxism-Leninism to suit the shifting material conditions of Vietnam, just as Lenin had to creatively and dynamically apply these principles to the emerging situation in Russia in the early 20^th century. So is the task of every student of Marxism-Leninism: to learn to apply these principles creatively and dynamically to the material conditions at hand.

Second, the birth and development of Marixst-Leninist theses is a process. In that process, all Marixst-Leninist theses have strong relationships with each other. They complement and support each other. Thus, students studying each Marxist-Leninist thesis need to put it in proper relation and context with other theses found within each different component part of Marxism-Leninism in order to understand the unity in diversity [see: Annotation 107, p. 110], the consistency of every thesis in particular, and the whole of Marxism-Leninism in general.

Third, an important goal of studying the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism is to understand clearly the most important theoretical basis of Ho Chi Minh Thought, of the Vietnam Communist Party and its revolutionary path. Therefore, we must attach Marxist-Leninist theses to Vietnam’s revolutionary practice and the world’s practice in order to see the creative application of Marxism-Leninism that President Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnam Communist Party implemented in each period of history.

Fourth, we must study the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism to meet the requirements for a new Vietnamese people in a new era. So, the process of studying is also the process of self-educating and practicing to improve ourselves step-by-step in both individual and social life.

Fifth, Marxism-Leninism is not a closed and immutable theoretical system. On the contrary, it is a theoretical system that continuously develops based on the development of reality. Therefore, the process of studying Marxism-Leninism is also a process of reflection: summarizing and reviewing your own practical experiences and sharing what you’ve learned from these experiences in order to contribute to the scientific and humanist development of Marxism-Leninism. In addition, when studying the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism, we need to consider these principles in the proper context of the history of the ideological development of humanity. Such context is important because Marxism-Leninism is quintessentially^[19] the product of that history.

These requirements have strong relationships with each other. They imbue the studying process with the quintessence of Marxism-Leninism. And more importantly, they help students apply that quintessence into cognitive and practical activities.

Part I: The Worldview and Philosophical Methodology of Marxism — Leninism

Worldview refers to the whole of an individual’s or society’s opinions and conceptions about the world, about humans ourselves, and about life and the position of human beings in that world. Our worldview directs and orientates our life, including our cognitive and practical activities, as well as our self-awareness. Our worldview defines our ideals, our value system, and our lifestyle. So, a proper and scientific worldview serves as a foundation to establish a constructive approach to life. One of the basic criteria to evaluate the growth and maturity of an individual or a whole society is the degree to which worldview has been developed.

Methodology is a system of reasoning: the ideas and rules that guide humans to research, build, select, and apply the most suitable methods in both perception and practice. Methodologies can range from very specific to broadly general, with philosophical methodology being the most general scope of methodology.

Annotation 47

Tran Thien Tu, the vice-dean of the Department of Marxist-Leninist Theoretical Studies at the Le Duan Political Science University in Quang Tri, Vietnam, defines three degrees of scopes of Methodology. They are, from most specific to most general:

1. Field Methodology

The most specific scope of methodology; a field methodology will apply only to a single specific scientific field.

2. General Methodology

A more general scope of methodology; a general methodology will be shared by various scientific fields.

3. Philosophical Methodology

The most general scope of methodology, encompassing the whole of the material world and human thought.

Worldview and philosophical methodology are the fundamental knowledge-systems* of Marxism-Leninism.

Annotation 48

* In the original Vietnamese, the word lý luận is used, which we roughly translate to the phrase “knowledge-system” throughout this book. Literally, lý luận is a combination of the words lý lẽ, which means “argument,” and bàn luận, which means “to infer.”

The full meaning of lý luận is: a system of ideas that reflect reality expressed in a system of knowledge that allows for a complete view of the fundamental laws and relationships of objective reality.

The Worldview and Philosophical Methodology of Marxism-Leninism

Marxist-Leninist worldview and philosophical methodology emerge from the quintessence [see Annotation 6, p. 8] of dialectical materialism, which itself developed from other forms of dialectics, which in turn developed throughout the history of the ideological development of humanity.

Materialism is foundational to Marxism-Leninism in two important ways:

Dialectical Materialism is the ideological core of a scientific worldview.

Historical Materialism is a system of dialectical materialist opinions about the origin of, motivation of, and the most common rules that dominate the movement and development of human society.

Dialectics are also foundational to Marxism-Leninism, specifically in the form of Materialist Dialectics, which Lenin defined as “the doctrine of development in its fullest, deepest and most comprehensive form, the doctrine of the relativity of human knowledge.”^[20] Lenin also defined Materialist Dialectics as “what is now called theory of knowledge or epistemology.”^[21] [Note: Epistemology is the theoretical study of knowledge; for more information see Cognitive Theory of Dialectical Materialism, p. 204.]

Annotation 49

For beginning students of Marxism-Leninism, distinguishing between Dialectical Materialism and Materialist Dialectics may at first be confusing. Here is an explanation of each concept and how they relate to one another:

Dialectical Materialism and Materialist Dialectics.

Dialectical Materialism is a scientific understanding of matter, consciousness and the relationship between the two. Dialectical Materialism is used to understand the world by studying such relationships.

Materialist Dialectics is a science studying the general laws of the movement, change, and development of nature, society and human thought.

Relationship between Dialectical Materialism and Materialist Dialectics.

And so, we use Dialectical Materialism to understand the fundamental nature of reality. This understanding is used as a basis for changing the world, using Materialist Dialectics to guide our activities. We can then reflect on the results of our activities, using Dialectical Materialism, to further develop our understanding of the world.

As Marxist-Leninists, we utilize this continuous cycle between studying and understanding the world through Dialectical Materialism and affecting change in the world through Materialist Dialectics with the goal of bringing about socialism and freeing humanity.

It is also important to understand the nature of dialectical relationships.

A dialectical relationship is a relationship in which two things mutually impact one another. Dialectical materialism perceives all things in motion [see Mode and Forms of Existence of Matter, p. 59] and in a constant state of change, and this motion and change originates from relationships in which all things mutually move and change each other through interaction, leading to development over time.

Thoroughly understanding the basic content of the worldview and methodology of Marxism-Leninism is the most important requirement in order to properly study the whole theory system of Marxism-Leninism and to creatively apply it into cognitive and practical activities in order to solve the problems that our society must cope with.

3. Excerpt From Modifying the Working Style By Ho Chi Minh

Ho Chi Minh training cadres in 1959.

Training is a must. There is a proverb: “without a teacher, you can never do well;” and the expression: “learn to eat, learn to speak, learn to pack, learn to unpack.”

Even many simple subjects require study, let alone revolutionary work and resistance work. How can you perform such tasks without any training?

But training materials must be aimed at the needs of the masses. We must ask: after people receive their training, can they apply their knowledge immediately? Is it possible to practice right away?

If training is not immediately practical, then years of training would be useless.

Unfortunately, many of our trainers do not understand this simple logic. That’s why there are cadres who train rural people in the uplands in the field of “economics!”

In short, our way of working, organizing, talking, propagandizing, setting slogans, writing newspapers, etc., must all take this sentence as a model:

“From within the masses, back into the masses.”

No matter how big or small our tasks are, we must clearly examine and modify them to match the culture, living habits, level of education, struggling experiences, desire, will, and material conditions of the masses. On that basis we will form our ways of working and organizing. Only then can we have the masses on our side.

Otherwise, if you just do as you want, following your own thoughts, your subjectivity, and then force your personal thoughts upon the masses, it is just like “cutting your feet to fit your shoes.” Feet are the masses. Shoes are our ways of organizing and working.

Shoes are made to fit people’s feet, not the other way around.

Chapter 1: Dialectical Materialism

Dialectical Materialism, one of the materialist foundations of Marxism-Leninism, uses the materialist worldview and dialectical methods to study fundamental philosophical issues. Dialectical Materialism is the most advanced form of Materialism, and serves as the theoretical core of a scientific worldview. Therefore, thoroughly understanding the basic content of Dialectical Materialism is the essential prerequisite to study both the component principles of Marxism-Leninism in particular, and the whole of Marxism-Leninism in general.

I. Materialism and Dialectical Materialism

1. The Opposition of Materialism and Idealism in Solving Basic Philosophical Issues

Philosophy is a system of the most general human theories and knowledge about our world, about ourselves, and our position in our world.

Philosophy has existed for thousands of years. Philosophy has different objects of study depending on different periods of time. Summarizing the whole history of philosophy, Engels said: “The great basic question of all philosophy, especially of more modern philosophy, is that concerning the relation of thinking and being^[22].”

So, philosophy studies the relations between consciousness and matter, and between humans and nature.

In philosophy, there are two main questions:

Question 1: The question of consciousness and matter: which came first; or, to put it another way, which one determines which one?

In attempting to answer this first question, philosophy has separated into two main schools: Materialism, and Idealism.

Question 2: Do humans have the capacity to perceive the world as it truly exists?

In answer to this second question, two schools: Intelligibility — which admits the human cognitive capacity to truly perceive the world — and unintelligibility — which denies that capacity.

Materialism is the belief that the nature of the world is matter; that matter comes first; and that matter determines consciousness. People who uphold this belief are called materialists. Throughout human history, many different factions of materialists with various schools of materialist thought have evolved.

Idealism is the belief that the nature of the world is consciousness; consciousness precedes matter; consciousness decides matter. People who uphold this belief are called idealists. Like materialism, various factions of idealists with varying schools of idealist thought have also evolved throughout history.

Idealism has cognitive origins and social origins.

Annotation 50

Cognitive origin refers to origination from the human consciousness of individuals.

Social origin refers to origination from social relations between human beings.

So, idealism originates from both the conscious activity of individual humans as well as social activity between human beings.

These origins are unilateral consideration and absolutization of only one aspect or one characteristic of the whole cognitive process.

Annotation 51

Unilateral consideration is the consideration of a subject from one side only.

Absolutization occurs when one conceptualizes some belief or supposition as always true in all situations without exception.

Both unilateral consideration and absolutization fail to consider the dynamic, constantly changing, and interconnected relations of all things, phenomena, and ideas in our reality.

Idealism originates from unilateral consideration because idealists ignore the material world and consider reality only from the perspective of the human mind. It also originates from absolutism because idealists absolutize human reasoning as the only source of truth and knowledge about our world without exception.

As Lenin wrote in On the Question of Dialectics: “Philosophical idealism is a unilateral development, an overt development, of one out of many attributes, or one out of many aspects, of consciousness.”

Historically, idealism has typically benefitted the oppressive, exploitative class of society. Idealism and religions usually have a close relation with each other, and support each other to co-exist and co-develop.

Annotation 52

Idealists, in absolutizing human consciousness, have a tendency to only give credence to the work of the mind and ignore the value of physical labor. This has been used to justify class structures in which religious and intellectual laborers are given authority and privilege over manual laborers.

This situation has also led to the idea that mental factors play a decisive role in the development of human society in particular and the whole world in general. This idealist view was supported by the ruling class and used to justify its own power and privilege in society. The dominant class has historically used such idealist philosophy as the justifying foundation for their political-social beliefs in order to maintain their ruling positions.

Marx discusses this tendency for rulers to idealistically justify their own rule in The German Ideology:

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an ‘eternal law.’

Marx goes on to explain how the idealist positions of the ruling class tend to get embedded in historical narratives:

Whilst in ordinary life every shopkeeper is very well able to distinguish between what somebody professes to be and what he really is, our historians have not yet won even this trivial insight. They take every epoch at its word and believe that everything it says and imagines about itself is true. This historical method which reigned in Germany, and especially the reason why, must be understood from its connection with the illusion of ideologists in general, e.g. the illusions of the jurist, politicians (of the practical statesmen among them, too), from the dogmatic dreamings and distortions of these fellows; this is explained perfectly easily from their practical position in life, their job, and the division of labour.

In history, there are two main forms of idealism: subjective and objective.

Subjective idealism asserts that consciousness is the primary existence. It asserts that all things and phenomena can only be experienced as subjective sensory perceptions while denying the objective existence of material reality altogether.

Objective idealism also asserts the ideal and consciousness as the primary existence, but also posits that the ideal and consciousness are objective, and that they exist independently of nature and humans. This concept is given many names, such as “absolute concept”, “absolute spirit,” “rationality of the world,” etc.

Annotation 53

Primary existence is existence which precedes and determines other existences.

Idealists believe that consciousness has primary existence over matter, that the nature of the world is ideal, and that the ideal defines existence.

Materialists believe the opposite: that matter has primary existence over the ideal, and that matter precedes and determines consciousness.

Dialectical Materialism holds that matter and consciousness have a dialectical relationship, in which matter has primary existence over the ideal, though consciousness can impact the material world through willful conscious activity.

The primary existence of matter within Dialectical Materialism is discussed further in The Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness, p. 88.

Willful activity (willpower) is discussed in Nature and Structure of Consciousness, p. 79.

The key difference between subjective and objective idealists is this:

Subjective idealists believe that there is no external material world whatsoever — that what we imagine as the material world is merely illusory — and that all reality is created by consciousness, whereas objective idealists believe that there is a material world outside of human consciousness, but it exists independently of human consciousness; therefore (according to objective idealists), since humans can only observe the world through conscious experience, the material world can never be truly known or observed by our consciousness.

In opposition to Idealism, Materialism originated through practical experience and the development of science. Through practical experience and systematic development of human knowledge, Materialism has come to serve as a universally applicable theoretical system which benefits progressive social forces and which also orients the activities of those forces in both perception and practice.

Annotation 54

Materialism benefits progressive social forces by showing reality as it is, by dispelling the idealist positions of the ruling class, and by revealing that society and the world can be changed through willful activity.

Materialism guides progressive social forces by grounding thought and activity in material reality, enabling strategies and outcomes that line up with the realities of the material world. For instance, we must avoid utopianism [see Annotation 17, p. 18] in which emphasis is placed on working out ideal forms of society through debate, conjecture, and conscious activity alone. Revolution against capitalism must, instead, focus on affecting material relations and processes of development through willful activity.

As Engels pointed out in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific: “The final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men’s brains, not in men’s better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange.”

2. Dialectical Materialism — the Most Advanced Form of Materialism

In human history, as human society and scientific understanding have developed, materialism has also developed through three forms: Primitive Materialism, Metaphysical Materialism, and Dialectical Materialism.

Primitive Materialism is the primitive form of materialism. Primitive materialism recognizes that matter comes first, and holds that the world is composed of certain elements, and that these were the first objects, the origin, of the world, and that these elements are the essence of reality. These Primitive Materialist concepts can be found in many ancient materialist theories in such places as China, India, and Greece. [These Primitive Materialist elemental philosophies are discussed more in Matter, p. 53] Although it has many shortcomings, Primitive Materialism is partially correct at the most fundamental level, because it uses the material of nature itself to explain nature.

Metaphysical Materialism is the second basic form of Materialism. This form of materialism was widely discussed and developed in Western Europe in the 17^th and 18^th centuries. During this time, the metaphysical method of perceiving the world was applied to materialist philosophy. Although Metaphysical Materialism does not accurately reflect the world in terms of universal relations [see p. 108] and development, it was an important step forward in the fight against idealist and religious worldviews, especially during the transformational period from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance in many Western European countries.

Annotation 55

Metaphysical materialism was strongly influenced by mechanical philosophy, a scientific and philosophical movement popular in the 17^th century which explored mechanical machines and compared natural phenomena to mechanical devices. Mechanical philosophy led to a belief that all things — including living organisms — were built as (and could theoretically be built by humans as) mechanical devices. Influenced by this philosophy, metaphysical materialists came to see the world as a giant mechanical machine composed of parts, each of which exists in an essentially isolated and static state.

Metaphysical materialists believed that all change can exist only as an increase or decrease in quantity, brought about by external causes Metaphysical materialism contributed significantly to the struggle against idealistic and religious worldviews, especially during the historical transition period from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance in Western European countries. Metaphysical materialism also had severe limitations; especially in failing to understand many key aspects of reality, such as the nature of development through change/motion and relationships.

Dialectical Materialism is the third basic form of materialism. It was founded by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, and defended and developed by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin as well as many of his successors. By inheriting the quintessence of previous theories and thoroughly integrating contemporary scientific achievements, Dialectical Materialism immediately solved the shortcomings of the Primitive Materialism of ancient times as well as the Metaphysical Materialism of modern Western Europe. It reaches the highest development level of materialism so far in history.

By accurately reflecting objective reality with universal relations and development*, Dialectical Materialism offers humanity a great tool for scientific cognitive activities and revolutionary practice. The Dialectical Materialist system of thought was built on the basis of scientific explanations about matter, consciousness, and the relationship between the two.

Annotation 56

* Materialist Dialectical methodology explains the world in terms of relationships and development. This is discussed in Basic Principles of Materialist Dialectics, p. 106.

II. Dialectical Materialist Opinions About Matter, Consciousness, and the Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness

1. Matter

a. Category of “Matter”

Matter is a philosophical subject which has been examined for more than 2,500 years. Since ancient times, there has been a relentless struggle between materialism and idealism around this subject. Idealism asserts that the world’s nature, the first basis of all existence, is consciousness, and that matter is only a product of that consciousness. Conversely, materialism asserts that nature, the entirety of the world, is composed of matter, that this material world exists indefinitely, and that all things and phenomena are composed of matter.

Before dialectical materialism was born, materialist philosophers generally believed that matter was composed of some self-contained element or elements; that is to say some underlying substance from which everything in the universe is ultimately derived. In ancient times, the five elements theory of Chinese philosophy held that those self-contained substances were metal — wood — water — fire — earth; in India, the Samkhya school believed that they were Pradhana or Prakriti^[23]; in Greece, the Milesian school believed they were water (Thales’s^[24] conception) or air (Anaximene’s^[25] conception); Heraclitus^[26] believed the ultimate element was fire; Democritus^[27] asserted that it was something called an “atom,”' etc. Even as recently as the 17^th-18^th centuries, conceptions about matter belonging to modern philosophers such as Francis Bacon^[28], Renes Descartes^[29], Thomas Hobbes^[30], Denis Diderot^[31], etc., still hadn’t changed much. They continued following the same philosophical tendency as ancient philosophers by focusing their studies of the material world through elemental phenomena.

These conceptions of matter which were developed by philosophers before Marx’s time laid a foundation for a tendency to use nature to explain nature itself, but that tendency still had many shortcomings, such as: oversimplification of matter into fictitious “elements;” failure to understand the nature of consciousness as well as the relationships between matter and consciousness; failure to recognize the significance of matter in human society, leading to a failure to solve social issues based on a materialist basis, etc.

Annotation 57

Here are further explanations of these shortcomings of early materialists:

Oversimplification of matter into fictitious “elements”

Due to a lack of understanding and knowledge of matter, metaphysical materialists created erroneous conceptions of “elements” which do not accurately describe the nature of matter. By using such an erroneously conceived system of non-existing elements to describe nature, metaphysical materialists were prevented from gaining real insights into the material world which delayed and hindered scientific progress.

Failure to understand the nature of consciousness as well as the relationships between matter and consciousness

Many early materialists believed that consciousness was simply a mechanical byproduct of material processes, and that mental events (thoughts, consciousness) could not affect the material world, since these events were simply mechanically determined by the material world.

As a first principle, Dialectical Materialism does hold that consciousness is created by matter. However, Dialectical Materialism also holds that consciousness can influence the material world through conscious action. This constitutes a dialectical relationship.

As Lenin explains in Materialism and Empirio-criticism: “Consciousness in general reflects being—that is a general principle of all materialism... social consciousness reflects social being.”

Whereas early materialists erroneously held that consciousness is simply an “accidental” byproduct of matter, Dialectical Materialism holds that consciousness is a characteristic of the nature of matter. As Engels wrote in the notation of Dialectics of Nature:

That matter evolves out of itself the thinking human brain is for mechanism a pure accident, although necessarily determined, step by step, where it happens. But the truth is that it is the nature of matter to advance to the evolution of thinking beings, hence this always necessarily occurs wherever the conditions for it (not necessarily identical at all places and times) are present.

Dialectical materialism also breaks from early materialism by positing that consciousness has a dialectical relationship with matter. Consciousness arises from the material world, but can also influence the material world through conscious action. In other words, mental events can trigger physical actions which affect the material world.

As Marx explains in Theses on Feuerbach:

The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of changed circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances and that the educator must himself be educated. Hence this doctrine is bound to divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society. The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-change [Selbstveränderung] can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice... Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.

Put more simply, we as humans are capable of “revolutionary practice” which can “change the world” because our consciousness allows us to “change circumstances.” This is discussed further in Nature and Structure of Consciousness, p. 79.

Failure to recognize the significance of matter in human society, leading to a failure to solve social issues based on a materialist basis

Dialectical materialists believe that matter exists in many forms, and that human society is a special form of existence of matter. Lenin referred to the material existence of human society as social being, which stood in contrast with human society’s social consciousness. Social being encompasses all of the material existence and processes of human society.

As Lenin wrote in Materialism and Empirio-criticism:

Social being is independent of the social consciousness of men. The fact that you live and conduct your business, beget children, produce products and exchange them, gives rise to an objectively necessary chain of events, a chain of development, which is independent of your social consciousness, and is never grasped by the latter completely. The highest task of humanity is to comprehend this objective logic of economic evolution (the evolution of social life) in its general and fundamental features, so that it may be possible to adapt to it one’s social consciousness and the consciousness of the advanced classes of all capitalist countries in as definite, clear and critical a fashion as possible.

Early materialists failed to recognise the relationship between matter and consciousness — as Lenin puts it, specifically, between social being and social consciousness. Thus in contemplating social issues, these early materialists were unable to find proper materialist solutions.

These shortcomings resulted in a non-thorough materialist viewpoint: when dealing with questions about nature, the early materialists had a strong materialist viewpoint but when dealing with social issues, they “slipped” into an idealist viewpoint.

Annotation 58

Lenin explains this concept of “slipping into” idealism through a non-thorough materialist viewpoint in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism: “Once you deny objective reality, given us in sensation, you have already lost every one of your weapons against fideism, for you have slipped into agnosticism or subjectivism — and that is all fideism wants.”

Note: fideism is a form of idealism which holds that truth and knowledge are received through faith or revelation. Subjectivism is the centering of one’s own self in conscious activities and perspective; see Annotation 222, p. 218.

In the same work, Lenin upholds that objective reality can be known through sense perception:

We ask, is a man given objective reality when he sees something red or feels something hard, etc., or not? [...] If you hold that it is not given, you... inevitably sink to subjectivism... If you hold that it is given, a philosophical concept is needed for this objective reality, and this concept has been worked out long, long ago. This concept is matter. Matter is a philosophical category denoting the objective reality which is given to man by his sensations, and which is copied, photographed and reflected by our sensations, while existing independently of them.

Lenin also explains that proper materialism must recognize objective/absolute truth:

To be a materialist is to acknowledge objective truth, which is revealed to us by our sense-organs. To acknowledge objective truth, i.e., truth not dependent upon man and mankind, is, in one way or another, to recognise absolute truth.

A failure to recognize the existence of such objective, absolute truth, according to Lenin, constitutes “relativism,” a position that all truth is relative and can never be absolutely, objectively knowable.

It is unconditionally true that to every scientific ideology (as distinct, for instance, from religious ideology), there corresponds an objective truth, absolute nature. You will say that this distinction between relative and absolute truth is indefinite. And I shall reply: yes, it is sufficiently ‘indefinite’ to prevent science from becoming a dogma in the bad sense of the term, from becoming something dead, frozen, ossified; but it is at the same time sufficiently ‘definite’ to enable us to dissociate ourselves in the most emphatic and irrevocable manner from fideism and agnosticism, from philosophical idealism and the sophistry of the followers of Hume and Kant. Here is a boundary which you have not noticed, and not having noticed it, you have fallen into the swamp of reactionary philosophy. It is the boundary between dialectical materialism and relativism.

In other words, while proper materialism must contain a degree of relativistic thinking sufficient to challenge assumptions and reexamine perceived truth periodically, materialists must not fall into complete relativism (such as that espoused by Hume and Kant) lest they fall into idealist positions. Ultimately, Absolute Truth — according to Lenin — constitutes the alignment of conscious understanding with objective reality (not to be confused with Hegel’s notion of Absolute Truth; see Annotation 232, p. 228).

Lenin recognized the development of Marx and Engels as “modern materialism, which is immeasurably richer in content and in comparably more consistent than all preceding forms of materialism,” in large part because Marx and Engels were able to apply materialism properly to social sciences by taking the “direct materialist road as against idealism.” He goes on to describe would-be materialists who fall to idealist positions due to relativism and other philosophical inadequacies as “a contemptible middle party in philosophy, who confuse the materialist and idealist trends on every question.”

Lenin warned that a failure to hold a thoroughly materialist viewpoint leads philosophers to become “ensnared in idealism, that is, in a diluted and subtle fideism; they became ensnared from the moment they took ‘sensation’ not as an image of the external world but as a special ‘element.’ It is nobody’s sensation, nobody’s mind, nobody’s spirit, nobody’s will — this is what one inevitably comes to if one does not recognise the materialist theory that the human mind reflects an objectively real external world.”

In other words, idealist conceptions of sensation inject mysticism into philosophy by conceiving of sensation as otherworldly, supernatural, and detached from material human beings with material experiences in the material world.

The development of natural sciences in the late 19^th century and early 20^th centuries (especially the inventions of Roentgen^[32], Becquerel^[33], Thomson^[34] etc.), disproved the theories of “classical elements” such as fire, water, air, etc. [see Primitive Materialism, p. 52]. These innovations led to a viewpoint crisis in the field of physical science. Many idealists used this opportunity to affirm the non-material nature of the world, ascribing the roles of supernatural forces to the birth of the world.

Annotation 59

Lenin discussed this viewpoint crisis extensively in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism. Here Lenin discusses relativist reactions to new breakthroughs in natural science, which led even scientists (who proclaimed to be materialists) to take idealist positions:

We are faced, says Poincaré [a French scientist], with the “ruins” of the old principles of physics, “a general debacle of principles.” It is true, he remarks, that all the mentioned departures from principles refer to infinitesimal magnitudes; it is possible that we are still ignorant of other infinitesimals counteracting the undermining of the old principles... But at any rate we have reached a “period of doubt.” We have already seen what epistemological deductions the author draws from this “period of doubt:” “it is not nature which imposes on [or dictates to] us the concepts of space and time, but we who impose them on nature;” “whatever is not thought, is pure nothing.” These deductions are idealist deductions. The breakdown of the most fundamental principles shows (such is Poincaré’s trend of thought) that these principles are not copies, photographs of nature, not images of something external in relation to man’s consciousness, but products of his consciousness. Poincaré does not develop these deductions consistently, nor is he essentially interested in the philosophical aspect of the question.

Lenin concludes by stating that the non-thorough materialist position has lead directly to these idealist positions of relativism:

The essence of the crisis in modern physics consists in the breakdown of the old laws and basic principles, in the rejection of an objective reality existing outside the mind, that is, in the replacement of materialism by idealism and agnosticism.

With this historical background, in order to fight against the distortions of many idealists and to protect the development of the materialist viewpoint, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin simultaneously summarized all the natural scientific achievements in late 19^th and early 20^th century and built upon Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ thought to develop this definition of matter:

“Matter is a philosophical category denoting objective reality which is given to man in his sensations, and which is copied, photographed, and reflected by our sensations, while existing independently of them.”

Lenin’s definition of matter shows that:

First, we need to distinguish between the definition of “matter” as a philosophical category (the category that summarizes the most basic and common attributes of all material existence, and which was defined with the objective of solving the basic issues of philosophy) from the definition of “matter” that was used in specialized sciences (specific and sense-detectable substance).

Second, the most basic, common attribute of all kinds of matter [and under both definitions listed in the previous paragraph] is objective existence, meaning matter exists outside of human consciousness, independently of human consciousness, no matter whether humans can perceive it with our senses or not.

Third, matter, with its specific forms, can cause and affect mental events in humans when it directly or indirectly impacts the human senses; human consciousness is the reflection of matter; matter is the thing that is reflected by human consciousness.

Lenin’s definition of matter played an important role in the development of materialism and scientific consciousness.

First, by pointing out that the most basic, common attribute of matter is objective existence, Lenin successfully distinguished the basic difference between the definition of matter as a philosophical category and the definition of matter as a category of specialized sciences. It helped solve the problems of defining matter in the previous forms of materialism; it offered scientific evidence to define what can be considered matter; it layed out a theoretical foundation for building a materialist viewpoint of history, and overcame the shortcomings of idealist conceptions of society.

Second, by asserting that matter was “objective reality,” “given to man in his sensations,” and “copied, photographed and reflected by our sensations,” Lenin not only confirmed the primary existence of matter and the secondary existence of consciousness [see The Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness, p. 88] but he also affirmed that humans had the ability to be aware of objective reality through the “copying, photographing and reflection of our sensations” [in other words, sense perceptions].

b. Mode and Forms of Existence of Matter

According to the dialectical materialist viewpoint, motion is the mode of existence of matter; space and time are the forms of existence of matter.

Annotation 60

Mode refers to the way or manner in which something occurs or exists. You can think of mode as pertaining to the “how,” as opposed to the “what.” For example, the mode of circulation refers to how commodities circulate within society [see Annotation 14, p. 16]; mode of production refers to how commodities are produced in society. So, mode of existence of matter refers to how matter exists in our universe.
Form comes from the category pair [see Basic Pairs of Categories of Materialist Dialectics, p. 126] of Content and Form [see p. 147]. Form refers to how we perceive objects, phenomena, and ideas. So, form of existence of matter refers to the ways in which we perceive the existence of matter [explained below] in our universe.

- Motion is the Mode of Existence of Matter

As Friedrich Engels explained: “Motion, in the most general sense, conceived as the mode of existence, the inherent attribute of matter, comprehends all changes and processes occurring in the universe, from mere change of place right up to thinking.”

According to Engels, motion encompasses more than just positional changes. Motion embodies “all the changes and processes happening in this universe;” matter is always associated with motion, and matter can only express its existence through motion.

Annotation 61

In Dialectical Materialist philosophy, “motion” is also known as “change” and it refers to the changes which occur as a result of the mutual impacts which occur in or between subjects through the negation of contradictions. Motion is a constant attribute of all things, phenomena, and ideas (see Characteristics of Development, p. 124).

Because matter is inseparable from motion (and vice versa), Engels defined motion as the mode of matter — the way or manner in which matter exists. It is impossible for matter in our universe to exist in completely static and unchanging state, isolated from the rest of existence; thus matter exists in the mode of motion. Over time, motion leads to development as things, phenomena, and ideas transition through various stages of quality change [see Annotation 117, p. 119].

Matter exists objectively, therefore motion also exists objectively. The motion of matter is self-motion^[35].

Annotation 62

It is important to note that “matter,” in the philosophical sense as used in dialectical materialist phlosophy, includes all that is “objective” (external) to individual human cosnciousness. This includes objective phenomena which human senses are unable to detect, such as objective social relations, objective economic values, etc. Objectiveness is discussed more in Annotation 108, p. 112; objective social relations are discussed more in Annotation 10, p. 10.

In Dialectics of Nature, Friedrich Engels discussed the properties of motion and explained that motion can neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore, motion can only change form or transfer from one object to another. In this sense, all objects are dynamically linked together through motion:

The whole of nature accessible to us forms a system, an interconnected totality of bodies, and by bodies we understand here all material existence extending from stars to atoms... In the fact that these bodies are interconnected is already included that they react on one another, and it is precisely this mutual reaction that constitutes motion. It already becomes evident here that matter is unthinkable without motion. And if, in addition, matter confronts us as something given, equally uncreatable as indestructible, it follows that motion also is as uncreatable as indestructible. It became impossible to reject this conclusion as soon as it was recognised that the universe is a system, an interconnection of bodies.

In other words, every body of matter is in motion relative to other bodies of matter, and thus matter is inseparable from motion. Motion results from the interaction of bodies of matter. Because motion and matter define each other, and because motion can only exist in relation to matter and matter can only exist in relation to motion, the motion of matter can be described as “self-motion,” because the motion is not created externally but exists only within and in relation to matter itself. Engels further explains that if this were not true — if motion were external to matter — then motion itself would have had to have been created external to matter, which is impossible:

To say that matter during the whole unlimited time of its existence has only once, and for what is an infinitesimally short period in comparison to its eternity, found itself able to differentiate its motion and thereby to unfold the whole wealth of this motion, and that before and after this remains restricted for eternity to mere change of place — this is equivalent to maintaining that matter is mortal and motion transitory. The indestructibility of motion cannot be merely quantitative, it must also be conceived qualitatively; matter whose purely mechanical change of place includes indeed the possibility under favourable conditions of being transformed into heat, electricity, chemical action, or life, but which is not capable of producing these conditions from out of itself, such matter has forfeited motion; motion which has lost the capacity of being transformed into the various forms appropriate to it may indeed still have dynamis but no longer energeia, and so has become partially destroyed. Both, however, are unthinkable.

So, motion can change forms and can transfer from one material body to another, but it can never be created externally from matter, and neither motion nor matter can be created or destroyed in our universe. Thus, matter exists in a state of “self-motion;” motion can never externally be created nor externally applied to matter.

To put it another way, motion results from the fact that all things, phenomena, and ideas exist as assemblages of relationships [see The Principle of General Relationships, p. 107], and these relationships contain opposing forces. As Lenin explained in his Philosophical Notebooks:

The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their ‘self-movement,’ in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the ‘struggle’ of opposites.

Based on the scientific achievements which occurred in his lifetime, Engels classified motion into 5 basic forms: mechanical motion (changes in positions of objects in space); physical motion (movements of molecules, electrons, fundamental particles, thermal processes, electricity…); chemical motion (changes of organic and inorganic substances in combination and separation processes…); biological motion (changes of living objects, or genetic structure…); social motion (changes in economy, politics, culture, and social life).

These basic forms of motion are arranged into levels of advancement based on the level of complexity of matter that is affected.

File:T-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-8.png

The basic forms of motion each affect different forms of matter, but these forms of motion do not exist independently from each other; they actually have strong relationships with each other, in which the more advanced forms of motion develop from lower forms of motion; the more advanced forms of motion also internally include lower forms of motion. [I.e., biological motion contains chemical motion; chemical motion contains physical motion; etc.]

Every object exists with many forms of motion, but any given object is defined by its most advanced form of motion. [I.e., living creatures are defined in terms of biological motion, societies are defined in terms of social motion, etc.]

By classifying the basic forms of motion, Engels laid out the foundation for classification and synthesization of science. The basic forms of motion differ from one another, but they are also unified with each other into one continuous system of motion. Understanding this dialectical relationship between different forms of motion helped to overcome misunderstandings and confusion about motion.

Annotation 63

In Dialectics of Nature, Engels clears up a great deal of confusion and addresses many misconceptions about matter, motion, forces, energy, etc. which existed in both science and philosophy at the time by defining and explaining the dialectical nature of matter and motion.

When Dialectical Materialism affirmed that motion was the mode of existence — the natural attribute of matter — it also confirmed that motion is absolute and eternal. This does not mean that Dialectical Materialism denies that things can become frozen; however, according to the dialectical materialist viewpoint, freezing is a special form of motion, it is motion in equilibrium and freezing is relative and temporary.

Motion in equilibrium is motion that has not changed the positions, forms, and/or structures of things.

Freezing is a relative phenomenon because freezing only occurs in some forms of motion and in some specific relations, it does not occur in all forms of motion and all kinds of relations. Freezing is a temporary phenomenon because freezing only exists for a limited period of time, it cannot last forever.

Annotation 64

Equilibrium can exist at any advancement of motion. Lenin discussed equilibrium as it pertains to the social form of motion in discussing an equilibrium of forces existing in Russia in 1905 in this article, An Equilibrium of Forces:

1) The result to date (Monday, October 30) is an equilibrium of forces, as we already pointed out in Proletary, No. 23.
2) Tsarism is no longer strong enough, the revolution not yet strong enough, to win.
3) Hence the tremendous amount of vacillation. The terrific and enormous increase of revolutionary happenings (strikes, meetings, barricades, committees of public safety, complete paralysis of the government, etc.), on the other hand, the absence of resolute repressive measures. The troops are wavering.
4) The Tsar’s Court is wavering (The Times and the Daily Telegraph) between dictatorship and a constitution.
The Court is wavering and biding its time. Strictly speaking, these are its correct tactics: the equilibrium of forces compels it to bide its time, for power is in its hands.
The revolution has reached a stage at which it is disadvantageous for the counter-revolution to attack, to assume the offensive.
For us, for the proletariat, for consistent revolutionary democrats, this is not enough. If we do not rise to a higher level, if we do not manage to launch an independent offensive, if we do not smash the forces of Tsarism, do not destroy its actual power, then the revolution will stop half way, then the bourgeoisie will fool the workers.
5) Rumour has it that a constitution has been decided upon. If that is so, then it follows that the Tsar is heeding the lessons of 1848 and other revolutions: he wants to grant a constitution without a constituent assembly, before a constituent assembly, apart from a constituent assembly. What kind of constitution? At best (for ’the Tsar) a Constitutional-Democratic constitution.
This implies: achievement of the Constitutional-Democrats’ ideal, skipping the revolution; deceiving the people, for all the same there will be no complete and actual freedom of elections.
Should not the revolution skip this granted constitution?

- Space and Time are Forms of Existence of Matter

Every form of matter exists in a specific position, with specific space particularity (height, width, length, etc.), in specific relation (in front or behind, above or under, to the left or right, etc.) with other forms of matter. These positional relations exist in what we call space. [Space is defined by positional relations of matter.]

On the other hand, the existence of matter is also expressed in the speed of change and the order in which changes occur. These changes occur in what we call time. As Engels wrote: “For the basic forms of all existence are space and time, and a being outside of time is as absurd as an existence outside space.” Matter, space, and time are not separable; there is no matter that exists outside of space and time; there is also no space and time that exist outside of matter’s motion.

Annotation 65

Space and time, as the forms of matter, i.e.: the ways in which we perceive the existence of matter. We are only able to perceive and understand material objects as they exist within space and time.

Space and time, as forms of existence of matter, exist objectively [see Annotation 108,

p. 112], and are defined by matter. [Space is defined by the positional relations between material objects; time is defined by the speed of change of material objects and the order in which these changes occur.] Space has three dimensions: height, width, length; time has one direction: from the past to the future.

c. The Material Unity of the World

Dialectical Materialism affirms that the nature of the world is matter, and the world is unified in its material properties. [In other words: the entire universe, in all its diversity, is made of matter, and the properties of matter are the same throughout the known universe.]

The material nature of the world is proven on the following basis:

First, there is only one world: the material world; the material world is the first existence [i.e., it existed before consciousness], it exists objectively, and independently, of human consciousness.

Second, the material world exists eternally, endlessly, infinitely; it has no known beginning point and there is no evidence that it will ever disappear.

Third, all known objects and phenomena of the material world have objective relations with each other and all objects and phenomena exist in unity with each other. All of them are specific forms and structures of matter, or have material origin which was born from matter, and all are governed by the objective rules of the material world. In the material world, there is nothing that exists outside of the changing and transforming processes of matter; all of these processes exist as causes and effects of each other.

Annotation 66

The most important thing to understand here is that every object and phenomenon in the universe arises as matter, all material objects and phenomena are dynamically linked to one another in an infinite chain of causes and effects and changes and transformations, all governed by the material laws of our reality. This understanding is the material foundation of dialectical materialism.

2. Consciousness

a. The Source of Consciousness

According to the materialist viewpoint, consciousness has natural and social sources.

Annotation 67

Consciousness arises from nature, and from social activities and relations.

Natural refers to the material world. Without the material world of matter, material processes, and the evolution of material systems — up to and including the human brain — consciousness would never have formed.

Social activities and relations also contributed to the development of consciousness. The social processes of labor and language were also prerequisites for the development of conscious activity in human beings.

- Natural Source of Consciousness

There are many factors that form the natural sources for consciousness, but the two most basic factors are human brains and the relationship between humans and the objective world which makes possible creative and dynamic reflection.

About human brains: consciousness is an attribute of a highly organized form of matter, which is the brain. Consciousness is the function and the result of the neurophysiological activities of human brains. As human brains evolved and developed over time, their neurophysiological activities became richer, and, as these activities progressed, consciousness developed further and further over time. This explains why the human evolution process is also a process of developing the capacity for perception and thinking. Whenever human neurophysiological activities don’t function normally because of damaged brains, our mental life is also disturbed.

About the relationship between humans and the objective world which made possible creative and dynamic reflection: The relationship between humans and the objective world has been essential for as long as humans have existed. In this relationship, the objective world is reflected through human senses which interact with human brains and then form our consciousness.

Consciousness exists as a dynamic set of relationships between the external material world, human sense perception, and the functions of the human brain.

Reflection is the re-creation of the features of one form of matter in a different form of matter which occurs when they mutually impact each other through interaction. Reflection is a characteristic of all forms of matter.

There are many forms and levels of reflection such as [from more simple to more complex]: physical and chemical reflection, biological reflection, mental reflection, creative and dynamic reflection, etc.

Annotation 68

Change is driven by mutual impacts between or within things, phenomena, and/or ideas. Any time two such subjects impact one another, traces of some form or another are left on both interacting subjects. This characteristic of change is called reflection.

The concept of reflection, first proposed by Marx, Engels, and Lenin, has been advanced through the work of various Soviet psychologists, philosophers, and scientists (including Ivan Pavlov, Todor Pavlov, Aleksei Leontiev, Lev Vygotsky, Valentin Voloshinov, and others), and is used as a basis for scientific inquiry up to this day by mainstream researchers in Cuba, Vietnam, China, and Laos. The information provided below is somewhat simplified and generalized to give the reader a basic familiarity with the theory of reflection and the development of reflection in nature.

Dialectical materialist scientists have developed a theory of the development of evolution of forms of reflection, positing that forms of reflection have become increasingly complex as organic processes and life have evolved and grown more complex over time.

The chart below gives an idea of how different forms of reaction have evolved over time:

This chart outlines the basic development tendency of Forms of Reflection in matter which lead from inorganic matter, to life, to human consciousness and society.

Obviously, not all subjects develop completely along the path outlined above. Thus far, to our knowledge, only human beings have developed entirely to the level of consciousness and society. It is also unknown whether, or how, human society may develop into some future, as-yet-unknown, form.

Physical and chemical reflection is the simplest form of reflection, dealing with the ways in which inorganic matter is reflected in human consciousness. Physical and chemical reflection is the reflection of mechanical, physical, and chemical changes and reactions of inorganic matter (i.e., changes in structures, positions, physical-chemical properties, and the processes of combining and dissolving substances). Physical and chemical reactions are passive: when two objects interact with each other physically or chemically, they do not do so consciously.

Annotation 69

Reflection occurs any time two material objects interact and the features of the object are transferred to each other. Below are some very simplified illustrations to relate the basic idea of the physical reflection of material objects.

File:T-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-11.png

Reflection as Change in Position:

1. Round Object moves towards Square Object.

2. Round Object impacts Square Object.

3. Square Object changes position; Round Object “bounces” and reverses direction.

4.Thus, Square Object’s change in position reflects the motion of Round Object (and vice-versa). Traces of both contradicting objects are reflected in the respective motion and position of each object.

File:T-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-12.png

Reflection as Change in Structure:

1. Round Object moves toward Square Object.

2. Round Object impacts Square Object.

3. Structural changes (traces) occur in both Round and Square Object as a result of impact.

4. These changes constitute structural, physical reflection.

File:T-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-13.png

Chemical Reflection:

1. Atom C is attached to Atom B.

2. Atom C detaches from Atom B and transfers to attach to Atom A.

3. This is a process of chemical reflection, in which both molecules mutually reflect one another after A _CB a process of chemical reaction (one molecule loses Atom C while the other gains Atom C).

As dialectical materialists, we must strive to develop our understanding of the reflections of physical and chemical changes and reactions so that our conceptions reflect the material world as accurately as possible. For example: we must not ascribe consciousness to physical processes. Example: a gambler who comes to believe that a pair of dice is “spiteful” or “cursed” is attributing conscious motivation to unconscious physical processes, which is an inaccurate ideological reflection of reality.

Biological reflection is a higher, more complex form of reflection [compared to physical reflection]. It deals with reflection of organic material in the natural world. As our observations of biological processes have become more sophisticated and complex [through developments in natural science, the development of better tools for observation such as microscopes and other technologies, and so on], our conscious reflections of the natural world have also become more complex.

Biological reflection is expressed through excitation, induction, and reflexes.

Excitation is the reaction of simple plant and animal life-forms which occurs when they change position or structure as a direct result of physical changes to their habitat [i.e., a plant which moves toward the sun throughout the day].

Induction is the reaction of animals with simple nerve systems which can sense or feel their environments. Induction occurs through unconditioned reflex mechanisms.

Annotation 70

Unconditioned reflexes are characterized by permanent connections between sensory perceptions and reactions. Such reactions are not learned, but simply occur automatically based on physiological mechanisms occurring within the organism. An example of an unconditioned reflex response would be muscles in the leg twitching at the response of a tap on the knee. Such responses are purely physiological and are never learned (“conditioned” into us) — these reactions are simply induced physiologically.

Mental reflections are reactions which occur in animals with central nervous systems. Mental reflections occur through conditioned reflex mechanisms.

Annotation 71

Conditioned reflexes are reactions which are learned by organisms. These responses are acquired as animals learn to associate previously unrelated neural stimuli to elicit a particular reaction. The Russian psychologist Ivan Pavlov famously developed our understanding of conditioned responses by ringing a dinner bell shortly before giving dogs food. After a few repetitions, dogs would begin to salivate upon hearing the dinner bell being rung, even before any food was offered. Any dog which did not receive this conditioning would not salivate upon hearing a dinner bell. This is what makes it a learned, conditioned response — a type of mental reflection.

Dynamic and creative reflection is the most advanced form of reflection. It only occurs in matter that has the highest structural level, such as the human brain. Dynamic and creative reflection is done through the human brain’s nervous physiological activities whenever the objective world impacts human senses. This is a kind of reflection that actively selects and processes information to create new information and to understand the meaning of that information. This dynamic and creative reflection is called consciousness.

Annotation 72

Remember Lenin’s definition of matter from Materialism and Empirio-Criticism: “Matter is a philosophical category denoting objective reality which is given to man in his sensations, and which is copied, photographed, and reflected by our sensations, while existing independently of them.”

An intrinsic property of matter is that it can be sensed by human beings, and through this sensation, reflected in human consciousness. Thus, all forms of matter share the characteristic of being able to be reflected in the human mind.

Criticizing Karl Pearson, who said that it was not logical to maintain that all matter had the property of being conscious, Lenin wrote in brackets: “But it is logical to suppose that all matter possesses a property which is essentially kindred to sensation: the property to reflect.” Understanding the concept of dynamic and creative reflection is critical to understanding the role of consciousness and the ideal in Dialectical Materialism. In particular, reflection differentiates Dialectical Materialism from the idealist form of dialectics used by Hegel [see Annotation 9, p. 10]. As Marx famously wrote in Capital Volume I:

My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of ‘the Idea,’ he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos [craftsman/artisan/creator] of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of ‘the Idea.’ With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.

In other words, Hegelian idealism saw human consciousness as defining the material world. Dialectical Materialism inverts this relationship to recognize that what we conceive in our minds is only a reflection of the material world. As Marx explains in The German Ideology, all conscious thought stems from life processes through reflection:

Consciousness can never be anything else than conscious existence, and the existence of men is their actual life-process. If in all ideology men and their circumstances appear upside-down as in a camera obscura, this phenomenon arises just as much from their historical life-process as the inversion of objects on the retina does from their physical life-process.

Marx and Engels argued that consciousness arose from the life-processes of human beings. Life-processes are processes of motion and change which occur within organisms to sustain life, and these processes have a dialectical relationship with consciousness: the processes of life, therefore, reflect consciousness, just as consciousness reflects human life-processes. Conscious activities (such as being able to hunt, gather, and cook food, build shelter, and so on) improve the life-processes of human beings (by improving our health, extending our life-spans, etc.); and as our life-processes improved, our consciousness was able to develop more fully. As a concrete example of the dialectic between life processes and consciousness, it is now widely believed by scientists that the advent of cooking and preparing food (conscious activity) improved the functioning of the human brain^[36] (a life process) which, in turn, developed human consciousness, and so on. Life-processes thus determine how consciousness reflects reality, while consciousness impacts back on life-processes, reflecting the dialectical relationship between matter and consciousness [see p. 88] and between practical activities and consciousness [see Annotation 230, p. 226].

Because consciousness arose from life-processes of human beings in the material world, we know that the material world is reflected in our consciousness. However, these reflections do not determine the material world, and do not mirror the material world exactly [see Annotation 77, p. 79]. It is also important to understand that, since life-processes in the material world predate and determine consciousness, consciousness can never be a first basis of seeking truth about our world. As Marx further explains in The German Ideology:

Since the Young Hegelians consider conceptions, thoughts, ideas, in fact all the products of consciousness, to which they attribute an independent existence, as the real chains of men (just as the Old Hegelians declared them the true bonds of human society) it is evident that the Young Hegelians have to fight only against these illusions of consciousness. Since, according to their fantasy, the relationships of men, all their doings, their chains and their limitations are products of their consciousness, the Young Hegelians logically put to men the moral postulate of exchanging their present consciousness for human, critical or egoistic consciousness, and thus of removing their limitations. This demand to change consciousness amounts to a demand to interpret reality in another way, i.e. to recognise it by means of another interpretation.

In other words, Hegelian idealism makes the critical mistake of believing that the ideal — consciousness — is the first basis of reality, and that anything and everything can be achieved through mere conscious activity. Marx, on the other hand, argues that “life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life,” and that we must understand the ways in which reality is reflected in consciousness before we can hope to affect change in the material conditions of human beings:

In direct contrast to German philosophy which descends from heaven to earth, here [in the materialist perspective] we ascend from earth to heaven. That is to say, we do not set out from what men say, imagine, conceive, nor from men as narrated, thought of, imagined, conceived, in order to arrive at men in the flesh. We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process. The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life. In the first method of approach the starting-point is consciousness taken as the living individual; in the second method, which conforms to real life, it is the real living individuals themselves, and consciousness is considered solely as their consciousness.

So, the work of the Dialectical Materialist is not to try to develop Utopian conceptions of reality first, to then proceed to try and force such purely ideal conceptions onto reality (see Annotation 17, p. 18).

Rather, we must understand the material basis of reality, as well as the material processes of change and motion which govern reality, and only then can we search for ways in which human beings can influence material reality through conscious activity. As Marx explains, the revolutionary must not be fooled into believing we can simply conceive of an ideal world and then replicate it into reality through interpretation and conscious thought alone. Instead, we must start with a firm understanding of material conditions and, from that material basis, determine how to build our revolutionary movement through conscious impact of material relations and processes of development in the material world.

As Marx wrote in The German Ideology: “Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.” This distinction may seem subtle at first, but it has massive implications for how Marx suggests we go about participating in revolutionary activity. For Marx, purely-idealist debates and criticisms are an unproductive waste of time:

The Young-Hegelian ideologists, in spite of their allegedly ‘world-shattering’ statements, are the staunchest conservatives. The most recent of them have found the correct expression for their activity when they declare they are only fighting against ‘phrases.’ They forget, however, that to these phrases they themselves are only opposing other phrases, and that they are in no way combating the real existing world when they are merely combating the phrases of this world. The only results which this philosophic criticism could achieve were a few (and at that thoroughly one-sided) elucidations of Christianity from the point of view of religious history; all the rest of their assertions are only further embellishments of their claim to have furnished, in these unimportant elucidations, discoveries of universal importance.

Marx also discusses the uselessness of idealist conjecture:

Moreover, it is quite immaterial what consciousness starts to do on its own: out of all such muck we get only the one inference that these three moments, the forces of production, the state of society, and consciousness, can and must come into contradiction with one another, because the division of labour implies the possibility, nay the fact that intellectual and material activity — enjoyment and labour, production and consumption — devolve on different individuals, and that the only possibility of their not coming into contradiction lies in the negation in its turn of the division of labour. It is self-evident, moreover, that ‘spectres,’ ‘bonds,’ ‘the higher being,’ ‘concept,’ ‘scruple,’ [terms for idealist conceptions] are merely the idealistic, spiritual expression, the conception apparently of the isolated individual, the image of very empirical fetters and limitations, within which the mode of production of life and the form of intercourse coupled with it move.

What Marx means by this is that we should focus on the material processes and conditions of society if we intend to change society, because idealist speculation, conjecture, critique, and thought alone, at the individual level, will never be capable of affecting revolutionary change in our material world.

Instead, we must focus on the material basis of reality, the material conditions of society, and seek revolutionary measures which are built upon materialist foundations. Only by understanding material processes of development, as well as the dialectical relationship between consciousness and matter, can we reliably and effectively begin to impact reality through conscious activity. This begins with the recognition that conscious thought itself is a reflection of material reality which developed and results from life-processes of material motion and processes of change within the human brain.

This concept of reflection, pioneered by Marx and Engels, was significantly developed by V. I. Lenin in his response to Machian positivists who posited that what we perceive is not truly reality [see Annotation 32, p. 27]. In his Philosophical Notebooks, Lenin wrote: “Life gives rise to the brain. Nature is reflected in the human brain.”

In Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, Lenin further defined the relationship between matter and consciousness through reflection.

LENIN’S PROOF OF THE THEORY OF REFLECTION

In Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, Lenin offered the following arguments to back up the theory of reflection.

1) Things exist independently of our consciousness, independently of our perceptions, outside of us, for it is beyond doubt that alizarin [a chemical substance which was newly discovered at time of writing] existed in coal tar yesterday and it is equally beyond doubt that yesterday we knew nothing of the existence of this alizarin and received no sensations from it.

Lenin is saying that the material world must exist outside of and independent from our consciousness. He cites as evidence the discovery of a chemical substance which until recently we had no sensory perception of, noting that this substance must have existed long before we became aware of it through sensory observation.

2) There is definitely no difference in principle between the phenomenon and the thing-in-itself, and there can be no such difference. The only difference is between what is known and what is not yet known. And philosophical inventions of specific boundaries between the one and the other, inventions to the effect that the thing-in-itself is “beyond” phenomena (Kant) or that we can or must fence ourselves off by some philosophical partition from the problem of a world which in one part or another is still unknown but which exists outside us (Hume) — all this is the sheerest nonsense, [unfounded belief], trick, invention.

Lenin is referencing a centuries-old debate about whether or not human beings are capable of having real knowledge of a “thing-in-itself,” or if we can only perceive phenomena of things (characteristics observable to our senses). The “thing-in-itself” refers to the actual material object which exists outside of our consciousness. So the question being posed is: can we REALLY have knowledge of material objects outside of our consciousness, or does consciousness itself act as a barrier to ever REALLY knowing anything about material objects and the material world outside of our consciousness?

Immanuel Kant argued that we can never know the true nature of the material world, writing: “we indeed, rightly considering objects of sense as mere appearances, confess thereby that they are based upon a thing-in-itself, though we know not this thing as it is in itself, but only know its appearances, viz., the way in which our senses are affected by this unknown something.” This idea that the senses could not be trusted to deliver accurate knowledge — and thus, the “thing-in-itself” is essentially unknowable — was carried forward by later empiricists such as Bacon and Hume [see Annotation 10, p. 10]. In Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, Marx and Engels refute this notion, arguing that practice allows us to discover truth about “things-in-themselves:”

The most telling refutation of this as of all other philosophical crotchets is practice — namely, experiment and industry. If we are able to prove the correctness of our conception of a natural process by making it ourselves, bringing it into being out of its conditions and making it serve our own purposes into the bargain, then there is an end to the Kantian ungraspable “thing-in-itself”.

Lenin expanded on this argument, explaining that the phenomena of objects which we observe with our senses do accurately reflect material objects, even though we might not know everything about these objects at once. Over time, as we learn more and more about material objects and the material world through practice and repeated observation, we more fully and accurately come to understand “things-in-themselves, as he writes in Empirio-Criticism and Materialism:

3) In the theory of knowledge, as in every other branch of science, we must think dialectically, that is, we must not regard our knowledge as readymade and unalterable, but must determine how knowledge emerges from ignorance, how incomplete, inexact knowledge becomes more complete and more exact.

Here, Lenin further elaborates on the dialectical nature of knowledge: we must simultaneously accept that our knowledge is never perfect and unchanging, but we must also recognize that we are capable of making our knowledge more exact and complete over time. To further defend his ideas about reflection, Lenin cited Czech philosopher Karl Kautsky’s argument against Kant:

That I see green, red and white is grounded in my faculty of sight. But that green is something different from red testifies to something that lies outside of me, to real differences between the things... The relations and differences between the things themselves revealed to me by the individual space and time concepts are real relations and differences of the external world, not conditioned by the nature of my perceptive faculty... If this were really so [i.e., if Kant’s doctrine of the ideality of time and space were true], we could know nothing about the world outside us, not even that it exists.

Lenin followed from Marx and Engels that, in order to further develop our understanding and knowledge of the material world, it was necessary to engage in practice [see Annotation 211, p. 205]. Engels wrote in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. From the moment we [use] these objects, according to the qualities we perceive in them, we put to an infallible test the correctness or otherwise of our sense-perceptions. If these perceptions have been wrong, then our estimate of the use to which an object can be turned must also be wrong, and our attempt must fail. But if we succeed in accomplishing our aim, if we find that the object does agree with our idea of it, and does answer the purpose we intended it for, then that is positive proof that our perceptions of it and of its qualities, so far, agree with reality outside ourselves.

Notice that Engels is careful to use the words so far: “its qualities, so far, agree with reality outside ourselves.” Engels does not argue that human understanding of the material world is infallible: mistakes are often made. But over time, as such mistakes are discovered and our understanding improves, our knowledge of the material world develops. This is only possible if the phenomena of objects which we observe — the reflections within our consciousness — do actually and accurately represent material reality. Lenin elaborated on this necessity to constantly update and improve dialectical materialist philosophy as new information and knowledge became available:

Engels, for instance, assimilated the, to him, new term, energy, and began to employ it in 1885 (Preface to the 2^nd ed. of Anti-Dühring) and in 1888 (Ludwig Feuerbach), but to employ it equally with the concepts of ‘force’ and ‘motion,’ and along with them. Engels was able to enrich his materialism by adopting a new terminology.

Engels provided further elaborations on how practical experience and mastery of the material world refutes the notion that it is impossible to have real knowledge of the material world in Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy:

The most telling refutation of this as of all other philosophical fancies is practice, viz., experiment and industry. If we are able to prove the correctness of our conception of a natural process by making it ourselves, bringing it into being out of its conditions and using it for our own purposes into the bargain, then there is an end of the Kantian incomprehensible or ungraspable... The chemical substances produced in the bodies of plants and animals remained just such thingsin-themselves until organic chemistry began to produce them one after another, whereupon the thing-in-itself became a thing for us, as for instance, alizarin [a dye which was originally plant-based], which we no longer trouble to grow in in the field, but produce much more cheaply and simply from coal tar.

So, dialectical materialism holds that there is a material world external from our consciousness; that conscious thoughts are reflections of this material world; that we can have real knowledge of the material world through sensory observation; and that our knowledge and understanding of the material world is best advanced through practice in the material world.

- Social Sources of Consciousness

There are many factors that constitute the social sources of consciousness. The most basic and direct factors are labor and language.

Labor is the process by which humans interact with the natural world in order to make products for our needs of existing and developing. Labor is also the process that changes the human body’s structure [i.e., muscles developing through exercise].

Annotation 73

In Dialectics of Nature, Engels describes the dialectical relationship between labor and human development:

Labour is the source of all wealth, the political economists assert. And it really is the source — next to nature, which supplies it with the material that it converts into wealth. But it is even infinitely more than this. It is the prime basic condition for all human existence, and this to such an extent that, in a sense, we have to say that labour created man himself.
Before the first flint could be fashioned into a knife by human hands, a period of time probably elapsed in comparison with which the historical period known to us appears insignificant. But the decisive step had been taken, the hand had become free and could henceforth attain ever greater dexterity; the greater flexibility thus acquired was inherited and increased from generation to generation.
Thus the hand is not only the organ of labour, it is also the product of labour. Only by labour, by adaptation to ever new operations, through the inheritance of muscles, ligaments, and, over longer periods of time, bones that had undergone special development and the ever-renewed employment of this inherited finesse in new, more and more complicated operations, have given the human hand the high degree of perfection required to conjure into being the pictures of a Raphael, the statues of a Thorwaldsen, the music of a Paganini.
But the hand did not exist alone, it was only one member of an integral, highly complex organism. And what benefited the hand, benefited also the whole body it served.

Labor also allows us to discover the attributes, structures, motion laws, etc., of the natural world, via observable phenomena.

Annotation 74

We discover truth about the natural world through labor — through physical practice in the material world. See the discussion of practice in Annotation 211, p. 205.

All of these phenomena, through our human senses, impact our human brains. And through brain activity, knowledge and consciousness of the objective world are formed and developed.

Language is a system of material signals that carries information with cognitive content. Without language, consciousness could not exist and develop.

The birth of language goes hand in hand with labor. From the beginning, labor was social. The relationships between people who perform labor processes require them to have means to communicate and exchange thoughts. This requirement caused language to arise and develop along with the working processes. With language, humans not only communicate, but also summarise reality and convey experience and thoughts from generation to generation.

Annotation 75

From Dialectics of Nature:

It has already been noted that our simian ancestors were gregarious; it is obviously impossible to seek the derivation of man, the most social of all animals, from non-gregarious immediate ancestors. Mastery over nature began with the development of the hand, with labour, and widened man’s horizon at every new advance. He was continually discovering new, hitherto unknown properties in natural objects. On the other hand, the development of labour necessarily helped to bring the members of society closer together by increasing cases of mutual support and joint activity, and by making clear the advantage of this joint activity to each individual. In short, men in the making arrived at the point where they had something to say to each other. Necessity created the organ; the undeveloped larynx of the ape was slowly but surely transformed by modulation to produce constantly more developed modulation, and the organs of the mouth gradually learned to pronounce one articulate sound after another.
Comparison with animals proves that this explanation of the origin of language from and in the process of labour is the only correct one. The little that even the most highly-developed animals need to communicate to each other does not require articulate speech. In its natural state, no animal feels handicapped by its inability to speak or to understand human speech. It is quite different when it has been tamed by man. The dog and the horse, by association with man, have developed such a good ear for articulate speech that they easily learn to understand any language within their range of concept. Moreover they have acquired the capacity for feelings such as affection for man, gratitude, etc., which were previously foreign to them. Anyone who has had much to do with such animals will hardly be able to escape the conviction that in many cases they now feel their inability to speak as a defect, although, unfortunately, it is one that can no longer be remedied because their vocal organs are too specialised in a definite direction. However, where vocal organs exist, within certain limits even this inability disappears. The buccal organs of birds are as different from those of man as they can be, yet birds are the only animals that can learn to speak; and it is the bird with the most hideous voice, the parrot, that speaks best of all. Let no one object that the parrot does not understand what it says. It is true that for the sheer pleasure of talking and associating with human beings, the parrot will chatter for hours at a stretch, continually repeating its whole vocabulary. But within the limits of its range of concepts it can also learn to understand what it is saying. Teach a parrot swear words in such a way that it gets an idea of their meaning (one of the great amusements of sailors returning from the tropics); tease it and you will soon discover that it knows how to use its swear words just as correctly as a Berlin costermonger. The same is true of begging for titbits.
First labour, after it and then with it speech — these were the two most essential stimuli under the influence of which the brain of the ape gradually changed into that of man, which, for all its similarity is far larger and more perfect. Hand in inevitably accompanied by a corresponding refinement of the organ of hearing, so the development of the brain as a whole is accompanied by a refinement of hand with the development of the brain went the development of its most immediate instruments — the senses. Just as the gradual development of speech is all the senses. The eagle sees much farther than man, but the human eye discerns considerably more in things than does the eye of the eagle. The dog has a far keener sense of smell than man, but it does not distinguish a hundredth part of the odours that for man are definite signs denoting different things. And the sense of touch, which the ape hardly possesses in its crudest initial form, has been developed only side by side with the development of the human hand itself, through the medium of labour.

So, the most basic, direct and important source that decides the birth and development of language is labor. Language appeared later than labor but always goes with labor. Language and labor were the two main stimulations affecting the brains of the primates which evolved into humans, slowly changing their brains into human brains and transforming animal psychology into human consciousness.

This diagram is based on work from an article titled “Evidence in Hand: Recent Discoveries and the Early Evolution of Human Manual Manipulation[37].”Modern research has discovered strong evidence[38] that the human hand evolved along with tool use, in line with Engels’ analysis in Dialectics of Nature.

Annotation 76

It is also worth noting that, just as human consciousness derived from labor and language and social activity, so too did society itself arise from language and labor, as Engels explained in Dialectics of Nature:

The reaction on labour and speech of the development of the brain and its attendant senses, of the increasing clarity of consciousness, power of abstraction and of conclusion, gave both labour and speech an ever-renewed impulse to further development. This development did not reach its conclusion when man finally became distinct from the ape, but on the whole made further powerful progress, its degree and direction varying among different peoples and at different times, and here and there even being interrupted by local or temporary regression. This further development has been strongly urged forward, on the one hand, and guided along more definite directions, on the other, by a new element which came into play with the appearance of fully-fledged man, namely, society.

In other words, these factors of human’s physical nature and human society have a dialectical relationship with one another. Elements of human nature — in particular labor and language — led to the development of human society, which in turned played a key role in the development of human language and labor.

Human language and human labor mutually develop one another through a dialectical process to develop human nature. Simultaneously, human nature and human society mutually develop one another through a dialectical process.

Elements of human nature — in particular labor and language — led to the development of human society, which in turned played a key role in the development of human language and labor.

b. Nature and Structure of Consciousness

- Nature of Consciousness

Consciousness is the dynamic and creative reflection of the objective world in human brains; it is the subjective image of the objective world. [See discussion of dynamic and creative reflection on p. 68]

The dynamic and creative nature of reflection is expressed in human psycho-physiological activities when we receive, select, process, and save data in our brains. Within the human brain, we are able to collect data from the external material world. Based on this information, our brain is capable of creating new information, and we are able to analyze, interpret, and understand all of this information collectively within our consciousness.

The dynamic and creative nature of reflection is also expressed in several human processes:

The creation of ideas, hypotheses, stories, etc.
The ability to summarize nature and to comprehend the objective laws of nature.
The ability to construct models of ideas and systems of knowledge to guide our activities.

Consciousness is the subjective image of the objective world. Consciousness is defined by the objective world in both Content and Form [see Annotation 150, p. 147]. However, consciousness does not perfectly reflect the objective world. It modifies information through the subjective lenses (thoughts, feelings, aspirations, experiences, knowledge, needs, etc.) of humans. According to Marx and Engels, ideas are simply “sublimates [transformations] of [the human brain’s]... material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises.”^[39]

Annotation 77

In The German Ideology, Marx and Engels refer to ideas somewhat poetically as “the phantoms formed in the human brain,” and explains that ideas arise directly from material human life processes [see Annotation 72, p. 68]. Lenin makes it very clear in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism that consciousness is not a mirror image, or exact reproduction of reality, quoting Engels:

The great basic question of all philosophy,” Engels says, “especially of modern philosophy, is that concerning the relation of thinking and being,” of “spirit and nature.” Having divided the philosophers into “two great camps” on this basic question, Engels shows that there is “yet another side” to this basic philosophical question, viz., “in what relation do our thoughts about the world surrounding us stand to this world itself? Is our thinking capable of the cognition of the real world? Are we able in our ideas and notions of the real world to produce a correct reflection of reality?” “The overwhelming majority of philosophers give an affirmative answer to this question,” says Engels, “including under this head not only all materialists but also the most consistent idealists.

Of extra importance is Lenin’s footnote to the above passage, regarding what he purports to be Viktor Chernov’s mistranslation of Engels:

Fr. Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach, etc., 4^th Germ. ed., S. 15. Russian translation, Geneva ed., 1905, p. 12–13. Mr. V. Chernov translates the word Spiegelbild literally (a mirror reflection) accusing Plekhanov of presenting the theory of Engels “in a very weakened form” by speaking in Russian simply of a “reflection” instead of a “mirror reflection”. This is mere cavilling. Spiegelbild [mirror reflection] in German is also used simply in the sense of Abbild [reflection, image].

Here, Lenin reaffirms and clarifies Engels’ idea that consciousness is not a perfect, exact duplicate of reality; not a “mirror image.” This, however, does not contradict the fact that we can obtain real knowledge of the real world in our consciousness, and that this knowledge improves over time through practice and observation. Indeed, Lenin’s passage on practice cited first in this annotation directly follows the above passage in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.

See: Natural Source of Consciousness, p. 64, and Annotation 32, 27.

Consciousness is a social phenomenon and has a social nature. Consciousness arose from real life activities. Consciousness is always ruled by natural law and by social law.

Annotation 78

Natural law includes the laws of physics, chemistry, and other natural phenomena which govern the material world. Consciousness itself can never violate natural law as it arises from the natural processes of the natural world.

Social law includes the objective and universal relationships between social phenomena and social processes. Human society was created through labor, and this labor was performed in very specific material relations between humans and the natural world.

Note: social law is a key concept of historical materialism, which is the topic of Part 2 of the textbook from which this entire text has been translated, which we hope to translate in the future.

In A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx explains how social existence and social laws govern the consciousness of individuals:

In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.

Consciousness is determined by the social communication needs of human beings as well as the material conditions of reality.

Annotation 79

The term material conditions refers to the external environment which humans inhabit. Material conditions include the natural environment, the means of production and the economic base^[40] of human society, and other objective externalities and systems which affect human life and society. Note that material conditions don’t refer to physical matter alone, but also include objective social relations and phenomena. In A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx argues that “neither legal relations nor political forms could be comprehended whether by themselves or on the basis of a so-called general development of the human mind, but that on the contrary they originate in the material conditions of life.”

Consciousness is dynamic in nature, constantly learning and changing flexibly. Consciousness guides humans to transform the material world to suit our needs.

Annotation 80

Consciousness and material conditions have a dialectical relationship with one other, just as the base of society and the superstructure have a dialectical relationship with one other [see Annotation 29, p. 24]. Consciousness arises from material conditions, though conscious activity can affect material conditions.

As Marx explains in Capital Volume I:

At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement. He not only effects a change of form in the material on which he works, but he also realises a purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi, and to which he must subordinate his will. And this subordination is no mere momentary act. Besides the exertion of the bodily organs, the process demands that, during the whole operation, the workman’s will be steadily in consonance with his purpose.

In A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx explains how the development of material conditions eventually leads to conscious activity which will in turn lead to changes in society:

At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or — this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms — with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.

As Marx further explains, material conditions must first be met before such revolutionary social changes can be made through conscious activity:

No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.

- Structure of Consciousness

Consciousness has a very complicated structure, including many factors which have strong relationships with each other. The most basic factors are knowledge, sentiment and willpower.

Annotation 81

As with the concept of reflection (see Annotation 68, p. 65), the analysis of the structure of consciousness which follows is rooted in ideas first proposed by Marx, Engels and Lenin, and later developed through the work of various Soviet psychologists, philosophers, and scientists including Ivan Pavlov, Todor Pavlov, Aleksei Leontiev, Lev Vygotsky, Valentin Voloshinov, and others, and is used as a basis for scientific inquiry and development up to this day. According to Where is Marx in the Work and Thought of Vygotsky? by Lucien Sève (2018), much of this work, such as the groundbreaking work of Lev Vygotsky, has been heavily “de-Marxized,” stripped of all aspects of Marxism and, by extension, dialectical materialism, in translation to English.

Knowledge constitutes the understanding of human beings, and is the result of the cognitive process. Knowledge is the re-created image of perceived objects which takes the form of language. Knowledge is the mode of existence of consciousness and the condition for consciousness to develop.

Annotation 82

Marx and Engels discussed the relationship between language and consciousness extensively in The German Ideology, explaining that language — the form of knowledge which exists in human consciousness — evolved dialectically with and through social activity, and that consciousness also developed along with and through the material processes that gave rise to speech:

From the start the ‘spirit’ is afflicted with the curse of being ‘burdened’ with matter, which here makes its appearance in the form of agitated layers of air, sounds, in short, of language. Language is as old as consciousness, language is practical consciousness that exists also for other men, and for that reason alone it really exists for me personally as well; language, like consciousness, only arises from the need, the necessity, of intercourse with other men.”So, language, physical speech organs, and human society all developed in dialectic relations with one another. Since language is the form of knowledge in human consciousness, this means that knowledge arose directly from these dialectical processes:
Consciousness is, therefore, from the very beginning a social product, and remains so as long as men exist at all. Consciousness is at first, of course, merely consciousness concerning the immediate sensuous environment and consciousness of the limited connection with other persons and things outside the individual who is growing self-conscious.

The fact that knowledge has a language-form in human consciousness is also important to understand because it shows that consciousness arose dialectically as, and through, social activity, and indeed, language and social activity gave rise to consciousness as a replacement for animal instinct in our relations with nature.

Man’s consciousness of the necessity of associating with the individuals around him is the beginning of the consciousness that he is living in society at all. This beginning is as animal as social life itself at this stage. It is mere herd-consciousness, and at this point man is only distinguished from sheep by the fact that with him consciousness takes the place of instinct or that his instinct is a conscious one.

And, as language and social activity dialectically developed through one another, human society became complex enough to give rise to human societies and human economies:

This sheep-like or tribal consciousness receives its further development and extension through increased productivity, the increase of needs, and, what is fundamental to both of these, the increase of population. With these there develops the division of labour…

Knowledge can be separated into two broad categories: knowledge of nature, and knowledge of human society. Each of these categories of knowledge reflects its corresponding entity in the external world.

Annotation 83

Each category of knowledge reflects a corresponding entity in the external world.

It’s also important to note that human society and nature have a dialectical relationship with each other and mutually impact one another, and, by extension, knowledge of nature and knowledge of human society also dialectically influence one another. So these categories of knowledge are not isolated from one another but rather dynamically shape and influence each other continuously through time.

Based on levels of cognitive development, we can also classify knowledge into categories of: daily life knowledge and scientific knowledge, experience knowledge and theory knowledge, emotional knowledge and rational knowledge.

Annotation 84

The following information is from the Marxism-Leninism Textbook of Students Who Specialize in Marxism-Leninism, released by Vietnam’s Ministry of Education and Training:

Daily Life and Scientific Knowledge

File:T-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-17.png

Daily Life Knowledge is the knowledge we acquire in our daily lives to deal with our daily tasks. From our interactions with nature and human society, we cultivate life experience and our understanding of every aspect of our daily lives in relation to human society and nature.

Scientific Knowledge arises from Daily Life Knowledge: as our daily lives become more complex, we develop a need to understand the material world and human society more deeply and comprehensively. Scientific Knowledge is thus a developed system of knowledge of nature and human society. Scientific Knowledge can be tested and can be applied to human life and activity in useful ways.

Experience and Theory Knowledge:

File:T-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-18.png

Experience Knowledge is cultivated from direct observation of nature and human society. This kind of knowledge is extremely diverse, and we can apply this kind of knowledge to guide our daily activities.

Theory Knowledge arises from Experience Knowledge. Theory Knowledge is composed of abstract generalizations of Experience Knowledge. Theory Knowledge is more profound, accurate, and systematically organized than Experience Knowledge and gives us an understanding of the laws and dynamics of nature and human society.

Emotional and Rational Knowledge:

File:T-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-19.png

Less Developed More Developed

Emotional Knowledge is the earlier stage of cognitive processing. Emotional Knowledge comes directly to us from our human senses. We obtain emotional knowledge when we use our human senses to directly learn things about nature and human society. Emotional Knowledge is usually manifested as immediate cognitive responses such as pleasure, pain, and other such impulses.

Rational Knowledge arises from Emotional Knowledge. It is a higher stage of cognitive processing, involving abstract thought and generalization of emotional knowledge.

Rational Knowledge is usually manifested as definitions, conjectures, judgments, etc.

See also: Principle of Development, p. 119; Cognitive Theory of Dialectical Materialism, p. 204.

Sentiment is the resonant manifestation of human emotions and feelings in our relationships. Sentiment is a special form of reality reflection [see Annotation 68, p. 65]. Whenever reality impacts human beings, we feel specific sensations and emotional reactions to those impacts. Over time, these specific sensations and emotions combine and dialectically develop into generalized human feelings, and we call these generalized feelings sentiment. Sentiment expresses and develops in every aspect of human life; it is a factor that improves and promotes cognitive and practical activities.

Annotation 85

As Marx explains in Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844: “Man as an objective, sensuous being is therefore a suffering being — and because he feels that he suffers, a passionate being. Passion is the essential power of man energetically bent on its object.” Marx further elaborates that sentimental emotion is essential to human nature: “The domination of the objective essence within me, the sensuous eruption of my essential activity, is emotion which thereby becomes the activity of my nature.”

Depending on the subjects that are perceived, as well as our human emotions about them, sentiments can be manifested in many different forms such as: moral emotion, aesthetic emotion, religious emotion, etc.

Annotation 86

Moral Emotion is the basic manifestation of moral consciousness at an emotional level. For example: when we see people helping other people, we have positive emotional responses, yet when we see people harming other people, we have negative emotional responses. (Source: Nguyen Thi Khuyen of the National Institute of Administration of Vietnam)

Aesthetic Emotion refers to the the resonant feelings which arise from our interaction with beauty, sadness, comedy, etc., in life and in art. For example: when humans encounter beauty, we feel positive emotional responses. When humans encounter ugliness, we feel negative emotional responses. When we witness pain, we feel sympathetic feelings of pain and a desire to help. When we witness comedy, we feel humorous emotions ourselves. (Source: Textbook of General Aesthetic Studies from the Ministry of

Education and Training of Vietnam)

Religious Emotion is the human belief in supernatural or spiritual forces which can’t be tested or proved through material practice or observation. However, belief in these forces can give human beings emotional responses such as hope, love, etc. (Source: Pham Van Chuc, Doctor of Philosophy, Central Theoretical Council of the Communist Party of Vietnam)

These are just a few illustrative examples; there are many other ways in which human emotion and sentiment can manifest.

Willpower is the manifestation of one’s own strength used to overcome obstacles in the process of achieving goals. Willpower is a dynamic aspect of consciousness, a manifestation of human consciousness in the material world.

Annotation 87

An unnamed poem by Ho Chi Minh, written in 1950 for the Revolutionary Youth Pioneers, addresses the phenomenon of willpower:

Nothing in this world must be difficult
The only thing that we should fear is having a waivering heart
We can dig up mountains and fill the sea
Once we’ve willfully made a firm decision

Today, this poem serves as the lyrics for anthem of the Ho Chi Minh Communist Youth Union (formerly the Revolutionary Youth Pioneers).

Willpower arises from human self-awareness and awareness of the purposes of our actions. Through this awareness and through willpower, we are able to struggle against ourselves and externalities to successfully achieve our goals. We can consider willpower to be the power of conscious human activity; willpower controls and regulates human behaviors in order to allow humans to move towards our goals voluntarily; willpower also allows humans to exercise self-restraint and self-control, and to be assertive in our actions according to our views and beliefs.

Annotation 88

In Dialectics of Nature, Engels explains how willpower developed in human beings as we separated from animals through the development of consciousness: “The further removed men are from animals, however, the more their effect on nature assumes the character of premeditated, planned action directed towards definite preconceived ends.”

In Capital Volume I, Marx explains how willpower uniquely allows humans to consciously change our own material conditions to suit our needs according to pre-conceived plans:

Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and Nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between himself and Nature. He opposes himself to Nature as one of her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, head and hands, the natural forces of his body, in order to appropriate Nature’s productions in a form adapted to his own wants. By thus acting on the external world and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops his slumbering powers and compels them to act in obedience to his sway. We are not now dealing with those primitive instinctive forms of labour that remind us of the mere animal. An immeasurable interval of time separates the state of things in which a man brings his labour-power to market for sale as a commodity, from that state in which human labour was still in its first instinctive stage. We pre-suppose labour in a form that stamps it as exclusively human. A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement. He not only effects a change of form in the material on which he works, but he also realises a purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi, and to which he must subordinate his will. And this subordination is no mere momentary act. Besides the exertion of the bodily organs, the process demands that, during the whole operation, the workman’s will be steadily in consonance with his purpose. This means close attention. The less he is attracted by the nature of the work, and the mode in which it is carried on, and the less, therefore, he enjoys it as something which gives play to his bodily and mental powers, the more close his attention is forced to be.

The true value of willpower is not only manifested in strength or weakness, but is also expressed in the content and meaning of the goals that we try to achieve through our willpower. Lenin believed that willpower is one of the factors that will create revolutionary careers for millions of people in the fierce class struggles to liberate ourselves and mankind.

Annotation 89

In “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder, Lenin explains how revolutions are born from the collective willpower of thousands of people:

History as a whole, and the history of revolutions in particular, is always richer in content, more varied, more multiform, more lively and ingenious than is imagined by even the best parties, the most class-conscious vanguards of the most advanced classes. This can readily be understood, because even the finest of vanguards express the class-consciousness, will, passion and imagination of tens of thousands, whereas at moments of great upsurge and the exertion of all human capacities, revolutions are made by the class-consciousness, will, passion and imagination of tens of millions, spurred on by a most acute struggle of classes. Two very important practical conclusions follow from this: first, that in order to accomplish its task the revolutionary class must be able to master all forms or aspects of social activity without exception (completing after the capture of political power — sometimes at great risk and with very great danger — what it did not complete before the capture of power); second, that the revolutionary class must be prepared for the most rapid and brusque replacement of one form by another.

All of these factors [knowledge, sentiment, and willpower] which, together, create consciousness, have dialectical relationships with each other. Of these factors, knowledge is the most important, because it is the mode of existence of consciousness, and also the factor which guides the development of all the other factors, and it also determines how the other factors manifest.

3. The Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness

The relationship between matter and consciousness is dialectical. In this relationship, matter comes first, and matter is the source of consciousness; it decides consciousness. However, consciousness is not totally passive, it can impact back to matter through the practical activities of human beings.

Annotation 90

Engels explained in Dialectics of Nature that “matter evolves out of itself the thinking human brain,” which means that matter must necessarily come prior to consciousness.

As Marx explains in Capital Volume I, matter determines conscious activity:

The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men, the language of real life. Conceiving, thinking, the mental intercourse of men, appear at this stage as the direct efflux of their material behaviour. The same applies to mental production as expressed in the language of politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics, etc., of a people. Men are the producers of their conceptions, ideas, etc. – real, active men, as they are conditioned by a definite development of their productive forces and of the intercourse corresponding to these, up to its furthest forms. Consciousness can never be anything else than conscious existence, and the existence of men is their actual life-process. If in all ideology men and their circumstances appear upside-down as in a camera obscura, this phenomenon arises just as much from their historical life-process as the inversion of objects on the retina does from their physical life-process.

However, it’s important to remember that the relationship between matter and consciousness is dialectical, and that conscious activity — through the combination of willpower and labor — can also impact the material world; social change arises through the combined willpower of many human beings. See: Annotation 80, p. 81.

a. The Role of Matter in Consciousness

Dialectical Materialism affirms that:

• Matter is the first existence, and that consciousness comes after.

• Matter is the source of consciousness, it decides consciousness.

We know that matter determines consciousness because consciousness is the product of the high-level-structured matter such as the human brain. Consciousness itself can only exist after the development of the material structure of the human brain. Humans are the result of millions of years of development of the material world. We are, therefore, products of the material world. This conclusion has been firmly established through the development of natural science, which has given us great insight into the long history of the Earth and of the evolution of living organisms, including human beings.

All of this scientific evidence stands as the basis for the viewpoint: matter comes first, consciousness comes after [see Annotation 114, p. 116].

We have already discussed the factors which constitute the natural and social sources of consciousness:

• Human brains

• Impacts of the material world on human brains that cause reflections

• Labor

• Language

[See Annotation 72, p. 68 and Annotation 73, p. 75]

All of these factors also assert that matter is the origin of consciousness.

Annotation 91

File:T-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-20.png

The material basis of consciousness is rooted in the following phenomena:

1. The material structure of the human brain.
1. Impacts from the material world cause reflections in human consciousness.
1. Human Labor — physical process which dialectically develops consciousness.
1. Human Speech — physical process which dialectically develops consciousness.
1. Evolution of human brains and consciousness through material processes of the material world.

For more information, see: Nature and Structure of Consciousness.

Consciousness is composed of reflections and subjective images of the material world, therefore the content of consciousness is decided by matter [see Annotation 68, p. 65]. The development of consciousness is determined by natural laws and by social laws^[41] as well as the material environment which we inhabit. All of these factors which determine consciousness are material in nature. Therefore, matter determines not only the content but also the development of consciousness.

b. The Role of Consciousness in Matter

In relation to matter, consciousness can impact matter through human activities.

When we discuss consciousness we are discussing human consciousness. So, when we talk about the role of consciousness, we are talking about the role of human beings. Consciousness in and of itself cannot directly change anything in reality. In order to change reality, humans have to implement material activities. However, consciousness controls every human activity, so even though consciousness does not directly create or change the material world, it equips humans with knowledge about objective reality, and based on that foundation of knowledge, humans are able to identify goals, set directions, develop plans, and select methods, solutions, tools, and means to achieve our goals. So, consciousness manifests its ability to impact matter through human activities.

The impact of consciousness on matter can have positive or negative results.

Annotation 92

“Positive” and “negative,” in this context, are subjective and relative terms which simply denote “moving towards a goal” and “moving away from a goal,” based on a specific perspective.

From the perspective of revolutionary communism, “positive” can be taken as moving towards the end goal of the liberation of the working class from capitalist oppression and the construction of a stateless, classless society. Likewise, “negative” can be taken as moving away from that goal. See: Annotation 114, p. 116.

Humans have the ability to overcome all challenges in the process of achieving our goals and improving our world, so long as our conscious activities meet the following criteria:

We must perceive reality accurately.
We must properly apply scientific knowledge, revolutionary sentiments, and directed willpower.
We must avoid contradicting objective laws of nature and society.

Successfully achieving our goals and improving the world in this manner constitutes the positive outcome of human consciousness.

On the contrary, if human consciousness wrongly reflects objective reality, nature, and laws, then, right from the beginning, our actions will have negative results which will do harm to ourselves and our society.

Therefore, by directing the activities of humans, consciousness can determine whether the results of human activities are beneficial or harmful. Our consciousness thus determines whether our activities will succeed or fail and whether our efforts will be effective or ineffective.

By studying the matter, origin, and nature of consciousness, as well as the relationships between matter and consciousness, we can see that:

Matter is the source of consciousness ^[42].
Matter determines the content and creative capacity of consciousness ^[43].
Matter is the prerequisite to form consciousness ^[44].
Consciousness only has the ability to impact matter, and this impact is indirect, because it has to be done through human material activities within material reality ^[45].

Matter determines consciousness while consciousness impacts matter indirectly through human activity.

The strength with which consciousness can impact the material world depends on:

The accuracy of reflection of the material world in consciousness ^[46].
Strength of willpower which transmits consciousness to human activity ^[47].
The degree of organization of social activity ^[48].
Material conditions in which human activity occurs ^[49].

Annotation 93

The importance of organization in determining the outcomes of human social activity is one of the most important concepts of Marxism-Leninism and is discussed frequently by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and nearly every other important communist revolutionary in history. Marx explains the connections between social organization and conscious human activity in Capital Volume I [see Annotation 80, p. 81].

4. Meaning of the methodology

Dialectical Materialism builds the most basic and common methodological^[50] principles for human cognitive and practical activities on the following bases:

The viewpoint of the material nature of the world [matter comes first, consciousness comes after].
The dynamic and creative nature of consciousness ^[51].
The dialectical relationship between matter and consciousness ^[52].

All cognitive and practical activities of humans originate from material reality and must observe objective natural and social laws, however, our activities are capable of impacting the material world through dynamic and creative conscious activity. [See The Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness, p. 88].

Annotation 94

The above paragraph summarizes an important methodological concept which is critical for undestanding the philosophical framework of Dialectical Materialism. Dialectical Materialism, as a philosophy, synthesizes earlier materialist and idealist positions by recognizing the fact that the material determines consciousness, while consciousness can impact the material world through willful activity.

From this philosophical basis, the methodology of Materialist Dialectics has been developed to provide a deeper understanding of dialectical development, which is rooted in contradiction and negation within and between subjects. Materialist Dialectics is the subject of Chapter 2, p. 98.

According to this methodological principle [i.e., the Principle of the Dialectic Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness], if we hope to succeed in accomplishing our goals in the material world, then we must simultaneously meet two criteria:

1. We must ensure that our knowledge reflects the objective material world as much as possible, respecting the objective natural and social laws of the material world.

2. We must simultaneously recognize the dynamic and creative nature of our conscious activity.

When we say that human activities originate from material reality and must observe objective natural and social laws we' mean that human knowledge must originate from the material world. This means that if we hope to be successful in our activities, we should respect the natural and social laws of the material world.

This means that in our human perception and activities, we must determine goals, and set strategies, policies, and plans which are rooted firmly in objective material reality. Humans have to take objective material reality as the foundation of our activities and plans, and all of our activities must be carried out in the material world. Humans have to examine and understand our material conditions and transform them in ways that will help us to accomplish our goals.

When we talk about impacting the material world through dynamic and creative conscious activity, we mean we must recognize the positive, dynamic, and creative roles of consciousness. We must recognize the role human consciousness plays in dynamically and creatively manifesting our will in the material world through labor. Impacting the material world through conscious activity at a revolutionary scale requires humans to respect and understand the role of scientific knowledge; to study laboriously to master such knowledge; and then to propagate such knowledge so to the masses to develop public knowledge and belief so as to guide the people’s action.

Moreover, we also have to voluntarily study and practice^[53] in order to form and improve our revolutionary viewpoint^[54] and willpower^[55] in order to have both scientific and humanitarian activity guidelines.

To implement this principle [i.e., the Principle of the Dialectic Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness], we have to avoid, fight against, and overcome the diseases of subjectivism^[56] and idealism^[57] through such errors as:

Attempting to impose idealist plans and principles [which are not rooted in material conditions] into reality.
Considering fantasy, illusion, and imagination instead of reality.
Basing policies and programs on subjective desires.
Using sentiment as the starting point for developing policies, strategies, etc.

On the other hand, in cognitive and practical activities, we also have to fight against empiricism^[58], which disregards scientific knowledge and theories, and which is also very conservative, stagnant and passive.

Annotation 95

Process of Developing Revolutionary Public Knowledge

Developing revolutionary public knowledge must be preceded by mastery of knowledge and a firm grounding in the role and nature of knowledge.

In Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Engels makes a scathing critique of idealist socialist revolutionary thought, writing:

To all these [idealist socialists], Socialism is the expression of absolute truth^[59], reason and justice, and has only to be discovered to conquer all the world by virtue of its own power. And as an absolute truth is independent of time, space, and of the historical development of man, it is a mere accident when and where it is discovered. With all this, absolute truth, reason, and justice are different with the founder of each different school. And as each one’s special kind of absolute truth, reason, and justice is again conditioned by his subjective understanding, his conditions of existence, the measure of his knowledge and his intellectual training, there is no other ending possible in this conflict of absolute truths than that they shall be mutually exclusive of one another.

Here, Engels points out the absurdity of the idea that some abstract, purely ideal “truth” could liberate workers in the material world. Engels continues on, explaining how such idealist socialism could never lead to meaningful revolutionary change:

Hence, from this nothing could come but a kind of eclectic, average Socialism, which, as a matter of fact, has up to the present time dominated the minds of most of the socialist workers in France and England. Hence, a mish-mash allowing of the most manifold shades of opinion: a mish-mash of such critical statements, economic theories, pictures of future society by the founders of different sects, as excite a minimum of opposition; a mish-mash which is the more easily brewed the more definite sharp edges of the individual constituents are rubbed down in the stream of debate, like rounded pebbles in a brook.

In other words, idealist revolutionary movements only tend to result in endless debate and meaningless theories which are divorced from objective reality and material conditions. Such theories and idealist constructions do not lead to effective action in the real world. Socialism must become real (i.e., based in objective material conditions and praxis^[60] in the real world) to affect change in the material world, as Engels explains elsewhere in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific [see Annotation 17, p. 18].

In Critique of the Gotha Program, Marx lays out an excellent case study of the failings of incoherent, idealist socialism. He begins by quoting the Gotha Program, which was an ideological program which the German Workers Party hoped to implement. In this text, Marx cites the Gotha Program line by line and offers his materialist critique of the idealist principles presented. In the following passage, Marx refutes some key errors caused by idealism and offers materialist correction:

Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power... But a socialist program cannot allow such bourgeois phrases to pass over in silence the conditions that lone give them meaning. And insofar as man from the beginning behaves toward nature, the primary source of all instruments and subjects of labor, as an owner, treats her as belonging to him, his labor becomes the source of use values, therefore also of wealth. The bourgeois have very good grounds for falsely ascribing supernatural creative power to labor; since precisely from the fact that labor depends on nature it follows that the man who possesses no other property than his labor power must, in all conditions of society and culture, be the slave of other men who have made themselves the owners of the material conditions of labor. He can only work with their permission, hence live only with their permission.

Here, Marx points out the importance of having a firm understanding of the material reality of labor and its relation to the material, natural world. Marx points out that the idea that labor, alone, is the source of all wealth is an idealist notion of the bourgeoisie, a false consciousness [see Annotation 235, p. 231] which prevents proper material analysis and props up the capitalist viewpoint. A failure to grasp the truth of the material basis of reality weakens the socialist position, and any movement built on such weak idealist foundations will lead to failure in trying to bring about revolutionary change.

We have already discussed the shortcomings of empiricism in Annotation 10, p. 10, but it might be helpful to see another case study, this time from Engels, pointing out the flaws of empiricist analysis in his text Anti-Dühring. Engels begins by quoting the empiricist Eugen Dühring, who wrote:

Philosophy is the development of the highest form of consciousness of the world and of life, and in a wider sense embraces the principles of all knowledge and volition. Wherever a series of cognitions or stimuli or a group of forms of being come to be examined by human consciousness, the principles underlying these manifestations of necessity become an object of philosophy. These principles are the simple, or until now assumed to be simple, constituents of manifold knowledge and volition. Like the chemical composition of bodies, the general constitution of things can be reduced to basic forms and basic elements. These ultimate constituents or principles, once they have been discovered, are valid not only for what is immediately known and accessible, but also for the world which is unknown and inaccessible to us. Philosophical principles consequently provide the final supplement required by the sciences in order to become a uniform system by which nature and human life can be explained. Apart from the fundamental forms of all existence, philosophy has only two specific subjects of investigation — nature and the world of man. Accordingly, our material arranges itself quite naturally into three groups, namely, the general scheme of the universe, the science of the principles of nature, and finally the science of mankind. This succession at the same time contains an inner logical sequence, for the formal principles which are valid for all being take precedence, and the realms of the objects to which they are to be applied then follow in the degree of their subordination.

Engels then proceeds to critique this empiricist worldview, showing that it does not properly reflect the material world and amounts to idealism in its own right:

What [Dühring] is dealing with are therefore principles, formal tenets derived from thought and not from the external world, which are to be applied to nature and the realm of man, and to which therefore nature and man have to conform. But whence does thought obtain these principles? From itself?
No, for Herr Dühring himself says: the realm of pure thought is limited to logical schemata and mathematical forms (the latter, moreover, as we shall see, is wrong). Logical schemata can only relate to forms of thought; but what we are dealing with here is solely forms of being, of the external world, and these forms can never be created and derived by thought out of itself, but only from the external world. But with this the whole relationship is inverted: the principles are not the starting-point of the investigation, but its final result; they are not applied to nature and human history, but abstracted from them, it is not nature and the realm of man which conform to these principles, but the principles are only valid in so far as they are in conformity with nature and history. That is the only materialist conception of the matter, and Herr Dühring’s contrary conception is idealistic, makes things stand completely on their heads, and fashions the real world out of ideas, out of schemata, schemes or categories existing somewhere before the world, from eternity — just like a Hegel.

Lenin also heavily criticized empiricism in his work Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, which we discuss at length in Annotation 32, p. 27.

Chapter 2: Materialist Dialectics

Materialist dialectics is one of the basic theoretical parts that form the worldview and philosophical methodology of Marxism-Leninism. It is the “science of common relations” and also the “science of common rules of motion and development of nature, society, and human thoughts... Dialectics, as understood by Marx, and also in conformity with Hegel, includes what is now called the theory of knowledge, or epistemology.”^[61]

[Note: Epistemology is the theoretical study of knowledge; for more information see Cognitive Theory of Dialectical Materialism, p. 204.]

I. Dialectics and Materialist Dialectics

1. Dialectics and Basic Forms of Dialectics

a. Definitions of Dialectics and the Subjective Dialectic

In Marxism-Leninism, the term dialectic refers to regular relationships, interactions, transformations, motions, and developments of things, phenomena, and processes in nature, society and human thought.^[62]

There are two forms of dialectic: the objective dialectic and the subjective dialectic. The objective dialectic is the dialectic of the material world, while the subjective dialectic is the reflection of objective dialectic in human consciousness. [See Annotation 68, p. 65].

According to Engels, “Dialectics, so-called objective dialectics, prevail throughout nature, and so-called subjective dialectics (dialectical thought), is only the reflection of the motion through opposites which asserts itself everywhere in nature, and which by the continual conflict of the opposites and their final passage into one another, or into higher forms, determines the life of nature.”^[63]

Annotation 96

Dialectics is an umbrella term which includes both forms of dialectical systems: subjective and objective dialectics.

Objective dialectics are the dialectical processes which occur in the material world, including all motion, relationships, and dynamic changes which occur in space and time.

Subjective dialectics, or dialectical thought, is a system of analysis and organized thinking which aims to reflect the objective dialectics of the material world within human consciousness. Dialectical thinking has two component forms: dialectical materialism and materialist dialectics [see Annotation 49, p. 45].

Subjective dialectics is the theory that studies and summarises the [objective] dialectic of nature into a system with scientific principles and rules, in order to build a system of methodological principles of perception and practice. Dialectics is opposed to metaphysics — a system of thought which conceives of things and phenomena in the world in an isolated and unchanging state [See Annotation 8, p. 8].

b. Basic Forms of Dialectics

Dialectics has developed into three basic forms and levels: ancient primitive dialectics, German idealist dialectics, and the materialist dialectics of Marxism-Leninism.

Ancient primitive dialectics is the earliest form of dialectics. It has developed independently in many philosophical systems in ancient China, India and Greece.

Chinese philosophy has two major forms of ancient primitive dialectics:

“Changing Theory” (a theory of common principles and rules pertaining to the changes in the universe)
The “Five Elements Theory” (a theory of the principles of mutual impact and transformation of the five elements of the universe) of the School of Yin-Yang. [See: Primitive Materialism, p. 52]

In Indian philosophy, Buddhist philosophy is a quintessential [see Annotation 6, p. 8] form of ancient primitive dialectics, which includes such concepts as “selflessness,” “impermanence,” and “predestination.”

An ancient, primitive form of dialectics also developed in Ancient Greek philosophy.

Friedrich Engels wrote: “The old Greek philosophers were all born natural dialecticians, and Aristotle, the most encyclopaedic of them, had already analyzed the most essential forms of dialectic thought… This primitive, naive, but intrinsically correct conception of the world is that of ancient Greek philosophy, and was first clearly formulated by Heraclitus: everything is and is not, for everything is fluid, is constantly changing, constantly coming into being and passing away.”^[64]

Engels also wrote of Greek dialectics: “Here, dialectical thought still appears in its pristine simplicity, as yet undisturbed by the charming obstacles which the metaphysicists of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries — Bacon and Locke in England, Wolff in Germany — put in its own way... Among the Greeks — just because they were not yet advanced enough to dissect and analyse nature — nature is still viewed as a whole, in general. The universal connection of natural phenomena is not proved in regard to particular; to the Greeks it is the result of direct contemplation.”^[65]

Annotation 97

Engels, here, is explaining how the ancient Greek dialecticians were correct to view nature as a cohesive system, a “whole, in general,” which they determined through direct observation of the natural world. The major shortcoming of this ancient Greek form of dialectics was a lack of inquiry into the specific processes and principles of nature. Engels laments that seventeenth and eighteenth century metaphysicists took us backwards by disregarding this view of nature as a cohesive, general whole.

Ancient, primitive dialectics had an accurate awareness of the dialectical characteristic of the world but with its primitive and naive perspective, it still lacked evidence-based forms of natural scientific achievements.

Jumping forward to the late 16^th century, natural sciences started developing rapidly in Europe. Scientists began deeply analysing and studying specific factors and phenomena of nature which led to the birth of modern European metaphysical analysis. In the 18^th century, metaphysics became the dominant methodology in philosophical thought and scientific study. However, when natural scientists moved from studying each subject separately to studying the unification of all those subjects in their relationships, the metaphysical method proved insufficient. Thus, European scientists and philosophers had to transition into a more advanced system of thought: dialectical thought.

The classical German idealist dialectics were founded by Kant and completed by Hegel. According to Engels: “The second form of dialectics, which is the form that comes closest to the German naturalists [natural scientists], is classical German philosophy, from Kant to Hegel.”^[66]

Annotation 98

Engels discusses this history, and the shortcomings of the metaphysical philosophy of his era, in The Old Preface to Anti-Dühring. First, Engels explains why early modern natural scientists initially did not feel constrained by their adherence to metaphysics, since inquiries in the initial revolution of scientific study were limited to the narrow development of specific fields of inquiry by necessity:

Empirical natural science has accumulated such a tremendous mass of positive material for knowledge that the necessity of classifying it in each separate field of investigation systematically and in accordance with its inner inter-connection has become absolutely imperative.

Engels goes on to explain that at the time he was writing, enough knowledge had been accumulated within specific, distinct fields that it becomes necessary to begin studying the connections and overlaps between different fields, which called for theoretical and philosophical foundations:

It is becoming equally imperative to bring the individual spheres of knowledge into the correct connection with one another. In doing so, however, natural science enters the field of theory and here the methods of empiricism will not work, here only theoretical thinking can be of assistance.

Unfortunately, natural scientists were held back by the existing metaphysical theoretical foundations which were dominant at the time as, according to Engels, “theoretical thinking is an innate quality only as regards natural capacity. This natural capacity must be developed, improved, and for its improvement there is as yet no other means than the study of previous philosophy.”

Metaphysical theory and formal logic were in common use by natural scientists at the time. As Engels explained in On Dialectics and Dialectics of Nature, metaphysics and formal logic could never be as useful as dialectical analysis for examining and unifying concepts from wide-ranging dynamic systems of overlapping fields of inquiry.

Unfortunately, dialectics had not yet been suitably developed for use in the natural sciences before the work of Marx and Engels in developing dialectical materialism, as Engels explained in On Dialectics:

Formal logic itself has been the arena of violent controversy from the time of Aristotle to the present day. And dialectics has so far been fairly closely investigated by only two thinkers, Aristotle and Hegel. But it is precisely dialectics that constitutes the most important form of thinking for present-day natural science, for it alone offers the analogue for, and thereby the method of explaining, the evolutionary processes occurring in nature, inter-connections in general, and transitions from one field of investigation to another.

The Idealist Dialectics of Hegel [see Annotation 9, p. 10] constituted a major development of dialectics, but the idealist nature of Hegelian dialectics made them unsuitable for natural scientists, who therefore discarded “Old-Hegelian” dialectics and were thus left without a suitable dialectical framework. Again, from On Dialectics:

The year 1848, which otherwise brought nothing to a conclusion in Germany, accomplished a complete revolution there only in the sphere of philosophy [and] the nation resolutely turned its back on classical German philosophy that had lost itself in the sands of Berlin old-Hegelianism... But a nation that wants to climb the pinnacles of science cannot possibly manage without theoretical thought. Not only Hegelianism but dialectics too was thrown overboard — and that just at the moment when the dialectical character of natural processes irresistibly forced itself upon the mind, when therefore only dialectics could be of assistance to natural science in negotiating the mountain of theory — and so there was a helpless relapse into the old metaphysics.

Engels goes on to explain that, having rejected Hegel’s dialectics, natural scientists were set adrift, cobbling together theoretical frameworks from the works of philosophers which were plagued by idealism and metaphysics, and which were therefore not suitable for the task of unifying the disparate fields of natural sciences together:

What prevailed among the public since then were, on the one hand, the vapid reflections of Schopenhauer, which were fashioned to fit the philistines, and later even those of Hartmann; and, on the other hand, the vulgar itinerant-preacher materialism of a Vogt and a Büchner. At the universities the most diverse varieties of eclecticism competed with one another and had only one thing in common, namely, that they were concocted from nothing but remnants of old philosophies and were all equally metaphysical. All that was saved from the remnants of classical philosophy was a certain neo-Kantianism, whose last word was the eternally unknowable thing-in-itself, that is, the bit of Kant [see Annotation 72, p. 68] that least merited preservation. The final result was the incoherence and confusion of theoretical thought now prevalent.

Engels explains that this lack of a proper dialectical materialist framework had frustrated natural scientists of his era:

One can scarcely pick up a theoretical book on natural science without getting the impression that natural scientists themselves feel how much they are dominated by this incoherence and confusion, and that the so-called philosophy now current offers them absolutely no way out. And here there really is no other way out, no possibility of achieving clarity, than by a return, in one form or another, from metaphysical to dialectical thinking.

After explaining that Hegel’s system of dialectics came closest to meeting the needs of contemporary science, Engels explains why Hegelian dialectics were ultimately rejected by the scientific community:

Just as little can it be a question of maintaining the dogmatic content of the Hegelian system as it was preached by the Berlin Hegelians of the older and younger line. Hence, with the fall of the idealist point of departure, the system built upon it, in particular Hegelian philosophy of nature, also falls. It must however be recalled that the natural scientists’ polemic against Hegel, in so far as they at all correctly understood him, was directed solely against these two points: viz., the idealist point of departure and the arbitrary, fact-defying construction of the system.”

In other words, it was the idealism and the unworkable structuring of Hegelian dialectics that prevented its adoption by natural scientists. Engels finally explains how Marx was able to modify Hegel’s idealist dialectics into a materialist form which is suitable for empirical scientific inquiry:

It is the merit of Marx that... he was the first to have brought to the fore again the forgotten dialectical method, its connection with Hegelian dialectics and its distinction from the latter, and at the same time to have applied this method in Capital to the facts of an empirical science, political economy.

These Classical German philosophers [Kant, Hegel, etc.^[67]] systematically organized idealist dialectics into formal philosophies. Of particular note was Hegel’s belief that the dialectical process would eventually lead to an “absolute idea.” This foundational belief in an “absolute idea” is what chiefly defines Hegelian dialectics as idealist in nature [see Annotation 98, p. 100].

Hegel believed that the subjective dialectic is the basis of the objective dialectic. [In other words, Hegel believed that dialectical thought served as the objective dialectics of the material world.]

According to Hegel, the “absolute idea” was the starting point of all existence, and that this “absolute idea,” after creating the natural world, then came to exist within human consciousness.

Engels wrote that in Hegelian dialectics: “... spirit, mind, the idea, is primary and that the real world is only a copy of the idea.”^[68]

Annotation 99

In the above quoted passage, Engels was explaining why Hegelian dialectics were unsuitable for use in natural sciences. Here is a longer excerpt:

First of all it must be established that here it is not at all a question of defending Hegel’s point of departure: that spirit, mind, the idea, is primary and that the real world is only a copy of the idea... We all agree that in every field of science, in natural as in historical science, one must proceed from the given facts, in natural science therefore from the various material forms and the various forms of motion of matter; that therefore in theoretical natural science, too, the inter-connections are not to be built into the facts, but to be discovered in them, and when discovered to be verified as far as possible by experiment.

The German idealists (most notably Hegel) built an idealist system of dialectics organized into categories and common laws along with a strict logic of consciousness.

Lenin stated that: “Hegel brilliantly divined the dialectics of things (phenomena, the world, nature) in the dialectics of concepts.”^[69]

Annotation 100

What Lenin means, here, is that Hegel inadvertently and unconsciously discovered the concept of reflection [see Annotation 68, p. 65]. Hegel intuitively understood that the material world was reflected in human consciousness, and, by extension, subjective dialectics (dialectical thought) reflected objective dialectics (of the material world). Hegel’s error was an inversion of the ideal and the material. As Marx later pointed out in the Afterword to the Second German Edition of Capital Volume I, it is the material which precedes the ideal, and not the other way around:

My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of ‘the Idea,’ he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos [craftsman/artisan/creator] of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of ‘the Idea.’ With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.

Engels also quoted and emphasized Marx’s thoughts [in the Old Preface to Anti-Dühring, citing another quote of Marx from the Afterword to the Second German Edition of Capital Volume I, further quoted in Annotation 100 above]: “The mystification which dialectics suffers in Hegel’s hands by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.”^[70]

Annotation 101

In the Old Preface to Anti-Dühring, Engels explains some of the contemporary currents of science and philosophy of his era. Engels explains that Hegelian philosophy had been dismissed by a newer current of natural scientists who dismissed “the idealist point of departure and the arbitrary, fact-defying construction of the system.” In other words, the natural scientists rejected Hegelianism because it was both idealist and was not built on a foundation of objective facts.

Engels points out, however, that Marx “was the first to have brought to the fore again the forgotten dialectical method” of Hegel.

The dialectical method was forgotten in the sense that the natural scientists ignored and dismissed dialectics along with the rest of Hegel’s philosophy. So, Engels is pointing out that one of the great contributions of Marx was salvaging the dialectical method from Hegel while rejecting the idealist and non-fact-based characteristics of Hegelian philosophy.

Marx, according to Engels, proved that the dialectical method could be separated from idealism by “[applying the dialectical method] in Capital to the facts of an empirical science, political economy.” This was the origin of dialectical materialism: the resurrection of the dialectical method and the development of a dialectical method in a materialist and scientific form.

The idealist characteristics of classical German dialectics and Hegelian philosophy was a limitation that needed to be overcome [so that it could be utilized for scientific inquiry]. Marx and Engels overcame that limitation and in so doing developed materialist dialectics. This system of dialectics is the most advanced form of dialectics in the history of philosophy to date. It is the successor of previous systems of dialectics, and it arose as a critique of the classical German dialectics.

Engels said: “Marx and I were pretty well the only people to rescue conscious dialectics from German idealist philosophy and apply it in the materialist conception of nature and history.”^[71]

2. Materialist Dialectics

a. Definition of Materialist Dialectics

Materialist dialectics have been defined in various ways by many prominent Marxist-Leninist philosophers.

Engels defined materialist dialectics as: “nothing more than the science of the general laws of motion and development of nature, human society, and thought.”^[72]

Engels also emphasized the role of the principle of general relations.^[73] As John Burdon

Sanderson Haldane noted in the 1939 preface to Dialectics of Nature: “In dialectics they

[Marx and Engels] saw the science of the general laws of change.”^[74]

Lenin emphasized the important role of the principles of development^[75] (including the theory of cognitive development) in the dialectics that Marx inherited from Hegelian philosophy.

Lenin wrote: “The main achievement was dialectics, i.e., the doctrine of development in its fullest, deepest, and most comprehensive form, the doctrine of the relativity of human knowledge that provides us with a reflection of eternally developing matter.”^[76]

b. Basic Features and Roles of Materialist Dialectics

There are two basic features of the materialist dialectics of Marxism-Leninism:

First, the materialist dialectics of Marxism-Leninism is a system of dialectics that is based on the foundation of the scientific materialist viewpoint.

Annotation 102

Remember that scientific in Marxism-Leninism refers broadly to a systematic pursuit of knowledge, research, theory, and understanding [see Objects and Purposes of Study, p. 38]. Remember also that materialism in Marxism-Leninism has specific meaning as well, which differentiates it from other forms of materialism [see Dialectical Materialism — the Most Advanced Form of Materialism, p. 52]. Here, materialism includes an understanding that the material is the first basis of reality, meaning that the material determines the ideal (though human consciousness can impact the material world through willpower and labor [see Nature and Structure of Consciousness, p. 79]). Materialism is also built upon scientific explanations (rooted in empirical data and practice, i.e. systematic experimentation and observation) of the world. And finally, remember that viewpoint is the starting point of inquiry [see Annotation 11, p. 12].

Thus, a scientific materialist viewpoint is a perspective which begins analysis of the world in a manner that is both scientifically systematic in pursuit of understanding and firmly rooted in a materialist conception of the world.

Note: Materialist Dialectics contains Twelve Basic Pairs of Categories, Two Basic Principles and Three Universal Laws. These are summarized, respectively, in Appendix A (p. 246), Appendix B (p. 247), and Appendix C (p. 248), and explained in depth throughout the rest of this chapter.

In this way, materialist dialectics fundamentally differs from the classical German idealist dialectics, and especially differs from Hegelian dialectics^[77] (as these dialectics were founded on idealist viewpoints).

Moreover, it also has a higher level of development compared to other dialectical systems of thought found in the history of philosophy going back to ancient times. Such previous forms of dialectics were fundamentally based on materialist stances, however the materialism of those ancient times was still naive, primitive and surface-level.

Second, the materialist dialectics of Marxism-Leninism unifies dialectical materialist viewpoints and materialist dialectical methodology, so it not only explains the world, but is also a tool humans can use to perceive and improve the world.

Every principle and law of Marxist-Leninist materialist dialectics is both:

1. An accurate explanation of the dialectical characteristics of the world.

2. A scientific methodology for perceiving and improving the world.

By summarizing the general interconnections and development of all things — every phenomenon in nature, society and human thought — Marxist-Leninist materialist dialectics provides the most general methodological principles for the process of perceiving and improving the world. They are not just objective methodological principles; they are a comprehensive, constantly developing, and historical methodology.

This methodology can be used to analyze contradictions [see Annotation 119, p. 123] in order to find the basic origins and motivations of both motion and developmental processes. Therefore, materialist dialectics is a great scientific tool for the revolutionary class to perceive and improve the world.

With these basic features, materialist dialectics plays a very important role in the worldview and philosophical methodology of Marxism-Leninism. Materialist dialectics are the foundation of the scientific and revolutionary characteristics of Marxism-Leninism and also offer the most general worldview and methodology for creative activities in scientific study and practical activities.

II. Basic Principles of Materialist Dialectics

Annotation 103

The Principle of General Relationships and the Principle of Development are the most basic principles of materialist dialectics. These two principles are dialectically related to one another.

The following sections will outline the Principle of General Relationships and the Principle of Development, which are the most fundamental principles of materialist dialectics. These two concepts are closely (and dialectically) related:

1. The Principle of General Relationships

a. Definition of Relationship and Common Relationship

Annotation 104

The Principle of General Relationships describes how all things, phenomena, and ideas are related to one another, and are defined by these internal and external relationships

The Principle of Development relates to the idea that motion, change, and development are driven by internal and external relationships.

These two principles are dialectically linked: any given subject is defined by its internal relationships, and these same relationships drive the development of every subject.

Note: The foundation of the principles of Materialist Dialectics were laid out by

Engels in Dialectics of Nature. Engels began working on Dialectics of Nature in February, 1870 and had to stop in 1876 to work on Anti-Dühring. He then restarted work on Dialectics of Nature in 1878 and continued working on it until 1883, when Karl Marx died. Engels felt that it was more important to try and put together Marx’s great unfinished works, Capital Volumes 2, 3, and 4, and so stopped working on Dialectics of Nature once again. So, unfortunately, Engels died before this seminal work on Materialist Dialectics could be completed, and what we have instead is an unfinished assemblage of notes.

What follows in the rest of this book is a cohesive system of Materialist Dialectics which was built upon the foundations laid out by Engels in Dialectics of Nature and many other works of political and scholarly writing from various sources. This is the system of Materialist Dialectics studied by Vietnamese students and applied by Vietnamese communists today.

Because this text comes from predominantly Vietnamese scholarship and ideological development, we have had to translate some terms into English which are not derived from the “canon” of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. In some cases, various terms have been consolidated into one concept. For example: Engels used the term “interconnection” (German: innern Zusammenhang, literally: “inner connections”) in Dialectics of Nature, but Vietnamese political scientists use the term “relationship.” Where Engels uses the term “motion” (German: Bewegung) modern Vietnamese communists tend to use the word “development.” Wherever this is the case, we have chosen to use the words in English which most closely match the language used in the original Vietnamese of this text.

In materialist dialectics, the word relationship refers to the regulating principles, mutual interactions, and mutual transformations which exist between things, phenomena, and ideas, as well as those existing between aspects and factors within things, phenomena, and ideas.

Annotation 105

Throughout this book, phenomenon/phenomena simply refers to anything that is observable by the human senses.

Materialist dialectics examines relationships between things, phenomena, and ideas and within things, phenomena, and ideas. A relationship which occurs between two separate things or phenomena is referred to as an external relationship. A relationship which occurs within a thing or phenomenon is referred to as an internal relationship.

These terms are relative; sometimes a relationship may be internal in one context but external in a different context. For example, consider a solar system:

When considering a solar system as a whole, the orbit of a moon around a planet may be considered as an internal relationship of the solar system. But when considering the moon as an isolated subject, its orbit around a planet may be seen as an external relationship which the moon has with the planet.

File:T-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-24.png

The diagram above illustrates different types of relationships:

Object 1 has its own internal relationships (A), and, from its own perspective, it also has external relationships with Object 2 (B). From a wider perspective, the relationship between Object 1 and Object 2 (B) may be viewed as an internal relationship.

This system of relationships (between Object 1 and Object 2) will also have external relationships with other things, phenomena, and ideas (C).

Relationships have a quality of generality, which refers to how frequently they occur between and within things, phenomena, and ideas. When we refer to general relationships, we are usually referring to relationships which exist broadly across many things, phenomena, and ideas. General relationships can exist both internally, within things, phenomena, and ideas, and externally, between things, phenomena, and ideas.

The most general relationships are universal relationships: these are relationships that exist between and within everything and all phenomena, and they are one of the two primary subjects of study of materialist dialectics. [The other primary subject of study is the Principle of Development; see page 119.]

Annotation 106

File:T-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-25.png

The discussion of generality of relationships can seem confusing at first. What’s important to understand is that generality is a spectrum ranging from the least general relationships (unique relationships, which only occur between two specific things/phenomena/ideas) and the most general relationships (universal relationships, which occur between or within all things/phenomena/ideas).

Of particular importance in the study of materialist dialectics are universal relationships which exist within and between all things, phenomena, and ideas [see below].

Translation Note: In the original Vietnamese, the word “universal” is not used. Instead, the compound term “phổ biến nhất” is used, which literally means “most general.” In Vietnamese, this phrasing is commonly used to describe the concept of “universal” and it is thus not confusing to Vietnamese speakers. For this translation, we have opted to use the word “universal” because we feel it is less confusing and better explains the concept in English.

The universal relationships include (but are not limited to):

Relationships between basic philosophical category pairs (Private and Common, Essence and Phenomenon, etc.). ^[78]
Relationships between quantity and quality. ^[79]
Relationships between opposites. ^[80]

Together, in all forms of relationships in nature, society and human thought (special, general, and universal) there is unity in diversity and diversity in unity.

Annotation 107

Principle of General Relationships

According to Curriculum of the Philosophy of Marxism-Leninism For University and College Students Specializing in Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh Thought: “Materialist dialectics upholds the position that all things, phenomena, and ideas exist in mutual relationships with each other, regulate each other, transform into each other, and that nothing exists in complete isolation. That is the core idea of the Principle of General Relationships.”

From this Principle, we find the characteristics of Diversity in Unity and Unity in Diversity; the basis of Diversity in Unity is the fact that every thing, phenomenon, or idea, contains many different relationships; the basis of Unity in Diversity is that many different relationships exist — unified — within each and every thing, phenomenon, and idea.

Diversity in Unity

There exist an infinite number of diverse relationships between things, phenomena, and ideas, but all of these relationships share the same foundation in the material world.

An infinite diversity of relationships exist within the unity of the material world.

The material world is not a chaotic and random assortment of things, phenomena, and ideas. Rather, it is a system of relationships between things, phenomena, and ideas. Likewise, since the material world exists as the foundation of all things, phenomena, and ideas, the material world is thus the foundation for all relationships within and between things, phenomena, and ideas. Because all relationships share a foundation in the material world, they also exist in unity, even though all relationships are diversified and different from one another.

Universal relationships which unite all things, phenomena, and ideas manifest in infinitely diverse ways.

Unity in Diversity

When we examine the universal relationships that exist within and between all different things, phenomena, and ideas, we will find that each individual manifestation of any universal relationship will have its own different manifestations, aspects, features, etc. Thus even the universal relationships which unite all things, phenomena, and ideas exist in infinite diversity.

Paraphrased From: Curriculum of the Philosophy of Marxism-Leninism For University and College Students Specializing in Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh Thought

b. Characteristics of Relationships

Objectiveness, generality, and diversity are the three basic characteristics of relationships.

- The Characteristic of Objectiveness of Relationships

According to the materialist dialectical viewpoint, relationships between things, phenomena, and ideas have objective characteristics.

Annotation 108

In materialist dialectics, objectiveness is an abstract concept that refers to the relative externality of all things, phenomena, and ideas. Every thing, phenomena and idea exists externally to every other thing, phenomena, and idea. This means that to each individual subject (i.e., each individual thing/phenomena/idea), all other things, phenomena, and ideas are external objects

All things, phenomena, and ideas have the relative characteristic of objectiveness.

All together, the collection of all things, phenomena, and ideas in the universe create the external reality of any given subject. So, objectiveness is relative. In the case of human beings, every individual person exists as an individual subject to which all other things, phenomena, and ideas (including other human beings) have objective characteristics.

Alice and Bob are external to one another; each is objective from the other’s perspective.

Of course, objectiveness is always relative. Something might be external from a certain perspective but not from another perspective. For example, say there are two people: Bob and Alice. From Bob’s perspective, Alice has objective characteristics. But from Alice’s perspective, Bob would have objective characteristics.

The relationship between Alice and Bob has objective characteristics to both Alice and Bob.

As all relationships are inherently external to any given subject (even subjects which are party to the relationship), relationships also have objective characteristics.

Whenever two things, phenomena, or ideas have a relationship with one another, they form a pair. The relationship is inherent to this pair and external to any subject which exists outside of the pair. The mutual interaction and mutual transformation which occurs to the things, phenomena, or objects within the pair as the result of the relationship are inherent and objective properties of the pair.

Annotation 109 Translation note:

In the original Vietnamese text, the word for “objective” is “khách quan.” This is a compound word in which “khách” means “guest,” and “quan” means “point of view.” Therefore, “khách quan” literally means “the guest’s (or outsider’s) point of view.”

Thus we translate this to “objectiveness/objective,” the characteristic of being viewed from the outside.

The word “inherent” in the original Vietnamese is “vốn có.” This is another compound word: “vốn” is a shortened form of the word “vốn dĩ,” which means “by or through nature,” “naturally,” and “intrinsically.” “Có” means “to have” or “to exist.” “Vốn có” thus means “already existing naturally” or “already there, through nature.”

So we use the word “inherent” to mean “existing intrinsically or naturally within, without external influence.”

Human beings can’t change or impact external things and phenomena — and the relationships between them — through human will alone. Humans are limited to perceiving relationships between things and phenomena and then impacting or changing them through our practical activities.

- The Characteristic of Generality of Relationships

According to the dialectical viewpoint, there is no thing, phenomenon, nor idea that exists in absolute isolation from other things, phenomena and ideas.

Annotation 110

Although all things, phenomena, and ideas have the characteristic of externality and objectiveness to all other things, phenomena, and ideas [see Annotation 108, p. 112], this does not mean that they exist in isolation. Isolation implies a complete lack of any relationships with other things, phenomena, and ideas. On the contrary, according to the Principle of General Relationships [see p. 107], all things, phenomena, and ideas have relationships with all other things, phenomena, and ideas.

Simultaneously, there is also no known thing, phenomenon, nor idea that does not have a systematic structure, including component parts which in turn have their own internal relationships. This means that every existence is a system, and, moreso, is an open system that exists in relation with other systems. All systems interact and mutually transform one another.

Annotation 111

As explained above, a systematic structure is a structure which includes within itself a system of component parts and relationships. It has been postulated by some scientific models that there may be some “fundamental base particle” (quarks, preons, etc.), which, if true, would mean that there is a certain basic material component which cannot be further broken down. However, this would not contradict the Principle of Materialist Dialectics of General Relationships (which states that all things, phenomena, and ideas interact with and mutually transform one another — see Annotation 107, p. 110).

- The Characteristic of Diversity of Relationships

In addition to affirming the objectiveness^[81] and generality^[82] of relationships, the dialectical viewpoint of Marxism-Leninism also emphasizes the diversity of relationships. The characteristic of diversity is defined by the following features:

All things, phenomena, and ideas have different relationships. Every relationship plays a distinct role in the existence and development of the things, phenomena, and ideas which are included within.
Any given relationship between things, phenomena, and ideas will have different characteristics and manifestations under different conditions and/or during different periods of motion and/or at different stages of development.

Annotation 112

One of Marx’s most critical observations was that things are defined by their internal and external relationships, including human beings. For example, in Theses on Feuerbach, Marx wrote that “the essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In reality, it is the ensemble of the social relations.” It is only through relationships — through mutual impacts and transformations — that things, phenomena, and ideas (including human beings and human societies) change and develop over time. All of these relationships — which both define and transform all things, phenomena, and ideas in existence — exist in infinite diversity [see Annotation 107, p. 110].

Just as things, phenomena, and ideas change and transform through the course of relations with one another, the nature of the relationships themselves also change and develop over time.

Characteristics refer to the features and attributes that exist internally within a given thing, phenomena, or idea.

Manifestation refers to how a given thing, phenomena, or idea is expressed externally in the material world.

For example, a ball may have the characteristics of being made of rubber, having a mass of 100 grams, and having a melting point of 260℃. It may manifest by bouncing on the ground, having a spherical shape, and having a red appearance to human observers.

If ten such balls exist, they will all be slightly different. Even if they have the same mass and material composition, they will have slightly different variations in size, shape, etc. Even if each ball will melt at 260℃, the melting will manifest differently for each ball — they will melt into slightly different shapes, at slightly different speeds, etc.

Relationships also have characteristics and manifestations. For example, the moon’s orbit around the Earth is a relationship. It has characteristics such as the masses of each related body, forces of gravity, and other factors which produce and influence the orbit. The same orbital relationship also has manifestations such as the duration of the moon’s orbit around the Earth, the size of its ellipse, the orbit’s effects on the tides of the Earth’s ocean, etc.

Characteristics and Manifestation correspond, respectively, to the philosophical category pair of Content and Form, which is discussed in section page 147.

Therefore, no two relationships are exactly the same, even if they exist between very similar things, phenomena, and ideas and/or in very similar situations.

It is also important to note that the characteristic of diversity also applies to things, phenomena, and ideas themselves. In other words, every individual thing, phenomenon, and idea in existence also manifests differently from every other thing, phenomenon, and idea in existence, even if they seem quite similar.

c. Meaning of the Methodology

Based on the objective and popular characteristics of relationships, we can see that in our cognitive and practical activities, we have to have a comprehensive viewpoint.

Having a comprehensive viewpoint requires that in the process of perceiving and handling real life situations, humans have to consider the internal dialectical relationships between the component parts, factors, and aspects within a thing or phenomenon. We also need to consider the external mutual interactions they have with other things, phenomena, and ideas. Only on such a comprehensive basis can we properly understand things and phenomena and then effectively handle problems in real life. So, the comprehensive viewpoint is the opposite of a unilateral and/or metaphysical viewpoint [see Annotation 51, p. 49] in both perception and practice.

Lenin said: “If we are to have true knowledge of an object we must look at and examine all of its facets, its connections, and ‘mediacies [indirect relationships].’”^[83]

Annotation 113

The comprehensive viewpoint sees the subject in terms of all of its internal and external relationships.

Consider a factory. A factory exists as a collection of internal relationships (between the workers, between machines, between the workers and the machines, etc.) and external relationships (between the factory and its suppliers, between the factory and its customers, between the factory and the city, etc.). In order to have a comprehensive viewpoint when examining the factory, one must consider and understand all of the internal and external relationships which define it.

The diversified characteristic of relationships [see Annotation 107, p. 110] shows that in human cognitive and practical activities, we have to simultaneously use a comprehensive viewpoint and a historical viewpoint.

Having a historical viewpoint requires that, in perceiving and handling real life situations, we need to consider the specific properties of subjects, including their current stage of motion and development. We also need to consider that the exact same methods can’t be used to deal with different situations in reality — our methods must be tailored to suit the exact situation based on material conditions.

Annotation 114

While the comprehensive viewpoint focuses on internal and external relationships of subjects, the historical viewpoint focuses on the specific properties of subjects — especially the current stage of motion and development. In order to have a proper historical viewpoint, we must study and understand the way a subject has developed and transformed over time. To do this, we must examine the history of the subject’s changes over time, hence the term “historical viewpoint.” In addition, it’s important to understand that no two situations which we might encounter will ever be exactly the same. This is because the component parts and relationships that make up any given situation will manifest differently.

So, in order to properly deal with situations, we have to understand the component parts and relationships of examined subjects as well as their histories of development so that we can develop plans and strategies that are suitable to the unique circumstances at hand.

For example, it would be disastrous if communists today tried to employ the exact same methods which were used by the Communist Party of Vietnam in the 20^th century to defeat Japan, France, and the USA. This is because the material conditions and relationships of Vietnam in the 20^th century were very different from any material conditions existing on Earth today. It is possible to learn lessons from studying the methods of the Vietnamese revolution and to adapt some such methods to our modern circumstances, but it would be extremely ineffective to try to copy those methods and strategies — exactly as they manifested then and there — to the here and now.

In order to come up with suitable and effective solutions to deal with real life problems, we must clearly define the roles and positions of each specific relationship that comes into play, and the specific time, place, and material conditions in which they exist.

Annotation 115

A historical viewpoint focuses on the roles and positions of relationships and properties of subjects as well as their development over time.

The role of a relationship has to do with how it functions within a system of relationships and the position refers to its placement amongst other subjects and relationships.

Consider once again the example of the factory [see Annotation 113]. In addition to its internal and external relationships, the factory also has various roles — it functions within various systems and from various perspectives. For instance, the factory may have the role of financial asset for the corporation that owns it, it may have the role of place of employment for the surrounding community, it may have the role of supplier for various customers, etc.

The factory is also positioned among other subjects and relations. If it’s the only employer in town then it would have a position of great importance to the people of the community. If, on the other hand, if it’s just one of hundreds of factories in a heavily industrialized area, it may have a position of much less importance. It may have a position of great importance to an individual factory worker who lives in poverty in an economy where there are very few available jobs, but of less importance to a freelance subcontractor for whom the factory is just one of many customers, and so on.

These positions and roles will change over time. For example, the factory may initially exist as a small workshop with a small handful of workers, but it may grow into a massive factory with hundreds of employees. It is vital to understand this Principle of Development, which is discussed in more detail on the next page.

In summary, proper dialectical materialist analysis requires a comprehensive and historical viewpoint — we must consider subjects both comprehensively in terms of the internal and external relationships of the subject itself as well as historically in terms of roles and positions of subjects, as well as their relationships, material conditions, and development over time.

So, in both perception and practice, we have to avoid and overcome sophistry and eclectic viewpoints.

Annotation 116

Sophistry is the use of falsehoods and misleading arguments, usually with the intention of deception, and with a tendency of presenting non-critical aspects of a subject matter as critical, to serve a particular agenda. The word comes from the Sophists, a group of professional teachers in Ancient Greece, who were criticized by Socrates (in Plato’s dialogues) for being shrewd and deceptive rhetoricians. This kind of bad faith argument has no place in materialist dialectics. Materialist dialectics must, instead, be rooted in a true and accurate understanding of the subject, material conditions, and reality in general.

Eclecticism is an incoherent approach to philosophical inquiry which attempts to draw from various different theories, frameworks, and ideas to attempt to understand a subject, applying different theories in different situations without any consistency in analysis and thought. Eclectic arguments are typically composed of various pieces of evidence that are cherry picked and pieced together to form a perspective that lacks clarity. By definition, because they draw from different systems of thought without seeking a clear and cohesive understanding of the totality of the subject and its internal and external relations and its development over time, eclectic arguments run counter to the comprehensive and historical viewpoints. Eclecticism is somewhat similar to dialectical materialism in that it attempts to consider a subject from many different perspectives, and analyzes relationships pertaining to a subject, but the major flaw of eclecticism is a lack of clear and coherent systems and principles, which leads to a chaotic viewpoint and an inability to grasp the true nature of the subject at hand.

2. Principle of Development

a. Definition of Development

According to the metaphysical viewpoint, development is simply a quantitative increase or decrease; the metaphysical viewpoint does not account for qualitative changes of things and phenomena. Simultaneously, the metaphysical viewpoint also views development as a process of continuous progressions which follow a linear and straightforward path.

Annotation 117

In materialist dialectics, it is important to distinguish between quantity and quality.

Quantity describes the total amount of component parts that compose a subject.

Quality describes the unity of component parts, taken together, which defines the subject and distinguishes it from other subjects.

Both quantity and quality are dynamic attributes; over time, the quantity and quality of all things develop and change over time through the development of internal and external relationships. Quantity and quality itself form a dialectical relationship, and as quantity develops, quality will also develop. A given subject may be described by various quantity and quality relationships.

Example 1:

In the process of development, Quantity Change leads to Quality Change

A single football player, alone, has the quantity value of 1 football player and the quality of a football player. Eleven football players on a field would have the quantity value of 1 and will develop the quality of a football team. This subject, football team, is composed of the same component parts as the subject football player, but the quantity change and other properties (being on a field, playing a game or practicing, etc.) change the quality of the component parts into a different stable and unified form which we call a football team.

The relationship between quantity and quality is dynamic:

If one of the players doesn’t show up for practice, and there are only ten players on the field, it might still have the quality of football team, but in a live professional game there will be a certain threshold — a minimum number of players who must be present to officially be considered a team. If this number of players can’t be fielded then they will not be considered a full team and thus won’t be allowed to play.

Likewise, if there are only one or two players practicing together in a park, they would probably not be considered a football team (though they might be described in terms of having the quality of being on the same team).

Example 2:

Quantity: 1 O + 2 H atoms Quantity: Billions of H2O Molecules Quantity: ~5,000 Drops of Water Quality: Water Quality: Drop of Water Quality: Cup of Water

DEVELOPMENT: QUANTITY CHANGE LEADS TO QUALITY CHANGE

All of these have the quality of water because of the molecular quantities of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, however, from the perspective of volume, quantity changes still lead to quality changes.

The properties of quantity and quality are relative, depending on the viewpoint of analysis.

A single molecule of water has a quantity of one in terms of molecules, but it still retains the quality of “water” because of the quantities of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms per molecule which, in this stable form, give it the quality of water.

A drop of water might have a quantity of many billions of molecules, but it would still have the quality of “water.” It would also now assume the quality of a “drop.”

When you combine enough drops of water, you will eventually have a quality shift where the “drops” of water combine to form another quality — i.e., a “cup” of water. The quantity change leads to a change in quantity; we would no longer think of the water in terms of “drops” after the quantity rises to a certain level.

In terms of temperature and physical properties, if the water is heated to a certain point it will boil and the water will become steam. The quantity of water in terms of drops wouldn’t change, but the quantity-value of temperature would eventually lead to a quality value change from “water” to “steam.”

Example 3:

AS QUANTITY OF AGE INCREASES, QUALITY CHANGES

The same human being will undergo various quality changes as age quantity increases over time.

As humans age and the quantity of years we’ve lived builds up over time, our “quality” also changes, from baby, to child, to teenager, to young adult, to middle age, to old age, and eventually to death. The individual person is still the same human being, but the quality of the person will shift over time as the quantity-value of age increases.

Metaphysical vs. Dialectical Materialist Conceptions of Change

Metaphysics only consider linear properties of quantitychange; Materialist Dialectics takes quantity changes and quality shifts into consideration when considering change over time.

Because the metaphysical perspective tries to define the world in terms of static, isolated subjects, only quantity is considered and quality shifts are not taken into account. Thus, metaphysical logic sees development as linear, simple, and straightforward. Materialist dialectics, on the other hand, sees development as a more complicated, fluid, and dynamic process involving multiple internal and external relationships changing in quantity and quality over time.

In contrast to the metaphysical viewpoint, in materialist dialectics, development refers to the motion of things and phenomena with a forward tendency: from less advanced to more advanced, from a less complete to a more complete level.

Annotation 118

In materialist dialectics, motion (also known as change) is the result of mutual impacts between or within things, phenomena, and ideas, and all motion and change results from mutual impacts which themselves result from internal and external relationships with other things, phenomena, and ideas. Any given motion/change leads to quantity changes, and these quantity changes cumulatively lead to quality changes [see Annotation 117, p. 119]. Grasping this concept — that development is driven by relations — is critically important for understanding materialist dialectics.

The concept of “change” in materialist dialectics centers on internal and external relationships causing mutual impacts which lead to quantity changes which build into quality shifts.

This process, taken in total, is referred to as development. Development represents the entire process in which internal and external change/motion leads to changes in quantity which in turn lead to changes in quality over time. The process of development can be fast or slow, complex or simple, and can even move backwards, and all of these properties are relative. Development has a tendency to develop from less advanced to more advanced forms. The word tendency is used to denote phenomena, development, and motion which inclines in a particular direction. There may be exceptional cases which contradict such tendencies, but the general motion will incline towards one specific manner. Thus, it is important to note that “development” is not necessarily “good” nor “bad.” In some cases, “development” might well be considered “bad,” or unwanted. For example, rust developing on a car is typically not desired. So, the tendency of development from lower to higher levels of advancement implies a “forward motion,” though this motion can take an infinite number of forms, depending on the relative perspective. Development can also (temporarily) halt in a state of equilibrium [see Annotation 64, p. 62] or it can shift direction; though it can never “reverse,” just as time itself can never be “reversed.”

For example, during a flood, water may “develop” over the land, and as the floodwaters recede this may alternatively be viewed as another “forward” development process of recession — a development of the overall “flooding and receding” process. The flood is not actually “reversing” — the development is not being “undone.” Flood water may recede but it will leave behind many traces and impacts; thus it is not a true “reversal” of development.

Both flooding and flood recession are development processes with the same forward tendency. Flood recession may appear to be a “reversal,” but it is in fact forward development.

The false belief that development can be reversed is the root of conservative and reactionary positions [see Annotation 208].

Development can be considered positive or negative, depending on perspective. Some ecosystems have natural flood patterns which are vital for sustaining life. For a person living in a flood zone, however, the flood would most likely be considered an unwanted development, whereas flood recession would be a welcomed development.

It is important to note that the definition of development is not identical to the concept of “motion” (change) in general. It is not merely a simple quantitative increase or decrease, nor a repetitive cyclic change in quantity. Instead, in materialist dialectics, development is defined in terms of qualitative changes with the direction of advancing towards higher and more advanced levels. [See diagram Relationship Between Motion,

Quantity/Quality Shifts, and Dialectical Development, Annotation 119, below]

Development is also the process of creating and solving objective contradictions within and between things and phenomena. Development is thus the unified process of negating negative factors while retaining and advancing positive factors from old things and phenomena as they transform into new things and phenomena.

Annotation 119

A contradiction is a relationship in which two forces oppose one another. Although a contradiction might exist in equilibrium for some amount of time [see Annotation 64, p. 62], eventually, one force will overcome the other, resulting in a change of quality. This process of overcoming is called negation. In short, development is a process of change in a subject’s quantity as well as negation of contradictions within and between subjects, leading to quality shifts over time.

b. Characteristics of Development

Every development has the characteristics of objectiveness,^[84] generality,^[85] and diversity.^[86]The characteristic of objectiveness of development stems from the origin of motion.

Annotation 120

Remember that, in materialist dialectics, objectiveness is the relative characteristic that every subject has of existing and developing externally to all other subjects [see Annotation 108, p. 112]. Since motion originates from mutual impacts which occur between external things, objects, and relationships, the motions themselves also occur externally (relative to all other things, phenomena, and objects). This gives motion itself objective characteristics.

Dialectical Development consists of Quantity and Quality Shifts, which in turn derive from motion.

Development is derived from motion as a process of quality shifting which arise from quantity changes which arise from motion [see Annotation 117, p. 119]. Since development is essentially an accumulation of motion, and motion is objective, development itself must also be objective.

The Principle of Development states that development is a process that comes from within the thing-in-itself; the process of solving the contradictions within things and phenomena. Therefore, development is inevitable, objective, and occurs without dependence on human will.

Annotation 121

The “thing-in-itself” refers to the actual material object which exists outside of our consciousness [see Annotation 72, p. 68]. Development arises from motion and self-motion [see Annotation 62, p. 59] with objective characteristics. Although human will can impact motion and development through conscious activity in the material world [see The Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness, p. 88], motion and development can and does occur without being dependent on human will. Human will is neither a requirement nor prerequisite for motion and development to occur.

Development has the characteristic of generality because development occurs in every process that exists in every field of nature, society, and human thought; in every thing, every phenomenon, and every idea and at every stage* of all things, phenomena, and ideas. Every transformation process contains the possibility that it might lead to the birth of a new thing, phenomenon, or idea [through a change in quality, i.e. development].

Annotation 122

* In materialist dialectics, “stage” (or “stage of development”) refers to the current quantity and quality characteristics which a thing, phenomenon, or object possesses. Every time a quality change occurs, a new stage of development is entered into.

Development has the characteristic of diversity because every thing, phenomenon, and idea has its own process of development that is not totally identical to the process of development of any other thing, phenomenon, or idea. Things and phenomena will develop differently in different spaces and times. Simultaneously, within their own processes of development, things, phenomena, and ideas are impacted by other things, phenomena, and ideas, as well as by many other factors and historical conditions. Such impacts can change the direction of development of things, phenomena, and ideas. They can even temporarily set development back, and/or can lead to growth in one aspect but degeneration in another.

Annotation 123

Because development has the characteristic of generality and the characteristic of diversity, the principle of diversity in unity and unity in diversity also applies to development [see: Annotation 107, p. 110].

c. Meaning of the Methodology

Materialist dialectics upholds that the principle of development is the scientific theoretical basis that we must use to guide our perception of the world and to improve the world. Therefore, in our perception and reality, we have to have a development viewpoint.

According to Lenin: “dialectical logic requires that an object should be considered in development, in change, in ‘self-movement.”^[87]

This development viewpoint [which holds that all things, phenomena, and ideas are constantly developing, and that development is thus unavoidable] requires us to overcome conservatism, stagnation^[88], and prejudice, which are all opposed to development.

Annotation 124

Conservatism and prejudice are mindsets which seek to prevent and stifle development and to hold humanity in a static position. Not only is this detrimental to humanity, it is also ultimately a wasted effort, because development is inevitable in human society, as in all things, phenomena, and ideas. Therefore, we must avoid and fight against such stagnant mindsets.

According to this development viewpoint, in order to perceive or solve any problem in real life, we must consider all things, phenomena, and ideas with their own forward tendency of development taken in mind. On the other hand, the path of development is a dialectical process that is reversible and full of contradictions. Therefore, we must be aware of this complexity in our analysis and planning. This means we need to have a historical viewpoint [see Annotation 114, p. 116] which accounts for the diversity and complexity of development in perceiving and solving issues in reality.

Annotation 125

Materialist dialectics requires us to consider the complexity and constant motion of reality. By comparison, the metaphysical viewpoint (which considers all things, phenomena, and ideas as static, isolated entities which have linear and simple processes of development) stands as a barrier to understanding this complexity and incorporating it into our worldview. Thus, it is vital that we develop comprehensive and historical viewpoints which acknowledge the diversity and complexity of reality.

In summary, as a science of common relations and development, Marxist-Leninist materialist dialectics serve a very important role in perception and practice. Engels affirmed the role of materialist dialectics in this passage:

“An exact representation of the universe, of its evolution, of the development of mankind, and of the reflection of this evolution in the minds of men, can therefore only be obtained by the methods of dialectics, with its constant regard to the innumerable actions and reactions of life and death, of progressive or retrogressive changes.”

Lenin also said: “Dialectics requires an all-round consideration of relationships in their concrete development, but not a patchwork of bits and pieces.”^[89]

III. Basic Pairs of Categories of Materialist Dialectics

Category* is the most general grouping of aspects, attributes, and relations of things, phenomena, and ideas. Different specific fields of inquiry may categorize things, phenomena, and/or ideas differently from one another.

Annotation 126

* Translation note: In Vietnamese, the word “phạm trù” is used here, which translates in this context more closely to the English philosophical term “category of being,” which means “the most general, fundamental, or broadest class of entities.” “Category of being” is sometimes simplified in English-language philosophical discourse to “category,” which we have chosen to do here for ease of reading and to better reflect the way it reads in the original Vietnamese.

Every science has its own systems of categories that reflect the aspects, attributes, and basic relations that fall within its scope of study. For example, mathematics contains the categories “arithmetic,” “geometry,” “point,” “plane,” and “constant.” Physics contains the categories of “mass,” “speed,” “acceleration,” and “force,” and so on. Economics includes “commodity,” “value,” “price,” “monetary,” and “profit” categories.

Every such category reflects only the common relations found within the specific fields that fall within the scope of study of a specific science.

Categories of materialist dialectics, on the other hand, such as “matter,” “consciousness,” “motion,” “contradiction,” “quality,” “quantity,” “reason,” and “result,” are different. Categories of materialist dialectics reflect the most general aspects and attributes, as well as the most basic and general relations, of not just some specific fields of study, but of the whole of reality, including all of nature, society and human thought.

Every thing, phenomenon, and idea has many properties, including: a reason for existing in its current form, a process of motion and change, contradictions, content, form, and so on. These properties are aspects, attributes, and relations that are reflected in the categories of materialist dialectics. Therefore, the relationship between the categories of specific sciences and categories of materialist dialectics is a dialectical relationship between the Private and the Common [see Private and Common, p. 128].

Annotation 127

The categories of specific sciences are limited to the scope of study, while the categories of materialist dialectics encompass all things, phenomena, and ideas.

Unlike the categories contained within specific scientific fields, the philosophical categories of materialist dialectics can be used to analyze and define all things, phenomena, and ideas. The categories of specific scientific fields and the materialist dialectical categories have a Private/Common dialectical relationship [discussed on the next page].

As a science of general relations and development, materialist dialectics summarizes the most general relations of every field of nature, society, and human thought into basic category pairs: Private and Common, Reason and Result, Obviousness and Randomness, Content and Form, Essence and Phenomenon, Possibility and Reality.

Annotation 128

Every individual materialist dialectical category has a dialectical relationship with another materialist dialectical category. Thus, all categories in materialist dialectics are presented as category pairs. So, a category pair is simply a pair of categories within materialist dialectics which have a dialectical relationship with one another.

Note that the this formalized system of category pairs reflects many decades of work by Vietnamese philosophical and political scientists based on the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and other socialist thinkers. Also note that these are not the only category pairs that can be discussed; there are potentially an infinite number of categories which can be used in materialist dialectical analysis. However, universal category pairs, which can be applied to analyze any and all things, phenomena, and ideas, are much fewer and farther between. That said, the universal category pairs discussed in this book are the ones which have most often been used by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and other prominent materialist dialecticians.

1. Private and Common

a. Categories of Private and Common

The Private Category encompasses specific things, phenomena, and ideas; the Common Category defines the common aspects, attributes, factors, and relations that exist in many things and phenomena.

Within every Private thing, phenomenon, and idea, there exists the Common, and also the Unique. The Unique encompasses the attributes and characteristics that exist in only one specific thing, phenomenon, or idea, and does not repeat in any other things, phenomena, or ideas.

Annotation 129

File:T-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-41.png

The Private category includes specific individual things, phenomena and ideas.

The Common category includes aspects, factors, and relations that exist in many things, phenomena, and ideas. For example, say there are two apples: Apple A and Apple B. Apple A is a specific individual object. Apple B is another distinct, separate object. In that sense, both apples are private apples, and fall within the Private category.

However, both Apple A and Apple B share common attributes. For instance, they are both fruits of the same type: “apple.” They may have other attributes in common: they may be the same color, they may have the same basic shape, they may be of similar size, etc. These are common attributes which they share. Thus, Apple A and Apple B will also fall within the common category, based on these common attributes.

Apple A and Apple B will also have unique attributes. Only Apple A has the exact molecules in the exact place and time which compose Apple A. There is no other object in the world which has those same molecules in that same place and time. This means that Apple A also has unique properties.

All private subjects have attributes in common with other private subjects.

The Common and Private categories have a dialectical relationship. The Common contains the Private, and the Private contains the Common. Every private subject has some attributes in common with other private subjects, and common attributes can only exist among private subjects. Thus every thing, phenomenon, and idea in existence contains internally within itself dialectical relationships between the Private and the Common, and has dialectical Private/Common relationships externally within other things, phenomena, and ideas.

All private subjects have attributes in common with other private subjects.

It is also true that every private subject contains within itself Unique attributes which it does not share with any other thing, phenomenon, or idea. For example, Mount Everest is unique in that it is 8,850 meters tall. No other mountain on Earth has that exact same height. Therefore, the private subject “Mount Everest” has unique properties which it does not share with any other subject, even though it has other attributes in common with countless other private entities.

All things, phenomena, and ideas contain the unique, the private, and the common.

Whenever two individual subjects have a relationship with one another, that relationship is a unique relationship in the sense that it is a relationship that is shared only by those two specific subjects; however, there will also be common attributes and properties which any such relationship will share with other relationships in existence. This recalls the principle of Unity in Diversity and Diversity in Unity [see Annotation 107, p. 110]. So, every thing, phenomenon, and idea contains the Common and the Unique and has unique and common relationships with other things, phenomena, and ideas.

This category pair is very useful in developing a comprehensive viewpoint [see Annotation 114, p. 116]. Remember that a comprehensive viewpoint indicates an understanding of the internal and external relations of a given subject. This means that in order to develop a comprehensive viewpoint, you must know the private aspects of each individual relation, component, and aspect of the subject, and you must also study the commonalities of the subject as well. It’s also important to study a variety of private information sources or data points to look for commonalities between them. In other words, if you want to have a proper comprehensive viewpoint [see Annotation 113, p. 116] about any subject, you have to find and analyze as many private data points and pieces of evidence as possible.

For example: If a person only ever saw one apple, a green apple, then that person might believe that “all apples are green.” This conclusion would be premature: the person is attempting to make an assumption about the Common without examining enough Privates. This is a failure of mistaking mistaking the Private for the Common which stems from a lack of a comprehensive viewpoint.

Now, let’s take a look at an example of how the “Unique” can become “Common,” and vice-versa: 1947 TODAY

File:T-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-45.png

“Unique” things, phenomena, and ideas can become “common” through development processes (and vice-versa).

In 1941, a Soviet soldier named Mikhail Kalashnikov was in the hospital after being wounded in the Battle of Bryansk. Another soldier in the hospital said to Kalashnikov, “why do our soldiers only have one rifle for two or three of our men, while the Germans have automatics?” To solve this problem, Kalashnikov designed the AK-47 machine gun. When he finished making the first prototype, it was the only AK-47 in the world.

At this precise moment, the AK-47 was simultaneously Unique, Private, and Common.

It was Unique because it was the first and only AK-47 in the world, and no other object in the world had those properties. It was Private because it was a specific object with its own individual existence. It was Common — even though it was the only existing prototype — because it shared Common features with other rifles, and with other prototypes. It was the only AK-47 in existence.

Soon, however, the Soviet Union began manufacturing them, and they became very common. Now there are millions of AK-47s in the world. So, today, that prototype machine gun remains simultaneously Unique, Private, and Common, with some slight developments:

It remains Private because it is a specific object with its own individual existence. Even though it is no longer the only AK-47 in existence, it remains Unique because it is still the very first AK-47 that was ever made, and even though there are now many other AK-47s, there is no other rifle in the universe that shares that same unique property. It remains Common because it still shares common features with other rifles and other prototypes, but it now also shares commonality with many other AK-47 rifles. It is no longer Unique for having the properties of an AK-47 in and of itself.

If someone were to destroy Kalashnikov’s prototype AK-47, the Private of that object would no longer exist — it would remain only as an idea, and the Private would transform to whatever becomes of the material components of the rifle. The Unique would also no longer remain specifically as it was before being destroyed. However, there would still be many other AK-47s which would share common features related to that prototype; for instance, that they were all designed based on the prototype’s design.

Translator’s Note: The words “Private,” “Common,” and “Unique” may seem unusual because they are direct translations from the Vietnamese words used to describe these concepts in the original text. Various other words have been used by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and other materialist dialecticians when discussing the underlying concepts of these philosophical categories. For instance, in most translations of Lenin, his discussion of such topics is typically translated into English using words such as “universal,” “general,” “special,” “particular,” etc.

Example (from Lenin’s Philosophical Notebooks): “Language in essence expresses only the universal; what is meant, however, is the special, the particular. Hence what is meant cannot be said in speech.” Here, “universal” refers to that which is Common in all things, phenomena, and ideas, and “special/particular” refers to the Private — specific individual things, phenomena, and ideas — along with their Unique properties.

Here are excerpts from Lenin’s Philosophical Notebooks discussing these concepts:

(‘It?’ The most universal word of all.) Who is it? I. Every person is an I.
Das Sinnliche? It is a universal, etc., etc. ‘This??’ Everyone is ‘this.’
Why can the particular not be named? One of the objects of a given kind (tables) is distinguished by something from the rest...
Leaves of a tree are green; John is a man; Fido is a dog, etc. Here already we have dialectics (as Hegel’s genius recognised): the individual is the universal... And a naïve confusion, a helplessly pitiful confusion in the dialectics of the universal and the particular — of the concept and the sensuously perceptible reality of individual objects, things, phenomena.
Further, the ‘subsumption’ under logical categories of ‘sensibility’ (Sensibilität), ‘irritability’ (irritabilität) — this is said to be the particular in contrast to the universal!! — and ‘reproduction’ is an idle game.

Marx, too, discussed these concepts using words which are commonly translated into English using different terms. For example, in Capital:

The general form of relative value, embracing the whole world of commodities, converts the single commodity that is excluded from the rest, and made to play the part of equivalent – here the linen – into the universal equivalent.

Here, “general form” refers to the commonalities of form that exist between all commodities. The “single commodity” refers to a private commodity; a specific commodity that exists separately from all other commodities. And when referring to a “universal equivalent,” Marx is referring to equivalence which such a commodity has in common with every other commodity.

The rest of this passage continues as a materialist dialectical analysis of the Private, Common, and Unique features and aspects of commodities:

The bodily form of the linen is now the form assumed in common by the values of all commodities; it therefore becomes directly exchangeable with all and every of them. The substance linen becomes the visible incarnation, the social chrysalis state of every kind of human labour. Weaving, which is the labour of certain private individuals producing a particular article, linen, acquires in consequence a social character, the character of equality with all other kinds of labour. The innumerable equations of which the general form of value is composed, equate in turn the labour embodied in the linen to that embodied in every other commodity, and they thus convert weaving into the general form of manifestation of undifferentiated human labour. In this manner the labour realised in the values of commodities is presented not only under its negative aspect, under which abstraction is made from every concrete form and useful property of actual work, but its own positive nature is made to reveal itself expressly. The general value form is the reduction of all kinds of actual labour to their common character of being human labour generally, of being the expenditure of human labour power. The general value form, which represents all products of labour as mere congelations of undifferentiated human labour, shows by its very structure that it is the social resumé of the world of commodities. That form consequently makes it indisputably evident that in the world of commodities the character possessed by all labour of being human labour constitutes its specific social character.

We have chosen to use the terms “Private,” “Common,” and “Unique” in the translation of this text because they most closely match the words used in the original Vietnamese. In summary, it is important to realize that you may encounter the underlying concepts which are related by these words using various phrasings in the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc.

b. Dialectical Relationship Between Private and Common

According to the materialist dialectical viewpoint: the Private, the Common and the Unique exist objectively [see Annotation 108, p. 112]. The Common only exists within the Private. It expresses its existence through the Private.

Annotation 130

The Common can’t exist as a specific thing, phenomenon, or idea. However, every specific thing, phenomenon, or idea exists as a private subject which has various features in common with other private things, phenomena, and ideas. We can therefore only understand the Common through observation and study of various private things, phenomena, and ideas. For example, a human can’t perceive with our senses alone the Common of apples. Only by observing many private apples can begin to derive an understanding of what all private apples have in common.

The Common does not exist in isolation from the Private. Therefore, commonality is inseparable from things, phenomena, and ideas. The Private only exists in relation to the Common. Likewise, there is no Private that exists in complete isolation from the Common.

Annotation 131

No commonality can possibly exist outside of private things, phenomena, and ideas because commonality describes features which different things, phenomena, and ideas share. No private thing, phenomenon, or idea can possibly exist absolutely without commonality because there is no thing, phenomenon, or idea that shares absolutely no features with any other thing, phenomenon, or idea.

The Private category is more all-encompassing and diverse than the Common category; Common is a part of Private but it is more profound and more “essential” than the Private. This is because Private is the synthesis of the Common and the Unique; the Common expresses generality and the regular predictability of many Privates.

Annotation 132

The Private encompasses all aspects of a specific, individual thing, phenomenon, or idea; thus it encompasses all aspects, features, and attributes of a given subject, including both the Common and the Unique. In this way, the Private is the synthesis of the Common and the Unique.

Common attributes require more consideration, effort, and study to properly determine, because multiple private subjects must be considered and analyzed before common attributes can be confidently discovered and understood. They offer us a more profound understanding of the essence [see Essence and Phenomenon, p. 156] and nature of things, phenomena, and ideas because they offer insights into the relationships between and within different things, phenomena, and ideas. As we discover more commonalities, and understand them more deeply, we begin to develop a more comprehensive perspective of reality. We begin to develop an understanding of the laws and principles which govern relations between and within things, phenomena, and ideas, and this gives us the power to more accurately predict how processes will develop and how things, phenomena, and ideas will change and mutually impact one another over time.

Under specific conditions, the Common and the Unique can transform into each other [See Annotation 129, p. 128].

The dialectical relationship between Private and Common was summarised by Lenin:

“Consequently, the opposites (the individual as opposed to the universal) are identical: the individual exists only in the connection that leads to the universal. The universal exists only in the individual and through the individual. Every individual is (in one way or another) a universal. Every universal is (a fragment, or an aspect, or the essence of) an individual. Every universal only approximately embraces all the individual objects. Every individual enters incompletely into the universal, etc., etc. Every individual is connected by thousands of transitions with other kinds of individuals (things, phenomena, ideas) etc.”^[90] [Note: “individual and universal” here refer the same underlying concepts of “Private and Common” (respectively); see translator’s note on p. 132].

c. Meaning of the Methodology

We must acknowledge and recognize the Common in order to study the Private in our cognitive and practical activities. If we fail to acknowledge the Common, then whenever we attempt to understand and comprehend any Private thing, phenomenon or idea, we will make mistakes and become disoriented. To understand the Common we have to study and observe the Private because the Common does not exist abstractly outside of the Private.

Annotation 133

Our understanding of Common attributes arise from the observation and study of private things, phenomena, and ideas. At the same time, developing our understanding of Commonalities between and within Private subjects deepens our understanding of their essential nature [see: Essence and Phenomenon].

Dialectical analysis of private and common characteristics involves observing private subjects to determine common attributes and considering common attributes to gain insights about private subjects.

It is impossible to know anything at all about the Common without observing Private subjects, and attempting to understand Private subjects without taking into consideration the attributes and features which they have in Common with other Private subjects will lead to incomplete and erroneous analysis.

In addition, we must identify the Common features and attributes of every specific Private subject we study. We must avoid being dogmatic, metaphysical, and inflexible in applying our knowledge of commonalities to solve problems and interpret the world.

Annotation 134

Dogmatism and Revisionism in Relation to the Private and Common

Dogmatism is the inflexible adherence to ideals as incontrovertibly true while refusing to take any contradictory evidence into consideration. Dogmatism stands in direct opposition to materialist dialectics, which seeks to form opinions and conclusions only after careful consideration of all observable evidence.

Dogmatism typically arises when the Common is overemphasized without due consideration of the Private. A dogmatic position is one which adheres to ideals about commonalities without taking Private subjects into consideration.

Dogmatism can be avoided by continuously studying and observing and analyzing

Private subjects and taking any evidence which contradicts erroneous perceptions of “false commonalities” into consideration. This will simultaneously deepen our understanding of the Private while improving our understanding of the Common. For example: Sally might observe a few red apples and arrive at the conclusion: “all apples are red.” If Sally is then presented with a green apple, yet refuses to acknowledge it by continuing to insist that “all apples are red,” then Sally is engaging in dogmatism.

According to Vietnam’s Curriculum of the Philosophy of Marxism-Leninism For University and College Students Specializing in Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh Thought, the opposite of Dogmatism is Revisionism. Revisionism occurs when we overestimate the Private and fail to recognize commonalities. In failing to recognize common attributes and features between and within things, phenomena, and ideas, the Revisionist faces confusion and disorientation whenever they encounter any new things, phenomena, and ideas, because they lack any insight into essential characteristics of the subject and its relations with other subjects.

For example: if Sally has spent a lot of time studying a red apple, she may start to become confident that she understands everything there is to know about apples. If she is then presented with a green apple, she might become confused and disoriented and draw the conclusion that she has to start all over again with her analysis, from scratch, thinking: “this can’t possibly be an apple because it’s not red. It must be something else entirely.” Sally can avoid this revisionist confusion by examining the other common features which the red and green apples share before making any conclusions.

Metaphysical Perception of the Private and Common

The metaphysical position attempts to categorize things, phenomena, and ideas into static categories which are isolated and distinct from one another [see Annotation 8,

p. 8]. In this way, the metaphysical perception ultimately fails to properly understand the role of both the Private and the Common. Categories may be arranged in taxonomic configurations based on shared features, but ultimately every category is seen as distinct and isolated from every other category. This perspective severs the dialectical relationship between the Private, the Common, and the Unique, and thus leads to a distorted perception of reality. As Engels wrote in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:

The analysis of Nature into its individual parts, the grouping of the different natural processes and objects in definite classes, the study of the internal anatomy of organized bodies in their manifold forms — these were the fundamental conditions of the gigantic strides in our knowledge of Nature that have been made during the last 400 years. But this method of work has also left us as legacy the habit of observing natural objects and processes in isolation, apart from their connection with the vast whole; of observing them in repose, not in motion; as constraints, not as essentially variables; in their death, not in their life. And when this way of looking at things was transferred by Bacon and Locke from natural science to philosophy, it begot the narrow, metaphysical mode of thought peculiar to the last century.”

In other words, Engels points out that separating and dividing Private subjects into distinct and isolated categories without acknowledging the dialectical nature of the Private and the Common leads to severe limitations on what we can learn about the world. Instead, we have to examine things, phenomena, and ideas in relation to one another, which must include the analysis of Commonalities.

Rather than divide subjects into distinct, separate categories, materialist dialectics seek to examine Private subjects as they really exist: as a synthesis of Unique and Common attributes; and simultaneously to examine commonalities as they really exist: as properties which emerge from the relations of Private objects.

In our cognitive and practical activities, we must be able to take advantage of suitable conditions that will enable transformations from the Unique and the Common (and vice versa) for our specific purposes.

Annotation 135

In advancing the cause of socialism, revolutionaries must work to transform our Unique positions into common positions. For instance, the process of developing revolutionary public knowledge [see Annotation 94, p. 93] begins with studying and understanding revolutionary knowledge. Initially, this knowledge will be unique to the socialist movement. By disseminating the knowledge to the public, we hope to transform this knowledge into common knowledge.

Likewise, we hope to transform other common things, phenomena, and ideas back towards the Unique. For instance, the capitalist mode of production is currently the most common mode of production on Earth. In order to advance humanity towards communism, we must transition the capitalist mode of production from the Common towards the Unique, with the ambition of eventually eliminating this mode of production altogether.

2. Reason and Result

a. Categories of Reason and Result

The Reason category is used to define the mutual impacts between internal aspects of a thing, phenomenon or idea, or between things, phenomena, or ideas, that bring about changes.

The Result category defines the changes that were caused by mutual impacts which occur between aspects and factors within a thing, phenomenon, or idea, or externally between different things, phenomena, or ideas.

Annotation 136

Translation note: the Vietnamese words for “reason and result” can also be translated as “cause and effect.” We have chosen to use the words “reason and result” to distinguish materialist dialectical categories from metaphysical conceptions of development.

In metaphysics [see Annotation 8, p. 8], any given effect is seen to have a single cause. In materialist dialectics, we instead examine the mutual impacts which occur within and between subjects through motion and development processes.

Metaphysical vs. Materialist Dialectical conceptions of development.

In the metaphysical conception of cause and effect, (A) causes effect (B), then effect (B) causes effect (C), and so on. Materialist dialectics, on the other hand, uses the model of development (see Annotation 117, p. 119), wherein objects (A) and (B) mutually impact one another, resulting in development (C). (C) will then have relations with other things, phenomena, and/or ideas, and the mutual impacts from these new relations will become the reasons for future results. Consider the following example:

Metaphysical vs. Materialist Dialectical conceptions of frying and eating an egg.

In the metaphysical “cause and effect” model, putting an egg in a hot pan is the cause which results in the effect of producing a fried egg. The egg being fried has the effect of the egg now being suitable for eating, which is the cause of the egg being eaten by a hungry person.

This is a simplification of the metaphysical conception of causes and effects, since metaphysics does recognize that one cause can have branches of multiple effects, but the essential characteristic of the metaphysical conception of causality is to break down all activity and change in the universe into static and distinct episodes of one distinct event causing one or more other distinct events.

In contrast, the materialist dialectical model of development holds that every result stems from mutual impacts which occur relationally between things, phenomena, and ideas, and that the resulting synthesis — the newly developed result of mutual impacts — will then have new relations with other things, phenomena, and ideas, and that these relations will become new reasons for new results through mutual impact.

In this example, the egg and the hot pan will mutually impact each other. The frying pan will become dirty and need to be washed (the result of putting an egg in the frying pan); meanwhile, the egg will become a fried egg, which is fit for human consumption (the result of being cooked in the frying pan). The fried egg will then have a relationship with a hungry human, and this relationship will be a new reason which will lead to further results (i.e., the human eating and digesting the egg).

So, the key difference between the classical metaphysical conception of causality and the materialist dialectical model of development is that metaphysics focus more on individual events in time whereas materialist dialectics focus on the relations and mutual impacts between things, phenomena, and ideas over time.

b. Dialectical relationship between Reason and Result

The relationship between Reason and Result is objective, and it contains inevitability: there is no Reason that does not lead to a Result; and likewise, there is no Result without any Reason.

Reasons cause Results, which is why Reason always comes before Result, and Result always comes after Reason.

A Reason can cause one or many Results and a Result can be caused by one or many Reasons.

When many Reasons lead to a single Result, the impacts which lead to the Result are mutual between all things, phenomena, and ideas at hand. These mutual impacts can have many relational positions or roles, including: direct reasons, indirect reasons, internal reasons, external reasons, etc.

Annotation 137

As stated in the previous annotation, Reasons which lead to Results stem from mutually impacting relations between things, phenomena, and ideas. There is no way for one subject to affect another subject without also being affected itself in some way.

Reasons can take many forms, including (but not limited to):

Types of Reasons and Results

Direct Reasons stem from immediate relations.

Direct Reasons are Reasons which stem from immediate relations, with no intervening relations standing between the Reason and Result.

For example, dropping a coffee cup causes an immediate relationship between the cup and the ground, and that relation leads directly to the Result of the coffee cup breaking to pieces.

Indirect Reasons have an intervening relationship between the Reason and the Result.

Indirect Reasons are Reasons which have intervening relations between a Reason and a Result.

For example, the dropped coffee cup above may have smashed into pieces directly because it hit the ground, but it may also have indirect Reasons. The person holding the cup may have been frightened because she heard a loud noise, and the loud noise was caused by a car backfiring, and the car backfiring was caused by the driver not maintaining his car engine.

In materialist dialectical terms, the driver’s relationship with his car would be an indirect Reason for the car backfiring; the relationship between the car (which backfired) and the person holding the coffee cup would be the direct Reason for dropping the cup; and the cup’s relationship with the ground would be the direct reason for the cup smashing. At the same time, the driver’s relationship with his car would be an indirect Reason for the Result of the coffee cup smashing to pieces.

Internal Reasons stem from internal relationships.

Internal Reasons are Reasons which stem from internal relations that occur between aspects and factors within a subject.

For example, if a building collapses because the steel structure within the building rusts and fails, then that could be viewed as an internal Reason for the collapse.

External Reasons stem from external relations.

External Reasons are reasons which stem from external relations that occur between different things, phenomena, and ideas.

For example, if a building collapses because it is smashed by a wrecking ball, then that could be viewed as an external Reason for the collapse.

All of these roles and positions can be viewed relatively. From one viewpoint, a Reason may be seen as internal, but from another viewpoint, it might be viewed as external. For example, if a couple has a disagreement which leads to an argument, the disagreement may be seen as an external Reason from the perspective of each individual within the couple. But to a relationship counselor viewing the situation from the outside, the disagreement may be seen as an internal Reason which leads to the couple (a subject defined by the internal relationship between the husband and wife) arguing.

From one perspective, a government official ordering a building to be torn down may be seen as the direct Reason for the Result of the building being torn down. But from a different perspective, one can see many intervening relations: complaints from local residents may have led to the government official making the order, the order would be delivered to a demolition crew, the demolition crew would assign a crew member to operate a wrecking ball, the crew member would operate the wrecking ball, the wrecking ball would smash the building. All of these can be seen as intervening relations which constitute indirect reasons leading up to the direct Reason of the wrecking ball smashing the building. Choosing the right viewpoint during analysis is critical to make sure that Reason and Result relations are viewed properly and productively, and care must also be taken to ensure that the correct Reasons are attributed to Results (see Reason and Result, p. 138).

Likewise, a Reason can cause many Results, including primary and secondary Results.

Annotation 138

Primary Results are Results which are more direct and predictable.

Secondary Results are Results which are indirect and less predictable.

For example, an earthquake may have primary Results such as the ground shaking, buildings being destroyed, etc. Secondary Results from the earthquake might include flights being rerouted from local airports, shortages at grocery stores, etc.

In the motion of the material world, there is no known “first Reason” or “final Result.”

Annotation 139

With our current understanding of the universe, it is uncertain what might have caused the creation of all existence. Was it the Big Bang? If so, did the Big Bang have some underlying reason? There is also no way to know if there will ever be a “final Result.” Will the heat death of the universe occur, and if so, will that end all transpiring of relations which would end the cycle of development — of Reasons and Results?

As of now, we do not have solid answers to these questions. If and when answers arise, it is possible that the materialist dialectical framework will need to be updated to reflect new scientific knowledge, just as Marx, Engels, and Lenin have updated materialist dialectics in the past [see Annotation 72, p. 68]. What’s important to understand in the meantime is that within our realm of human experience and understanding, for all practical purposes, every Result which we live through and observe has some underlying Reason, and will itself lead to one or more Results.

Engels said: “we find upon closer investigation that the two poles of an antithesis [see Annotation 200, p. 192], positive and negative, e.g., are as inseparable as they are opposed, and that despite all their opposition, they mutually interpenetrate [are mixed together]. And we find, in like manner, that cause and effect are conceptions which only hold good in their application to individual cases; but as soon as we consider the individual cases in their general connection with the universe as a whole, they run into each other, and they become confounded when we contemplate that universal action and reaction in which causes and effects are eternally changing places, so that what is effect here and now will be cause there and then, and vice versa.”^[91]

Annotation 140

In the above passage, Engels is simply explaining that since all things, phenomena, and ideas are relationally linked and inter-related [see Basic Principles of Materialist Dialectics, p. 106], the mutual impacts and processes of change which lead to development (the reasons and results which transpire between all things, phenomena, and ideas) are also all linked and inter-related. What might be viewed as a Reason is also a Result of one or more prior Reasons, just as every Result is also a Reason for future Results.

c. Meaning of the Methodology

Because the relationship between Reason and Result is objective and inevitable, we can’t ignore the relationship between Reason and Result in our perception and practice. In reality, there is no thing, phenomenon or idea that can exist without any underlying Reason or Reasons; and vice versa, there is no Reason that does not lead to any Result.

Annotation 141

In political activity, it is important to remember that every interaction within every relationship will lead to mutual impacts which will cause change and development; in other words, everything we choose to do will be the Reason for one or more Results. We must be aware of unintended or unpredicted Results from our activities.

Reason-Result relationships are very complicated and diverse. Therefore, we must accurately identify the types of Reasons [direct, indirect, internal, external, etc.] so that we can come up with proper solutions which are suitable for the specific situation in both perception and practice. A Reason can lead to many results and, likewise, a Result can be caused by many Reasons, which is why we must have a comprehensive viewpoint and a historical viewpoint [see Annotation 114, p. 116] in our perception of reality so we can properly analyse, solve and apply Reason-Result relationships.

Annotation 142

It is critical to understand that there may be many events or relationships which might be falsely ascribed as Reasons for a given Result (and vice-versa).

For example: in 1965, the United States of America officially declared war on North Vietnam after the so-called “Gulf of Tonkin Incident,” in which Vietnamese forces supposedly fired on a United States Navy ship in the Gulf of Tonkin. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident is often described as the “cause” or the “Reason” that the Vietnam War began.

However, the real “Reason” why the USA declared war on North Vietnam had to do with the underlying contradiction between capitalist imperialism and communism in Vietnam. This contradiction had to be resolved one way or another. The United States of America willfully decided to try to negate this contradiction by instigating war, and this was the true reason the war began. In fact, the so-called “Gulf of Tonkin Incident” never even occurred as described — the attack on the USA’s ship never really occurred. A document released by the Pentagon in 2005 revealed that the incident was completely fabricated. So, saying that the “Gulf of Tonkin Incident” was the Reason for the war is nonsensical, since it’s an event which never even occurred in reality.

Understanding the true nature of Reason and Result is very important for making decisions and choosing a path forward in political action. Attributing the wrong Reason to a Result, or misunderstanding the Results which stem from a Reason, can lead to serious setbacks and failures. Therefore, it is vital for revolutionaries to properly identify and understand the actual Reasons and Results which drive development.

3. Obviousness and Randomness

a. Categories of Obviousness and Randomness

Annotation 143

In Vietnamese, the words for these categories are “tất nhiên” and “ngẫu nhiên,” which respectively translate to “obvious” and “random.” In socialist literature, various words have been used by different authors to convey the underlying meaning of these categories (Engels, for instance, used the terms “necessary” and “accidental” to mean “obvious” and “random,” respectively). We have chosen to use words which closely match the Vietnamese used in the original text, but the reader should be aware that these same concepts may be described using many different words in various English translations of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, etc.

The Obviousness category refers to events that occur because of the essential [see Essence and Phenomenon, p. 156] internal aspects of the material structure of a subject. These essential internal characteristics become reasons for certain results under certain conditions: the Obvious has to happen in a certain way, it can’t happen any other way.

Annotation 144

Obviousness can only apply to material subjects in the material world and results which are certain to happen based on the material laws of nature. Obviousness arises from the internal aspects, features, and relations of physical objects. Paper will burn under certain specific conditions, due its internal material structure. If those conditions (i.e., temperature, the presence of oxygen, etc.) exist, then paper will catch fire predictably. In other words, paper will obviously burn under certain circumstances due to its internal composition,.

The Randomness category refers to things that happen because of external reasons: things that happen, essentially, by chance, due to impacts from many external relations. A Random outcome may occur or it may not occur; a Random outcome could happen this way or it could happen that way.

Annotation 145

As we discussed above, paper will burn if it reaches a certain temperature — that much is obvious. If your friend holds paper over the flame of the lighter, the paper will burn — that’s obvious. But you can’t be certain whether your friend will actually hold the paper to the flame or not. This demonstrates Randomness. Whether your friend will ultimately hold the paper to the flame or not depends on an external relation which is not defined by the internal structure of the paper, and which can’t be predicted with the same predictability as obvious events which are rooted in internal material aspects.

b. Dialectical relationship between Obviousness and Randomness

Obviousness and Randomness both exist objectively and play an important role in the motion and development of things and phenomena. Obviousness plays the decisive role.

Annotation 146

Obviousness plays the decisive role simply because Obviousness is far more predictable and the laws which govern material phenomena are essentially fixed. We can’t change the laws of physics, the nature of chemical reactions, etc.

Obviousness and Randomness exist in dialectical unity; there is no pure Obviousness, nor pure Randomness. It is obvious that Randomness shall occur in our universe, however Obviousness clears a path through this Randomness.

Annotation 147

Our universe is incredibly complex and there are many different potential external relations which could impact any given situation, such that some degree of Randomness is always present in any situation; in other words, the presence of Randomness can be seen as Obvious.

In 1922, Ho Chi Minh identified objective internal characteristics of the working class of France and its colonies. He wrote: “The mutual ignorance of the two proletariats gives rise to prejudices. The French workers look upon the native as an inferior and negligible human being, incapable of understanding and still less of taking action. The natives regard all the French as wicked exploiters. Imperialism and capitalism do not fail to take advantage of this mutual suspicion and this artificial racial hierarchy to frustrate propaganda and divide forces which ought to unite.”

In this example, Ho Chi Minh identifies prejudice as an obvious outcome of mutual ignorance. The prejudice arises as a matter of course from internal objective aspects of the two proletarian groups. As long as French and native workers remain ignorant of one another, prejudice will arise. The specific forms which this prejudice will take, however, and their resulting impacts and developments, will be more or less Random because there are many external factors (including the external impacts of the capitalist class, which seeks to take advantage of these prejudices) which can’t be predicted. Therefore, it is necessary for political revolutionaries to account for both random and obvious factors in confronting such prejudice. Ho Chi Minh’s suggestion for overcoming these difficulties was concise and to-the-point: “Intensify propaganda to overcome them.” Only by negating the internal aspects of mutual ignorance through education and propaganda could communists hope to negate the resulting prejudice.

As Engels said: “One knows that what is maintained to be necessary [obvious] is composed of sheer accidents, and that the so-called accidental [random] is the form behind which necessity hides itself — and so on.”^[92]

Obviousness and Randomness are not static properties: Randomness and Obviousness continuously change and develop over time. Under specific conditions, Obviousness and Randomness can transform into each other: Obviousness can become Random and Randomness can become obvious.

Annotation 148

Randomness can be introduced to an obvious situation: it may be obvious that a mineshaft will collapse, until human beings come along and intervene by repairing the structural integrity of the mineshaft. It may seem Random whether a city’s economy will grow or shrink, until a volcano erupts and buries the city in lava and ash, making it obvious that the economy will not grow because the city no longer exists.

Most situations are in a flux, as Obviousness and Randomness dialectically develop and change over time, with outcomes becoming more or less obvious or Random over time. It is vital that we, as political revolutionaries, are able to distinguish between Obviousness and Randomness and to leverage this understanding to our advantage.

c. Meaning of the Methodology

Basically, in our perception and reality, we have to base our plans, strategies, and actions as much as possible on the Obvious, not the Random. However, we must not ignore Randomness, nor try to separate the Obvious from the Random. When faced with situations which seem very Random, we must find ways to develop Obviousness. When faced with what seems obvious, we must keep an eye out for Randomness. Obviousness and Randomness can mutually transform, so we need to create suitable conditions to hinder or promote such transformation to suit our purposes.

Annotation 149

We must always remember that no situation is purely obvious, nor purely Random, and to take this into account in all of our planning and activity.

A skyscraper made from heavy steel beams may seem quite sturdy and stable; it may appear obvious that the structure will remain stable and sound for decades. However, it is still important for engineers to periodically confirm that the steel is still sound through testing and observation. Engineers must also be prepared for Random events like lightning, earthquakes, storms, etc., which may affect the seemingly obvious structural integrity of the building.

Likewise, when faced with extremely complex situations which seem completely Random, we must seek out (or bring about) the obvious. Wildfires are extremely chaotic and difficult to predict. However, firefighters can rely on certain obvious patterns and natural laws which govern the spread of fire. By digging trenches, lighting counter-fires, spraying water, and other such actions, firefighters can bring wildfires under control. This illustrates how humans are able to make situations less Random by bringing about an increasing amount of Obviousness over time through practical activity.

4. Content and Form

a. Categories of Content and Form

The Content category refers to the sum of all aspects, attributes, and processes that a thing, phenomenon, or idea is made from.

The Form category refers to the mode of existence and development of things, phenomena, and ideas. Form thus describes the system of relatively stable relationships which exist internally within things, phenomena, and ideas.

Annotation 150

Content and Form can be difficult to comprehend at first because the ways in which Content and Form manifest and interact can vary wildly depending on the subject being discussed and the viewpoint from which the subject is being considered.

Content represents the component things, materials, attributes, features, etc., which, together, make up a thing, phenomenon, or idea. You can think of it as the “ingredients” from which a subject is made.
Form refers to a stable system of internal relationships which compose a thing, phenomenon, or idea, as well as the mode of existence and development [see Annotation 60, p. 59] of those relations.

Remember that from a dialectical materialist perspective, everything in our universe is defined by internal and external relations. If a thing, phenomenon, or idea has internal relations which are relatively stable, then it has a Form.

We would not call all of the assorted ingredients which are used to make a cake “a cake” unless they have been assembled together and baked into the stable form which we interpret as “a cake.” Once a portion is removed from the cake, the portion itself assumes a new stable form which we call “a slice of cake.” The slice of cake will maintain its relatively stable form until being eaten, discarded, or otherwise transitioning into some other form. It is only considered a “slice of cake” for as long as it maintains its own specific stable form.

Stability itself is also relative: a “spray” of water may only last for a few seconds but we can still conceive of it as having Form. On the other hand, a mountain has a set of stable internal relations (a Form) which might last for millions of years.

We can think of Form as having two aspects: inner Form and outer Form.

Inner form refers to the internal stable relations which we have already discussed.

Outer form is how an object “appears” to human senses.

In this book, we are primarily concerned with the inner Form of subjects, however, in other contexts (such as art and design), the outer Form plays a more prominent role.

Now, let’s identify some of the common viewpoints from which Content and Form might be considered.

Material vs. Ideal

When discussing the material — i.e., objective systems and objects^[93] — discussion of Content and Form is more straightforward.

Material

With material things and phenomena, the Content is what the thing is made out of: the physical parts, aspects, attributes, and processes that compose the subject. For example, the Content of a wooden chair might be the wood, nails, paint, and other materials which are used to create the chair.

A material object can be described in terms of content, inner form, and outer form.

The inner Form of a material object refers to stable internal relations which compose the object. The stable relationship between the wood and the nails — the nails bind the wood together, the wood is cut in certain patterns, the paint adheres to the wood through physical and chemical bonds, etc. Stability is, again, relative — over time, the paint will chip and flake, the wood will rot, the nails will rust, etc. Dialectical processes of change will eventually reduce the chair into something other than a chair (i.e., through rotting, burning, disassembly, etc.), but as long as the internal relations maintain the Form of a chair we conceive of it as a chair.

The outer Form of a material object refers to the way it appears to human consciousness. Its shape, aesthetics, etc.

Ideal

With the ideal — i.e., abstract ideas and concepts — discussion of Content and Form becomes more complicated. As Vietnam’s Marxism-Leninism Textbook for Students Who Specialize in Marxism-Leninism explains:

Many times, human consciousness has difficulty in trying to clearly define the Content of a subject — especially when the subject is an abstract idea. We often mistake Content with inner Form. Usually, in this situation, there is a strong combination and intertwining between both Content and Form. In such a situation, the Form can be referred to as the “inner Form,” or the “Content-Form.”
With physical things and phenomena, this type of Form usually belongs to a very specific Private, it doesn’t exist in any other Private, it is the Unique [see Annotation 129, p. 128].

The reason the inner Form of physical objects usually exists in Private as the Unique is because the stable internal relations of any given physical object are equivalent to the specific material components which distinguish one physical object from all other physical objects. In other words, if you have two chairs which are exact copies of each other, made from the same kind of wood, cut into the same shape, using the same type and configuration of fasteners, etc., they are still not the exact same object. The internal relations of one chair are what make it that chair and distinguish it from all other objects in the universe. The outer Form of these chairs may have many commonalities (they look similar, they have the same color, etc.), but the inner Form is what distinguishes one chair from the other.

However, within the realm of abstract ideas, there are also Forms which many abstract Privates share. In the context of abstract ideas, we call this kind of Form the “outer Form,” the “form-Form,” or the “common Form.”
When we try to define the Content of a subject which is an abstract idea, our consciousness usually tries to answer the question: “what is the subject?”

This is usually a simple matter. Take, for example, the abstract idea of “freedom.” When we try to think of the Content of freedom we can answer it pretty easily. What is the subject of freedom? It is the condition which allows humans to follow their own will, it is the absence of external coercion, etc., etc.

But, when we try to define the Form of an abstract idea, our consciousness tries to answer the question: “how is the subject?” — this is when we have to define the mode of existence (the Form) of that subject.

This is where things get more complicated. The mode of existence of an abstract idea can usually be considered to be language, since our ideas are usually expressed through language, but it can take on other modes of existence as well, such as visual media (paintings, photographs), physical motions of the human body (body language, dance), etc. This is how the field of art studies is concerned with the philosophical categories of Content and Form.

Content and Form in Art

Many readers may already be familiar with the subject of Content and Form from studying art, design, communications, and related fields. At first glance, the definitions of Content and Form may seem different from what we’ve been discussing so far.

This is because art concerns itself with abstract ideas expressed through various Forms of physical representations.

These physical representations may include physical objects (photographs, paintings, sculptures), performed and/or recorded physical activities (dance, music, theater, film), human language recorded in stable physical Forms of written language (novels, poems, stories) or spontaneously performed oral language (storytelling, impromptu spoken-word poetry).

Because the study of art is primarily concerned with interpreting and understanding ideas expressed through these physical manifestations, art is concerned with the stable inner relations of the ideas which artists imbue within their works of art — much more than the stable inner relations of the physical components of the object.

According to the Vietnamese art textbook Curriculum of General Aesthetics:

What is the Form of a work of art? Form is the way to express the Content of an artwork. Form and Content within a work of art have a strong unity with each other and they regulate each other. Form is the organization, the inner structure of the Content of an artwork. Therefore, Form is the way that the Content expresses itself, and that way is described by two features. We must ask:
First: what expresses the Content of a work of art?
Second: how is it expressed?
Art exists when two conditions are met: first, there must be a subject with an outer Form. Second, an artist must convey aesthetic meaning, or humanization, of that subject. This aesthetic meaning is the Content.

So, in studying works of art, we are less concerned with the physical content of the artwork (the canvas, paint, etc.) than we are with the abstract content of the artwork (the ideas which the artist imbues within the artwork).

As for Form, the inner Form of art represents the stable internal relations which compose the art (both ideal, i.e., the stable internal relations of the abstract ideas imbued within the art by the artist, as well as physical, i.e., the stable internal relations of the physical media of the art).

The outer Form of art represents how our human senses perceive the art, such as composition techniques, the use of color, etc.

The chart below breaks down the differences in a general, non-artistic viewpoint of physical objects and processes in materialist dialectical terms (i.e., the viewpoint an engineer might have), as compared with the artistic viewpoint of physical objects and processes (which an art critic might have). Some fields, such as designing products for human use, might draw from both viewpoints.

File:T-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-54.png

Content and Form in Specific Artistic Media

Every medium of art will interpret Content and Form in its own way. For example:

Literature is a specific art discipline which deals with recorded human language in the Form of writing. In written literature, the Content would be the ideas expressed in a piece of writing; what the words say. The inner Form would be the way the ideas relate to each other — i.e., story structure, pacing, character development, etc. The outer form would be the physical format of the writing — i.e., manuscript, magazine article, paperback book, ebook, etc.

Painting is a specific art discipline in which pigments are applied to objects to create images which convey ideas and emotions. In painting, the Content would be the meaning which an artist embodies in a work of art. The inner Form would include the stable internal relations within the artwork (i.e., the bonds and mixtures between the pigments, the canvas, etc.), while the outer Form would be how the artwork appears to human senses (composition, aesthetics, etc.). Generally speaking, the creator of the art will have to make decisions about the inner Form (i.e., selection of oil vs. acrylic vs. watercolor, selection of shade, tint, and hue, physical brush strokes, etc.) so as to produce the desired outer Form (the way the finished artwork will appear to viewers).

Theater is a specific art discipline in which human beings perform physical actions and use their voices to convey ideas to an audience. In theater, the Content includes the ideas which are being presented, such as the script, the musical score, the story, the performance choices of actors, costumes, props, etc. The inner Form would include the stable relations between the members of the cast, the director, the physical stage, the lighting, etc., and the outer Form would be the way the play appears to the audience.

These are just some examples. Each medium of expression will have its own variations in how Content and Form are considered.

Engels described the manifestation of Content and Form in Dialectics of Nature:

The whole of organic nature is one continuous proof of the identity or inseparability of form and content. Morphological and physiological phenomena, form and function, mutually determine one another. The differentiation of form (the cell) determines differentiation of substance into muscle, skin, bone, epithelium, etc., and the differentiation of substance in turn determines difference of form.

Content and Form are discussed frequently in analysis of human social systems and objective relations which occur within society. For example, Marx made many criticial insights into economics by analyzing and explaining the form of value [see Annotation 14, p. 16] under capitalism.

Indeed, the entire capitalist system can be viewed in terms of content and form. The current form of human civilization is capitalism. That is to say, capitalism is the stable set of relations and characteristis of the current political economy which dominates the planet. The content of capitalism includes all the components of the base and superstructure, including the various classes (capitalists, working class, etc.), the means of production, government institutions, corporate institutions, etc. All of these elements are configured together into the relatively stable form which we call “capitalism.”

b. Dialectical relationship between Content and Form

Content and Form have a strong dialectical relationship with one other. There is no Form that does not contain any Content. Simultaneously, there is no Content that does not exist in a specific Form. The same Content can manifest in many Forms and a Form can contain many Contents.

The relationship between Content and Form is a dialectical relationship in which Content decides Form and Form can impact Content.

Annotation 151

For example, if you want to make a table, and all you have available are wood and nails, then that Content (the wood and the nails) will determine the Form the table ends up taking. You are going to end up with a wooden table, and it will therefore have to have certain characteristics of Form.

When Content changes, the Form must change accordingly. If, instead of wood, you have iron, then the table you end up building will have a much different Form. Form can also influence the Content, but not nearly as much as Content determines Form. For instance, if you have wood and nails, but you develop a technique for building a table that doesn’t need any nails, then the result (a wooden table without any nails) would be an example of a development in Form reflecting as a change in Content.

The main tendency of Content is change. On the other hand, Form is relatively stable in every thing and phenomenon. As Content changes, Form must change accordingly. However, Content and Form are not always perfectly aligned.

Annotation 152

Since all things, phenomena, and ideas are constantly changing, it stands to reason that the internal components (things, phenomena, and ideas, and their relations) which compose the Content of a subject will constantly be undergoing processes of change and development. Thus, we say that the tendency of Content is change. Since the Form is based on the internal relations of the components of Content, it stands to reason that a change in Content will lead to change in Form. These kinds of changes in Content and Form also occur through the dialectical process: changes in quantity lead to changes in quality [see Annotation 117, p. 119].

Quantity changes in Content lead to quality shifts in Form.

As soon as a wooden chair is finished being built, the paint is already beginning to degrade. The wood is already beginning to rot. The iron nails are already beginning to rust. These changes may be imperceptibly slow — they may even take centuries to occur, if the chair is kept in a hospitable environment — but the changes are occurring, quantitatively, over time, none-the-less.

Eventually, changes in quantity will lead to changes in quality. At some point, the chair might weaken and begin to wobble whenever it’s sat in. Human beings might recognize this quality and begin to think of it as a “wobbly chair.” The chair might degrade to the point where it can’t be safely used at all, in which case it will have quality shifted into a “broken chair.” If the chair is repaired, that would represent another quality shift. If it is used for firewood, that would be another quality shift.

Keep in mind that changes in Form do not directly cause changes in Content. If you disassemble a wooden chair into the constituent wood and nails, the wood and nails remain more or less unchanged. But if you burn a wooden chair, it’s the change in Content which leads to the change in Form from “chair” to “pile of ash.”

Form simply represents the stable relationships between the component parts of the subject’s Content. The only way to change Form is to change those inner relations, or to change the components which are relating. There is no way to change Form without changing the Content, and changing the Content changes the Form by definition.

Content determines Form, but Form is not fully decided by Content, and Form can impact back on Content. If a Form is suitable with its Content, it can improve the development of its Content. If a Form is not suitable with its Content, it can constrain the development of its Content.

Annotation 153

The dialectical relationship between Content and Form is somewhat similar to the dialectical relationship between the material and the ideal (see Matter and Consciousness,

p. 88). Just as the material world determines consciousness while consciousness impacts the material world, the Content of a subject determines the Form while the Form impacts the Content.

Suitability describes the applicability of a subject for a specific application or role. Whether or not something is “suitable” or not can be highly subjective (i.e., which music would be “suitable” to play at a party), or it can be more objective (i.e., what kind of batteries to use with an electronic device).

We might say that hardwood is “suitable” Content for the Form of a chair because it is durable, strong, relatively inexpensive, and long-lasting. It might be “unsuitable” to have a chair made of hardwood if it is to be used as an office chair, because the hard surfaces might cause strain and discomfort. However, we can utilize conscious activity to adjust and develop suitability between Content and Form. Changing the Content by adding cushioning or padding might make the Content and Form more suitable with each other. Similarly, changing the Form by designing contours and adding adjustability to the chair might make the Content and Form more suitable with each other for their intended application as an office chair.

If a Form is not suitable with the Content, it restrains the development of the Content. Just think of a shovel (Form) made of wood (Content), which will degrade very rapidly over time, vs. a shovel (Form) made of steel (Content) which will last much longer. This works in both directions. Consider the Content of drinking cups: a porcelain cup might last for a long time and even develop positively over time (by acquiring a desirable patina), while a cup made out of mild steel would not be desirable, as it would be highly prone to rust from extended use containing liquids.

c. Meaning of the Methodology

Content and Form always have a dialectical relationship with each other. Therefore, in our perception and practice, we must not try to separate Content and Form, nor should we solely focus on one and ignore the other.

Because Content determines Form, whenever we are considering a thing, phenomenon, or idea, we must base our consideration first on its Content. If we want to change a thing or phenomenon, we have to change its Content first.

In reality, we must promote the positive impact of Form on Content by making the Form fit the Content. Likewise, we must also change the Form that is no longer suitable with its Content and therefore constrains the development of its Content.

Annotation 154

In any analysis, it is very important that we carefully consider whether or not Content and Form are suitable with each other in our own projects and activities. We can learn a lot about suitability from observation and practice (see Cognitive Theory of Dialectical Materialism, p. 204) and improve suitability through conscious activity.

Marx believed that it is vital to consider Content and Form when analyzing human society and political economy. One of his core critiques of political economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo was a failure to consider Content and Form when it comes to value, commodities, and money. He discusses this extensively in Capital Volume 1, as in this excerpt:

The value-form, whose fully developed shape is the money-form, is very elementary and simple. Nevertheless, the human mind has for more than 2,000 years sought in vain to get to the bottom of it all, whilst on the other hand, to the successful analysis of much more composite and complex forms, there has been at least an approximation. Why? Because the body, as an organic whole, is more easy of study than are the cells of that body. In the analysis of economic forms, moreover, neither microscopes nor chemical reagents are of use. The force of abstraction must replace both.

Marx, here, is saying that studying the economy is more difficult than studying the human body because it can’t be physically observed and dissected. Rather, we have to rely on abstraction, which leaves us prone to making many more mistakes in analyzing Content and Form.

But in bourgeois society, the commodity-form of the product of labour – or value-form of the commodity – is the economic cell-form. To the superficial observer, the analysis of these forms seems to turn upon minutiae. It does in fact deal with minutiae, but they are of the same order as those dealt with in microscopic anatomy.

Marx’s analysis of capitalism relies to great extent upon recognizing the commodity-form of the product (Content) of labor. Labor existed long before capitalism. Labor has existed for as long as humans have worked to change our own material conditions. But under capitalism, labor specifically takes on the Form of a commodity which is bought by capitalists. This becomes the basis for Marx’s entire critique of capitalism.

Obviously, there is much more to Marx’s use of Content and Form in analyzing capitalism and human society, but this should hopefully give you some idea of the importance of Content and Form in analysis of human society and revolutionary activity.

5. Essence and Phenomenon

a. Categories of Essence and Phenomenon

The Essence category refers to the synthesis of all the internal aspects as well as the obvious and stable relations that define the existence, motion and development of things, phenomena, and ideas.

The Phenomenon category refers to the external manifestation of those internal aspects and relations in specific conditions.

Annotation 155

Understanding Essence and Phenomena can be challenging at first, but it is very important for materialist dialectical analysis.

Essence should not be confused with Form. Form represents the stable internal relations of the component content of a subject, whereas Essence represents the synthesis of all internal aspects as well as all obvious and stable attributes which define the existence, motion, and development of a subject.

Phenomena are simply external manifestations of a subject which occur in specific conditions.

The Essence of a subject is not dependent on conditions, whereas in different conditions, the same subject will exhibit different Phenomena. For example, COVID-19 is, essentially, a specific virus strain. That is to say, all of the internal aspects and stable relations that define the existence, motion, and development of COVID-19 are synthesized as a virus which we call COVID-19.

The Phenomena of COVID-19 which we can observe in patients would include symptoms such as fever, coughing, trouble breathing, etc.

The Essence of a cloud is water vapor in the atmosphere: that is the synthesis, the coming-together, of all the internal stable relations and aspects which will determine how a cloud exists, moves, and develops over time.

The Phenomena of clouds are all the things we can sense: the appearance of big fluffy white things in the air, shadows on the ground, and, sometimes, rain.

Essence defines Phenomenon: the internal attributes and stable relations will produce the Phenomena which we can observe. A cloud is not essentially defined as a fluffy white thing in the air; that is just the appearance a cloud has to our human senses in certain specific conditions.

b. Dialectical relationship between Essence and Phenomenon

Essence and Phenomenon both exist objectively as two unified but opposing sides.

The unity between Essence and Phenomenon: Essence always manifests through Phenomena, and every Phenomenon is always the manifestation of a specific Essence. There is no pure Essence that exists separately from Phenomena and there is no Phenomenon that does not manifest from any kind of Essence.

When Essence changes, Phenomena also change accordingly. When Essence appears, Phenomena also appear, and when Essence disappears, Phenomena also disappear. Therefore, Lenin said: “The Essence appears. The appearance is essential.”^[94]

The Opposition of Essence and Phenomenon: Essence is that which defines a thing, Phenomenon, or idea, while Phenomena are diversified and conditional. Essence is internal, while Phenomena are external. Essence is relatively stable, while Phenomena continuously change.

Annotation 156

Essence and Phenomenon are simultaneously unified and opposite because neither can exist without the other, yet they have completely opposite features from one another.

Discussing the Essence and Phenomena of physical objects is relatively straight-forward. The Essence will typically encompass the physical object or system itself. For example, a car engine is essentially a machine; that is to say, the synthesis of all the internal aspects (the engine parts) as well as the obvious and stable relations (the relations between the parts of the engine; how they are assembled and work together in the engine system) that define the existence, motion and development of the engine (the way it works) are what essentially make it a car engine. All of these essential characteristics are internal, relatively stable, and remain the same regardless of the condition of the engine (i.e., they continue to exist whether the engine is turned on, turned off, inoperable, etc.).

The Phenomena of the car engine are all the things that we can sense from it, but this can vary a great deal depending on conditions. When the car engine is turned off, it will be silent. It may be cool to the touch. It will be at rest. If the engine is turned on, the parts will move, it will become hot, it will make noise. In some situations it might smoke or even catch on fire. All of these Phenomena are conditional, unstable, and external to the engine itself.

With ideas and abstract thought, Essence and Phenomenon becomes more difficult to determine and analyze. Lenin discussed this in his Philosophical Notebooks, beginning with a quote from Hegel:

Dialectics in general is “the pure movement of thought in Notions“ (i.e., putting it without the mysticism of idealism: human concepts are not fixed but are eternally in movement, they pass into one another, they flow into one another, otherwise they do not reflect living life.

Knowing that Hegel was an idealist, Lenin wanted to strip all idealism from his conception of dialectics, and thus made it clear that “the pure movement of thought” simply refers to the fact that human thoughts are constantly changing, always in motion, within the living human mind, writing:

The analysis of concepts, the study of them, the “art of operating with them” (Engels) always demands study of the movement of concepts, of their interconnection, of their mutual transitions).

This is a description of materialist dialectical analysis of human thought. We must understand that human thoughts are always in motion, always developing, and always mutually impacting other thoughts.

In particular, dialectics is the study of the opposition of the Thing-in-itself, of the essence, substratum, substance — from the appearance, from “Being-for-Others.” (Here, too, we see a transition, a flow from the one to the other: the essence appears. The appearance is essential.) Human thought goes endlessly deeper from appearance to essence, from essence of the first order, as it were, to essence of the second order, and so on without end.

This is where Lenin introduces the concept of Essence and Phenomenon (or “appearance,” as Lenin puts it) as simultaneously oppositional and in unity. Essence refers to the qualities and nature of the “thing-in-itself” (its internal components, relations, etc.) while Phenomena represents “being-for-others” (that which external observers can sense or witness of a subject). However, as Lenin notes, Essence and Phenomena have a dialectical relationship with each other — a “flow from the one to the other.” The Essence “appears” by exuding Phenomena which we can sense.

Conscious thoughts also have Essence and Phenomena of their own. With thought, the development from Essence to Phenomena is constant and inevitable. The Essence of each thought leads to thought-Phenomena which develop in turn into the Essence of new thoughts in a constant flow.

In this sense, Essence and Phenomenon of abstract thought is somewhat different from Essence and Phenomenon of physical objects, but physical objects can have this same dialectical pattern of development. For example, the emissions from the engine of a car can be considered Phenomena of the engine, but as these Phenomena build up in the air (along with the emissions from many other cars), they can develop into a physical subject with a new Essence of its own, which we call “air pollution.”

We can also think of the light which comes from the sun. The light itself can be thought of as Phenomena of the sun, but the light energy can be captured by a solar panel and converted into energy, creating a new subject with its own Essence which we would describe as “solar energy.” In this sense, it is possible for Phenomena to have Phenomena. If you witness light waves in the desert which cause an optical illusion, then the illusion is a Phenomenon of the light waves (the light waves being the Essence which exuded the Phenomenon of illusion), and the light waves are the Phenomena of the sun (the essential subject which exudes the Phenomena of the light waves).

Essence and Phenomena can also be contextual. In some contexts, physical objects which have their own Essence (and Phenomena) may be the Phenomena of some other entity. For example, archaeologists can’t observe prehistoric civilizations directly. They can only study the things which are left behind. In this sense, we can think of an archaeological artifact, like a stone tool, as a Phenomenon of a prehistoric civilization. The tool has its own Essence and Phenomena, but it is also itself a Phenomenon. A single stone tool can’t tell archaeologists much about an ancient civilization, however, archaeologists can gather many Phenomena (tools, structural ruins, nearby animal bones and seeds, human remains, etc.) to look for patterns which reveal more insights about the Essence of the prehistoric civilization which exuded those Phenomena.

Dialectics in the proper sense is the study of contradiction in the very essence of objects: not only are appearances transitory, mobile, fluid, demarcated only by conventional boundaries, but the essence of things is so as well.

Lenin, here, points out that proper analysis hinges on understanding the Essence of a subject, since the Phenomena are fleeting and subject to change. Most notably, we should look for contradictions within the subject (see Definition of Contradiction and Common Characteristics of Contradiction, p. 175), because contradictions are what drive dialectical development of a subject over time.

c. Meaning of the Methodology

If we want to be accurately aware of things, phenomena, and ideas, we must not just stop at studying their Phenomena, we have to study their Essence. Only through examining many Phenomena of a subject can we fully and correctly understand the Essence of said subject.

Annotation 157

With physical objects, we must study the Phenomena to know anything about a subject, since Phenomena is, by definition, that which we can observe. Only through systematic, repeated observations can we come to understand the Essence of the object which exudes the Phenomena. Because Phenomena can change based on conditions, we must observe Phenomena under various conditions in a systematic way. This is the basis of all scientific inquiry.

This is also true for analyzing aspects of human society. To understand a social system, we must observe its Phenomena systematically over time and look for patterns which form under various conditions. We must also keep in mind that social systems develop and change over time, and so the Essence might develop with or without changes in certain Phenomena. For example, the phenomena of the United States of America have changed significantly over the years. The national flag, military uniforms, seals, and other iconography have changed throughout the history of the USA. Similarly, there have been many presidents, and the government and constitution have also been through many changes. That said, the essential nature of the USA’s political economy has not changed significantly since its foundation; the USA has been a capitalist bourgeois democracy since the beginning and remains so to this day. Regardless of which bourgeois-dominated political party holds power in the white house and congress — Whig, Republican, Democrat, or otherwise — the essential nature of the USA as a capitalist bourgeois democracy has remained the same.

According to Lenin: “Human thought goes endlessly deeper from appearance to essence, from essence of the first order, as it were, to essence of the second order, and so on, without end.”^[95] On the other hand, Essence is what defines a thing, phenomenon, or idea. Therefore, in our perception and practice, we must recognize a thing, phenomenon, or idea based on its Essence, not its Phenomena, to evaluate it correctly, and after that, we can make fundamental improvements.

Annotation 158

For example: Thousands of years ago, people observed that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west everyday. Based on these Phenomena, many human civilizations developed the belief that the Essence of our solar system was that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun rotated around it. Today, thanks to scientific observation and practice, we have proven that the sun is the center of the solar system and that the earth is rotating around it, which is totally opposite to what many believed hundreds of years ago. In this case, the initially observed Phenomena were misleading, and it was only by getting a better grasp of the essential nature of the solar system that we could better comprehend its functioning.

It is usually easy to observe Phenomena (since they are defined by being observable) but it’s also easy to misunderstand relationships between Essence and Phenomena. Sometimes people get a false perception of Essence from real Phenomena, such as believing the Sun revolves around the Earth. Sometimes people attribute the wrong Phenomena to Essences as well, such as believing that all poor people are lazy.

Phenomena can easily be mistaken for essence. For example, bourgeois liberal political parties often portray themselves as being pro-worker and therefore exhibit phenomena such as rhetoric, slogans, propaganda, and even platform positions which appeal to workers. These phenomena may confuse many into believing that they are workers’ parties when, in reality, they are essentially dominated by the capitalist class. The reverse can also occur. For example, workers may be fooled into believing that a ruthless capitalist politician or celebrity is “working class at heart,” falsely believing that the capitalist’s class position is merely a phenomenon when in fact it is essential.

Understanding true Essence based on real Phenomena is one of the most important aspects of analysis. It is the primary realm of science. In politics, misunderstanding or mischaracterizing Essence and Phenomena can reinforce false beliefs about the way society works which can lead to promulgation of dangerous and reactionary ideologies like neoliberalism and fascism amidst the working class. For this reason, we must avoid examining Phenomena alone. We have to dive deep to discover and understand the essential nature of things, phenomena, and ideas in our analysis.

6. Possibility and Reality

a. Categories of Possibility and Reality

The Possibility category refers to things that have not happened nor existed in reality yet, but that would happen, or would exist given necessary conditions.

The Reality category refers to things that exist or have existed in reality and in human thought.

b. Dialectical Relationship Between Possibility and Reality

Possibility and Reality have a unified and inseparable relationship: Possibility can transform into Reality and Reality contains new Possibility; any given Possibility, under specific conditions, can transform into Reality.

Given specific conditions, there could be one or many possibilities for the development of any given thing, phenomenon, or idea: practical Possibility, random Possibility, obvious Possibility, abstract Possibility, near Possibility, far Possibility, etc.

Annotation 159

Excerpt From Marxism-Leninism Textbook of Students Who Specialize in Marxism-Leninism

Editor’s notes in [brackets]

Reality has many aspects. It also has many tendencies of development. These aspects and tendencies of Reality have different roles and positions in the development process of Reality. For example, manifesting any given Possibility into Reality requires us to change a specific subject from one status to a different status. Some subjects are easier to transform and others are more difficult to transform. Some require us to change quality, others only require quantity changes [see Annotation 117, p. 119].

Because Reality has many aspects and tendencies of development, it is useful to classify Possibility. There are at least four types of Possibility, in two separate categories.

[The categorization below draws a distinction between the obvious and the practical.

The obvious is that which will certainly occur. If you drop an object, it will obviously fall. The practical is that which we certainly could make occur through human will. If you are holding an object, you could practically drop it.]

Obvious Possibility and Random Possibility [see: Obviousness and Randomness, p. 144].

Obvious Possibility refers to Possibility that will happen, because conditions to make it happen are set in place so that the Possibility developing into Reality is unavoidable.

[If the conditions arise for a hurricane to form, it eventually becomes obvious that a hurricane will form.]

Random Possibility is Possibility which may or may not happen depending on how external factors develop, our actions, the actions of others, etc. [Whether or not a hurricane may develop on any given day is, from our human perspective, random, since we do not have any technology to cause or prevent the development of hurricanes. Other events may be more or less random. We can, for instance, prepare for an incoming hurricane to minimize the risk of harm to human communities.]

Second, based on the practical relationships between subjects, we have:

Practical Possibility vs. Abstract Possibility:

Practical Possibility means that conditions in Reality which could make something happen are already in place. [If you have all the ingredients, knowledge, and equipment needed to make a pie, you could make a pie. The material conditions are in place.]

Abstract Possibility is Possibility which may become Reality in the future but the conditions which would make this Possibility become Reality have not yet developed.

[It is an abstract Possibility that you could make a pie, even if you don’t have the tools, ingredients, or knowledge. It is possible, in the abstract, that you could buy the ingredients and equipment and learn the necessary skills to make a pie. Near Possibility simply refers to Possibility which may become Reality in the shorter term, far Possibility refers to things which may happen in a more distant future, relative to the subject being discussed.]

In social life, in order to transform a Possibility into Reality, there must be objective conditions and subjective factors. Subjective factors include the ability of humans to change Possibility into Reality. Objective conditions refer to the situations needed to make such a change occur. [In other words, humans are able to subjectively change possibility into reality, but only when the objective circumstances exist in the external world.]

c. Meaning of the Methodology

We must base our perception and practice on Reality.

Lenin said: “Marxism takes its stand on the facts, and not on possibilities. A Marxist must, as the foundation of his policy, put [forth] only precisely and unquestionably demonstrated facts.”^[96]

However, in our perception and practice, we also need to comprehensively recognize possibilities which could arise from Reality. This will allow us to develop methods of practical operation which are suitable to changes and developments which might occur. We must actively make use of subjective factors in perception and practice to turn Possibility into Reality whenever it would serve our purposes.

Annotation 160

This idea is perhaps best exemplified in the traditional Vietnamese proverb: “you can’t just open your mouth and wait for fruit to drop into your mouth.” We have to actively apply our will, through practice and labor, to develop the best possibilities into manifested Reality. See more about subjective factors in Annotation 207, p. 202.

IV. Basic Laws of Materialist Dialectics

Laws are the regular, common, obvious, natural, and objective relations between internal aspects, factors, and attributes of a thing or phenomenon or between things and phenomena.

There are many types of laws in this world and they all have different prevalence, reach, characteristics, and roles in regard to the motion and development processes of things and phenomena in nature, society, and human thought. So, it is necessary to classify different laws for humans to understand and apply them effectively into practical activities. Classifying laws based on prevalence, we have: private laws, common laws, and universal laws [see: Private and Common, p. 128].

Private laws are laws that only apply to a specific range of things and phenomena. For example: laws of mechanical motion, laws of chemical motion, laws of biological motion, etc.

Common laws are laws that apply to a broader range of subjects than private laws, and they impact many different subjects. For instance: the law of preservation of mass, the law of preservation of energy, etc.

Universal laws are laws that impact every aspect of nature, society, and human thought. Materialist dialectics is the study of these universal laws.

If we classify laws based on the reach of impact, we will have three main groups: laws of nature, laws of society, and laws of human thought.

Laws of nature are laws that arise in the natural world, including within the human body. They are not products of human conscious activities.

Laws of society are the laws of human activity in social relations; these laws only apply to the conscious activities of humans, yet they are still objective.

Annotation 161

We have already discussed how relations between human beings are objective [see Annotation 108, p. 112]. By extension, the human relations which compose human societies are objective, and thus, any laws which govern objective human relations must also be objective.

Marx’s assertion that human social relations are objective is critical to understanding his work. Marx pointed out that social relations may not be “physical,” in the sense that they can’t be observed directly with human senses, but that they still have an objective character — they exist externally to a given subject, and they have objective impacts on reality. For instance, the class relations between the capitalist class and the working class result in objective manifestations in reality, such as wealth accumulation, modes of circulation, etc.

Laws of human thought are laws of the intrinsic relationships between concepts, categories, judgments, inference, and the development process of human rational awareness.

As the science of common relations and development, materialist dialectics studies the universal laws that influence the entire natural world, human society, and human thought, all together as a whole.

These universal laws are:

The law of transformation between quantity and quality.
The law of unification and contradiction between opposites.
The law of negation of negation.

Annotation 162

Each of these laws is considered universal because they apply to all things, phenomena, and ideas, and all the internal and external relations thereof, in human perception and practice. All things, phenomena, and ideas change and develop as a result of mutual impacts and relationships in accordance with these universal laws. On a fundamental level, materialist dialectics is the study of these universal laws and their utility.

1. Law of Transformation Between Quantity and Quality

The law of transformation between quantity and quality is a universal law which concerns the universal mode of motion and development processes of nature, society, and human thought.

Annotation 163

Remember that mode refers to how something exists, functions, and develops [see Annotation 60, p. 59]. The universal mode of motion and development processes thus refers to how all things, ideas, and phenomena move, change, and develop.

Friedrich Engels defined the law of transformation between quantity and quality in Dialectics of Nature:

The law of the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa. For our purpose, we could express this by saying that in nature, in a manner exactly fixed for each individual case, qualitative changes can only occur by the quantitative addition or subtraction of matter or motion (so-called energy).

In other words, quantitative changes of things, phenomena, and ideas lead to quality shifts.

The universal mode of motion and development processes follows the law of transformation between quantity and quality, which states:

Qualitative changes of things, phenomena, and ideas arise from the inevitable basis of the quantitative changes of things, phenomena, and, ideas; and, vice versa: quantitative changes of things, phenomena, and ideas arise from the inevitable basis of qualitative changes of things, phenomena, and ideas.

Annotation 164

Put simply: quantity changes develop into quality changes, and quality changes lead to quantity changes [see Annotation 117, p. 119]. We say that these changes to quantity and quality occur on the “inevitable basis” of one another because quality changes always, invariably, arise from quantity changes, and, likewise, quantity changes always, invariably, arise from quality changes.

Just as quantity shifts lead to quality shifts, it is also true that quality shifts lead to quantity shifts. For example, if you have 11 donuts, then add 1 donut, you now have 1 dozen donuts. If you add 12 more donuts, you would then have 2 dozen.

Another example of quality shift leading to quantity shift would be a pond filling with rain water. Once enough drops of water collect and the pond is considered full — that is to say, once it is considered to be “a pond” of water — we will no longer think of the pond in terms of “drops.” We would think of the pond as “filled,” “overfilled,” “underfilled,” etc.

Note that both of these examples are related to our human perceptions and understanding of the material world. The material world does not change based on our perceptions, nor how we classify the quantity or quality of a given subject. There are also objective aspects related to quality shifts leading to quantity shifts. For example, if we adjust the quantity of the temperature of a sheet of paper to the point of burning, and the paper burns, then the quantity of paper would be reduced from one sheet to zero sheets. In other words, the quality shift arising from temperature quantity increase (i.e., the paper burning into ash) results in a quantity shift in how many pieces of paper exist (from one sheet to zero sheets). However, even this is ultimately a subjective assessment rooted in human consciousness, since we subjectively think in terms of “sheets of paper,” and the concept of a “sheet of paper” is essentially a classification rooted in human consciousness. It is merely an abstract way of perceiving and considering the quantity and quality of the material subject which we think of as “paper.”

The law of transformation between quantity and quality is an inevitable, objective, and universal relationship that repeats in every motion and development process of all things, phenomena, and ideas in nature, human society, and human thought.

a. Definitions of Quality and Quantity

- Definition of Quality

Quality refers to the organic unity which exists amongst the component parts of a thing, phenomenon, or idea that distinguishes it from other things, phenomena, and ideas.

Annotation 165

Note: we have already given basic definitions of quantity and quality in Annotation 117, p. 119. What follows are more comprehensive philosophical definitions of quality and quantity. Our world exists as one continuity of matter. All things and phenomena in our universe exist essentially as one unified system — namely, the entity which we call “the universe.” This unified nature of existence is extremely difficult for human beings to comprehend. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel pointed out that, in this sense, the unity of “pure being” is indistinguishable from “nothingness.” In Science of Logic, Hegel noted that if we try to comprehend pure material existence, as a whole, without distinguishing any component thing or phenomenon from any other, then all is incomprehensible. Human consciousness needs to delineate and distinguish the component parts of this unified system from each other in order to make sense of it all.

Pure light and pure darkness are two voids which are the same thing. Something can be distinguished only in determinate light or darkness... [F]or this reason, it is only darkened light and illuminated darkness which have within themselves the moment of difference and are, therefore, determinate being.

The human mind has evolved to perceive various things, phenomena, and ideas as differentiated. Quality is the basis on which we perceive subjects as distinct from one another. Every thing, phenomenon, and idea is composed of internal components and relations. The unity of these internal components and relations is what we refer to as quality. For example, a human being’s quality refers to the unity of all the internal components and relationships of which the human being is composed (i.e., the cells, organs, blood, etc., as well as the thoughts, memories, etc., which make the human) in unity. Quality is also a subjective phenomenon: a reflection of the material world in human consciousness [see Annotation 68, p. 65]. Therefore we may conceive of various qualities for the same subject. We can think of 12 donuts as “a box of donuts,” “a dozen donuts,” or as 12 individual donuts. We could consider a building as “one apartment building” or “forty apartments,” depending on the viewpoint of analysis.

So, objective and inherent attributes form the quality of things, phenomena, and ideas, but we must not confuse quality and attribute with one another. Every thing, phenomenon, and idea has both fundamental and non-fundamental attributes. Only fundamental attributes constitute the quality of things, phenomena and ideas. When the fundamental attributes change, the quality also changes. The distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental attributes of things, phenomena, and ideas must depend on the purpose of the analysis; the same attribute may be fundamental when analyzing with one purpose but non-fundamental when analyzing with another purpose.

Annotation 166

Whether or not an attribute is considered “fundamental” depends entirely on conscious perspective. For example, one baker may consider chocolate chips to be “fundamental” for baking cookies while another baker may not. This subjective characteristic of what might be considered “fundamental” or not is reflected in how we consider quality. If you are trying to determine how much water you need to fill a swimming pool, you may think of a pool in terms of size (i.e., “this is an Olympic sized pool”), but if you just want to go for a swim, you are likely to just think in terms of the water level (i.e., “the pool is empty, we can’t swim”).

If you are planning the construction of a school and want to know how many classrooms it will need, you might think in terms of “classrooms of students.” But if you are considering funding for a school year, you might consider the total number of students.

The quality of a thing, phenomenon, or idea is determined by the qualities of its component parts.

Annotation 167

Qualities are composed of qualities, combined, in unity. “A swimming pool” may consist of a certain amount of concrete in a specific configuration combined with 5,000 gallons of water. A car may be composed of a body, an engine, four tires, etc. Each individual component exists as a quality — a unity of component attributes — in and of itself.

Quality is also determined by the structures and connections between component parts which manifest in specific relations. Therefore, distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental attributes is also relative.

Annotation 168

It’s not just the component parts of a subject which define its quality, but also the relations of those component parts. For instance, a quantity of wood and nails configured in one set of structural relations may have the quality of a chair, whereas the same component parts arranged with different structures and relations may have the quality of a table. In this sense, quality can be thought of as a synthesis of the Content and Form [see Content and Form, p. 147] of a thing, phenomenon, or idea from a certain perspective.

For example, if we see two shoes, we may think of each shoe as an individual qualitative object (two shoes). On the other hand, we may think of the shoes, together, as a single qualitative “object” in terms of its utility and in terms of synthesis of content and form (“a pair of shoes”), so much so that if one shoe is lost then the remaining shoe is considered useless and discarded as trash.

Because there are countless ways in which quality — the configuration and relations and composition of constituent parts of any given subject — can manifest, we must recognize that quality itself, based on the distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental attributes, is a relative and subjective phenomenon of human consciousness.

Any given subject will have multiple qualities, depending on the relations which exist between and within that subject and other subjects.

Annotation 169

Any thing, phenomenon, or idea may be perceived from various different perspectives which would cause us to consider it as having different qualities. A single shoe may be considered as: a shoe, 3 pounds of leather, half of a pair, etc., depending on its internal and external relations and the perspective of the person considering the shoe.

We can’t consider things, phenomena, and ideas apart from quality. Quality exhibits a subject’s relative stability.

Annotation 170

Remember that quality is the way in which the human mind conceives of the world as a collection of distinct things, phenomena, and ideas. These perceptions of quality are purely relative, but they are important, because they are what allow us to develop an understanding of the complicated system of things, phenomena, and ideas which make up our universe. In our perception, quality represents the relative stability of a thing, phenomenon, or idea which makes it a subject that we can consider and analyze in and of itself. Understanding how we distinguish between different subjects is crucial in developing a scientific understanding of the world which is rooted in observation and practice.

- Definition of Quantity

Quantity refers to the amount or extent of specific attributes of a thing, phenomenon, or idea, including but not limited to:

The amount of component parts.
Scale or size.
Speed or rhythm of motion.

A thing, phenomenon, or idea can have many quantities, with each quantity determined by different criteria. [i.e., a car may be measured by many criteria of quantity, such as: length in meters, weight in kilograms, speed in kilometers per hour, etc.]

Quality and quantity embody two different aspects of the same subject. Both quality and quantity exist objectively [see Annotation 108, p. 112]. However, the distinction between “quality” and “quantity” in the process of perceiving things, phenomena, and ideas has only relative significance: an attribute may be considered “quantity” from one perspective but “quality” from another perspective.

Annotation 171

If you are filling a box with a dozen donuts, then once you add the 12^th donut, one “dozen” may represent the quality which you seek. From the perspective of a customer buying donuts for a party, “dozen” may represent the “quantity.” In other words, you need to make an order (quality) of three dozen donuts (quantity). And the manager of the store, at the end of the day, may tally twenty orders (quantity) as the day’s sales goal (quality). Quantity and quality, therefore, are both considered relatively, based on perspective and the purpose of analysis at hand.

b. Dialectical Relationship Between Quantity and Quality

Every thing, phenomenon, and idea exists as a unity of two aspects: quality and quantity. Quantity and quality do not exist separate from one another. Quantity and quality dialectically and mutually impact one other. Changes in quantity lead to changes in quality. However, not every change in quantity will cause a change in quality.

Annotation 172

In order for quantity change to lead to quality change, a certain amount must be met.

This amount is called the threshold, which is explained further below in this section. A threshold may be exact and known (i.e., it takes exactly 12 donuts to make a dozen donuts) or it may be relative and unknown (i.e., a certain quantity of air inflated into a balloon may cause it to burst, but the exact, specific quantity of air may be relative to other factors such as air temperature and may be unknown to the observer until the balloon actually bursts).

With any given subject, there will be a range of quantity changes which can accumulate without leading to change in quality. This range is called the quantity range.

Quantity range is defined as a relationship between quantity and quality: the range of intervals in which the change in quantity does not substantially change the quality of a given subject. Within the limits of a quantity range, the subject retains the same quality.

Annotation 173

The quantity range is a range of quantities between quality shifts.

Quantity range can be thought of as the range of quantities which exists between thresholds. For instance, between the qualities of “one donut” and “one dozen donuts,” there is a quantity range of 10 donuts (2 donuts through 11 donuts) which can be added before the quality shifts to “one dozen donuts.” You can keep adding additional donuts, up to the quantity of 11 donuts, without reaching the threshold of quality shift to “one dozen donuts.” This is the quantity range between the qualities of donut and one dozen donuts. Again, the quantity range is relative to the perspective and the nature of analysis. One person may only be concerned with “dozens of donuts,” while another may consider the quality of “half dozens,” which would consider a quality shift to “one half-dozen donuts” to occur once the sixth donut (quantity) is added.

Motion and change usually begins with a change in quantity. When changes in quantity reach a certain amount, quality will also change. The amount, or degree, of quantity change at which quality change occurs is called the threshold.

Annotation 174

File:T-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-57.png

Note that the threshold is an approximate range. At a certain quantity, a glass may be considered “half full” and at another certain quantity, after passing the threshold, the glass will be considered “full,” though there may be a wide range of quantities at which the glass would be considered to have the quality of being “full,” depending on perspective and purpose of analysis.

When quantity change meets a threshold, within necessary and specific conditions, quality will change. This change in quality, which takes place in the motion and development process of things, phenomena, and ideas, is called a quality shift.

A quality shift occurs when a quantity changes beyond a threshold, leading to a change in quality.

Quality shifts inevitably occur as transformations in the development processes of things, phenomena, and ideas. Qualitative changes can be expressed or manifested through many forms of quality shifts which are determined by the contradictions, characteristics and conditions of a given subject, including such characteristics as: fast or slow, big or small, partial or entire, spontaneous or intentional.

Annotation 175

Quality shifts are inevitable because there is no thing, phenomenon, nor idea which can exist statically, forever, without ever undergoing change. Eventually, any given subject will undergo quality shifts, even if such transformation may take millions of years to occur.

Quality shifts can take various forms, depending on the nature of internal and external relationships, contradictions, and mutual impacts. For instance, a river may dry up or it may flood depending on internal and external relations and characteristics, but it will not simply flow at the same level forever without ever undergoing any quality shifts.

The rate and degree of quality shifts can vary considerably based on such internal and external factors, and may be “spontaneous,” that is to say, without human intervention, or may be the result of the intentional, conscious action of human beings.

Quality shifts mark the end of one motion period and the start of a new motion period.

Annotation 176

The Quantity Range (A) refers to the range of quantities between two qualities in the process of development. The Quality Shift (B) refers to the point at which quantity accumulates to the point of changing the Quality of the developing subject. The Period of Motion (C) includes both the quantity range and the quality shifts themselves.

Period of motion refers to the development which occurs between two quality shifts, including the quality shifts themselves.

Period of motion differs from quantity range because quantity range only includes the range of quantity change which can occur between quality shifts, without including the quality shifts themselves.

For example, a period of motion for a cup filling with water from a half cup would include all of the change which occurs from the cup being half full to the cup becoming entirely full. The quantity range of this same process would only include the quantities of water that stand between half-full and full, where the cup is neither considered to be “half full” or “full” but somewhere in between, i.e., between quality shifts.

Quality shift represents discontinuity within the continuous development process of things and phenomena. In the material world, all things, phenomena, and ideas are constantly undergoing continuous sequences of quantitative changes leading to quality shifts, creating an endless line of nodes, showing how all things, phenomena, and ideas move and develop to increasingly advanced degrees [see illustration on p. 121 for a visualization of this “endless line of nodes”].

As Friedrich Engels summarised: “merely quantitative changes beyond a certain point pass into qualitative differences.”^[97]

Annotation 177

Processes of change and development in our universe are continuously ongoing. Whenever a quality shift occurs, it represents a brief discontinuity in the sense that we perceive a definite and distinct transformation from one thing, phenomenon, or idea into another; in other words, we can distinguish between the mode of existence of the thing, phenomenon, or idea before and after the quality shift.

Take, for example, the “lifespan” of a house. A human being could easily distinguish between the empty land which exists before the house is built, the construction site which exists as it’s being built, and the house itself once construction is completed. In reality, this process of change is continuous, but to our human perception, each quality shift represents a definite and distinct period of change and discontinuity in terms of our perception of the “thing” which is the house.

This is related to the historic perspective of things, phenomena, and ideas, in which we recognize the continuity of existence between different stages of development of things, phenomena, and ideas [see Annotation 201, p. 195].

When a quality shift occurs, there is an impact on the quantity. Quality impacts quantity in a number of ways, including [but not limited to]:

Changing the structure, scale, or level of the subject.
Changing the rhythm or speed of the motion and development of the subject.

In summary, dialectical unity between quantity and quality exists in every thing, phenomenon, and idea. A gradual quantitative change [through the quantity range] will eventually meet the threshold, which will inevitably lead to a qualitative change through quality shift. Simultaneously, the new quality will mutually impact the quantity, causing new quantitative changes of things, phenomena, and ideas. This process takes place continuously, forming the fundamental and universal mode of movement and development processes of all things, phenomena, and ideas.

Annotation 178

Transformation between quantity and quality is the mode of movement and development of all things, phenomena, and ideas, because it reflects the way in which human consciousness perceives movement and development.

So, it is important to understand that there is no material manifestation of quantity and quality. They are simply mental constructs which reflect the ways in which we observe and understand change, motion, and development of things, phenomena, and ideas. Transformation processes in the material world are fully fluid and continuous, but our consciousness perceives change in stages of development. Quality simply reflects how we distinguish one subject from another subject, as well as how we recognize the transformation process (and stages of development) of a single subject over time.

There is no specific point, metaphysically distinct point at which a “puppy” becomes an “adult dog,” but human beings will distinguish between a puppy and an adult dog, or recognize at a certain point that a puppy has “become” an adult dog, based on observation of quality.

Quality refers to the differences which are distinguished in human consciousness between one subject and another, or changes in a subject’s form over time.

There is no metaphysically distinct point at which a “puppy” becomes an “adult dog,” but human beings will distinguish between a puppy and an adult dog, or recognize at a certain point that a puppy has “become” an adult dog, based on observation of quality. We create categories which reflect quality to organize and systematically understand the world around us, and to distinguish between different subjects, and to distinguish between different stages of development of a given subject.

We can also distinguish differences of quality between different subjects: we can distinguish a cat from a dog, and we can distinguish one dog from another dog. These distinguishing attributes constitute differences in quality. Note that this conception of differentiation of things, phenomena, and ideas into qualities which constantly change and develop over time is fundamentally distinct from metaphysical categorization, which seeks to divide all things, phenomena, and ideas into static, perpetually unchanging categories (see Annotation 8, p. 8).

Distinction within the human mind is reflected in the concept of quantity and quality. If we do not observe quality differences between subjects, then we would not be able to distinguish between different subjects at all. If we could not recognize the quality shifts of any given subject, then we would not be aware of change or motion at all.

c. Meaning of the Methodology

Every thing, phenomenon and idea has characteristics of quality and quantity which mutually impact and transform one another. Therefore, in perception and practice, we need to understand and take into account the law of transformation between quantity and quality in order to have a comprehensive viewpoint of things, phenomena, and ideas [see Annotation 114, p. 116].

Quantitative changes of things, phenomena and ideas inevitably lead to qualitative changes in all things, phenomena, and ideas. Therefore, in our perception and practice, as we plan and enact change in our world and in human society, it is necessary to gradually accumulate changes in quantity in order to make changes in quality. At the same time, we must recognize and make use of the fact that quality shifts also lead to changes in quantity.

Annotation 179

We have to understand and utilize the law of transformation between quantity and quality in our activities. For instance, if a group of activists hopes to address hunger in their community, they have to realize that they can’t immediately enact a quality shift which solves the entire problem of hunger across the city instantaneously. Instead, the activists must recognize that quantity shifts lead to quality shifts through stages of development. In planning and acting, they may need to set certain development targets, predict thresholds at which quality shifts will occur, etc.

For instance, the first goal for these activists may be to provide free lunches to houseless people in a particular park every weekend. If they can accomplish this, then they will not have completely eliminated hunger in the city, but they will have reached a threshold — a quality shift — in that nobody in that specific park will be hungry at lunch time on weekends. From there, they can continue to build quality shifts through accumulation of changes in quantity, one stage of development at a time.

Quality shifts leading to quantity shifts must also be recognized and utilized in our planning and activities. For example, once an effective strategy is developed for eliminating hunger in one park through quantity changes leading to quality shifts, this strategy can then be implemented in other parks. Thus the quality shift of “eliminating hunger in one park” can lead to a quantity shift: “eliminating hunger in two parks, three parks, etc.,” until the quantity shift of “eliminating hunger in parks” leads to the quality shift of “eliminating hunger in all the parks in the city.” This entire process of enacting quantity changes to lead to quality shifts, and accumulating quality shifts to change quantity, are all focused toward the ultimate goal of achieving the quality shift of “eliminating hunger in the entire city.”

In short, it’s vital for us to understand the ways in which quantity and quality mutually impact each other so that we can formulate plans and activities which will lead to motion and development which accomplish our goals, step by step, through one stage of development at a time.

Changes in quantity can only lead to changes in quality provided the quantity accumulates to a certain threshold. Therefore, in practice, we need to overcome impatient, left-sided thought. Left-sided thinking refers to thinking which is overly subjective, idealistic, ignorant of the laws which govern material reality. Left-sided thinking neglects to acknowledge the necessity of quantity accumulation which precedes shifts in quality, focusing instead on attempting to perform continuous shifts in quality.

On the other hand, we must also recognize that once change in quantity has reached a threshold, it is inevitable that a quality shift will take place. Therefore, we need to overcome conservative and right-sided thought in practical work. Right-sided thinking is the expression of conservative, stagnant thought that resists or refuses to recognize quality shifts even as changes in quantity come to meet the threshold of quality shift.

Annotation 180

“Right-sided thinking” and “left-sided thinking” are Vietnamese political concepts which are rooted in the ideas of Lenin’s book: Leftwing Communism: an Infantile Disorder. In Vietnamese political philosophy, “left-sided thinking” is a form of dogmatic idealism which upholds unrealistic conceptions of change and development. Left-sided thinkers don’t have the patience for quantity accumulation which are prerequisite to quality shifts, or expect to skip entire stages of development which are necessary to precipitate change in the real world. An example of left-sided thinking would be believing that a capitalist society can instantly transition into a stateless, classless, communist society, skipping over the transitions in quantity and quality which are required to bring such a massive transformation in human society to fruition.

“Right-sided thinking,” on the other hand, is conservate resistance to change. Right-sided thinkers resist quality changes to human society; they either want to preserve society as it exists right now, or reverse development to some previous (real or imagined) stage of development. Right-sided thinkers also refuse to acknowledge quality shifts once they’ve occurred, idealistically pretending that changes in material conditions have not occurred. For example, right-sided thinkers may refuse to recognize advances which have been made in the liberation of women, or even attempt to reverse those advances in hopes of returning to previous stages of development when women had fewer freedoms. Here is a practical example of these concepts in use, from the Vietnam Encyclopedia, published by the Ministry of Culture and Information of Vietnam:

Opportunism is a system of political views that do not follow a clear direction nor a clear line, do not have a definite stance, and are inclined toward the immediate personal gain of the opportunist. In the proletarian revolutionary movement, opportunism is a politics of compromise, reform, and unprincipled collaboration with the enemy which run contrary to the basic interests of the working class and the working people. In practice, opportunism has two main trends, stemming from right-sided thinking and from left-sided thinking, respectively:
Right-wing opportunism is reformist, favors undue compromise, and aims to peacefully “convert” capitalism into socialism while abandoning the struggle for meaningful victory of the working class. Right-wing opportunism, typified by Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky, has its origins in the Workers’ Parties of the Second International era and exists to this day.
Left-wing opportunism is a mixture of extremism and adventurism, dogmatism, arrogance, subjectivity, cults of violence, and disregard for the objective situation.
Both “right” and “left” opportunism push the workers’ movement to futile sacrifice and failure.

Quality shifts are diverse and plentiful, so we need to promote and apply quality shifts creatively and flexibly to suit the specific material conditions we face in a given situation. This is especially true in changing human society, as social development processes depend not only on objective conditions but also on subjective human factors. Therefore, we need to be active and take the initiative to promote the process of converting between quantity and quality in the most effective way.

Annotation 181

Put simply, we have to use our human will and labor to actively promote quantity changes which lead to quality changes, and quality changes which lead to quantity changes, which move us towards our goal of ending all forms of oppression in human society. This will involve not just objective factors^[98] (i.e., material conditions which are necessary to accomplish something), but subjective factors^[99] as well (factors which we, as a subject, are capable of impacting directly).

2. Law of Unification and Contradiction Between Opposites

The law of unification and contradiction between opposites is the Essence of dialectics [see: Essence and Phenomenon, p. 156]. According to Lenin: “In brief, dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This embodies the Essence of dialectics, but it requires explanations and development.”^[100] According to the law of unification and contradiction between opposites, the fundamental, originating, and universal driving force of all motion and development processes is the inherent and objective contradiction which exists in all things, phenomena, and ideas.

Annotation 182

In other words, contradiction (defined further in the next section) is the force which serves as the fundamental, originating, and universal force which drives all motion and development of all things, phenomena, and ideas.

Contradiction is a fundamental driving force because it is the most basic driving force which all other forms of motion and development are based upon.

Contradiction is the originating driving force because all motion and development arises from contradiction.

Contradiction is the universal driving force because all things, phenomena, and ideas — without exception — are driven to motion and development by contradiction.

a. Definition of Contradiction and Common Characteristics of Contradiction

- Definition of Contradiction

In dialectics, the concept of contradiction is used to refer to the relationship, opposition, and transformation between opposites which takes place within all things, phenomena, and ideas, as well as between all things, phenomena, and ideas. This dialectical concept of contradiction is fundamentally different from the metaphysical concept of contradiction. The metaphysical concept of contradiction is an illogical conception of opposition without unity and without dialectical transformation between opposites.

Annotation 183

A contradiction is, fundamentally, just a type of relationship. In a contradictory relationship, two things, phenomena, and/or ideas mutually impact one another, resulting in the eventual negation of one subject and the synthesis of the negator and the negated into some new form.

The metaphysical concept of contradiction is considered illogical because it establishes no connection between that which is negated and the resulting synthesis.

In the metaphysical conception of contradiction, the negated “disappears” and is not represented in the resulting synthesis.

Metaphysical contradiction presents contradicting subjects as isolated from one another and completely distinct, when in reality the relationship between the negated and the negator essentially defines the contradiction. The negated subject is seen as completely negated; that is to say, it is conceived of as essentially “disappearing” into the synthesized result of the contradiction. In this sense, this metaphysical conception of negation is inaccurate in that it is represented as a complete, terminating process.

In the above example, once the fox eats the rabbit, the rabbit is considered “gone” after a terminal negation process (see Annotation 196, p. 188) ends the contradiction.

The materialist dialectical conception of contradiction recognizes that contradicting subjects are defined by their relationship and that the synthesis of the contradiction carries forward attributes and characteristics from both the negator and the negated.

Materialist dialectical contradiction recognizes that every contradiction is defined by the relationship between the negated and the negator. Materialist dialectics also recognizes that attributes and characteristics of the negated subject are carried forward into the synthesized subject [see Annotation 203, p. 198]. Materialist dialectics also recognizes that contradiction continues indefinitely, as the negated becomes negated again, and so on, continuously, forever [see Negation of Negation, p. 185].

In the example on the previous page, the fox consuming the rabbit constitutes a negation process in which the fox takes on characteristics from the rabbit (i.e., nutritional and energy content, any diseases which may be carried forward to the fox, etc.).

Contradiction arises from opposition which exists within or between things, phenomena, and ideas. The concept of opposing “sides” refers to such aspects, properties, and tendencies of motion which oppose one another, yet are, simultaneously, conditions and premises of the existence of one another. Examples include:

Negative charge and positive charge within atoms.
Anabolism and catabolism within living organisms [anabolism refers to the growth and building up of molecules within an organism, while catabolism refers to the digestion and breaking down of molecules within an organism].
Production and consumption as socioeconomic activities.
Trial and error which leads to cognitive development.

Annotation 184

All of the above forms of contradiction drive motion and development. These processes exist in unity and opposition. For example, in political economics, production is driven by consumption and consumption is facilitated by production. Even though these are fundamentally opposite forces (production adds to the total quantity of products, while consumption reduces the total quantity of products), they can’t exist without one another, and they drive each other forward. This is the dialectical nature of contradiction as the driving force of all motion and development as defined in materialist dialectics.

- The General Properties of Contradictions

Contradiction is objective and universal. According to Friedrich Engels: “If simple mechanical change of position contains a contradiction, this is even more true of the higher forms of motion of matter, and especially of organic life and its development. We saw above that life consists precisely and primarily in this — that a being is at each moment itself and yet something else. Life is therefore also a contradiction which is present in things and processes themselves, and which constantly originates and resolves itself; and as soon as the contradiction ceases, life, too, comes to an end, and death steps in. We likewise saw that also, in the sphere of thought, we could not escape contradictions, and that, for example, the contradiction between man’s inherently unlimited capacity for knowledge and its actual presence only in men who are externally limited and possess limited cognition finds its solution in what is — at least practically, for us — an endless succession of generations, in infinite progress.”^[101]

Annotation 185

Here, Engels is explaining how contradiction is the driving force in both material and conscious processes of motion and development. The process of life is a process of contradiction — all organic life forms must consume organic matter so that they can produce growth and offspring, must produce certain molecules and metabolic processes so that they can consume nutrients, and so on. Once these contradictory processes stop, as Engels says, “death steps in” (though even death is a transition forward).

Conscious motion and development are also rooted in contradictory forces. Engels points out the contradiction between humanity’s seemingly infinite capacity for learning with the seemingly infinite amount of knowledge which can be obtained in the world. This great contradiction drives a seemingly endless process of expanding human knowledge, collectively, over countless generations.

Contradictions are not only objective and universal, but also diverse and plentiful. The diverse nature of contradictions is evident in the fact that every subject can include many different contradictions and that contradictions manifest differently depending upon specific conditions. Contradictions can hold different positions and roles in the existence, motion, and development of things, phenomena, and ideas. These positions and roles include [but are not limited to]:

Internal and external contradictions
Fundamental and non-fundamental contradictions
Primary and secondary contradictions

Annotation 186

Internal contradictions are contradictions which exist in the internal relations of a subject, while external contradictions exist between two or more subjects as external relations.

For example: a sports team might have internal contradictions between players, between the players and the coach, between the coach and management, etc. External contradictions might exist between the team and other teams, between the team and league officials, between the team and the landlords who own the team’s practice space, etc.

A fundamental contradiction is a contradiction which defines the Essence of a relationship [see Essence and Phenomenon, p. 156]. Fundamental contradictions exist throughout the entire development process of a given thing, phenomenon, or idea. A non-fundamental contradiction exists in only one aspect or attribute of a thing, phenomenon, or idea. A non-fundamental contradiction can impact a subject, but it will not control or decide the essential development of the subject. Whether or not a contradiction is fundamental is relative to the point of view.

For example: the fundamental contradiction of one nation engaged in war against one another might be the war itself. There will exist many other contradictions; one nation at war might have a trade dispute with a third nation which is not participating in the war. From the “war perspective,” this contradiction is non-fundamental, as it does not define the essential characteristic of the nation at war (though from the perspective of a diplomat charged with ending the trade dispute, the war may be seen as a non-fundamental contradiction while the dispute would be seen as fundamental).

In the development of things, phenomena, and ideas, there are many development stages. In each stage of development, there will be one contradiction which drives the development process. This is what we call the primary contradiction. Secondary contradictions include all the other contradictions which exist during that stage of development. Determining whether a contradiction is primary or secondary is relative: it depends heavily upon the material conditions and the situation.

For example: when restoring an old car that doesn’t run any more, a mechanic may consider the primary contradiction to be the non-functioning engine. There may be many secondary contradictions which contribute to the problems with the car’s engine problems. The battery may be dead, the spark plugs may need to be bad, the tires may need replacement, the timing belt may be loose, etc. Those are all secondary contradictions which do not define the stage of development which is “repairing the engine.” Some of these secondary contradictions may need to be resolved (such as replacing the spark plugs) before the primary contradiction can be fully addressed; others, such as a cracked windshield, may not need to be addressed before the primary contradiction can be dealt with.

On the other hand, a secondary contradiction may become the primary contradiction: if a mechanic resolves every problem with the engine except for one bad spark plug, then the bad spark plug will shift from being a secondary contradiction to being the primary contradiction: the bad spark plug is now the primary reason the car won’t start and this stage of development can’t be completed.

Within all the various fields of inquiry, there exist contradictions which have a diverse range of different properties and characteristics.

Annotation 187

Different fields of study will focus on different forms of contradictions, and any given thing, phenomenon, or idea may contain countless contradictions which can be analyzed and considered for different purposes. For example, consider a large city, which might contain far too many contradictions to count. Civil engineers may focus primarily on contradictions in traffic patterns, the structural integrity of bridges and roads, ensuring that buildings are safe and healthy for inhabitants, etc. Utilities departments will focus on contradictions related to sewage, electrical, and sanitation systems. The education system will focus on contradictions which prevent students from achieving success in schools.

All of these various methods of analysis may focus on specific forms of contradictions, though there will also be overlap. For instance, designing a school bus system will require the education system and civil engineers to discover and grapple with contradictions which might be hindrances for transporting students safely to school.

b. Motion Process of Contradictions

In every contradiction, the opposing sides are united with each other and opposed to each other at the same time. The concept of “unity between opposites” refers to the fact that a contradiction is a binding, inseparable, and mutually impacting relationship which exists between opposites.

Annotation 188

Contradictions are binding and inseparable because they hold a relationship together. If two opposing things, phenomena, or ideas simply separate, then contradiction, by definition, no longer exists. For example, an economy is bound together by the contradiction of production and consumption; if production exists without consumption (or vice-versa), it can’t be considered to be an economy.

Contradictions are said to be mutually impacting because any time a contradiction exists between two opposing sides, both sides are mutually impacted for as long as the contradiction exists and develops. Of course, it is possible for two opposing sides to separate from one another; for example, a factory which produced buggy whips may have failed to find consumers after the invention of the car. Thus, there would exist a situation in which production exists without consumption. In this situation, the termination of the contradiction between production and consumption leads to a new contradiction: the factory will now be in the midst of a crisis which will require it to either provide a different product or go out of business.

Thus we see that production and consumption can’t be separated from one another without leading to a change in the essential nature of the relationship and the opposing subjects, and we see that the opposing sides mutually impact one another (a change in consumption will affect production, and vice-versa).

In any given contradictory relationship, each oppositional side is the premise for the other’s existence. Unity among opposites also defines the identity of each opposing side. Lenin wrote: “The identity of opposites (it would be more correct, perhaps, to say their ‘unity,’—although the difference between the terms identity and unity is not particularly important here. In a certain sense, both are correct) is the recognition (discovery) of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature (including mind and society).”^[102]

Annotation 189

Here, Lenin is explaining that identity and unity are (more or less) the same concept when it comes to understanding the nature of contradiction between opposites. In material processes of nature, social processes, and processes of consciousness, we perceive and define oppositional forces by recognizing mutually exclusive and contradictory tendencies within and between things, phenomena, and ideas. In other words, whenever we think of an oppositional relationship, we define it in terms of the opposition.

War, disease, and economy are all examples of unity in contradiction.

When we think of a war, we think of the contradictions which exist between the opposing nations. When we think of a disease, we define it by the oppositional forces between the ailment and the human body. When we think of an economy, we think of the oppositional forces of production and consumption within the economy.

In other words, the identity of contradictory relationships is defined by the unity of the opposing sides with one another.

The concept struggle of opposites refers to the tendency of opposites to eliminate and negate each other. There exist many diverse forms of struggle between opposites. Struggle can manifest in various forms based on:

The nature of a given thing, phenomenon, or idea.
Relationships within a thing, phenomenon, or idea (or between things, phenomena, and ideas).
Specific material conditions [see Annotation 10, p. 10].

The process of unity and struggle of opposites inevitably leads to a transformation between them. The transformation between opposites takes place with rich diversity, and such transformations can vary depending on the properties of the opposite sides as well as specific material conditions.

Annotation 190

Opposing sides, by definition, oppose one another. If forces or characteristics which exist within or between things, phenomena, or ideas do not oppose one another, then they are not, by definition, opposites. Thus, it can be understood that opposing sides have a tendency to struggle against one another. It is this very struggle which defines two sides as opposites, and as contradictory.

Lenin explained that some contradicting opposite sides can exist in what he described as equilibrium, but that this is only ever a temporary state of affairs, as exemplified in his article An Equilibrium of Forces.

[See Annotation 64, p. 62 for relevant text and more info on equilibrium.]

Clearly, Lenin sees that this equilibrium of contradictory forces is not permanently sustainable. Indeed, no equilibrium of contradictory forces can be permanent. Eventually, one opposing side will overtake the other, and eventually, any given contradiction will result in one opposing side overcoming the other.

According to the law of unification and contradiction between opposites, the struggle between two opposing sides is absolute, while the unity between them is relative, conditional, and temporary; in unity there is a struggle: a struggle in unity. According to Lenin: “The unity (coincidence, identity, equal action) of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute.”^[103]

Annotation 191

“Absolute” and “Relative” are philosophical classifications which refer to interdependence. That which is absolute exists independently and with permanence. That which is relative is temporary, and dependent on other conditions or circumstances in order to exist.

So Lenin’s point is that unity exists temporarily in any given pair of opposing sides, as the unity only exists as long as the opposing sides are opposing one another. As soon as one side eliminates or negates the other, the unity subsides. However, opposition is considered absolute, because it is opposition which drives motion and change in all things, phenomena, and ideas through contradictory processes of opposing sides.

In the same text quoted in the passage above, On the Questions of Dialectics, Lenin notes:

The distinction between subjectivism (skepticism, sophistry, etc.) and dialectics, incidentally, is that in (objective) dialectics the difference between the relative and the absolute is itself relative. For objective dialectics there is an absolute within the relative. For subjectivism and sophistry the relative is only relative and excludes the absolute...
Such must also be the method of exposition (i.e., study) of dialectics in general... To begin with what is the simplest, most ordinary, common, etc., with any proposition: the leaves of a tree are green; John is a man: Fido is a dog, etc. Here already we have dialectics (as Hegel’s genius recognised): the individual is the universal.
The individual exists only in the connection that leads to the universal. The universal exists only in the individual and through the individual. Every individual is (in one way or another) a universal. Every universal is (a fragment, or an aspect, or the essence of) an individual. Every universal only approximately embraces all the individual objects. Every individual enters incompletely into the universal, etc., etc. Every individual is connected by thousands of transitions with other kinds of individuals (things, phenomena, processes) etc. Here already we have the elements, the germs, the concepts of necessity, of objective connection in nature, etc. Here already we have the contingent and the necessary, the phenomenon and the essence; for when we say: John is a man, Fido is a dog, this is a leaf of a tree, etc., we disregard a number of attributes as contingent; we separate the essence from the appearance, and counterpose the one to the other.

In other words, we must understand that in materialist dialectics, the absolute and the relative exist within one another; in other words, the absolute and the relative have a dialectical relationship with one another in all things, phenomena, and ideas.

Relative unity refers to the nature of unity between contradictory subjects. Contradictory subjects are unified in the sense that any given contradiction is essentially defined by the contradiction between two subjects. Thus, the two subjects are unified in contradiction. However, this unity is relative in the sense that this unification is temporary (the unity will end upon negation and synthesis) and relative (i.e., defined by the relationship between the two contradicting subjects).

Absolute struggle refers to the fact that contradiction, negation, and synthesis will go on forever; in this sense, contradictory processes are absolute because such struggle exists permanently; struggle has no set beginning or end point, and exists independently of any specific thing, phenomenon, or idea.

Relative Unity refers to the temporary and relative nature of specific relationships which define and unify specific contradictions; Absolute Struggle refers to the permanent, constant nature of development through contradiction.

The relationship between relative unity and absolute struggle defines and drives change, motion, and development through contradiction.

This applies to contradictions. The relative unity and the absolute struggle between opposing sides have a dialectical relationship with one another. The permanent absoluteness of struggle — the fact that all things, phenomena, and ideas are constantly undergoing processes of change through contradictory forces — can only manifest in the relative unity of opposing sides, which can only exist through the temporary existence of conditional relations between opposing sides.

The interaction that leads to the transformation between opposites is a process. At the beginning, contradictions manifest as differences and then develop into two opposing sides. When the two contradictions are fiercely matched and when the conditions are ripe, they will transform each other, and finally, the conflict will be resolved. As old contradictions disappear, new contradictions are formed and the process of mutual impact and transformation between opposites continues, which drives the motion and development of all things, phenomena, and ideas. The relationship, impact and transformation between opposites are the source and driving force of all movement and development in the world. Lenin affirmed: “Development is the ‘struggle’ of opposites.”^[104]

Annotation 192

Any given process of development — that is to say, of transformation or motion — can be seen as a struggle between opposites. Various forms of struggle can exist simultaneously for any given subject, and the way we interpret struggle can depend on our point of view.

For an engineer, a car moving along a road might be seen as a struggle between the power generated by the engine against the mass of the car itself and the friction of the tires on the ground. The driver of the car might see the process in terms of the struggle between the driver and the environment as they navigate across town avoiding accidents and following traffic laws.

An organism’s life can be seen as a struggle between the organism’s life processes and its environment, or it might be seen as a struggle of contradictory forces within the organism itself (i.e., forces of consumption of nutrition vs. forces of expending energy to survive, forces of disease vs. forces of the organism’s immune system, etc.).

Materialist dialectics requires us to identify, examine, and understand the opposing forces which drive all development in our universe. Only through understanding such contradictions can we intercede and affect changes in the world which suit our purposes.

For example, in order to fight against capitalism and other forms of oppression, we must first understand the contradictory forces which exist within and between those oppressive social structures. Only then can we determine how we might best apply our will, through labor processes, to dismantle such oppressive structures. We might do this by exacerbating existing contradictions within oppressive structures, by introducing new contradictions, by negating contradictions which inhibit our own progress, etc.

c. Meaning of the Methodology

Given that contradictions are objective and universal, and that they are the source and driving force of movement and development, it is therefore necessary to detect, recognize, and understand contradictions, to fully analyze opposing sides, and to grasp the nature, origin and tendencies of motion and development in our awareness and practice.

Lenin said: “The splitting of a single whole and the cognition of its contradictory parts… is the essence… of dialectics.”^[105]

Annotation 193

In other words, materialist dialectics is simply a system of understanding the world around us by viewing all things, phenomena, and ideas as collections of relationships and contradictions which exist within and between all things, phenomena, and ideas.

Since contradictions exist with such rich diversity, it is necessary to have a historical point of view [see Annotation 114, p. 116] — that is, to know how to analyze each specific type of contradiction and have appropriate methods for resolving them. In our perception and practice, it is necessary to properly distinguish the roles and positions of different types of contradictions in each situation and condition; we must also distinguish between different characteristics which contradictions might have in order to find the best method of resolving them.

Annotation 194

The historical viewpoint is vital because in order to fully understand any given contradiction, we must understand the process of development which led to its formation.

For example, before a car engine can be repaired, we must first find out what caused the engine to stop working to begin with. If the car is out of fuel, we must determine what caused it to run out of fuel. Did the driver simply drive until the fuel tank was empty, or is there a hole or leak in a fuel line, in the tank, etc.?

It is vital to know the history of development of a given pair of opposing sides, as well as the characteristics and other properties of both opposing sides, to fully understand the contradiction. Since all conscious activity (like all processes of motion and change) ultimately derives from the driving force of contradiction, it is vital for us to develop a historical and comprehensive perspective of any contradictions we hope to affect through our conscious activities.

3. Law of Negation of Negation

The law of negation of negation describes the fundamental and universal tendency of movement and development to occur through dialectical negation, forming a cyclical form of development through what is termed “negation of negation.”

a. Definition of Negation and Dialectical Negation

The world continuously and endlessly changes and develops. Things, phenomena, and ideas that arise, exist, develop and perish, are replaced by other things, phenomena, and ideas; one form of existence is replaced with another form of existence, again and again, continuously, through this development process. This procedure is called negation.

All processes of movement and development take place through negation. From certain perspectives, negations can be seen as end points to the development (and thus, existence) of a given thing, phenomenon, or idea [which we can think of as “terminal negations;” see Annotation below]. But from other perspectives, negations can also create the conditions and premises for new developments. Such negations, which create such conditions and premises for the development of things and phenomena, are called dialectical negation.

Annotation 195

Negation refers to any act of motion or transformation which arises from contradiction. Specifically, negation is what occurs when one opposing side completely overcomes the other. Nothing in our universe can transform or move all by itself, without any contradiction. Thus, negation drives all development and motion of all things, phenomena, and ideas [see Annotation 119, p. 123]. There are various forms of negation, and the same negation process may be seen to take different forms depending on viewpoint of analysis [see Annotation 11, p. 12, and Annotation 114, p. 116], as depicted in the diagram below.

An overview of various forms of negation as they relate to dialectical development.

Dialectical negation occurs when the end of development leads directly to some new development process. Dialectical negation occurs through quality shifts [see Annotation 117, p. 119], which, themselves, occur through negation of opposite sides.

Replacement negation refers to the replacement of one thing, phenomenon, or idea with another through dialectical negation.

Translation Note: The terms “terminal negation” and “replacement negation” do not appear in the original Vietnamese text. We chose to assign terms to these concepts for clarity.

Replacement negation occurs when one thing, phenomenon, or idea takes the place of another. Replacement negation is always a dialectical process, where one subject is replaced gradually by another. Replacement may be relatively fast or slow, but it is never instantaneous — nothing can pop in and out of existence instantaneously. For example: swords were gradually replaced by firearms as the primary weapons of war over the course of many centuries. Today, swords have been completely replaced by firearms on the battlefield. This was a process of replacement negation — weapons are still used in war, but the type of weapon used has been completely replaced. Development continues, even though development of swords as battle weapons has essentially ended.

Terminal negation refers to the end of a specific cycle of development.

Terminal negation is what happens when development completely ends for a given thing, phenomenon, or idea. For example, from one viewpoint, the development of swords as weapons of war can be seen as having ended — having been terminally negated — due to the innovation of firearms. In essence, swords are no longer developed, nor implemented, in modern warfare.

Replacement negation and terminal negation must be considered in relative terms. From one viewpoint, we can see the rise of firearms as the underlying reason for the terminal negation of military use of swords. Today, no army on Earth uses swords as primary battlefield weapons and militaries no longer develop sword technology for battlefield use. However, from another viewpoint, the development of battlefield weapons has continued on long after the end of the primacy of swords, and it could be said that firearms have replaced swords as the primary battlefield weapon.

Consider the death of a human being. From one perspective, death is a terminal negation — the person’s consciousness has ended, and no further development of consciousness will occur for that individual. From other perspectives, development continues. The individual may have had children who will continue their familial lineage, they may have contributed ideas which will continue to impact other people for centuries to come, and so on. In that sense, replacement negation may be viewed as dialectical negation. For example, someone studying modes of transportation in the history of the USA may see the process of steam locomotives replacing horses, and then cars replacing steam locomotives, as processes of dialectical negation from the overarching perspective of the transportation system.

Materialist dialectics is concerned with all forms of negation, but focuses primarily on dialectical negation. Therefore, materialist dialectics is not just a theory of transformation in general, but fundamentally a theory of development

Annotation 196

All transformation is driven by negation. Development is a process, specifically, of dialectical negation, which is a specific form of transformation in which an end of development creates the conditions for new development, either through internal quality shifts or through replacement by some external subject.

Materialist dialectics is primarily concerned with dialectical negation (which drives development) because it is development which brings forth continuous change in our world. Terminal negations and other forms of transformation which do not drive further development are of limited utility, and can only represent certain limited viewpoints [i.e., the viewpoint of that which is terminated].

From a broader perspective, nearly all “terminations” are replaced in some way or another by some other form of development. For instance, even when a person dies, although the consciousness of that person may terminate, there will be continuous impacts which will be carried forward from the deceased person’s lifetime of consciousness, as well as from the developments which arise from the death itself.

This dialectical definition of negation differs greatly from metaphysical conceptions of development [see Annotation 201, p. 195], which are essentially viewed as terminal. From the metaphysical perspective, all things, phenomena, and ideas are viewed as separate from one another; therefore negations are viewed as terminal processes which bring development processes to their ends.

The metaphysical perspective of terminal negation views negation as an essentially terminal process representing the end point of the existence of a static and isolated thing, phenomenon, or idea.

In the above example, the metaphysical framework would present smashing a vase with a hammer as a terminal negation from the perspective of the observer. Once the vase is smashed, the vase is considered to no longer exist, and the broken shards are not considered to be “a vase” any more. Materialist dialectics, on the other hand, view “the shards” as merely a developed form of the vase; a transition to a new stage of development; the negation was only terminal from the perspective of the vase itself.

Excerpt From Vietnam’s High School Freshman Civic Education textbook:

Metaphysical and dialectical negation share one commonality: they both see development as the replacement of an old subject with a new subject. However, metaphysical negation happens when outside forces impact on a subject, deleting completely the existence of the old subject. According to this metaphysical perspective, the old subject and the new subject which replaces it do not have any connection.

Dialectical negation fundamentally differs from metaphysical negation because it views development as a process of internal development. Dialectical negation does not view complete erasure or deletion of any former subject; instead, dialectical development sees the older subject, which is replaced (negated), as the premise or basis of existence for the new subject.

Comparison Examples:

Metaphysical Negation	Dialectical Negation
The earthquake destroyed the house.	The house was impacted by the external force of an earthquake, which caused it to collapse, due to internal characteristics of the house itself (which could not withstand the forces of the earthquake). The debris from the collapsed house will be cleared away, and will continue to develop. The space where the house stood will also continue to develop in some way, with the earthquake and the resulting collapse serving as the basis for this further development.
Water eroded the mountain.	The external force of water caused erosion by transferring material away from the mountain, due to the internal characteristics of the mountain’s composite material. The water, the material which was washed away, and the mountain will all continue to develop. The erosion process will be the basis for this further development.
The car has a new tire because it ran over a nail.	The external force of the nail caused the tire to permanently deflate, due to the internal characteristics of the tire, which could not withstand running over a nail. This served as the basis for further development: the old tire was removed and will be disposed of, which will serve as the basis for further development (i.e., the tire may be recycled or sent to a landfill); the removal of the tire serves as the basis for the further development of a new tire being installed.
When you add water, sunlight, and nutrition to a seed, it will grow into a plant.	The seed went through a process of negation as a sprout grew, through various stages of development, into a plant, facilitated by outside forces (such as water, nutrition, sunlight, etc. — the seed would not grow in isolation) as well as the internal characteristics of the seed itself; the seed served as the basis of the sprout’s development. The sprout then served as the basis for the growth of a seedling, and the seedling served as the basis for the growth of a fully grown plant. All of this development was driven by negation processes as quantity shifts gradually led to quality shifts through those various stages of development.

As you can see from the examples above, the metaphysical perspective focuses on external forces affecting a given subject and views every development process as terminal, with a beginning, middle, and end. The metaphysical perspective thus views negation as a termination of the subject (and, by extension, of development).

Materialist dialectics, on the other hand, views development as a continuous and never-ending process of mutual impact, negation, and further negation of each negation. A comprehensive and historical viewpoint [see Annotation 114, p. 116] must thus be sought to fully comprehend development and negation processeses.

Dialectical negation has two basic characteristics: objectivity and inheritance.

Dialectical negation is objective because negation arises from contradictions which exist between two opposite sides. These opposing sides may exist within a thing, phenomenon, or idea, but the opposing sides are still, by definition, externally opposed to one another from the perspective of either side.

Annotation 197

Though any given negation may be viewed as terminal from a certain perspective, materialist dialectics is most concerned with processes of development wherein the end of one stage of development creates the conditions for further development [see Annotation 117, p. 119].

Therefore, every development is simultaneously an internal and an external process, depending on perspective. Development processes may, from certain perspectives, be seen to take place within a subject or between two subjects, but they are always external (and, therefore, objective — see Annotation 108, p. 112) from the perspective of either opposing side while simultaneously internal to the relationship.

For example: The relationship between a husband and wife may be seen as an internal process of development of “the marriage” from the perspective of a marriage counselor. However, from their own perspectives, each “opposing side” (i.e., the husband and the wife) see one another as external to each other.

Therefore, the development of a marriage may be seen as an internal process, but the mutual impacts and negations which occur within the relationship are objective and external forces from the perspective of either opposing side.

This is important because it means that all development and all negation are essentially objective processes; therefore no entity has complete, omniscient control over any development process. We must, therefore, understand the nature of development and negation in order to be able to properly plan and affect change in our world.

Dialectical negation is, therefore, the result of the process of resolving inevitable contradictions within a subject [i.e., a relationship] itself. Dialectical negation allows for the old to be replaced by the new, thereby creating trends of development. Therefore, dialectical negation is also self-negation.

Annotation 198

To reiterate: from the perspective of either opposing side, development is an external, objective process. From the perspective of the contradictory relationship, processes of development are internal processes of self-negation. Thus, dialectical negation is both an objective process which no entity can completely control, while, simultaneously, an internal process of self-negation and self-development.

If two nations go to war, either nation may view the war as an objective, external development process, but from a wider perspective, the war is an internal development process of the diplomatic relationship between the two warring nations. This is drastically different from the metaphysical perspective, which views any negation process as a purely external process of development wherein one subject is permanently deleted from existence, then replaced by another subject [see Annotation 196, p. 188]. From the metaphysical perspective, a war is simply a conflict between two distinct and separate nations, and the conclusion of the war is a terminal negation which ends development of the war. From the materialist dialectical perspective, on the other hand, the end of the war would be seen as the basis of future development of the relationship between the two formerly warring nations.

Dialectical negation also has an inheritance characteristic: when one opposing side negates another, the remaining side inherits factors from the negated side which are suitable with present conditions.

Annotation 199

Every negation process arises from contradictions between two opposing sides. Within any such negation process, we can think of one side as the “negator” and the other side as the “negated.” Negation, like all relational processes, leads to mutual impact between both sides [see Annotation 136, p. 138]. Therefore, the negated will impact the negator; in other words, the negated side will be somehow reflected in the negator [see Annotation 68, p. 65]. This means that the negator will inherit and carry forward certain attributes, factors, and characteristics which it receives from the negated side.

Again, consider a war between two nations. Even if one nation completely conquers and subjugates the other in total victory, the victorious nation will still inherit certain factors from the defeated nation. Which factors are inherited will depend on the conditions. The victorious nation may pick up some cultural aspects from the defeated nation, such as cuisine, fashion, etc., they may incorporate tactics and strategies which they observed the defeated enemy using on the battlefield, and so on. The point is that the victorious nation will be impacted in some way by the defeated nation.

The factors which are adopted will be suitable with the present conditions. Take, for example, a car breaking down due to engine failure. This can be seen as an opposing relationship between the car itself and the car’s owner. If the present conditions are suitable [i.e., the owner has the funds and resources available, and the desire to repair the car], then the car may be repaired and continue operating for years to come. If, on the other hand, conditions aren’t suitable [i.e., the owner does not have the funds or resources or the owner no longer wants the car], then the car may be sent to the scrapyard.

As another example, if a fox eats a rabbit, it will inherit certain characteristics from the rabbit. It will inherit nutrition from the rabbit’s body. It may also inherit other characteristics, such as a disease the rabbit was carrying, if the conditions of the fox’s biological composition are suitable [i.e., if the disease can be transferred from the rabbit to the fox].

Dialectical negation is not a complete negation [i.e., deletion] of the old. Rather, dialectical negation is a continuity of growth in which the old develops into the new. In processes of dialectical negation, “the new” forms and develops on its own [see Annotation 62, p. 59], through the process of filtering out unsuitable factors, while retaining suitable content. Vladimir Lenin described dialectical negation as:

“Not empty negation, not futile negation, not skeptical negation, vacillation and doubt is characteristic and essential in dialectics — which undoubtedly contains the element of negation and indeed as its most important element — no, but negation as a moment of connection, as a moment of development, retaining the positive, i.e., without any vacillations, without any eclecticism.”^[106]

Annotation 200

The passage from Lenin above comes from Clemence Dutt’s popular English translation of one of Lenin’s notebooks. Below is our translation from the Vietnamese version of this text from the original text of this book, which we hope might be somewhat easier to understand:

Dialectical negation is not empty negation, it’s not negation without any thoughts, it’s not skeptical negation, it’s not hesitation. Skepticism is not a feature of the essence of the dialectic — of course, dialectics include the negative, it even plays as one of the important factors of a given subject — no, it is negation as the moment of development. Dialectical negation retains the positive, meaning there is no hesitation, there is no eclecticism.

In order to understand what Lenin is saying here, we should first understand what Lenin is responding to. The above notes are referring to the chapter titled “The Absolute Ideal” within Hegel’s Science of Logic [see note at the end of this Annotation]. In this chapter, Hegel recounts various critiques of dialectics and counters them.

Skepticism, here, refers to the tendency to address all human knowledge with doubt.

Philosophical skepticism never moves past two questions: 1. “Is this knowledge true?” 2. “Will human beings ever obtain true knowledge?” Skeptics of this nature engage in a sort of metaphysical inquisition in which every thesis that is ever encountered is immediately and utterly refuted and thus “negated” in the metaphysical sense of termination [see Annotation 196, p. 188].

Eclecticism refers to philosophical and ideological conceptions which draw from a variety of theories, styles, and ideas in an unsystematic manner. Lenin contends that dialectical negation is non-eclecticist because it rises above mere rhetorical combativeness and “total negation.” [This concept is explained more below within this annotation.]

With all this in mind, we see that Lenin is refuting the notion that dialectics are and can only be negative in nature. The metaphysical-skeptic conception of dialectics holds that negation takes the form of rhetorical arguing and refutation, in which one idea is presented, and a second idea is offered to counter the first idea, which completely and totally negates the first idea. According to this argument, dialectics is, therefore, a totally negative process.

A common misperception of dialectical development is that it is “fully negative,” insomuch as the initial thesis (initial subject) is completely negated by the antithesis (impacting subject). In fact, characteristics from both the thesis and antithesis are carried forward into the synthesis.

In the chapter from Science of Logic which Lenin is responding to in the referenced text, Hegel is arguing that the conception of dialectics as only negative — i.e., a system of thinking in which counter-arguments are presented to completely negate initial arguments — is inaccurate. Hegel explains that when one opposing side negates another, it thereafter “contains in general the determination of the first [opposing side] within itself.” In other words, after one opposing side negates another, it retains features and aspects from the opposing side which was negated. Lenin found this particular point to be so important that he wrote “this is very important for understanding dialectics” in the margin of his notebook.

The reason both Hegel and Lenin found this idea, that the “negator” contains elements of the “negated” after negation [see Annotation 231, p. 227], is that this counters the accusation that dialectics are “only negative.” This is why Lenin’s notes highlight the importance of the negator “retaining the positive” after negation. Lenin is pointing out the importance of the retention of features of the negated in the negator because it is this retention which prevents dialectical development from becoming a purely negative process.

In materialist dialectics, it is understood that negation is a process of retention: characteristics from both the thesis (initial subject) and antithesis (impacting subject) are retained in the resulting synthesis

We must also understand what Lenin means when he refers to “skepticism” in his notes. Lenin, here, is referring to the philosophical view that we can never know whether or not our beliefs are true. This belief was popularly known as Machism, or Empirio-Criticism, in Lenin’s time (see Annotation 32, p. 27).

A common critique of dialectics is that it is an inherently skeptical system of thought, since dialectics is seen as a process of presenting counter-arguments to suppositional arguments. Lenin, in his notes, presents the idea that such skepticism is “not a feature of dialectics” precisely because nothing is ever completely, totally, and entirely negated. In other words, the accusation that dialectical analysis is essentially skeptical is rooted in the mistaken notion that one opposing side (i.e., a counter-argument) completely negates the original supposition. In fact, according to materialist dialectics, the negator always retains features and aspects from the negated side, which counters this critique. Thus, dialectical development, which occurs through dialectical negation, is a process of forward motion — not a process of “vacillating” back and forth from one position to another — and there is no skeptical “hesitation” preventing forward progress.

This same idea (that the negator retains features from the negated) also counters another common critique of materialist dialectics: that dialectical analysis is simply a system of rhetorical sophistry [see Annotation 36, p. 33] and eclecticism.

Eclecticism is a conceptual approach that is completely unsystematic, drawing from a variety of theories, styles, and ideas without any cohesive and all-encompassing philosophical framework.

Some critics claim that dialectics must be eclecticist and sophistic in nature. These critics claim that dialectics is simply rhetorical disputation in which any given supposition is counter-argued, and that this counter-argument is negation. But materialist dialectics defines negation as one contradicting side overtaking the other while retaining traces and characteristics from the negated side — it is in no way simply an act of rhetorical dispute or refutation.

In summary, materialist dialectics upholds that nothing is ever completely and utterly deleted or erased from existence through negation. Instead, any time one opposing side negates another, aspects of the negated side are inherited by the negating side.

Note: For reference, here is Hegel’s passage which Lenin is referring to from Science and Logic in the cited notes above:

...a universal first, considered in and for itself, shows itself to be the other of itself. Taken quite generally, this determination can be taken to mean that what is at first immediate now appears as mediated, related to an other, or that the universal appears as a particular. Hence the second term that has thereby come into being is the negative of the first, and if we anticipate the subsequent progress, the first negative. The immediate, from this negative side, has been extinguished in the other, but the other is essentially not the empty negative, the nothing, that is taken to be the usual result of dialectic; rather is it the other of the first, the negative of the immediate; it is therefore determined as the mediated — contains in general the determination of the first within itself. Consequently the first is essentially preserved and retained even in the other. To hold fast the positive in its negative, and the content of the presupposition in the result, is the most important part of rational cognition; also only the simplest reflection is needed to furnish conviction of the absolute truth and necessity of this requirement, while with regard to the examples of proofs, the whole of Logic consists of these.

Therefore, dialectical negation is the inevitable tendency of progression of the inner relationship between the old and the new. It is the self-driving assertive force of all motion and development of all things, phenomena, and ideas.

b. Negation of Negation

In the perpetual movement of the material world, dialectical negation is an inexhaustible process. It creates a development tendency of things from lower level to higher level, taking place in a cyclical manner in the form of a “spiral.”

Annotation 201

The concept of the “spiral” form of development in dialectical materialist philosophy stands in contrast to the metaphysical conception of “linear” development.

Metaphysical Conception of Linear Development

The metaphysical viewpoint holds that development is more or less a straight line: as one subject is negated, it is replaced by another. This subject will then be negated by another, and so on, in what is essentially conceived of as a straight line of development [see Annotation 196, p. 188].

The metaphysical “line development” model sees an initial form as being “replaced” or entirely negated into a completely distinct entity.

In the above example, metaphysical line development simply sees raw aluminum as being negated and “replaced” in the real world. Once the aluminum can is created, the “raw aluminum” as a metaphysical entity is considered no longer to exist. Likewise, when the soda can is transformed into recycled aluminum, the can is considered “replaced,” and is no longer considered to have a metaphysical existence.

This conception of metaphysical line development directly contradicts the materialist dialectical concept of historical viewpoint [see Annotation 114, p. 116].

Dialectical Materialist Conception of Development

The dialectical materialist conception of cyclical development stems from essential attributes of dialectical negation processes:

1. In every dialectical negation, the negating side inherits features and characteristics from the negated side.

2. When the negating side is, itself, negated (i.e., negation of the negation), the new negating side will retain features and aspects of the old negator.

3. This development process will continue indefinitely, so that negation is not simply a straight line of complete negation, but rather takes the shape of a “spiral” of negations of negations which always inherit features from previous forms.

Note that this conception of development as a spiral is simply an abstraction to help understand the essential characteristics of dialectical development and to distinguish this form of development from metaphysical conceptions of “linear development.”

In the example below, we see a depiction of the spiral development of aluminum through various stages of development. After raw aluminum is mined from the Earth, it begins a repeating spiral development process of being refined into usable goods, then recycled into raw material.

The “Spiral Development” model of materialist dialectics sees every stage of development as a higher form of the previous stage which carries forward characteristics from previous stages.

The illustrated example on the previous page plots the spiral development of aluminum as it cycles between stages defined as raw materials and refined products. Another perspective might depict development differently. For example, if we are examining development in terms of external relations between aluminum other elements, the development pattern would look different. In reality, all subjects have countless internal and external relations and development processes which can be examined.

The “raw aluminum” stage of development pictured in the illustration is not truly the beginning of this development process; there were millions of years of development which occurred before it was first discovered by humans. Similarly, the landfill will not be the end of this development process; there will be continued development forever for as long as motion in the universe continues.

This is a simplified and abstract model of development of aluminum. A more accurate representation might show any number of interim steps between each step depicted in the graphic above. For example: it must also be recognized that in reality the molecules of aluminum which the development process began with will be scattered and mixed with other subjects throughout the development process, and various other complexities exist in terms of the mutual impacts of internal and external relationships.

Determining the amount of detail to include or exclude in materialist dialectical analysis is crucial: too much detail and analysis might become unwieldy; too little detail and analysis might become too abstract and idealized to be useful in the real world. So, the idea of development as a spiral should not be taken literally; it is simply a way of conceptualizing the differences between dialectical negation and development as opposed to “straight-line” development upheld by metaphysical conceptions of negation and development, always carrying forward traces of previous stages of development.

In the chain of negations that make up the development processes of things, phenomena, and ideas, each dialectical negation creates the conditions and premises for subsequent developments. Through many iterations of negation, i.e., “negations of negations,” dialectical negation will inevitably lead to a forward tendency of motion.

Annotation 202

The forward tendency of motion describes the tendency for things, phenomena, and ideas to move from less advanced to more advanced forms through processes of motion and development.

As a reminder, “lower level” and “higher level,” i.e., “less advanced” and “more advanced,” should not be taken to have any connotations of “good” and “bad,” nor of “desirable” and “undesirable,” nor even of “less complex” and “more complex.”

Development from “lower levels” to “higher levels” is simply a shorthand for understanding the fact that development processes always move “forward,” that is to say, development can never happen in reverse, just as time itself can never be reversed. For example, society in Italy will never go back to the civilization of the Roman empire. It is conceivable that Italian society could develop to be more similar to Ancient Rome, but it would be impossible for Roman society to ever take on the exact characteristics of the Roman Empire ever again.

Cyclicality of development processes usually takes place in the form of a spiral, which is another result of “negation of negation.” Negations of negations lead to a development cycle in which things, phenomena, and ideas often undergo two fundamental negations carried through three basic forms. Through this negation pattern, basic features of the initial form are ultimately inherited by the “third form,” but at a higher level of development.

Annotation 203

Dialectical development tends to take place through a cyclical pattern in which development is carried through a triad of forms which develop through a pair of dialectical negation processes:

The cyclical pattern of development is an abstract pattern of dialectical change over time.

The graphic above illustrates this cyclical pattern, in which:

1. The initial form (the Assertion) begins the pattern. Contradiction within the initial subject or between it and another subject leads to the first negation.

2. The first negation leads to a second form (the Negation). This second form inherits some features or characteristics from the initial form.

3. The second form then encounters opposition, which leads to a second negation.

4. The second negation leads to a third form (Unity), which retains the features or characteristics of the second form, but now more closely resembles the first, initial form, only at a higher level of development.

Imagine a new car (initial form) crashes into another car (contradicting subject). The new car is dialectically developed (negated) into a second form: a wrecked car. This second form is now contradicted by a new subject — a recycling center — and negated into a third form: new steel. The third form possesses characteristics of the first form, but in a more developed form: after being recycled, the resulting steel it is newly made, in good condition for sale, etc., similarly to the first form of the new car.

In this example, a new car goes through a cyclical pattern of development in which the third form (new steel) possesses characteristics of the first form (a new car).

Keep in mind that this is relative to one’s perspective. If you consider the wrecked car to be the first form, then the steel would be the second form. The new steel will then need to be developed in some way (melted, hammered, cut, etc.) in order to be processed into some new product. From this perspective, the third form (i.e., molten steel) will have characteristics of the first form (i.e.: “unrefined”).

According to Marx and Engels, the development of capitalism from feudalism assumed this cyclical pattern:

The development of class structure is a dialectical process in which different classes synthesize to form the next era of class society. For example, the capitalist class emerged primarily as a synthesis of the feudal lords and peasants of the medieval era.

Note that this is only an abstract description of a tendency of dialectical development; exceptions can and do occur. Presumably, the development of communism as a stateless, classless society would constitute the negation of the “Class Society” form of human civilization. The Post-Class stage of development which follows would, itself, be a higher form — a unity — of pre-class human civilization, carrying forward traces from the Class Society stage of development.

Also note that determining which form is the “first” or “initial” pattern is entirely relative. Using the example of the development of class society: from one perspective, the Patricians may be seen as the initial form, but from another perspective the Plebeians might be considered the initial form. This depends entirely on the viewpoint and purpose of analysis. These conceptions of “spirals of development” and the pattern of “three forms through two negations” are, in essence, models which describe general tendencies and patterns of development and which help us understand the basic characteristics of dialectical negation and development.

Lenin describes this cycle of dialectical development as going “[f]rom assertion to negation — from negation to ‘unity’ with the asserted — without this, dialectics becomes empty negation, a game, skepsis [examination, observation, consideration].”^[107]

Annotation 204

Here, “assertion” simply refers to the initial form of a dialectical development cycle. The negation is the second form, and the “unity” is the third form, which resembles the first form (the assertion) at a higher stage of development. So, in this quotation, Lenin is simply recounting the “three steps” of a typical dialectical development cycle, and indicating that it is necessary to recognize this process, which is rooted in the inheritance of properties of prior forms through development into ever-higher forms, to prevent dialectics from becoming “empty negation,” or otherwise falling prey to the critiques that dialectics are purely negative, skeptical, and eclectic in nature [see Annotation 200, p. 192 and Annotation 36, p. 33].

The law of negation of negation generalizes the pervasive nature of development: dialectical development does not take the form of a straight path, but rather in the form of a spiral path. Lenin summarised that this path is “[a] development that repeats, as it were, stages that have already been passed, but repeats them in a different way, on a higher basis (‘the negation of the negation’), a development, so to speak, that proceeds in spirals, not in a straight line…”^[108] The tendency to develop in a spiral curve demonstrates the dialectical nature of development; i.e., the cycle of inheritance, repetition, and progression. Each new round of the spiral appears to be repeating, but at a higher level. The continuation of the loops in a spiral reflects an endless progression from lower levels to higher levels of things, phenomena, and ideas.

In short, the law of negation of negation in materialist dialectics reflects the dialectical relationship between the negative and the assertion [i.e., the second and first forms of a dialectical development cycle; see Annotation 203, p. 198] in the development process of things, phenomena and ideas. Dialectical development is driven by dialectical negation; in the development of all things, phenomena, and ideas, the new is the result of inheriting characteristics from prior forms. This process of inheritance, repetition, and progression through negation leads to cyclical development. Engels wrote: “what is the negation of the negation? An extremely general — and for this reason extremely far-reaching and important — law of development of nature, history, and thought.”^[109]

Annotation 205

In the same text quoted above, Engels elaborates that dialectical development is composed of “processes which in their nature are antagonistic, contain a contradiction; transformation of one extreme into its opposite; and finally, as the kernel of the whole thing, the negation of the negation.”

c. Meaning of the Methodology

The law of negation of negation is the basis for correct perception of the tendency of motion and development of things, phenomena, and ideas. Development and motion processes do not take place in a straight line; rather, it is a winding, complex road, consisting of many stages, and each process can be broken down into many different sub-processes. However, it must be understood that this complexity of development is only the manifestation of the general tendency to move forward [see Annotation 118, p. 122]. It is important to understand the nature of motion and development so that we can systematically change the world according to our revolutionary viewpoint. In order to consciously impact the development of things, phenomena, and ideas, we need to know their characteristics, nature, and relationships so that we can influence their motion and development in the direction that suits our purposes. We must comprehend and leverage the tendency of forward movement — in accordance with a scientific and revolutionary worldview — in order to effectively and systematically change the world.

Annotation 206

Understanding the forward tendency of motion is vital for cultivating a worldview which is both scientific and revolutionary. Such a worldview is scientific because it recognizes the material reality that all things, phenomena, and ideas are constantly undergoing change and development. Nothing in our universe is static, and all things are connected and defined by internal and external relationships (which are also constantly developing). Furthermore, this development progresses with a forward tendency, meaning that no process can be completely “reversed.” For example, you can clean rust from a car [which would be forward progress], but you can’t reverse the temporal process of rust.

Once we understand that all things, phenomena, and ideas in our universe are constantly developing and moving forward, we can then begin to find ways to impact motion and development systematically to consciously change the world around us. This is the foundation of a revolutionary worldview, since revolutionary change requires us to leverage and influence development processes to suit our needs and revolutionary ambitions. Thus, materialist dialectics are an applied system of observation and practice through which we seek to understand development processes and consciously impact them to suit our needs.

According to the rule of negation of negation, in the objective world, the new must inevitably come to replace the old. In nature, the new develops according to objective laws. In social life, new things arise from the purposeful, self-conscious, and creative actions of human beings. Therefore, it is necessary to leverage subjective factors as we seek to consciously impact the development of things, phenomena, and ideas.

Annotation 207

Subjective factors are factors which we, as a subject, are capable of impacting. This may seem confusing, since we have previously established that all external things, phenomena, and ideas have objective relationships with all other things, phenomena, and ideas [see Annotation 108, p. 112], meaning that any given subject is external to every other subject, and thus no subject can directly and completely control the motion and development of any other subject.

However, from the perspective of any given individual, there are certain things, phenomena, and ideas [as well as processes of motion and development] which we can impact. For example, if I see an apple on a table, the apple is objective to me. I can’t simply will the apple to move with my consciousness alone. However, I can impact the apple through conscious activity — I can consciously will my hand to pick up the apple and move it to another location.

Thus, factors which an individual can consciously impact are subjective factors. As revolutionists, we must focus on subjective factors. In other words, we must concentrate on that which we are capable of changing, since our purpose is to change the world. Focusing on factors which we can’t impact is a waste of time; we must simply determine what can be changed and then determine the most efficient and effective ways of impacting development processes and changing the world.

As revolutionists, we must have faith that we can introduce the “new,” faith in the success of the “new,” we must support the “new,” and fight for the victory of the “new.” Therefore, it is necessary to overcome conservative, stagnant, and dogmatic thoughts which restrain the development of the “new” and resist the law of negation of negation.

Annotation 208

Change is inevitable. All things, phenomena, and ideas undergo processes of motion and development. Any philosophy, ideology, or strategy which attempts to restrain motion and development is doomed to failure because change can neither be halted nor restrained. Thus, our strategies and actions must align with the material reality that change is inevitable, and we must seek to change the world by impacting processes of development and motion rather than attempting to reverse, restrain, or halt such processes.

Ideologies which erroneously strive to restrict change and development include rigidity (see Annotation 222, p. 218) and conservativism (see Annotation 236, p. 233).

In the process of negating the old we must leverage the principle of inheritance with discretion: we must encourage the inheritance of factors that are beneficial to our goals as we simultaneously attempt to filter out, overcome, and reform factors which would negatively impact our goals.

Annotation 209

If we understand the principle of inheritance, we can impact inheritance processes which derive from negation. For example, when repairing a car, we can seek out parts of the car which do not function properly or which do not suit the use-case of the car and add or replace parts which are more suitable.

In the same way, we can impact inheritence processes in our revolutionary political activities. We can seek to inherit characteristics from previous stages of development of our political organizations, social institutions, culture, etc., while simultaneously seeking to prevent the inheritence of traits and characteristics which are unsuitable for our revolutionary purposes. Over time, we can attempt to impact the inheritance of traits and aspects which are more conducive to our purposes while limiting and filtering out traits and aspects which are hindrances.

In an article titled “New Life” written in 1947, Ho Chi Minh wrote about the dialectical relationship between the new and the old in building a new society, writing:

Not everything old must be abandoned. We do not have to reinvent everything. What is old but bad must be abandoned. What is old but troublesome must be corrected appropriately. What is old but good must be further developed. What is new but good must be done.
... Growing up in the old society, we all carry within us more-or-less bad traces of the old society in terms of our ideas and habits... Habits are hard to change. That which is good and new is likely to be considered bad by the people because it is strange to them. On the contrary, that which is evil yet familiar is easily mistaken as normal and acceptable.

Ho Chi Minh understood the principles of development very well, as well as the difficulties we will face as revolutionaries as we try to change ourselves and our society. We must strive to develop a similar understanding as we move forward and attempt to affect the development of our world through practice and struggle.

Chapter 3: Cognitive Theory of Dialectical Materialism

In Marxism, epistemological reasoning (or epistemology) is the foundation of dialectics. Dialectical materialist epistemology is a theory of applying human cognitive ability to the objective world through practical activities. It explains the nature, path and general laws of the human process of perceiving truth and objective reality to serve human practical activities.

Annotation 210

Epistemology is the theoretical study of knowledge. It also deals with the philosophical question of: “how do we know what is true?”

Throughout history, philosophers have tried to determine the nature of truth and knowledge. In the era of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, there was an ongoing dispute between the materialists, who believed that truth could only be sought through sense experience of the material world, and the idealists, who believed that truth could only be sought through reasoning within the human mind.

Marx and Engels developed the philosophical system of dialectical materialism to resolve this dispute. Dialectical materialism upholds that the material and the ideal have a dialectical relationship with one another: the material determines the ideal, while the ideal impacts the material [see The Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness, p. 88].

However, it’s important to understand that Marx and Engels didn’t develop the system of dialectical materialism simply to understand the world. As Marx wrote in Theses on Feuerbach:

The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.

So, Marxist dialectical materialist epistemology is developed specifically to enable human beings to not only perceive truth and objective reality, but to then be able to apply our conscious thought, through practical activity, in order to bring about change in the world.

1. Praxis, Consciousness, and the Role of Praxis in Consciousness

a. Praxis and Basic Forms of Praxis

Praxis includes all human material activities which have purpose and historical-social characteristics and which transform nature and society. Unlike other activities, praxis is activity in which humans attempt to materially impact the world to suit our purposes. Praxis activities define the nature of human beings and distinguish human beings from other animals. Praxis is objective activity, and praxis has been constantly developed by humans through the ages.

Annotation 211

In English, the words “practice” and “praxis” are often distinguished from one another. “Practice” is often used to refer to human activity which provides more information about the world around us and improves our knowledge and understanding, whereas “praxis” often refers to conscious human activity which is intended to change the world in some manner. In their original German, Marx and Engels used the same German word — Praxis — to refer to both concepts. Similarly, in the original Vietnamese text of this book, the same word — thực tiễn — is used for both “practice” and “praxis.”

One reason that these concepts are so closely related is that all conscious activity serves both rolls by simultaneously telling us more about reality and consciously changing reality in some way. For example, by pushing a heavy stone, you may be able to move the stone a small amount — constituting praxis — while simultaneously learning how heavy the stone is and how difficult it is to move — constituting practice. The main point of distinction, therefore, is intention. Virtually all conscious activity is practice, but only activity which has purpose and historical-social characteristics might be considered praxis:

Purpose simply describes a goal or desired outcome; specifically: a desired change in nature or human society. Activities with historical-social characteristics are activities which contribute in some way to the development of human society.

In this translation, we use “practice” and “praxis” interchangably to mean “conscious activity which improves our understanding, and which has purpose and historical-social characteristics.” You are likely to find these words used differently (as described above, or in other ways) in other texts. Engels explains the importance of practice/praxis in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. From the moment we [use] these objects, according to the qualities we perceive in them, we put to an infallible test the correctness or otherwise of our sense-perceptions. If these perceptions have been wrong, then our estimate of the use to which an object can be turned must also be wrong, and our attempt must fail. But if we succeed in accomplishing our aim, if we find that the object does agree with our idea of it, and does answer the purpose we intended it for, then that is positive proof that our perceptions of it and of its qualities, so far, agree with reality outside ourselves.

Marx wrote in Theses on Feuerbach that “the coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-change can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice [German: revolutionäre Praxis].” Engels further expounds upon this concept in Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, writing:

The most telling refutation of this as of all other philosophical fancies is practice [original German: Praxis], viz., experiment and industry. If we are able to prove the correctness of our conception of a natural process by making it ourselves, bringing it into being out of its conditions and using it for our own purposes into the bargain, then there is an end of the Kantian incomprehensible or ungraspable.

Praxis defines the nature of human beings because human beings are (to our present knowledge) the only beings which undertake actions with conscious awareness of our desired outcomes and comprehension of the historical development of our own society, which distinguishes human beings from all other animals. Praxis is objective activity, meaning that all praxis activities are performed in relation to external things, phenomena, and ideas [see Annotation 108, p. 112].

Praxis has been constantly developed by humans through the ages, meaning that as we learn more about the nature of reality, of human society, and the laws of nature, we are able to develop our praxis to become more efficient and effective.

Praxis activities are very diverse, manifesting with ever-increasing variety, but there are only three basic forms: material production activities, socio-political activities, and scientific experimental activities.

Material production activity is the first and most basic form of praxis. In this form of praxis activity, humans use tools through labor processes to influence the natural world in order to create wealth and material resources and to develop the conditions necessary to maintain our existence and development.

Socio-political activity includes praxis activity utilized by various communities and organizations in human society to transform political-social relations in order to promote social development.

Scientific experimental activity is a special form of praxis activity. This includes human activities that resemble or replicate states of nature and society in order to determine the laws of change and development of subjects of study. This form of activity plays an important role in the development of society, especially in the current historical period of modern science and technological revolution.

Annotation 212

The three basic forms of praxis activities listed above obviously do not include all forms of human activity, as praxis only includes activities which have purpose and historical-social characteristics.

Material production activity has a very clear purpose: to improve the material conditions of an individual human being or a group of human beings. Material production activity has historical-social characteristics because developing material conditions for human beings leads directly to the development of human society. For example, as food production increases in terms of yield and efficiency, society can support a larger number of human beings and a wider range of human activities, which leads to the development of human society.

Socio-political activity has the purpose of promoting social development, which is obviously inherently historical-social in nature. An example of socio-political activity would include any sort of political campaign, liberation struggle, political revolutionary activity, etc.

Scientific experimental activity has the purpose of expanding our understanding of nature and human society, which leads directly to historical-social development in a variety of ways. For example, improving our scientific understanding of medicine through scientific experimental activity leads to longer lives and improved quality of life. Improving our scientific understanding of chemistry through scientific experimental activity leads to all sorts of materials which improve the quality of life and enable human beings to solve a variety of social problems.

In order to qualify as praxis activity, a given human activity must have a purpose and it must have historical-social characteristics. For instance, drawing is not always praxis in the sense of the word used in this text, but it would be praxis if it would qualify as material production activity (i.e., making art in order to sell, so as to make a living) or if the art is made with the intention of invoking social change.

Every basic praxis activity form has an important function, and these functions are not interchangeable with each other. However, they have close relationships with each other and different praxis activity forms often interact with each other. In these relationships, material production is the most important form of praxis activity, playing a decisive role in determining other praxis activities because material production is the most primitive activity and exists most commonly in human life. Material production creates the most essential, decisive material conditions for human survival and development. Without material production there cannot be other praxis activities. After all, all other praxis activities arise from material production praxis and all praxis activities ultimately aim to serve material production praxis.

Annotation 213

Without material production activity, human beings would not be able to live at all.

Thus, material production activities make all other forms of human activities possible. In addition, the primary reason we participate in socio-political activity is to ensure material security (food, water, shelter, etc.) for members of society, which ultimately relies on material production activity. Therefore, the primary reason we engage in scientific experimental activity is to improve material production activities in terms of efficiency, yield, effectiveness, etc

Of course, we engage in scientific experimental activity and material production activity for other reasons (art, entertainment, recreation, etc.), but these activities require that material security be secured first for those participating in the production and consumption of such products. In other words, material production activity is a prerequisite for all other forms of activity, since without some measure of material security humans cannot survive.

Material production activity has a dialectical relationship with all other praxis activity, with material production activity determining, while being impacted by, all other forms of praxis activity.

Thus, material production activity has a dialectical relationship with other forms of praxis activities, in which material production activity determines both socio-political and scientific experimental activity while socio-political and scientific experimental activity impact material production activity.

b. Consciousness and Levels of Consciousness

The dialectical materialist perspective sees consciousness as a process of reflecting the objective world within the human brain on a practical basis to create knowledge about the objective world. Consciousness is a self-aware process that is productive and creative.

This view stems from the following basic principles:

The dialectical materialist worldview acknowledges that the material world exists objectively and independently of human consciousness.
The dialectical materialist worldview recognizes the following human abilities:
- To perceive the objective world.
- To reflect the objective world into the human mind, which enables human subjects to learn about external objects. [see Annotation 66, p. 64]
- To admit that there are no material things nor phenomena which are unrecognizable, but only material things and phenomena that humans have not yet recognised. [see The Opposition of Materialism and Idealism in Solving Basic Philosophical Issues, p. 48]

The dialectical materialist worldview affirms that conscious reflection [see Annotation 67, p. 64] of the objective world is a dialectical, productive, self-aware, and creative process. This reflection process develops from the unknown to the known, from knowing less to knowing more, from knowing less profoundly and less comprehensively to knowing more profoundly and more comprehensively.

Annotation 214

The above principle (that human knowledge develops from less, and less comprehensive, to more, and more comprehensive states) stands in contrast to various other philosophical systems of belief, including:

Hegel’s Absolute Idealism upholds a belief in an “absolute ideal” which constitutes an ultimate limit or “end point” of knowledge which humanity is moving towards. Dialectical materialism upholds that there is no such absolute ideal and thus no such terminal end point of human understanding. [See Annotation 234, p. 230] As Engels wrote in Anti-Dühring:

If mankind ever reached the stage at which it should work only with eternal truths, with results of thought which possess sovereign validity and an unconditional claim to truth, it would then have reached the point where the infinity of the intellectual world both in its actuality and in its potentiality had been exhausted, and thus the famous miracle of the counted uncountable would have been performed.

Fideism, which is the belief that knowledge is received from some higher power [i.e., God]. Fideism upholds that all knowledge is pre-existing, and that humanity simply receives it from on high. Dialectical materialism, on the other hand, argues that knowledge is developed over time through dialectical processes of consciousness and human activity.

Positivism, or empiricist materialism, which holds that there are hard limits to human knowledge, or that human knowledge — which can only be obtained from sense data — can’t be trusted. Dialectical materialism upholds that all things and phenomena can be known and understood, and that sense data can be trusted as an objective reflection of reality. For more information about skepticism about human sense data as well as positive and empiricist materialism, see Annotation 10, p. 10, and Annotation 58, p. 56].

The dialectical materialist worldview considers praxis as the primary and most direct basis of consciousness, and as the motive and the purpose of consciousness, and as the criterion for testing truth. [See: The Relationship Between Praxis and Consciousness, p. 216]

Annotation 215

Given the above principles — that human consciousness exists independently from the material world yet is capable of accurately perceiving and reflecting the material world, and that knowledge develops over time through a synthesis of consciousness and practical activity — we can conclude that consciousness is a self-aware process which is productive and creative.

Consciousness is productive and creative in the sense that conscious processes, in conjunction with practical experience and activity in the material world, leads to the development of knowledge and practical experience which allows humans to develop our understanding of the world as well as our own material conditions through the application of knowledge to our own labor activities.

Next, we will examine different ways of categorizing conscious activities as they pertain to developing knowledge and practical understanding of our world.

From the dialectical materialist point of view, consciousness is a process of development. Consciousness develops from empirical consciousness to theoretical consciousness; and from ordinary consciousness to scientific consciousness.

Annotation 216

In dialectical materialist philosophy, all systems of relation exist as processes of development in motion [see Annotation 120, p. 124]. Thus, consciousness can be defined as a system of relations between human brain activity and two forms of data input:

• Sense experience: observations of the external world detected by our senses.

• Knowledge: information which exists in the human mind as memories and ideas.

Consciousness is thus a process of the development of knowledge through a combination of human brain activity and human practical activity in the physical world (i.e., labor).

In the section below, we will explore different forms of consciousness, the development of consciousness, and the relationship between consciousness and knowledge. Note that these are abstractions of consciousness and knowledge, meant to help us understand how knowledge and consciousness develop over time. Thought processes are extremely complex, so we seek to develop a fundamental understanding of how consciousness develops and how knowledge develops because these processes are fundamental to the development of human beings and human societies.

Just as consciousness is a process of developing knowledge through brain activity, consciousness itself also develops over time. The development of consciousness can be considered based on the criteria of concrete/abstract and of passive/active.

Consciousness develops from a state of direct and immediate observation of the world which results in concrete knowledge to a higher stage which constitutes a more abstract and general understanding of the world. We call consciousness which is focused on direct, immediate, concrete, empirical observation of the world empirical consciousness, and we call consciousness which is focused on forming abstract generalizations about the world theoretical consciousness.

File:T-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-79.png

Empirical consciousness is a process of collecting data about the world, which we call knowledge. We can gather two forms of knowledge through empirical consciousness: ordinary knowledge, and scientific knowledge.

File:T-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-80.png

Ordinary knowledge is the knowledge we accumulate through our everyday experiences in the world. Scientific knowledge is gathered through more systematic scientific observations and experiments. Scientific knowledge usually develops from ordinary knowledge, as we begin to seek a more formal and systematic understanding of the things we witness in our daily lives.

According to Themes in Soviet Marxist Philosophy, edited by T. J. Blakely:

Ordinary knowledge notes what lies on the very surface, what happens during a certain event. Scientific knowledge wants to know why it happens in just this way. The essence of scientific knowledge lies in the confirmed generalization of facts, where it becomes necessary rather than contingent, universal instead of particular, law-bound, and can serve as a basis for predicting various phenomena, events and objects...
The whole progress of scientific knowledge is bound up with growth in the force and volume of scientific prediction. Prediction makes it possible to control processes and to direct them. Scientific knowledge opens up the possibility not only of predicting the future but also of consciously forming it. The vital meaning of every science can be expressed as follows: to know in order to predict and to predict in order to act.
An essential characteristic of scientific knowledge is that it is systematic, i.e., it is a set of information which is ordered according to certain theoretical principles. A collection of unsystematized knowledge is not yet science. Certain basic premises are fundamental to scientific knowledge, i.e., the laws which make it possible to systematize the knowledge. Knowledge becomes scientific when the collection of facts and their descriptions reach the level where they are included in a theory.

Theoretical consciousness arises from conscious reflection on accumulated knowledge, as human beings seek to develop general and abstract understanding of the underlying principles of processes we experience in the world. Once general principles of natural and social law are established, human beings then test those general conclusions against empirical reality through further observation (i.e., through empirical consciousness).

Thus, there is a dialectical relationship between empirical consciousness and theoretical consciousness, as one form leads to another, back and forth, again and again, continuously.

Empirical and theoretical consciousness have a dialectical relationship in which empirical consciousness and theoretical consciousness lead to and mutually develop one another.

Consciousness also develops from passive and surface-level observation and understanding of the world (i.e., simply considering what, where, and when things happen) to more active pursuit of the underlying meaning of the world (i.e., trying to understand how and why things happen).

Consciousness which passively observes the world, directly, in daily life is referred to as ordinary consciousness. Ordinary consciousness often develops into more active consciousness. This active pursuit of understanding through systematic observation and indirect experiences (i.e., experiences that do not occur in daily activity — such as scientific experimentation) is referred to as scientific consciousness.

File:T-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-82.png

These concepts will be discussed in further detail below.

Empirical consciousness is the stage of development of consciousness in which perceptions are formed via direct observations of things and phenomena in the natural world, or of society, or through scientific experimentation and systematic observation. Empirical consciousness results in empirical knowledge.

Empirical knowledge has two types: ordinary empirical knowledge (knowledge obtained through direct observation and in productive labor) and scientific empirical knowledge (knowledge obtained by conducting scientific experiments). These two types of knowledge can be complementary, and can enrich one other.

Theoretical consciousness is the indirect, abstract, systematic level of perception in which the nature and laws of things and phenomena are generalized and abstracted.

Empirical consciousness and Theoretical consciousness are two different cognitive stages but they have a dialectical relationship with each other. In this dialectical relationship, empirical consciousness is the basis of theoretical consciousness; it provides theoretical consciousness with specific, rich material [i.e., knowledge]. Empirical consciousness is linked closely to practical activities [since practical activity in the material world is the chief method of gathering knowledge through empirical consciousness], and forms the basis for checking, correcting, and supplementing existing theories and summarizing, and generalizing them into new theories. However, empirical consciousness is still limited in that empirical consciousness stops at the description and classification of data obtained from direct observation and experimentation. Therefore, empirical consciousness only brings understanding about the separate, superficial, discrete aspects of observed subjects, without yet reflecting the essence of those subjects nor the underlying principles or laws which regulate those subjects.

Therefore, empirical consciousness, alone, is not sufficient for determining the scientific laws of nature and society. To determine such laws and abstractions, theoretical consciousness must be applied. So, theoretical consciousness does not form spontaneously, nor directly from experience, although it is formed from the summation of experiences.

Annotation 217

The knowledge we gain from our daily activity often inspires scientific inquiry and more systematic observation, which can yield scientific knowledge which will enrich and improve our daily practice and allow us to experience daily life with a deeper understanding of what we’re experiencing. Thus, the ordinary knowledge we gain through daily practice can enrich and yield scientific knowledge (and vice versa).

Empirical consciousness and theoretical consciousness have a dialectical relationship with each other in which empirical consciousness provides the basis for theoretical consciousness. Theoretical consciousness attempts to derive general abstractions and governing principles from empirical knowledge which is gained through empirical consciousness. Once theoretical principles, generalities, and abstractions are determined, they are then tested against reality through empirical consciousness (i.e., practical observation and systematic experimentation) to determine if the theory is sound.

Empirical consciousness and theoretical consciousness have a dialectical relationship with one another. Our observations of the material world lead to conscious activity which we then test in reality through conscious activity, and so on, in a never-ending cycle of dialectical development.

For example, a farmer may notice that plants grow better in locations where manure has been discarded — an act of empirical consciousness. The farmer might then form the theory that adding manure to the soil will help plants grow — an act of theoretical consciousness. This theory could then be tested against reality by mixing manure into the soil and observing the results, which would be another act of empirical consciousness. The farmer may then theorize that more manure will help plants grow even more — another act of theoretical consciousness — continuing the cycle of testing and observing.

This dialectical relationship between ordinary and theoretical consciousness is what allows human beings to develop and improve knowledge through practical experience, observation, and theoretical abstraction and generalization of knowledge.

Theoretical consciousness is relatively independent from empirical consciousness. Therefore, theories can precede expectations and guide the formation of valuable empirical knowledge. Theoretical consciousness is what allows human beings to sort and filter knowledge so as to best serve practical activities and contribute to the transformation of human life. Through this process, knowledge is organized and therefore enhanced, and develops from the level of specific, individual, and solitary knowledge to a higher form of generalized and abstract knowledge [what we might call theoretical knowledge].

Annotation 218

Knowledge which comes from empirical observations (empirical consciousness) is empirical knowledge. Theoretical knowledge is a product of theoretical consciousness. Over time, as repeated and varied observations are made through theoretical consciousness activities, knowledge becomes more generalized and abstract; this general and abstract knowledge is what we call theoretical knowledge.

Note that empirical and theoretical knowledge can be ordinary or scientific in nature; if the knowledge arises passively from daily life activities, it will be ordinary knowledge, regardless of whether or not it is empirical or theoretical in nature. If, on the other hand, the knowledge arises from methodological measurement and/or systematic observation, then it is scientific knowledge.vSo far, we have discussed ways of understanding consciousness based on the criteria of directness vs. abstractness. Next, we will discuss another way of looking at consciousness, based on the criteria of passiveness vs. activeness.

Ordinary consciousness refers to perception that is formed passively and directly from the daily activities of humans. Ordinary consciousness is a reflection of things, phenomena, and ideas, with all their observed characteristics, specific details, and nuances. Therefore, ordinary consciousness is rich, multifaceted, and associated with daily life. Therefore, ordinary consciousness has a regular and pervasive role in governing the activities of each person in society.

Scientific consciousness refers to perception formed actively and indirectly from the reflection of the characteristics, nature, and inherent relationships of research subjects. This reflection takes place in the form of logical abstraction. These logical abstractions include scientific concepts, categories, and laws. Scientific consciousness is objective, abstract, general, and systematic, and must be grounded in evidence.

Scientific consciousness utilizes systematic methodologies to profoundly describe the nature of studied subjects as well as the principles which govern them. Therefore, scientific consciousness plays an increasingly important role in practical activities, especially in the modern age of science and technology.

Annotation 219

Logical abstraction refers to an understanding of the underlying rules which govern things, phenomena, and ideas which underly objective processes, relationships, and characteristics. Logical abstraction is the result of scientific inquiry. Over time, our understanding of the rules which govern the things, phenomena, and ideas in our lives become more reliable and applicable in practical activities. This attainment of understanding and practical ability through scientific practice is scientific consciousness.

Ordinary and scientific consciousness are two different qualitative steps of cognitive processes which, together, allow humans to discover truth about our world. Ordinary and scientific consciousness have a strong dialectical relationship with each other. In this relationship, ordinary consciousness precedes scientific consciousness, as ordinary consciousness is a source of material for the development of scientific consciousness.

Although it contains the seeds of scientific knowledge, ordinary consciousness mainly stops at the reflection of superficial details, seemingly random events, and non-essential phenomena [see Essence and Phenomenon, p. 156]. Ordinary consciousness, therefore, cannot transform effortlessly into scientific consciousness. To develop ordinary consciousness into scientific consciousness, we must go through the process of accurate summarizing, abstracting, and generalization using scientific methods. Likewise, once scientific consciousness has been developed, it impacts and pervades ordinary consciousness, and therefore develops ordinary consciousness. Scientific consciousness therefore enhances our everyday passive perception of the world.

Ordinary consciousness refers to the passive observation of reality which takes place in our daily lives. Scientific consciousness refers to the systematic application of consciousness to solve specific problems in a methodological manner.

Annotation 220

For example, before developing scientific consciousness of farming, a farmer might go through daily life having no idea what makes plants grow to be larger and more healthy and might have no idea how to avoid common problems such as pests. After developing scientific consciousness of farming through scientific experimentation and other systematic methodologies, the farmer will look at things differently in daily life activities. They may see signs of pest infestation and immediately recognize it for what it is, and they may see other indications that plants are unhealthy and know exactly what to do to remedy the situation.

In this way, scientific consciousness enhances ordinary consciousness. Meanwhile, ordinary consciousness — passive observation of the world during daily activities — will lead to scientific consciousness by inspiring us to actively seek understanding of the world through scientific consciousness.

c. The Relationship Between Praxis and Consciousness

Praxis serves as the basis, driving force, and purpose of consciousness. Praxis serves as the criterion of truth by testing the truthfulness of our thoughts. [See Annotation 230, p. 226]

Praxis is able to serve these roles because reality is the direct starting point of consciousness; it sets out the requirements, tasks, and modes of consciousness, as well as the movement and development tendencies of consciousness. Humans have an objective and inherent need to explain the world and to transform it.

Annotation 221

Remember that the material world defines consciousness while consciousness allows us to impact the material world through conscious activity [see The Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness, p. 88]. Consciousness itself arose from the physical needs of the material world [see The Source of Consciousness, p. 64], and these physical needs continue to serve as the basis and driving force for all conscious activities, as we must act consciously to survive.

Our inherent need to explain the world and to transform it arises from our material needs to eat, seek shelter, cure and prevent disease, and so on. These physical needs, which stem from the material world, drive conscious activity and lead to the development of consciousness and knowledge.

Therefore, humans must necessarily impact things in the material world through our practical activities in order to survive. The impacts of our practical activities on the world cause things and phenomena to reveal their different properties, including their internal and external relationships [for example, hitting a rock will tell you properties about the rock; attempting to build something out of wood will provide data about the wood, etc.]. In this manner, praxis produces data for consciousness to process, and also helps consciousness to comprehend nature and the laws of movement and development which govern the world.

Scientific theories are formed on the basis of the dialectical relationship between practical activity and consciousness. For example: mathematics developed to allow us to count and measure things for practical activities such as agriculture, navigation, and building structures. Marxism also arose in the 1840’s from the practical activities of the struggles of the working class against the capitalist class at that time. Even recent scientific achievements arise from practical needs and activities. For example, the discovery and decoding of the human genome map was born from practical activities and needs, such as the need to develop treatments for incurable diseases. In the end, there is no field of knowledge that is not derived from reality. Ultimately, all knowledge arises from and serves practice. Therefore, if we were to break from reality or stop relying on reality, consciousness would break from the basis of reality that nurtures our growth, existence and development. Also, the cognitive subject cannot have true and profound knowledge about the world if it does not follow reality.

Practice also serves as the basis, driving force, and purpose of consciousness because, thanks to practical activities, our human ability to measure and observe reality improves increasingly over time; our logical thinking ability is constantly strengthened and developed; cognitive means become increasingly developed. All of these developments “extend” the human senses in perceiving the world [for example, by developing new tools to measure, perceive, and sense the world such as telescopes, radar, microscopes, etc.].

Reality is not only the basis, the driving force, and the purpose of discovering truth but also serves as the standard of truth. Reality also serves as the basis for examining the truthfulness of the cognitive process [i.e., we can test whether our thoughts match material reality through experimentation and practice in the real world]. This means that practice is the measure of the value of the knowledge we gain through perception. At the same time, practice is constantly supplementing, adjusting, correcting, developing, and improving human consciousness. Marx said: “The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth — i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice.”^[110]

Thus, practice is not only the starting point of consciousness and a decisive factor for the formation and development of consciousness, it is also a target where consciousness must always aim to test the truth. To emphasize this role which practice plays, Lenin said: “The standpoint of life, of practice, should be first and fundamental in the theory of knowledge.”^[111]

The role of practice in consciousness requires that we always grasp the practical point of view. This point of view requires that we derive our ideas from practice, our ideas must be based on practice, and our ideas must deeply explore practice. In our conscious activities, we must attach a lot of importance to the summarization of practice [i.e., developing theoretical knowledge through theoretical consciousness which reflects practical experience]. Theoretical research must be related to practice, and learning must go hand in hand with practicing. If we diverge from practice, it will lead to mistakes of subjectivism, idealism, dogmatism, rigidity, and bureaucracy.

Annotation 222

Subjectivism occurs when one centers one’s own self and conscious activities in perspective and worldview, failing to test one’s own perceptions against material and social reality. Subjectivists tend to believe that they can independently reason their way to truth in their own minds without practical experience and activity in the material world. Related to subjectivism is solipsism, a form of idealism in which one believes that the self is the only basis for truth. As Marxist ethicist Howard Selsam wrote in Ethics and Progress: New Values in a Revolutionary World: “If I believe that I alone exist and that you and all your arguments exist only in my mind and are my own creations then all possible arguments will not shake me one iota. No logic can possibly convince [the] solipsist.”

Idealism has a strong connection with a failure to incorporate practical activity into theoretical consciousness, since idealism holds that conscious activity is the sole basis of discovering truth.

Dogmatism occurs when one only accounts for commonalities and considers theory itself as the sole basis of truth rather than practice [see Annotation 239, p. 235]. Dogmatists ignore practical experience and considering pre-established theory, alone, as unalterable truth. This results in a breakdown of the dialectical relationship between theoretical consciousness and empirical consciousness, which arrests the development process of knowledge and consciousness.

Rigidity is an unwillingness to alter one’s thoughts, holding too stiffly to established consciousness and knowledge, and ignoring practical experience and observation, which leads to stagnation of both knowledge and consciousness.

Bureaucracy arises when theory becomes overly codified and formalized, to the extent that practical considerations are ignored in favor of codified theory. Bureaucracy can be avoided by incorporating practical experience and observations continuously into the development of practical systems and methodologies so that theory and practice become increasingly aligned over time to continuously improve efficiency and effectiveness of practical activities in the material world.

On the contrary, if the role of practice is absolutized [to the exclusion of conscious activity], it will fall into pragmatism and empiricism.

Annotation 223

In this context, pragmatism refers to a form of subjectivism [see Annotation 222, above] in which one centers one’s own immediate material concerns over all other considerations. For example, workers may place their own immediate needs and desires above the concerns of their fellow workers as a whole. This may offer some temporary gains, but in the long run their lack of solidarity and class consciousness will be detrimental as workers collectively suffer from division, making all workers more vulnerable to exploitation and ill treatment by the capitalist class.

Empiricism is a faulty form of materialism in which only sense experience and practical experience are considered sources of truth. This is opposed to the dialectical materialist position that the material determines consciousness, while consciousness impacts the material world through conscious labor activity. [See The Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness, p. 88]

Thus, the principle of the unification of practice and theory must be the basic principle in practical and theoretical activities. Theory without practice as its basis and criterion for determining its truthfulness is useless. Vice versa, practice without scientific and revolutionary theory will inevitably turn into blind practice. [As Ho Chi Minh once said: “Study and practice must always go together. Study without practice is useless. Practice without study leads to folly.”]

2. Dialectical Path of Consciousness to Truth

a. Opinions of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin about the Dialectical Path of Consciousness to Truth

Annotation 224

The section below outlines and explains the Universal Law of Consciousness, which holds that consciousness is a process of dialectical development in which practical activity leads to conscious activity, which then leads back to practical activity, in a continuous and never-ending cycle, with a tendency to develop both practical and conscious activity to increasingly higher levels.

In his Philosophical Notebook, Lenin generalized the dialectical path towards the realization of truth as development from vivid visualization to abstract thinking, and then from abstraction back to practice. This process, according to Lenin, is the dialectical path towards the realization of truth, and the realization of objective reality.

According to this generalization, the dialectical path towards the realization of truth (“truth,” here, referring to a correct and accurate reflection of objective reality) is a process. It is a process that starts from “vivid visualization” (emotional consciousness) to “abstract thinking” (rational consciousness).

Annotation 225

Given that consciousness has a material basis, and that practical activities are the driving force of consciousness [see Annotation 230, p. 226], it follows that we must strive to align our conscious thoughts and ideas with the material world. The more accurately we can reflect reality in our consciousness, the more effectively and efficiently our practical activities can become.

For example, through learning more about the mechanical, material, and physical processes which take place inside of an automobile engine, the more we can improve engines to make them more efficient and effective for practical applications.

Lenin explained that consciousness develops from “emotional consciousness” to “rational consciousness.” Thought about a subject begins at a base level of consciousness that is rooted in emotional and sense-oriented conscious activity, i.e, “vivid visualization,” which then leads to rational, abstract reflection.

By “vivid visualization,” Lenin is referring to the active, real-time experience of seeing (and hearing, smelling, and otherwise sensing) things and phenomena in the world.

When a person experiences something through practical activity, the first conscious activity will tend to occur at the emotional and sensory level — in other words, the conscious activities which occur simultaneously along with practical activities. Only after this initial period of emotional consciousness will one be able to reflect on the experience on a more rational and abstract level.

For example, if a zoologist in the field sees a species of bird they have never encountered before, their first conscious activity will be at the sensory-emotional level: they will observe the shape, coloration, and motion of the bird. They may feel excitement, happiness, and other emotions. This is emotional conscious activity.

This emotional conscious activity will then develop into rational conscious activity, as the zoologist may begin to consider things more abstractly, attempting to interpret and understand this experience through reason and rational reflection, asking such questions as: “Where does this bird nest? What does it feed on? Is this a new discovery?” and so on.

Such abstractions are not the end point of a cognitive cycle, because consciousness must then continue to develop through practice. It is through practice that perception tests and proves its own correctness so that it can then continue on to repeat the cycle.

This is also the general rule of the human perception of objective reality.

Annotation 226

Thus there is a dialectical relationship between emotional consciousness (linked to practical activity) and rational consciousness (linked to purely conscious activity).

This dialectical relationship is a cycle, in which one engages in practical activity, which leads to emotional consciousness, which leads to rational consciousness, which then leads back to practical activity to test the correctness of the conclusions of rational conscious activity.

We call this cycle of development of consciousness the cognitive process.

The cognitive process is a continuous cycle which describes the dialectical development of consciousness and practical activity.

The cognitive process is explained in more detail below.

- Development From Emotional Consciousness to Rational Consciousness

Emotional consciousness is the lower stage of the cognitive process. In this stage of cognitive development, humans use — through practical activity — use our senses to reflect objective things and phenomena (with all their perceived specific characteristics and rich manifestations) in human consciousness. During this period, consciousness only reflects the phenomena [i.e, phenomena, as opposed to essence — see Essence and Phenomenon, p. 156] — the external manifestations — of the perceived subject. At this stage, consciousness has not yet reflected the essence — the nature, and/or the regulating principles — of the subject. Therefore, this is the lowest stage of development of the cognitive process. In this stage, consciousness is carried out through three basic phases: sensation, conception, and symbolization.

Human sensation of an objective thing or phenomenon is the simplest, most primitive phase of the emotional consciousness stage of the cognitive processes, but without it there would not be any perception of objective things or phenomena. Every human sensation of objective things and phenomena contains objective content [see Content and Form, p. 147], even though it arises as subjective human conscious reflection. Sensation is the subjective imagining of the objective world. It is the basis from which the next phase of emotional consciousness — conception — is formed.

Conception is a relatively complete reflection within human consciousness of objective things and phenomena. Conception is formed on the basis of linking and synthesizing sensational experiences of things and phenomena [i.e., sensation]. Compared with sensation, conception is a higher, fuller, richer form of consciousness, but it is still a reflection of the outward manifestations of objects. Conception does not yet reflect the essence, nature, and regulating principles of the perceived subject.

Symbolization is the representation of an objective thing or phenomenon that has been reflected by sensation and conception. It is the most advanced and most complex phase of the stage of emotional consciousness. At the same time, it also serves as the transitional step between emotional consciousness and rational consciousness. The defining characteristic of symbolism is the ability to reproduce symbolic ideas of objective things and phenomena within human consciousness. Symbolization describes the act of recreating the outward appearances of material things and phenomena within human consciousness, which is the first step of abstraction, and thus the first step towards rational consciousness.

Annotation 227

Here is an example of the three phases of the emotional consciousness stage of the cognitive process:

File:T-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-85.png

1. Sensation: Jessica senses a cake in the window of a bakery. She sees the frosting, the shape of the cake, and the decorations which adorn the cake. She smells the cake. During this phase, objective data about the cake is received into her consciousness, developing into an immediate and subjective sense perception of the cake. The beginnings of this cognitive activity will be purely sensory in nature; she may have been thinking of other things as she walked by the bakery, but the sight and smell of the cake, upon registering in her mind, will lead to the beginning of a new cognitive process cycle.

2. Conception: Jessica begins to conceive of the cake in her mind more fully. She will associate the immediate sense experiences of seeing and smelling the cake with other experiences she has had with cake, and a complete mental image and concept of the cake will form in her mind.

3. Symbolization: The word “cake” may now form in her mind, and she may begin thinking of the cake more abstractly, as “food,” as a “temptation,” and in other ways. This is the beginning of abstraction in Jessica’s mind, which will then lead to rational conscious activities.

Note that all of these phases of emotional consciousness activity may take place very quickly, perhaps in a fraction of a second, and may coincide with other conscious activity (i.e., Jessica may simultaneously be thinking of a meeting she’s running late to and any number of other things). At this point, Jessica will transition to the rational consciousness stage of the cognitive process, which is explained in more detail below.

By the end of the emotional stage of the cognitive process, consciousness has not yet reflected the essence — the nature, regulating principles, etc. — of the perceived subject. Therefore, at the emotional stage, consciousness is not yet able to properly interpret the reflected subject. That is to say, emotional conscious activity does not meet the cognitive requirements to serve practical activities, including the need to creatively transform the objective world. To meet these requirements, emotional consciousness must develop into rational consciousness.

Rational consciousness is the higher stage of the cognitive process. It includes the indirect, abstract, and generalized reflection of the essential properties and characteristics of things and phenomena. This stage of consciousness performs the most important function of comprehending and interpreting the essence of the perceived subject. Rational consciousness is implemented through three basic phases: definition, judgment, and reasoning.

Definition is the first phase of rational consciousness. During this phase, the mind begins to interpret, organize, and process the basic properties of things and phenomena at a rational level into a conceptual whole. The formation of definition is the result of the summarization and synthesis of all the different characteristics and properties of the subject, and how the subject fits into the organized structure of knowledge which exists in the mind. Definition is the basis for forming judgments in the cognitive process.

Judgment is the next phase of rational consciousness, which arises from the definition of the subject — the linking of concepts and properties together — which leads to affirmative or negative ideation of certain characteristics or attributes of the perceived subject.

According to the level of development of consciousness, judgment may take one of three forms: unique judgment, general judgment, and universal judgment [see Annotation 105, p. 107]. Universal judgment is the form of judgement that expresses the broadest conception of objective reality.

Reasoning is the final phase of rational consciousness, formed on the basis of synthesizing judgments so as to extrapolate new knowledge about the perceived subject. Before reasoning can take place, judgments must be transformed into knowledge. A judgment can be transformed into knowledge through one of two logical mechanisms: deductive inference (which extrapolates the general from the specific), and inductive inference (which extrapolates the specific from the general).

Annotation 228

Here is an example of the three phases of the rational consciousness stage of the cognitive process, continuing from our previous example of the emotional consciousness stage [see Annotation 227, p. 222].

File:T-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-86.png

1. Definition: Jessica’s conception of the cake will transition into the rational conscious activity of definition. Jessica will begin to define the concept of the cake more wholly and concretely, summarizing and synthesizing all of the features and characteristics of the cake into a cohesive mental reflection of the cake. The word “cake” may become more pronounced and defined in Jessica’s consciousness, prompting her to think of the object which she defines as a “cake” more fully and rationally.

2. Judgment: Jessica will begin to form basic judgments about the cake. “That cake looks good,” “that cake smells good,” and so on. Next, these judgments will begin to transform into knowledge through inductive or deductive inferences. An inductive inference might be: “I generally enjoy eating cakes, therefore, I might enjoy eating this cake!” An example of a deductive inference might be: “This cake looks very delicious, therefore, there might be other delicious things in this bakery!”

3. Reasoning: Processes of inductive and/or deductive inference will begin to transform Jessica’s judgments into the form of knowledge. For instance, she may now possess such knowledge as: “This bakery has delicious looking cakes, this is a cake I would like to eat,” and so on. With this newly acquired knowledge, Jessica can begin reasoning; that is to say, she can begin making rational conclusions and decisions. She might conclude: “I will go into this bakery and buy that cake.”

Note that this is not the “end” of the cognitive process, because the final phase of the reasoning stage of the cognitive process (reasoning) will lead directly into a new cycle of the cognitive process. In this example, Jessica might engage in the practical activity of checking her watch to see the time, which will begin a new cycle of cognitive process, beginning with the sensation phase of the emotional stage as the visual sense data of her watch and carrying through to the final reasoning phase of the rational stage, and so on.

It should also be noted that this is merely an abstraction of the cognitive process; in reality, the human mind is incredibly complex, capable of carrying out a variety of cognitive processes simultaneously. At any given moment, a person might be considering various different subjects, and each different subject might be at a different stage of the cognitive process. This abstract model of the cognitive process is presented to help us comprehend the component functions of consciousness more easily in the wider context of dialectical materialist philosophy.

Specifically, this model of the cognitive process is intended to help us understand how human consciousness leads to “truth.” And “truth,” here, refers to the alignment of human consciousness with the material world, so that our perceptions and understanding of the world is accurate and representative of actual reality.

- The Relationship Between Emotional Consciousness, Rational Consciousness, and Reality

Emotional consciousness and rational consciousness are stages that make up the cognitive cycle. In reality, they are often intertwined within the cognitive process, but they have different functions. If emotional consciousness is associated with reality, and with the impact of sense data received from observing the material world, and is the basis for cognitive reason, then rational consciousness, based on higher cognitive understanding and abstraction, allows us to understand the essence, nature, regulating principles, and development processes of things and phenomena. Rational consciousness helps direct emotional consciousness in a more efficient and effective direction and leads to more profound and accurate emotional consciousness.

Annotation 229

In other words, considering a subject at the level of rational consciousness allows us to then view the same subject, at an emotional consciousness level, with more depth and awareness.

For example, the more time we have spent rationally considering something like a bicycle, the more quickly and accurately we can examine a bicycle at the level of emotional consciousness. If someone is looking at a bicycle for the first time, they might not be able to distinguish its component parts or functions. On the other hand, if someone has spent more time considering bicycles at the level of rational consciousness, they may be able to immediately and rapidly understand and process a bicycle at the emotional conscious level, so that they can perceive and comprehend the different parts of a bicycle, as well as their functions, immediately and at the emotional-sensory level.

However, if we stop at rational consciousness, we will only have knowledge about the subjects we perceive, but we still won’t really know if that knowledge is truly accurate or not. In order to be useful in practical activity, we must consciously determine whether knowledge is truth [i.e., whether the knowledge accurately reflects reality]. In order to determine the truth of knowledge, consciousness must necessarily return to reality. Consciousness must use reality as a criterion — a measurement — of the authenticity of knowledge gained through purely cognitive processes. In other words, all consciousness is ultimately derived from practical needs, and must also return to serve practical activities.

Annotation 230

The dialectical relationship between consciousness and practical activities means that conscious activities develop practical activities, and vice versa, in a continuous feedback loop.

One of the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism is that the material determines the ideal, and the ideal impacts the material [see The Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness]. The fact that the material determines consciousness is reflected in the fact that material needs led to the development of consciousness, and conscious activity stems from material needs [see Social Sources of Consciousness].

The fact that the ideal impacts the material is reflected in the fact that consciousness must always return to the service of practical activities; as our consciousness develops (along with knowledge), our ability to impact and transform the material world becomes more efficient and effective.

The dialectical relationship between consciousness and practical activity is what drives the development of humanity. We imagine better ways of doing things, then test those ideas against reality through practical activity.

This dialectical relationship between consciousness and practical activity is thus cyclical. Conscious activity arises from practical activity, and returns to practical activity, in an endless process of developing both conscious ability as well as practical ability.

Therefore, it can be seen that the general, cyclical nature of the process of movement and development of consciousness develops from practice to consciousness — from consciousness to practice — from practical activity to the continued process of cognitive development, and so on. This process is repeated continuously, without end. The development level of consciousness and practice in the next cycle are often higher than in the previous cycle, and the cognitive process gradually develops more and more accuracy, as well as fuller and deeper knowledge about objective reality.

The universal law of consciousness [see Annotation 224, p. 219] is also a concrete and vivid manifestation of the universal laws of materialist dialectics, including: the law of negation of negation, the law of transformation between quantity and quality and the law of unity and contradiction between opposites. The process of cognitive motion and development, governed by these general laws, is the process of human progress towards absolute truth [see Annotation 232, p. 228].

Annotation 231

The universal law of consciousness is governed by the three universal laws of materialist dialectics:

The Law of Negation of Negation dictates that the new will arise from the old, but will carry forward characteristics from the old. This is reflected in the universal law of consciousness in that conscious activity arises from practical activity. This conscious activity then develops into improved practical activity, and so on, in a never-ending cycle of development. Throughout this development process, characteristics of previous cycles of cognitive and practical activities are carried forward and transferred on to newer cycles of cognitive and practical activities.

The Law of Transformation Between Quantity and Quality recognizes that quantity changes develop into changes in quality, and vice versa. This is reflected in the universal law of consciousness in the development of both conscious and practical activities. Conscious development also develops from quantitative changes to quality changes, and vice versa. For example, once a person accumulates a certain quantity of knowledge, the quality of their knowledge will change. For example, once a person has learned the function of every component part of a car engine, they will have a quality shift in their understanding of car engines — they will now have competency of the functioning of the engine as a whole. This is also true of practical activities. A quantity of practical experience will lead to quality shifts in practical ability. For example, once a person has practiced riding a bicycle enough that they can reliably ride the bicycle without falling, we would say that the person “knows how to ride a bicycle,” which represents a quality shift from the state of “learning how to ride a bicycle.”

The Law of Unity and Contradiction Between Opposites states that all things, phenomena, and ideas are defined by internal and external contradictions. This is reflected in the universal law of consciousness by the fact that practical needs serve as the basis for conscious activity, and that cognitive processes serve, in essence, to negate contradictions between consciousness and material reality through practical experience. In other words, the cognitive process is defined by a never-ending process of contradiction between the material and the ideal, as human beings seek to negate contradictions between our conscious understanding of the world and our practical experiences in search of truth - the accurate alignment of consciousness with the material world.

b. Truth, and the Relationship Between Truth and Reality

- Definition of Truth

All cognitive processes lead to the creation of knowledge, which is what we call human understanding of objective reality. But not all knowledge has content consistent with objective reality, because consciousness exists as the subjective reflection of objective reality in the human mind. The collective cognitive practice of all of humanity throughout history, as well as the cognitive practice of each individual human being, has demonstrated that the knowledge which people have gained and are gaining is not always consistent with objective reality. On the contrary, there are many cases of misalignment between consciousness and reality, and even complete contradiction between human thought and objective reality.

Within the theoretical scope of Marxism-Leninism, the concept of truth is used to refer to knowledge which is aligned with objective reality. This alignment is tested and proven through practice. In this sense, the concept of truth is not identical with the concept of “knowledge,” nor with the concept of “hypothesis.” According to Lenin: “The coincidence of thought with the object is a process: thought (= man) must not imagine truth in the form of dead repose, in the form of a bare picture (image), pale (matte), without impulse, without motion…”^[112]

Annotation 232

Here, Lenin is dispelling Hegel’s conception of “absolute truth,” which is not to be confused with Lenin’s concept of “absolute truth” as “objective truth” which aligns consciousness with objective reality [see Annotation 58, p. 56]. For Hegel, “absolute truth” was the idea that there will eventually be some end point to the process of rational consciousness at which we will finally arrive at some final stage of knowledge and consciousness. This rational end point of consciousness, at which the dialectic ends and all contradictions are negated, is Hegel’s “absolute truth.”

Lenin is also pushing back against the metaphysical conception that all “truths” exist as static categories of information which do not change. Instead, Lenin points out that seeking truth — i.e., aligning consciousness with material reality — is a never-ending process, in particular because reality is constantly developing and changing. Thus, the alignment of consciousness with reality — the pursuit of truth — is a living and dynamic process which will never end, since the development of reality will never end.

- The Properties of Truth

All truths are objective, relative, absolute, and concrete.

The objectivity of truth is the independence of its content from the subjective will of human beings. The content of knowledge must be aligned with objective reality, not vice versa. This means that the content of accurate knowledge is not a product of pure subjective reasoning. Truth is not an arbitrary human construct, nor is truth inherent in consciousness. On the contrary, truth belongs to the objective world, and is determined by the objective world. The affirmation of the objectivity of truth is one of the fundamental points that distinguishes the concept of absolute truth of dialectical materialism from the concept of absolute truth of idealism and skepticism — the doctrines that deny the objective existence of the physical world and deny the possibility that humans are able to perceive the world.

Annotation 233

The Dialectical Materialist conception of objective truth stands in contrast to idealism, which states that conscious reasoning alone leads to truth, and that the subjective ideal determines material reality [see Annotation 7, p. 8].

This objectivity of truth also refutes skepticism, which states that truth is essentially undiscoverable, because human consciousness is ultimately unreliable and incapable of accurately reflecting material reality [see Annotation 32, p. 27].

Distinction must also be drawn between the concept of absolute truth as it is understood in dialectical materialist philosophy and the conception of absolute truth in Hegel’s idealist dialectics. Dialectical materialism defines absolute truth as “objective truth;” that is to say: a complete alignment between objective reality and human consciousness (as compared to relative truth, which is a partial alignment between consciousness and objective reality).

Hegel, on the other hand, views absolute truth as a final point at which human consciousness will have achieved absolute, complete, and final understanding of our universe (see Annotation 232, p. 228) with the ideal serving as the first basis and primary mechanism for bringing absolute truth to fruition.

Truth is not only objective, but also absolute and relative. Absolute truth [see Annotation 58, p. 56] refers to truth which reflects a full and complete alignment of consciousness and reality. Theoretically, we can reach absolute truth. This is because, in the objective world, there exists no thing nor phenomenon which human beings are completely incapable of accurately perceiving. The possibility of acquiring absolute truth in the process of the development of conscious understanding is theoretically limitless. However, in reality, our conscious ability to reflect reality is limited by the specific material conditions of each generation of humanity, of practical limitations, and by the spatial and temporal conditions of reflected subjects. Therefore, truth is also relative.

Annotation 234

Dialectical materialist philosophy recognizes that it must be theoretically possible to know everything there is to know about a given subject, since we are theoretically capable of accurately perceiving, sensing, and measuring all data which pertains to a subject. However, dialectical materialism also recognizes the practical limitations of human beings. As Engels writes in Anti-Dühring:

If mankind ever reached the stage at which it should work only with eternal truths, with results of thought which possess sovereign validity and an unconditional claim to truth, it would then have reached the point where the infinity of the intellectual world both in its actuality and in its potentiality had been exhausted, and thus the famous miracle of the counted uncountable would have been performed.
But are there any truths which are so securely based that any doubt of them seems to us to be tantamount to insanity? That twice two makes four, that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles, that Paris is in France, that a man who gets no food dies of hunger, and so forth? Are there then nevertheless eternal truths, final and ultimate truths.
Certainly there are. We can divide the whole realm of knowledge in the traditional way into three great departments. The first includes all sciences that deal with inanimate nature and are to a greater or lesser degree susceptible of mathematical treatment: mathematics, astronomy, mechanics, physics, chemistry. If it gives anyone any pleasure to use mighty words for very simple things, it can be asserted that certain results obtained by these sciences are eternal truths, final and ultimate truths; for which reason these sciences are known as the exact sciences. But very far from all their results have this validity. With the introduction of variable magnitudes and the extension of their variability to the infinitely small and infinitely large, mathematics, usually so strictly ethical, fell from grace; it ate of the tree of knowledge, which opened up to it a career of most colossal achievements, but at the same time a path of error. The virgin state of absolute validity and irrefutable proof of everything mathematical was gone forever; the realm of controversy was inaugurated, and we have reached the point where most people differentiate and integrate not because they understand what they are doing but from pure faith, because up to now it has always come out right. Things are even worse with astronomy and mechanics, and in physics and chemistry we are swamped by hypotheses as if attacked by a swarm of bees. And it must of necessity be so. In physics we are dealing with the motion of molecules, in chemistry with the formation of molecules out of atoms, and if the interference of light waves is not a myth, we have absolutely no prospect of ever seeing these interesting objects with our own eyes. As time goes on, final and ultimate truths become remarkably rare in this field.

Relative truth is truth which has developed alignment with reality without yet having reached complete alignment between human knowledge and the reality which it reflects. To put it another way, relative truth represents knowledge which incompletely reflects material subjects without complete accuracy. In relative truth, there is only partial alignment — in some (but not all) aspects — between consciousness and the material world.

Annotation 235

False consciousness is consciousness which is incorrect and misaligned from reality. Discovering and rooting out false consciousness is one of the primary concerns of dialectical materialism, as false consciousness can be a serious impediment to human progress. The term “false consciousness” was first used by Friedrich Engels in a personal letter to Franz Mehring in 1893 (a decade after the death of Karl Marx), and in this letter Engels uses the term interchangeably with the word “ideology”* to describe conscious thought processes which do not align with reality:

Ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker consciously, indeed, but with a false consciousness. The real motives impelling him remain unknown to him, otherwise it would not be an ideological process at all. Hence he imagines false or apparent motives. Because it is a process of thought he derives both its form and its content from pure thought, either his own or that of his predecessors. He works with mere thought material which he accepts without examination as the product of thought, he does not investigate further for a more remote process independent of thought; indeed its origin seems obvious to him, because as all action is produced through the medium of thought it also appears to him to be ultimately based upon thought. The ideologist who deals with history (history is here simply meant to comprise all the spheres – political, juridical, philosophical, theological – belonging to society and not only to nature), the ideologist dealing with history then, possesses in every sphere of science material which has formed itself independently out of the thought of previous generations and has gone through an independent series of developments in the brains of these successive generations. True, external facts belonging to its own or other spheres may have exercised a co-determining influence on this development, but the tacit pre-supposition is that these facts themselves are also only the fruits of a process of thought, and so we still remain within that realm of pure thought which has successfully digested the hardest facts.

Although the term “false consciousness” is not found in writing until after Marx’s death, the concept underlying the term “false consciousness” is found often in the works of Marx and Engels. For instance, in The Holy Family, Marx and Engels explain how communist, class conscious workers have been able to break free of false consciousness of capitalist society:

They (the communist workers) are most painfully aware of the difference between being and thinking, between consciousness and life. They know that property, capital, money, wage-labor and the like are no ideal figments of the brain but very practical, very objective products of their self-estrangement.

This allusion to “the difference between being and thinking” recurs again and again in the works of Marx and Engels.

* Lenin also discussed the concept of false consciousness extensively, and argued that dialectical materialism was the key to negating the false consciousness of the working class, writing in What the “Friends of the People” Are:

It never has been the case, nor is it so now, that the members of society conceive the sum-total of the social relations in which they live as something definite, integral, pervaded by some principle; on the contrary, the mass of people adapt themselves to these relations unconsciously, and have so little conception of them as specific historical social relations that, for instance, an explanation of the exchange relations under which people have lived for centuries was found only in very recent times. Materialism removed this contradiction by carrying the analysis deeper, to the origin of man’s social ideas themselves; and its conclusion that the course of ideas depends on the course of things is the only one compatible with scientific psychology. Further, and from yet another aspect, this hypothesis was the first to elevate sociology to the level of a science.

Note that this convention of using the word “ideology” to mean “false consciousness” has never been common, and Marx and Engels both used the word “ideology” more often in its more usual sense of “a system of ideas,” but it is still occasionally encountered in socialist literature, as Joseph McCarney explains in Marx Myths and Legends:

Marx never calls ideology ‘false consciousness’. Indeed, he never calls anything ‘false consciousness’, a phrase that does not occur in his work... The noun is almost always accompanied by an epithet such as ‘German’, ‘republican’, ‘political’ or ‘Hegelian’, or by a qualifying phrase, as in ‘the ideology of the bourgeoisie’ or ‘the ideology of the political economist’. More typical in any case is the adjectival usage in which such varied items as ‘forms’, ‘expressions’, ‘phrases’, ’conceptions’, ‘deception’, and ‘distortion’ are said to have an ‘ideological’ character. Even more distinctive is the frequency, amounting to approximately half of all references in the relevant range, of invocations of the ‘ideologists’, the creators and purveyors of the ideological forms.

“Relative truth” and “absolute truth” do not exist separately, but have dialectical unity with each other. On the one hand, “absolute truth” is the sum of all “relative truths.” On the other hand, in all relative truths there are always elements of absolute truth.

Lenin wrote that “absolute truth results from the sum-total of relative truths in the course of their development; [...] relative truths represent relatively faithful reflections of an object existing independently of man; [...] these reflections become more and more faithful; [...] every scientific truth, notwithstanding its relative nature, contains an element of absolute truth.”^[113]

Correct realization of the dialectical relationship between relative and absolute truth plays a very important role in criticizing and overcoming extremism and false consciousness in perception and in action. If we exaggerate the absoluteness of the truth of knowledge which we possess, or downplay its relativity, we will fall into the false consciousness of metaphysics, dogmatism, conservativism, and stagnation.

Annotation 236

Intentional or unintentional exaggeration of the absoluteness of truth — i.e., considering our knowledge to be more complete and/or aligned with reality than it actually is — leads to incorrect viewpoints and mindsets, including:

Metaphysics is a philosophical system which seeks truth through the systematic categorization of knowledge [see Annotation 8, p. 8]. This is a flawed method of seeking knowledge because it considers truth to be essentially static and unchanging, and upholds the erroneous notion that truth can be systematically broken down into discrete, isolated categories. In addition to being fundamentally incorrect about the nature of truth and knowledge, it leads to the incorrect presumption that such static categorization of knowledge can lead to truth at all. Metaphysics fails to see truth and consciousness as a process, and instead sees truth as a static assembly of categorized facts and data.

Dogmatism occurs when one only accounts for commonalities and considers theory itself as the sole basis of truth. Dogmatism inherently overstates the absoluteness of knowledge, as dogmatic positions uphold certain theoretical principles as complete, inviolable, and completely developed. This explicitly denies the continuously developing process of advancing knowledge and consciousness.

Conservativism includes any position that seeks to prevent change, or to undo change to return to an earlier state of development. Such positions deny the continuous development of consciousness, knowledge, and practice, and incorrectly assert incorrect positions; or mistake relative truth for absolute truth.

Stagnation is an inability or unwillingness to change and adapt consciousness and practice in accordance with developing material conditions. Stagnation can stem from, or cause, overstatement of absolute truth in theory and forestall necessary development of both consciousness and practical ability.

On the contrary, if we exaggerate the relativity of the truth of knowledge which we possess, or downplay its absoluteness, we will fall into relativism, thereby leading to subjectivism, revisionism, sophistry, and skepticism.

Annotation 237

Relativism is the belief that human consciousness can only achieve relative understanding of the world, and that truth can therefore never be objectively discovered. Relativism is, thus, the overstatement of the relative nature of truth and the denial of the existence of absolute truth. Relativism leads to such incorrect viewpoints and mindsets as:

Subjectivism: which occurs when one centers one’s own self and one’s own conscious activities in perspective and worldview, failing to test their own perceptions against material and social reality [see Annotation 211, p. 205]. This position denies that truth can be discovered in the external material world, falsely believing that absolute truth stems only from conscious activity.

Revisionism: a failure to recognize and accept commonalities in conscious activity, focusing only on the private [see Private and Common, p. 128]. Revisionism leads to constant and unnecessary reassessment and reevaluation of both knowledge and practice. Revisionism, thus, is a position which overstates the relativity of truth and ignores truths which are more fully developed towards absoluteness.

Sophistry: the use of falsehoods and fallacious arguments to deceive [see Annotation 116, p. 118]. Sophistry is, thus, the intentional denial of truth and the intentional mischaracterization of truths as either overly relative or as not truths at all.

Skepticism: the belief that truth is essentially undiscoverable, because human consciousness is ultimately unreliable and incapable of accurately reflecting material reality [see Annotation 200, p. 192]. By denying that truth is discoverable at all, skepticism explicitly rejects absolute truth and declares that all truth is relative and unreliable.

In addition to objectivity, absoluteness, and relativity, truth also has concreteness. The concreteness of truth refers to the degree to which a truth is attached to specific objects, in specific conditions, at a specific point in time. This means that all accurate knowledge always refers to a specific situation which involves specific subjects which exist in a specific place and time. The content of truth cannot be pure abstraction, disconnected from reality, but it is always associated with certain, specific objects and phenomena which exist in a specific space, time, and arrangement, with specific internal and external relationships. Therefore, truth is associated with specific historical conditions. This specificity to time, place, relations, etc., is what we call concreteness.

Knowledge, if detached from specific historical conditions, will fall into pure abstraction. Therefore, it will not be accurate — it will not align with reality — and such knowledge cannot be considered truth. When emphasizing this property, Lenin wrote: “Truth is always concrete, never abstract.”^[114] Mastering the principle of the concreteness of truth has an important methodological significance in cognitive and practical activities. It is required that consideration and evaluation of all things and phenomena must be based on a historical viewpoint [see Annotation 114, p. 116]. In developing and applying theory, we must be conscious of specific historical conditions. According to Lenin, Marxism’s nature, its essence, lies in the concrete analysis of specific situations; Marx’s method is, above all, to consider the objective content of the historical process in a specific time.

Annotation 238

In other words, Marxism is rooted in seeking truth by examining reality from a historical and comprehensive viewpoint. For more information, see Annotation 114, p. 116.

- The Role of Truth in Reality.

In order to survive and develop, humans must conduct practical activities. These activities involve transforming the environment, nature, and human society. At the same time, through these activities, humans perform — knowingly or unknowingly — the process of perfecting and developing our conscious and practical abilities. It is this process that helps human cognitive activities develop. Practical activities can only be successful and effective once humans apply accurate knowledge of objective reality to our practical activities. Therefore, truth is one of the prerequisites that ensure success and efficiency in practical activities.

The relationship between truth and practical activities is a dialectical relationship which serves as the basis for the movement and development of both truth and practical activity: truth develops through practice, and practice develops through the correct application of truth which people have gained through practical activities.

Annotation 239

Truth and Practical Activities have a dialectical relationship in which truth develops through practice, and practice develops through the correct application of truth.

Practice only develops when truth about the universe is consciously applied to practical activities. For example, farm output increases as we learn more truth about the way crops grow and how land can be properly managed. Simultaneously, truth can only be developed through practical activity, as all ideas and knowledge must be tested through methodological observation, experimentation, and other forms of practical activity.

A theory is an idea or system of ideas intended to explain an aspect, characteristic, or tendency of objective reality. Theories are not inherently truthful; holding incorrect theories constitutes false consciousness. Practice (or praxis) is purposeful conscious activity which improves our understanding of the world. Theory and practice have a dialectical relationship with one another which, if understood, helps us to discover truth.

Truth and practical activities mutually develop one another over time.

This dialectical relationship between theory and practical activities means that we must never favor theory over practice, nor practice over theory, but that we must rather balance development of theoretical understanding as we engage in practical activities to test our knowledge against reality and to develop our practice with ever-advancing understanding of the world. As practice and theory develop one another, our understanding of objective reality comes closer and closer to truth.

In Theses on Feuerbach, Marx summarizes the relationship between theory and practice, writing:

The problem of the external world is here put as the problem of its transformation: the problem of the cognition of the external world as an integral part of the problem of transformation: the problem of theory as a practical problem.

Here, Marx explains that theory is concerned with solving the “problem” of transforming the external world through practice, and that “cognition of the external world” is required to solve the “problem of transformation. In other words, we must improve our theory in order to improve our practical ability to transform our world, and we learn about the world (thus improving our theory) through those practical activities.

Marx also writes in Theses on Feuerbach that:

The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory, but it is a practical question. In practice man must prove the truth, that is, the reality and power... of his thinking.

This point is key for understanding the dialectical relationship between practice and theory: in order to be useful, theory must be proven through practice. Thus, we must seek to develop our practice through theory, and our theory through practice.

Engels summarizes these ideas a bit more colorfully in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:

Before there was argument there was action... In the beginning was the deed ... And human action had solved the difficulty long before human ingenuity invented it. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Engels wrote in Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy of the uselessness of what might be called “pure theory,” divorced from practice, and the sort of radical skepticism which refutes that any practical knowledge can ever really be obtained by human beings:

There is yet a set of different philosophers — those who question the possibility of any cognition, or at least of an exhaustive cognition of the world... The most telling refutation of this (scepticism and agnosticism) as of all other philosophical crotchets, is praxis, namely experiment and industry.

It is practice, according to Engels, which proves the merit and utility of theory.

Through experiment and industry — through practical activities in the material world — we can test our ideas and dialectically develop both theory and practice. Lenin built upon these ideas in his own work, writing in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism:

The materialist theory, the theory of the reflection of objects by our mind, is here presented with absolute clarity: things exist outside us. Our perceptions and ideas are their images. Verification of these images, differentiation between true and false images, is given by practice.

Here, Lenin explains how only a proper understanding and application of the dialectical relationship between theory and practice can lead to the negation of false consciousness [see Annotation 235, p. 231] and the dialectical development of both practice and theory. Simply arguing and debating about ideas without relating them directly to practice will never lead to truth, nor will such pure-theory argumentation develop theory or practice in any meaningful way.

This brings to mind another line from Marx’s Theses on Feuerbach:

The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question.

The philosophy of dialectical materialism and the system of materialist dialectics are designed specifically to produce action and to avoid such “scholastic questions” and “pure-theory argumentation.”

Ho Chi Minh summarized these ideas perhaps most clearly and precisely of all in the very title of his article: Practice Generates Knowledge, Understanding Advances Theory, Theory Leads to Practice:

Knowledge comes from practice. And through practice, knowledge becomes theory. That theory, again, has to be put into practice. Knowledge advances not just from thought to theory, but, above all, from applying theory to revolutionary practice. Once the world’s law is fully grasped as theory, it is critical to put that theory into practice by changing the world, by increasing production, and by practicing class struggle and struggling for national self-determination. This is a continuous process of obtaining knowledge.

“If Uncle Ho says we will win, we will win!” — Propaganda poster from the 30th anniversary of the Battle of Dien Bien Phu (1984).

Afterword

If it seems that this book has come to an end somewhat abruptly, it’s because this is really just the first of four major sections of the full volume from which this text is drawn. If you are reading this afterword after reading the entirety of the preceding contents, then congratulations, you have completed the equivalent to a full semester’s coursework for a class on dialectical materialist philosophy which all Vietnamese college students are required to take!

The next sections in this curriculum, each covered in the original full volume, include:

Part 2: Historical Materialism

This section covers the definition and basic principles of historical materialism, which is the field of work dedicated to applying dialectical materialism and materialist dialectics to human history and human society. In the West, historical materialism and dialectical materialism are often conflated, but this is in error. Historical materialism is an applied field of dialectical materialist philosophy and materialist dialectical methodology which is used in the pursuit of understanding and interpreting human history.

Part 3: Political Economy

This section condenses the three cardinal volumes of Capital by Karl Marx and covers three primary doctrines:

1. The doctrine of value.

2. The doctrine of surplus value.

3. The doctrines of monopolist capitalism and state monopolist capitalism.

Political Economy, in this course, can be considered the application of dialectical materialism and materialist dialectics to the analysis and understanding of the capitalist mode of production from the perspective of the socialist revolutionary movement.

Part 4: Scientific Socialism

This section relies on an established understanding of dialectical materialism, historical materialism, and political economy as a foundation for developing socialist revolution. The three chapters of this section on Scientific Socialism are:

1. The Historical Mission of the Working Class and the Socialist Revolution

2. The Primary Social-Political Issues of the Process of Building a Socialist Revolution 3. Realistic Socialism and Potential Socialism

Moving Forward

We are already working on the translation of Part 2 of this curriculum, and we hope to complete it as quickly as possible. In the meantime, we believe this book provides the reader with enough of a foundation to continue studying and to begin applying the principles of dialectical materialism and materialist dialectics in political struggle.

We highly discourage readers from self-study in isolation, just as we discourage individual political action. The best way to study socialism is alongside other socialists.

Depending on where you live, you may be able to find political education resources provided by communist parties, socialist book clubs, or other organizations. If such resources aren’t available, it should be fairly easy to find study groups, workshops, and affinity groups online where you can study with like-minded comrades. Of course, socialist revolution requires more than just study, as we hope this book has thoroughly explained. Theory must be coupled with practice. As Ho Chi Minh wrote: “If you read a thousand books, but you fail to apply theory into practice, you are nothing but a bookshelf.”

To avoid atrophying into the proverbial bookshelf, we encourage you to go out into the world and apply these ideas creatively and collectively with other socialists. Dialectical materialism is a philosophy that was developed from the ground up for application in the real world. Dialectical materialism and materialist dialectics provide a functional model of reality, a way of looking at highly complicated systems, with all their dynamic internal and external relations. Dialectical materialist philosophy demands that we see human systems as processes in motion. In order to fully comprehend such dynamic processes, we must engage with them, which is why Ho Chi Minh taught that “we are not afraid to make mistakes; we would only be afraid of making mistakes if we were not determined to correct them.”^[115]

As we mentioned in the foreword, many socialists in the West suffer from a lack of practical engagement. Far too many socialists fall into utopianism, idealism, and social chauvinism and we believe this largely stems from failures to test ideas against reality through praxis. We hope that this book has impressed upon the reader that simply arguing about pure theory is a useless and futile pursuit. Indeed, sparring verbally over such “scholastic questions,” as Marx described them, is counter-productive. Marx and Engels defined such failure to engage in theory as “critical criticism” — that is to say, criticism for the sake of criticism. As Marx and Engels wrote in The Holy Family, such critical criticism is futile, as we will never think our way to revolution:

According to Critical Criticism, the whole evil lies only in the workers’ “thinking”. It is true that the English and French workers have formed associations in which they exchange opinions not only on their immediate needs as workers, but on their needs as human beings. In their associations, moreover, they show a very thorough and comprehensive consciousness of the “enormous” and “immeasurable” power which arises from their co-operation. But these mass-minded, communist workers, employed, for instance, in the Manchester or Lyons workshops, do not believe that by “pure thinking” they will be able to argue away their industrial masters and their own practical debasement. They are most painfully aware of the difference between being and thinking, between consciousness and life. They know that property, capital, money, wage-labour and the like are no ideal figments of the brain but very practical, very objective products of their self-estrangement and that therefore they must be abolished in a practical, objective way for man to become man not only in thinking, in consciousness, but in mass being, in life. Critical Criticism, on the contrary, teaches them that they cease in reality to be wage-workers if in thinking they abolish the thought of wage-labour; if in thinking they cease to regard themselves as wage-workers and, in accordance with that extravagant notion, no longer let themselves be paid for their person. As absolute idealists, as ethereal beings, they will then naturally be able to live on the ether of pure thought.

Engels expressed his frustration with such endless, utopian, idealist debates in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:

Hence, from this nothing could come but a kind of eclectic, average Socialism, which, as a matter of fact, has up to the present time dominated the minds of most of the socialist workers in France and England. Hence, a mish-mash allowing of the most manifold shades of opinion: a mish-mash of such critical statements, economic theories, pictures of future society by the founders of different sects, as excite a minimum of opposition; a mish-mash which is the more easily brewed the more definite sharp edges of the individual constituents are rubbed down in the stream of debate, like rounded pebbles in a brook.

Engels concludes by punctuating why he and Marx had developed dialectical materialism as a praxis-oriented philosophical foundation for scientific socialism: “To make a science of Socialism, it had first to be placed upon a real basis.” We hope that the readers of this text will seek out real bases for your development in theory and praxis, and we trust that you will quickly discover that developing practice develops theory, and vice-versa.

Remember that Marx and Engels, themselves, were not just theorists who scribbled down their thoughts in an “scholarly” vacuum. They were revolutionists themselves, highly engaged in political struggle and, in so struggling, they risked their lives and freedom over the course of many decades. This struggle is what led to the change and development of their ideas over time. The same can be said for every other successful socialist revolutionary in history.

Vo Nguyen Giap, the great general who led Vietnam’s military forces through resistance wars against fascist Japan, colonialist France, and the imperialist USA, describes how he applied such principles on the battlefield in his book People’s War, People’s Army:

During the Resistance War, owing to constant fighting, the training of our troops could not be carried out continuously for a lengthy period but only between battles or campaigns. We actively implemented the guiding principles ‘To train and to learn while we fight.’ After the difficult years at the beginning of the Resistance War, we succeeded in giving good training to our army. The practical viewpoint in this training deserves to be highlighted. The content of training became most practical and rich. Training was in touch with practical fighting: the troops were trained in accordance with the next day’s fighting, and victory or defeat in the fighting was the best gauge for the control and assessment of the result of the training. On the basis of gradual unification of the organisation and its equipment, the content of training in the various units of the regular army was also systematised step by step.

Here, Vo Nguyen Giap has provided a concrete example of the dialectical relationship between theory and practice, and their inseparability. This fundamental aspect of dialectical materialist philosophy demands that we think and act like scientists to change the world, rather than simply speculating and imagining ineffectually like armchair philosophers. As Marx wrote in Theses on Feuerbach “Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.” We encourage you to apply what you learn in this and other books to change the world.

Advice on Further Study

As you advance in your studies of socialist literature and theory, we offer the following advice:

First, you must recognize that the specific language used by revolutionary leaders and thinkers may vary widely across time and around the world. Fashions in language develop over time, and many contributions — like the text you’ve just read — come to us through translation from countless languages. This is why we believe it critical to develop an understanding of the spirit of the ideas of any particular text, and not to get bogged down in semantics and terminology. Liberal ideologists have done much to distract and divert intellectual energy with endless metaphysical altercation over the “proper” usage of this or that word. We caution strongly against this attitude, which makes us susceptible to sophistry, opportunism, and the sewing of undue conflict and division amidst the working class. We have pointed out various instances where Marx, Engels, and Lenin used different language to describe the same concepts. We also offer the reminder that Marx, Engels, and Lenin were writing in different languages at different times, just as socialists around the world have different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. As socialism is an international movement, we must stress the importance of avoiding linguistic barriers by engaging with one another in good faith and testing conflicting ideas and interpretations of theory against one another through practice instead of getting bogged down with “critical criticism.”

Next, we encourage students of socialist philosophy to always keep in mind that the doctrines and philosophies of revolutionary figures are products of the times and places in which they were conceived. It would be a mistake to view the works of any revolutionary figure as a road map or a set of instructions to follow by rote. Even Marx and Engels changed and developed their own ideas over the decades they were active, as they addressed in the 1872 preface to The Communist Manifesto:

The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.” (See The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council of the International Working Men’ s Association, 1871, where this point is further developed.) Further, it is self-evident that the criticism of socialist literature is deficient in relation to the present time, because it comes down only to 1847; also that the remarks on the relation of the Communists to the various opposition parties (Section IV), although, in principle still correct, yet in practice are antiquated, because the political situation has been entirely changed, and the progress of history has swept from off the earth the greater portion of the political parties there enumerated.”

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin and Ho Chi Minh also frequently took pains to point out that their revolutionary theories were devised specifically to suit the particular objective conditions of their own respective times and places. For example, in What is to be Done, Lenin discusses the question of secrecy in revolutionary activity. Lenin recognizes that secrecy is not always necessary, such as in the more liberal social democracies which existed in Europe in his era. In Russia, however — with its autocratic monarchy — material conditions called for more covert activity:

In countries where political liberty exists the distinction between a trade union and a political organisation is clear enough, as is the distinction between trade unions and Social-Democracy. The relations between the latter and the former will naturally vary in each country according to historical, legal, and other conditions; they may be more or less close, complex, etc. (in our opinion they should be as close and as little complicated as possible); but there can be no question in free countries of the organisation of trade unions coinciding with the organisation of the Social-Democratic Party. In Russia, however, the yoke of the autocracy appears at first glance to obliterate all distinctions between the Social-Democratic organisation and the workers’ associations, since all workers’ associations and all study circles are prohibited, and since the principal manifestation and weapon of the workers’ economic struggle — the strike — is regarded as a criminal (and sometimes even as a political!) offence.”

Ho Chi Minh was even more explicit about the requirement to tailor theory to current and local material conditions in a speech to the Communist Party of Vietnam in 1950:

Studying Marxism-Leninism is not just a matter of repeating the slogan ‘workers of the world, unite’ like a parrot. We must unify Marxism-Leninism with the reality of Vietnam’s revolution. Talking about Marxism-Leninism in Vietnam is talking about the specific guidelines and policies of the Communist Party of Vietnam. For example, our priority now is: great solidarity!

In a 2001 document, the Communist Party of Vietnam explained how Ho Chi Minh tailored lessons learned from prior revolutionaries to the specific material conditions of revolutionary Vietnam:

Ho Chi Minh’s thought is... the creative application and development of Marxism-Leninism to the specific conditions of our country. Ho Chi Minh learned profound lessons from Lenin and the Russian October Revolution, but he did not simply use those lessons as a template, nor did he just copy that foundation. Instead, he absorbed the spirit of Marxism-Leninism. Lenin’s thesis allowed Ho Chi Minh to see what was necessary for the Vietnamese people — the path of national liberation. Ho Chi Minh had creative arguments that contributed to enriching Marxism-Leninism in the issue of national liberation revolution, building a new democratic regime and the transitional path to socialism in an Eastern, semi-feudal colony which was still very backward: Vietnam.

As you find your own revolutionary path, you must carefully examine the objective conditions of your own time and place, and work collectively and collaboratively with your fellow revolutionists to decide how theory and lessons gleaned from history apply to your own circumstances. And, of course, you must test the validity of your conclusions against reality through practice.

Creative Application of Dialectical Materialism and Materialist Dialectics

Finally, we implore you to apply dialectical materialism creatively. Don’t look at this (or any other) book as a set of static instructions. Dialectical materialism and materialist dialectics are living, breathing systems of thought which benefit from the ideas and imagination of comrades working and struggling together. Seek the spirit of these ideas, study revolutionary theory and history, then apply what you learn in your daily life. Combat dogmatism and avoid arguments over pure theory. Determine what works and what doesn’t through activity in the real world, and apply what you learn from practical experience to your theoretical development. Over time, you will begin to see how practice and theory impact and develop one another. When you are struggling with a particular problem in revolutionary practice, you will find yourself reading theory in a new light, discovering information and ideas which might be applicable to your immediate circumstances. And as you study theory, you will find that it also impacts your practice, giving you tools and perspective and methodologies for action which you might never have imagined on your own.

We have tried to make this book a useful companion for further study. We have also made the digital version available for free online. If you have found it useful, we hope you will share it freely and widely.

In Closing

One last time we would like to thank Dr. Vijay Prashad and Dr. Taimur Rahman for their wonderful insights on our translation, and to acknowledge the monumental work of the Vietnamese scholars who wrote and revised the original text from which this volume is drawn. We also want to recognize once more the donors and supporters who have given us the precious resource of time to translate and annotate this work. Finally, we want to thank the teams at the Iskra Books and The International Magazine, who have provided invaluable editing and peer review services, promotion, and guidance. You can find all their publications, respectively, at:

IskraBooks.org

InternationalMagz.com

If you would like to download the free digital version of this book, support future translation work, or if you would like to get in touch, you can visit our website:

BanyanHouse.org

We will leave you, now, with the immortal words of the Manifesto:

Workers of the world, unite!

You have nothing to lose but your chains.

In Solidarity,

- Luna Nguyen, Translator & Annotations

- Emerican Johnson, Editor, Illustrator, & Annotations

“Marxism-Leninism — Long Live the Victories” — a demonstration to welcome the liberation army in the South of Vietnam on April 30, 1975.

[Appendices]

Appendix A: Basic Pairs of Categories Used in Materialist Dialectics

This is a summary of the basic pairs of universal categories and their characteristics which are discussed in depth starting on p. 126.

Private	Common
A specific item, event, or process.	The properties that are shared between Private things, phenomena, and ideas.

Private is commonly referred to in literature as Special/Specific while Common is commonly called General. Note: When an aspect or characteristic is not held in common with anything else in existence, it is considered Unique. The Unique can become Common, just as the Common can become Unique. Example: a Unique design for an object may be replicated, making it Common. A type of item that is Common may gradually disappear until there is only one example left, making it Unique. See p. 128.

Reason	Result
Mutual impact between things, phenomena, or ideas which causes each to change.	The change caused by a Reason.

Reason and Result may be referred to as Cause and Effect, respectively, though this should lead to confusion with metaphysical conceptions of cause and effect. Note: Reasons can be Direct or Indirect. See p. 138

Obviousness	Randomness
Refers to events that always and predictably happen due to factors of internal material structure.	Events caused by external impacts and interactions which are thus not completely predictable.

Obvious may be referred to as Necessary, while Randomness may be referred to as Accidental. See p. 145.

Content	Form
What something is made of.	The shape that contains content.

Ways in which Content and Form are discussed and perceived can can vary wildly depending on the subject being discussed and the viewpoint from which the subject is being considered. See p. 145.

Essence	Phenomena
Features that make something develop a certain way.	The expression of the essence in certain conditions.

See p. 156.

Possibility	Reality
What may happen, or might exist, in the future, if certain developments take place.	What is happening, or what exists, at the present moment.

See p. 160.

Appendix B: the Two Basic Principles of Dialectical Materialism

The Principle of General Relationships This principle states that:

“Materialist dialectics upholds the position that all things, phenomena, and ideas exist in mutual relationships with each other, regulate each other, transform into each other, and that nothing exists in complete isolation.”

From this Principle, we find the characteristics of Diversity in Unity and Unity in Diversity; the basis of Diversity in Unity is the fact that every thing, phenomenon, and idea contains many different relationships; the basis of Unity in Diversity is that many different relationships exist — unified — within each and every thing, phenomenon, and idea.

The Characteristic of Diversity in Unity is derived from the fact that there exist an infinite number of diverse relationships between things, phenomena, and ideas, but all of these relationships share the same foundation in the material world.

The Characteristic of Unity in Diversity is derived from the fact that when we examine the universal relationships that exist within and between all different things, phenomena, and ideas, we will find that each individual manifestation of any universal relationship will have its own different manifestations, aspects, features, etc. Thus even the universal relationships which unite all things, phenomena, and ideas exist in infinite diversity.

The Principle of Development This principle states that:

“Development is a process that comes from within the thing-in-itself; the process of solving the contradictions within things and phenomena. Therefore, development is inevitable, objective, and occurs without dependence on human will.”

The Characteristic of Objectiveness of Development stems from the origin of motion. Since motion originates from mutual impacts which occur between external things, objects, and relationships, the motions themselves also occur externally (relative to all other things, phenomena, and objects). This gives motion itself objective characteristics.

The Characteristic of Generality of Development stems from the fact that development occurs in every process that exists in every field of nature, society, and human thought; in every thing, every phenomenon, and every process and stage of these things and phenomena.

The Characteristic of Diversity of Development stems from the fact that every thing, phenomenon, and idea has its own process of development that is not totally identical to the process of development of any other thing, phenomenon, or idea.

Appendix C: the Three Universal Laws of Materialist Dialectics

The Law of Transformation Between Quantity and Quality

The law of transformation between quantity and quality is a universal law which concerns the universal mode of motion and development processes of nature, society, and human thought. The law was formulated by Friedrich Engels in Dialectics of Nature, and states that:

“In nature, in a manner exactly fixed for each individual case, qualitative changes can only occur by the quantitative addition or subtraction of matter or motion.” See more on p. 163.

The Law of Unification and Contradiction Between Opposites

The law of unification and contradiction between opposites is the essence of dialectics. It states, as formulated by V. I. Lenin in Summary of Dialectics:

“The fundamental, originating, and universal driving force of all motion and development processes is the inherent and objective contradiction which exists in all things, phenomena, and ideas.” See more on p. 175.

The Law of Negation of Negation

The law of negation of negation describes the fundamental and universal tendency of movement and development to occur through a cyclical form of development through what is termed “negation of negation.” Formulated by Friedrich Engels in Anti-Dühring, it states:

“The true, natural, historical, and dialectical negation is (formally) the moving source of all development--the division into opposites, their struggle and resolution, and what is more, on the basis of experience gained, the original point is achieved again (partly in history, fully in thought), but at a higher stage.” See more on p. 185.

Appendix D: Forms of Consciousness and Knowledge

Consciousness refers to the self-aware, productive, and creative motion and activity of the human brain. Practical activity is the most direct basis, motive, and purpose of consciousness, and is the criterion for testing truth. See: The Relationship Between Praxis and Consciousness, p. 216.

Knowledge is the content of consciousness. Knowledge includes data about the world, such as ideas, memories, and other thoughts which are derived by direct observation and practical activities in the material world, through scientific experiments, or through abstract reflection of practical and scientific activities which occur within consciousness.

Consciousness and Knowledge have a dialectical relationship with one another: knowledge is developed within consciousness, and consciousness develops to higher levels as knowledge is accumulated and tested against reality (which also develops knowledge itself). In this manner, consciousness and knowledge develop into higher forms over time in individual consciousness and human society. Thus, consciousness and knowledge can be considered as existing in various forms which represent stages of development in dialectical processes of development.

Note that the development processes of knowledge and consciousness are dialectical in nature, not linear. For example, after empirical consciousness develops into theoretical consciousness, theoretical consciousness will then impact empirical consciousness, developing empirical consciousness into a higher stage of development. This is true for all development processes related to empirical and theoretical consciousness. These development processes and forms of consciousness and knowledge are explained in more detail in Chapter 3: Cognitive Theory of Dialectical Materialism, starting on page 204.

Forms of Consciousness

Consciousness is a process of the development of knowledge through a combination of human brain activity and human practical activity in the physical world (i.e., labor). The development of consciousness can be considered on the criteria of concrete/abstract and of passive/active. For more information, see Annotation 216, p. 210.

File:T-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-99.png

File:T-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-100.png

The Cognitive Process

The Cognitive Process is a model developed by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin which represents the dialectical path of consciousness to truth. For more information, see Dialectical Path of Consciousness to Truth on page 219.

File:T-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-101.png

Forms of Knowledge

For more information see Annotation 218, p. 214.

File:T-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-102.png

Appendix E: Properties of Truth

Truth is the alignment of consciousness with objective reality. All truths are objective, relative, absolute, and concrete. Truths also have characteristics of concreteness and abstractness.

Objectivity: The content of truth is external to the subjective will of human beings. The content of knowledge must be aligned with objective reality, not vice versa. This means that the content of accurate knowledge is not a product of pure subjective reasoning but is objective in nature.

Absoluteness: Absolute truth^[116] is derived from the complete alignment between objective reality and human consciousness. The possibility of acquiring absolute truth in the process of the development of conscious understanding is theoretically limitless. However, in reality, our conscious ability to reflect reality is limited by the specific material conditions of each generation of humanity, of practical limitations, and by the spatial and temporal conditions of reflected subjects. Therefore, truth is also relative.

Relativity: Relative truth is truth which has developed alignment with reality without yet having reached complete alignment. To put it another way, relative truth represents knowledge which incompletely reflects material subjects without complete accuracy. In relative truth, there is only partial alignment — in some (but not all) aspects — between consciousness and the material world.

Dialectical Relationship Between Absolute and Relative Truth: Relative truth and absolute truth do not exist separately, but have dialectical unity with each other. On the one hand, “absolute truth” is the sum of all “relative truths.” On the other hand, in all relative truths there are always elements of absolute truth.

Concreteness: The concreteness of truth refers to the degree to which a truth is attached to specific objects, in specific conditions, at a specific point in time. This means that all accurate knowledge always refers to a specific situation which involves specific subjects which exist in a specific place and time. The content of truth cannot be pure abstraction, disconnected from reality, but it is always associated with certain, specific objects and phenomena which exist in a specific space, time, and arrangement, with specific internal and external relationships. Therefore, truth is associated with specific historical conditions. This specificity to time, place, relations, etc., is concreteness.

Abstractness: Abstract knowledge is knowledge which is not attached (or less attached) to specific times, places, relations, etc. Some degree of abstraction is necessary to develop theoretical understanding of general laws and the nature of objective reality, but care should be taken knowledge does not become completely detached from specific historical conditions, as this will result in pure abstraction. Knowledge which is purely abstract will not align with reality, and such knowledge cannot be considered truth.

Appendix F: Common Deviations From Dialectical Materialism

Throughout the history of the development of dialectical materialism and materialist dialectics, there have been many philosophical and methodological deviations which have derived from incorrect analysis, interpretation, and a failure to properly link theory and practice. Below are descriptions of some of the more common deviations which the reader should be aware of.

Bureaucracy: An expression of dogmatism which arises when theory becomes overly formalized, to the extent that practical considerations are ignored in favor of codified theory.

Conservativism: A mindset which seeks to prevent and stifle development and to hold humanity in a static position. Not only is this detrimental to humanity, it is also ultimately a wasted effort, because development is inevitable in human society, as in all things, phenomena, and ideas.

Dogmatism: A breakdown of the dialectical relationship between theoretical consciousness and empirical consciousness, which arrests the development process of knowledge and consciousness. Usually the result of: failure to seek commonalities; considering theory itself as the sole basis of truth rather than practice; ignoring practical experience and considering pre-established theory, alone, as unalterable truth.

Eclecticism: An approach to philosophical inquiry which attempts to draw from various different theories, frameworks, and ideas to attempt to understand a subject; the philosophical error of inconsistently applying different theories and principles in different situations. Empiricism: A broad philosophical position which holds that only experience (including internal experience) can be held as a source of knowledge or truth. Though nominally opposed to idealism, it is considered a faulty (or naive) form of materialism, since it sees the world as only unconnected, static appearances and ignores the reality of dialectical (changing) relationships between objects.

Idealism: A philosophical position which holds that the only reliable experience of reality occurs within human consciousness. Idealists believe that relying on human reason exclusively or as a first basis is the best way to seek truth. Various forms of idealism exist, broadly broken down into subjective idealism, which denies the existence of an external objective world, and objective idealism, which accepts that an external objective world exists, but denies that knowledge can be reliably gained about it through sense perception.

Opportunism: A system of political opinions with no direction, no clear path, no coherent viewpoint, leaning on whatever is beneficial for the opportunist in the short term.

Revisionism: A failure to recognize and accept commonalities in conscious activity, focusing only on the private. Revisionism leads to constant and unnecessary reassessment and reevaluation of both knowledge and practice. Revisionism, thus, is a position which overstates the relativity of truth and ignores truths which are more fully developed towards absoluteness.

Rigidity: An unwillingness to alter one’s thoughts, holding too stiffly to established consciousness and knowledge, and ignoring practical experience and observation, which leads to stagnation of both knowledge and consciousness.

Skepticism: The belief truth is essentially undiscoverable, because human consciousness is ultimately unreliable and incapable of accurately reflecting material reality. By denying that truth is discoverable at all, skepticism explicitly rejects absolute truth and declares that all truth is relative and unreliable. Solipsism: A form of idealism in which one believes that the self is the only basis for truth. As Marxist ethicist Howard Selsam wrote in Ethics and Progress: New Values in a Revolutionary World: “If I believe that I alone exist and that you and all your arguments exist only in my mind and are my own creations then all possible arguments will not shake me one iota. No logic can possibly convince [the] solipsist.”

Sophistry: The use of falsehoods and misleading arguments, usually with the intention of deception, and with a tendency of presenting non-critical aspects of a subject matter as critical, to serve a particular agenda. The word comes from the Sophists, a group of professional teachers in Ancient Greece, who were criticized by Socrates (in Plato’s dialogues) for being shrewd and deceptive rhetoricians. This kind of bad faith argument has no place in materialist dialectics. Materialist dialectics must, instead, be rooted in a true and accurate understanding of the subject, material conditions, and reality in general.

Subjectivism: The centering of one’s own self and conscious activities in perspective and worldview, failing to test one’s own perceptions against material and social reality. Subjectivists tend to believe that they can independently reason their way to truth in their own minds without practical experience and activity in the material world.

Utilitarianism: An ethical philosophical theory founded by Jeremy Bentham which seeks to maximize “utility,” which is considered to be a metaphysical property embodying “benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness.” Karl Marx dismissed utilitarianism as overly abstract, in that it reduces all social relationships to the single characteristic of “utility.” He also viewed utilitarianism as metaphysically static and tied to the status quo of current society, since utilitarianism does not address class dynamics and views all relations in the current status quo of society, making utilitarianism an essentially conservative theory. Marx also pointed out that Utilitarianism essentially views individuals as private individuals, not as social individuals, and seeks to work out solutions to the practical problems of human society through reasoning alone without examining material conditions and processes, and without taking into consideration practice and development, writing:

“The whole criticism of the existing world by the utility theory was... restricted within a narrow range. Remaining within the confines of bourgeois conditions, it could criticise only those relations which had been handed down from a past epoch and were an obstacle to the development of the bourgeoisie... the economic content gradually turned the utility theory into a mere apologia for the existing state of affairs, an attempt to prove that under existing conditions the mutual relations of people today are the most advantageous and generally useful.”

[Back Matter]

Glossary & Index

Absolute Truth	Absolute Truth can refer to: 1. The recognition that objective and accurate truth can be drawn from sense perception of the material world along with labor and practice activities in the material world. The opposite of this position is Relativism. See p. 56, 94, 194, 228–229, 232–234. 2. Hegel’s notion of Absolute Truth: that there will eventually be some end point of to the process of rational consciousness at which point humanity will arrive at a final stage of knowledge and consciousness. See p. 228. See also: Relative Truth, Relativism, Stagnation, Truth.
Absolutization	To hold a belief or supposition as always true in all situations and without exception. See p. 49.
Abstract Labor	The abstract conception of expenditure of human energy in the form of labor, without taking into account the value of labor output. When the value of labor output is taken into consideration, it is referred to as concrete labor. See p. 15, 17.
Adam Smith	(1723–1790) British logic professor, moral philosophy professor, and economist. Along with David Ricardo, Adam Smith was one of the founders of political economy, which Marx both drew from and critiqued in his analysis and critique of capitalism. See p. 14, 155.
Ahistoric Perspective	A perspective which considers aspects of human society without due consideration of historical processes of development. For example, Adam Smith and David Ricardo viewed political economy ahistorically, viewing capitalism as a static, universal, and eternal product of natural law rather than seeing capitalism as a product of historical processes of development which would change and develop over time. See p. 116.
Base	Also known as: Economic Base; Economic Basis. The material processes which humans undertake to survive and transform our environment to support our ways of living. In the dialectical relationship between base and superstructure, the base refers to the relationship which humans have with the means of production, including the ownership of the means of production and the organization of labor. See p. 23. See also: Superstructure.
Biological Motion	One of the five basic forms of motion described by Engels in Dialectics of Nature. Biological motion refers to changes and development within living objects and their genetic structure. See p. 61.
Biological Reflection	A complex form of reflection found within organic subjects in the natural world and expressed by excitation, induction, and reflexes. See p. 65.
Bourgeoisie	The owners of the means of production and the ruling class under capitalism; also known as the capitalist class. See p. 3, 23, 30, 41, 50, 63, 96. See also: Proletariat, Petty Bourgeoisie.
Bureaucracy	An expression of dogmatism which arises when theory becomes overly formalized, to the extent that practical considerations are ignored in favor of codified theory. See p. 217–218. C→→M→→C C = A Commodity M = The Money Commodity The mode of circulation described by Marx as occurring under pre-capitalist economies of simple exchange, in which the producers and consumers of commodities have a direct relationship to the commodities which are being bought and sold. The sellers have produced the commodities with their own labor, and they directly consume the commodities which they purchase. See also: M→C→M’ Marx called this mode of circulation “simple commodity production.” See p. 16.
Capitalism	The current stage of human political economy, defined by private ownership of the means of production. Referenced throughout.
Capitalist Class	See: Bourgeoisie
Capitalist Commodity Production	The capitalist mode of production which utilizes the M→C→M’ mode of circulation, in which capitalists own the means of production and pay wages to workers in exchange for their labor, which is used to produce commodities. Capitalists then sell these commodities for profits which are not shared with the workers who provided the labor. See p. 15.
Category	The most general grouping of aspects, attributes, and relations of things, phenomena, and ideas. Different specific fields of inquiry may categorize things, phenomena, and/or ideas differently from one another. See p. 126.
Category Pair	A pair of philosophical categories within materialist dialectics. Materialist dialectics tend to focus on universal category pairs which can be used to examine the characteristics, relations, and development of all things, phenomena, and ideas. Examples of category pairs include: private and common; content and form; reason and result; essence and phenomena. See p. 127.
Characteristics	The features and attributes that exist internally — within — a given thing, phenomena, or idea. See p. 115.
Chemical Motion	Changes of organic and inorganic substances in processes of combination and separation. See p. 61.
Chemical Reflection	The reflection of mechanical, physical, and chemical changes and reactions of inorganic matter (i.e., changes in structures, position, physical-chemical properties, and the processes of combining and dissolving substances). See p. 65–66.
Circulation	The way in which commodities and money are exchanged for one another. See p. 16.
Commodity	In Marxist political economy, commodities include anything which can be bought and sold, with both a use value (i.e. it satisfies a need of any kind) and a value-form (aka. ‘Exchange value’ and understood as the average socially necessary labour time needed to produce this object). Under capitalism, more and more human activity and production is ‘commodified’ (mediated through market exchange). See p. 15, 87, 133.
Common	See: Private and Common
Common Laws	Laws (of nature and/or human society) that are applicable to a broader range of subjects than private laws, and which impact many different subjects. For instance: the law of preservation of mass, the law of preservation of energy, etc. See p. 162.
Comprehensive Viewpoint	A viewpoint which seeks to consider the internal dialectical relationships between the component parts, factors, and aspects within a thing or phenomenon, and which considers external mutual interactions with with other things, phenomena, and ideas. Dialectical materialist philosophy demands a comprehensive basis in order to fully and properly understand things and phenomena in order to effectively solve problems in real life and develop humanity towards communism. See p. 115, 172, 235.
Conception	A relatively complete reflection within human consciousness of objective things and phenomena. See p. 221–22.
Concrete Labor	The production of a specific commodity with a specific value through labor. When labor is considered without the consideration of output value, it is referred to as abstract labor. See p. 15, 17.
Conditioned Reflex	Conditioned reflexes are reactions which are learned by organisms. These responses are acquired as animals associate previously unrelated neural stimuli with a particular reaction. See p. 66, 68.
Consciousness	The dynamic and creative reflection of the objective world in human brains; the subjective image of the objective world which is produced by the human brain. See p. 68–69, 70.
Content	See: Content and Form.
Content and Form (Category Pair)	Content is the philosophical category which refers to the sum of all aspects, attributes, and processes that a thing, phenomenon, or idea is made from. The Form category refers to the mode of existence and development of things, phenomena, and ideas. Form thus describes the system of relatively stable relationships which exist internally within things, phenomena, and ideas. Content and Form have a dialectical relationship with one another, in which content determines form and form impacts back on content. See p. 115, 147155, 166.
Contradiction	A contradiction is a relationship in which two forces oppose one another, leading to mutual development. See p. 123, 159, 163, 169, 175–191.
Consciousness	The self-aware, productive, creative motion and activity of the human brain. See p. 216, 249.
Conservativism	Also referred to as Prejudice; a mindset which seeks to prevent and stifle development and to hold humanity in a static position. Not only is this detrimental to humanity, it is also ultimately a wasted effort, because development is inevitable in human society, as in all things, phenomena, and ideas. See p. 125, 233.
David Hume	(1711 — 1776) Scottish philosopher who developed radical skepticism as a philosophy of empiricist rejection of human knowledge. See p. 11, 29, 56, 7273.
David Ricardo	(1772 — 1823) British economist who, along with Adam Smith, was one of the key figures in the development of Political Economy which was a basis for much of the work of Marx and Engels. See p. 14, 18, 155.
Deductive Inference	Logical inference which extrapolates from the general to the specific. See p. 224.
Definition	The first phase of rational consciousness. During this phase, the mind begins to interpret, organize, and process the basic properties of things and phenomena at a rational level into a conceptual whole. See p. 224.
Development	The change and motion of things, phenomena, and ideas with a forward tendency: from less advanced to more advanced; and/or from a less complete to a more complete level. See p. 38, 45–46, 52, 55, 61, 65, 76–96, 105–107, 114118, 119–127, 131–132, 138–140, 143, 147, 154, 155–165, 169–175, 177–181, 183–207, 210, 213, 216–223, 225–229, 233, 235–237.
Development Viewpoint	A viewpoint which considers that, in order to perceive or solve any problem in real life, we must consider all things, phenomena, and ideas with their own forward tendency of development taken in mind.
Dialectic; Dialectical; Dialectics	In Marxism-Leninism, the term dialectic (adjective: dialectical) refers to regular and mutual relationships, interactions, transformations, motions, and developments of things, phenomena, and processes in nature, society and human thought. “Dialectics” refers to a dialectical system. See p. 3, 9–11, 47.
Dialectical Materialism	A universal philosophical and methodological system which forms the theoretical core of a scientific worldview. Dialectical Materialism was first developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels with the express goal of achieving communism. Dialectical Materialism has since been defended and developed by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin as well as many others. See: p. 3, 6, 1011, 19–21, 27–30, 33, 38, 45–47, 48–97, 101, 104, 204, 209, 226, 228, 230–232, 237.
Dialectical Negation	A stage of development in which a new subject arises from a contradiction between two previous subjects; dialectical negation is never an endpoint of development, as every dialectical negation creates conditions for further development and negation. See p. 123, 175–176, 183, 185–195, 197–202, 227.
Dialectical Relationship	A relationship in which two things, phenomena, or ideas mutually impact one another, leading to development and negation. See p. 47, 51, 62.
(Characteristic of) Diversity	The characteristic which all things, phenomena, and ideas share, dictating that no two subjects (and no two relationships between any two subjects) are exactly the same, even if they exist between very similar things, phenomena, and ideas and/or in very similar situations. See p. 114–115, 125.
Diversity in Unity	The universal principle which states that even though all relationships are diverse and different from one another, they also exist in unity, because all relationships share a foundation in the material world. See p. 109–110, 125, 130.
Dogmatism	An inflexible adherence to ideals as incontrovertibly true while refusing to take any contradictory evidence into consideration. Dogmatism stands in direct opposition to materialist dialectics, which seeks to form opinions and conclusions only after careful consideration of all observable evidence. See p. 136–137, 174, 217–218, 233.
Duality of Labor	The Marxist economic concept which recognizes labor as having two intrinsic and inseparable aspects: abstract labor and concrete labor. See p. 15.
Dynamic and Creative Reflection	The most advanced form of reflection, which only occurs in matter that has the highest (known) level of structural complexity, such as the human brain. See p. 68–69, 79.
Eclecticism	An approach to philosophical inquiry which attempts to draw from various different theories, frameworks, and ideas to attempt to understand a subject; the philosophical error of inconsistently applying different theories and principles in different situations. See p. 32–33, 101, 118, 192, 194.
Economic Base	See: Base
Economism	Economism is a style of political activism, typified by the ideas of German political theorist Eduard Bernstein, which stresses directing the struggle towards short-term political/economic goals (such as higher wages for workers) at the expense of the larger socialist revolutionary project. See p. 30.
Eduard Bernstein	(1850 — 1932) German political theorist who rejected many of Marx’s theories. See p. 30, 174.
Emotional Consciousness	The lower stage of the cognitive process. In this stage of cognitive development, humans, through practical activities, use our senses to reflect objective things and phenomena (with all their perceived specific characteristics and rich manifestations) in human consciousness. See p. 219224.
Empirical Consciousness	Empirical consciousness is the stage of development of consciousness in which perceptions are formed via direct observations of things and phenomena in the natural world, or of society, or through scientific experimentation and systematic observation. Empirical Consciousness results in Empirical Knowledge. See p. 210–214.
Empirical Knowledge	Knowledge which results from processes of empirical consciousness and which is characterised by rich and detailed, but still incomplete, understanding of phenomena. It can be utilized for practical ends, but still falls short of full theoretical analysis and comprehension. See p. 212–214.
Empiricism	A broad philosophical position which holds that only experience (including internal experience) can be held as a source of knowledge or truth. Though nominally opposed to idealism, it is considered a faulty (or naive) form of materialism, since it sees the world as only unconnected, static appearances and ignores the reality of dialectical (changing) relationships between objects. See p. 9–12, 29, 94, 96–97, 100, 218.
Empirio-criticism	A more developed form of empiricism, proposed by Ernst Mach, which holds that sense data and experience are the sole sources of knowledge and that no concrete knowledge of the external material world can ever be obtained due to the limitations of human senses. See p. 26–29, 32, 54, 55–57, 68.
Epistemology	The theoretical study of knowledge. It primarily deals with the philosophical question of: “how do we know what we know?” See p. 45, 98, 204.
Ernst Mach	(1838 — 1916) Austrian physicist who attempted to build a philosophy of natural science based on the works of German philosopher Richard Avenarius’ philosophical system of Empirio-Criticism. See p. 27–29, 32, 52, 72, 193.
Equilibrium	A state of motion in which one or more subjects are not undergoing changes in position, form, and/or structure. Equilibrium is only ever a temporary stasis of development which will eventually yield to motion, development, and/or negation. See p. 62–63, 122–123, 181.
Essence	See: Essence and Phenomena
Essence and Phenomena (Category Pair)	The Essence category refers to the synthesis of all the internal aspects as well as the obvious and stable relations that define the existence, motion and development of things and ideas. The Phenomena category refers to the external manifestation of those internal aspects and relations in specific conditions. Essence always determines which phenomena appear, but phenomena do not always accurately reflect essence in human perception; in other words, it is possible to misinterpret phenomena, leading to a misunderstanding of essence, or to mistake phenomena for essence. See p. 156–160.
Exchange Value	A quantity relationship which describes the ratios of exchangeability between different commodities, with Marx’s famous example of 20 yards of linen being equivalent in exchange value to one coat. Through analysis Marx shows that in reality the thing being compared is the amount of socially necessary labour required to make the commodities being compared. See p. 15, 18.
Excitation	Reactions of simple plant and animal life-forms which occur when they change position or structure as a direct result of physical changes in their habitat. See p. 66, 68.
External Contradictions	See: Internal and External Contradictions.
False consciousness	Forms of consciousness (ideas, thoughts, concepts, etc.) which are incorrect and misaligned from reality. Equated with ‘ideology’ by Engels, it refers to an idealistic, dogmatic perspective which will inevitably result in errors of analysis and therefore practice. See p. 231–233, 237.
First International	Also known as the International Workingmen’s Association; was founded in London and lasted from 1864–1876. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were key figures in the foundation and operation of this organization, which sought better conditions and the establishment of rights for workers. See p. 35
(Basic) Forms of Motion	Engels broke motion down into five basic forms which are dialectically linked; the different forms of motion differ from one another, but they are also unified with each other into one continuous system of motion. Understanding this dialectical relationship between different forms of motion helped to overcome misunderstandings and confusion about motion and development. See p. 61–62.
Form	See: Content and Form.
Form of existence of matter	The ways in which we perceive the existence of matter in our universe; specifically, matter in our universe has the form of existing in space and time. See p. 59.
Form of Value	See: Value-Form
Forward Tendency of Motion	The tendency for things, phenomena, and ideas to move from less advanced to more advanced forms through processes of motion and development. See p. 197.
Friedrich Engels	(1820–1895) a German theorist, politician, dialectical materialist philosopher, leader of the international working class, & co-founder of scientific socialism with Karl Marx. Referenced throughout.
Fundamental and Non-Fundamental Contradictions	A fundamental contradiction defines the essence of a relationship. Fundamental contradictions exist throughout the entire development process of a given thing, phenomenon, or idea. A non-fundamental contradiction exists in only one aspect or attribute of a thing, phenomenon, or idea. A nonfundamental contradiction can impact a subject, but it will not control or decide the essential development of the subject. See p. 178–179.
(Characteristic of) Generality	A universal characteristic which holds that all things, phenomena, and ideas interact and mutually transform one another. See p. 108–109, 111, 114, 124125.
General Relationship	Relationships which exist broadly across many things, phenomena, and ideas. General relationships can exist both internally, within things, phenomena, and ideas, and externally, between things, phenomena, and ideas. See p. 106–110, 114.
Generality (of relationships)	Relationships can exist with across a spectrum of generality; this spectrum ranges from the least general relationships (unique relationships — which only occur between two specific things/phenomena/ideas) to the most general relationships (universal relationships — which occur between or within all things/phenomena/ideas). See p. 109.
George Berkeley	(1685 — 1753) An Anglo-Irish philosopher whose main philosophical achievement was the formulation of a doctrine which he called “immaterialism,” and which later came to be known as “Subjective Idealism.” This doctrine was summed up by Berkeley’s maxim: “Esse est percipi” — “To be is to be perceived.” See p. 11, 27, 29.
George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel	(1770 — 1831) German philosophy professor & objective idealistic philosopher; developed the system of idealist dialectics which Marx and Engels used as a basis for developing materialist dialectics. See p. 8–11, 29, 69–71, 97, 98, 100–105, 132, 157, 165, 182, 192, 193–194, 209, 228.
Historical Materialism	The application of materialist dialectics and dialectical materialism to the study of human history. See p. 21–23, 27, 36, 38, 45, 80.
Historical Viewpoint	A viewpoint which demands that subjects be considered in their current stage of motion and development, while also taking into consideration the development and transformation of the subject over time. See p. 116–118, 125–126, 143, 185, 234.
Idealism	A philosophical position which holds that the only reliable experience of reality occurs within human consciousness. Idealists believe that human reason exclusively or as a first basis is the best way to seek truth. See p. 8–12, 26–29, 48–51, 53, 56–58, 69–70, 96, 101–102, 104, 157, 174, 209, 218, 228.
Immanuel Kant	(1724 — 1804) German philosopher who developed a system of idealist dialectics which were later completed by Hegel and whose metaphysical philosophies of epistemology and rationalism served as the basis for later empiricists such as Bacon and Hume. See p. 20, 29, 56, 72–74, 100–102, 205.
Induction	The reaction of animals with simple nervous systems which can sense or feel their environments. Induction occurs through unconditioned reflex mechanisms. See p. 66, 68.
Inductive Inference	Logical inference which extrapolates from specific observations to general conclusions. See p. 223–224.
Intelligibility	The human cognitive capacity to accurately perceive the external material world. See p. 48.
Internal Contradictions	See: Internal and External Contradictions.
Internal and External Contradictions	Internal contradictions are contradictions which exist within the internal relations of a subject, while external contradictions exist between two or more subjects as external relations. See p. 178–179.
Judgment	The phase of rational consciousness which arises from the definition of the subject — the linking of concepts and properties together — which leads to affirmative or negative ideation of certain characteristics or attributes of the perceived subject. See p. 223.
Karl Marx	(1818–1883) German theorist, politician, dialectical materialist philosopher, political economist, founder of scientific socialism, and leader of the international working class. Referenced throughout.
Knowledge	The content of consciousness; data about the world, such as: ideas, memories, and other thoughts which are derived through direct observation and practical activities in the material world, through scientific experiments, or through abstract reflection of practical and scientific activities which occur within consciousness.
Labor Value	The amount of value which workers produce through labor. See p. 14, 17–18, 23.
Law of Negation of Negation	A universal law of materialist dialectics which states that the fundamental and universal tendency of motion and development occurs through a cycle of dialectical negation, wherein each and every negation is, in turn, negated once more. See p. 163, 185, 195, 198, 200, 201, 202, 227.
Law of Transformation Between Quantity and Quality	The universal law of dialectical materialism which concerns the universal mode of motion and development processes of nature, society, and human thought, which states that qualitative changes of things, phenomena, and ideas arise from the inevitable basis of the quantitative changes of things, phenomena, and, ideas, and, vice versa, quantitative changes of things, phenomena, and ideas arise from the inevitable basis of qualitative changes of things, phenomena, and ideas. See p. 163–165, 172–173, 227.
Law of Unification Contradiction Between Opposites	and The universal law of dialectical materialism which states that the fundamental, originating, and universal driving force of all motion and development processes is the inherent and objective contradictions which exists in all things, phenomena, and ideas. See p. 163, 175, 181.
Law of Development of Capitalism	Also known as Theory of Accumulation and Theory of Surplus Value. The dynamic through which the capitalist class gains wealth by accumulating surplus value (i.e., profits) and then reinvesting it into more capital to gain even further wealth; thus the goal of the capitalist class is to accumulate more and more surplus value which leads to the development of capitalism. See p. 18.
Laws	In dialectical materialism, laws are the regular, common, obvious, natural, objective relations between internal aspects, factors, and attributes of a thing or phenomenon or between things and phenomena. See p. 162.
Laws of Nature	Laws that arise in the natural world, including within the human body (and are never products of human conscious activities). Such law includes the laws of physics, chemistry, and other natural phenomena which govern the material world. See p. 162, 213.
Laws of Society	Laws of human activity in social relations; such laws are unable to manifest beyond the conscious activities of humans, but they are still objective. See p. 162–163.
Laws of Human Thought	Laws which govern the intrinsic relationships between concepts, categories, judgments, inference, and the development process of human rational awareness. See p. 163.
Life-Process	Processes of motion and change which occur within organisms to sustain life. See p. 69–72, 79, 88.
Ludwig Feuerbach	(1804 — 1872) German philosophy professor, materialist philosopher; Marx and Engels drew many of their ideas from the works of Feuerbach (whom they also criticized). See p. 8, 11–13, 21, 55, 74, 80, 114, 205, 237.
M→→C→→M’	The mode of circulation described by Marx as existing under capitalism, in which capitalists spend money to buy commodities (including the commodified labor of workers), with the intention of selling those commodities for more money than they began with. The capitalist has no direct relationship to the commodity being produced and sold, and the capitalist is solely interested in obtaining more money. See p. 16. See also: C→M→C
Machism	See: Empirio-Criticism.
Manifestation	How a given thing, phenomenon, or idea is expressed externally in the material world. See p. 115.
Marxism-Leninism	A system of scientific opinions and theories focused on liberating the working class from capitalism and achieving a stateless, classless, communist society. The core ideas of this system were first developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, then defended and further developed by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. See. p. 1.
Material Conditions	The material external environment in which humans live, including the natural environment, the means of production and the economic base of human society, objective social relations, and other externalities and systems which affect human life and human society. See p. 6, 22, 40–42, 70–72, 80–81, 87, 92–95, 116–118, 161, 174, 179, 181, 206–207, 210, 229.
Material Production Activity	Material production activity is the first and most basic form of praxis. In this form of praxis activity, humans use tools through labor processes to influence the natural world in order to create wealth and material resources and to develop the conditions necessary to maintain our existence and development. See p. 206–208.
Materialism	A philosophical position that holds that the material world exists outside of the mind, and that human ideas and thoughts stem from observation and sense experience of this external world. Materialism rejects the idealist notion that truth can only be sought solely through reasoning and human consciousness. See p. 10–13, 48.
Materialist Dialectics	A scientific system of philosophy concerned with motion, development, and common relationships, and with the most common rules of motion and development of nature, society, and human thought. See p. 10, 21, 45–47, 98202, 227, 237.
Matter	A philosophical category denoting things and phenomena, existing in objective external reality, which human beings access through our sense perceptions. See p. 26, 27, 32, 48, 51–52, 53–69, 72, 88–95, 97, 103, 164–165.
Means of Production	Physical inputs and systems used in the production of goods and services, including: machinery, factory buildings, tools, equipment, and anything else used in producing goods and services. See p. 2–3, 7, 14–16.
Mechanical Motion	Changes in positions of objects in space. See p. 61.
Mechanical Philosophy	A scientific and philosophical movement popular in the 17^th century which explored mechanical machines and compared natural phenomena to mechanical devices, resulting in a belief that all things — including living organisms — were built as (and could theoretically be built by humans as) mechanical devices.
Mental Reflection	Reactions which occur in animals with central nervous systems. Mental reflections occur through conditioned reflex mechanisms through learning. See p. 65, 68, 224.
Metaphysical Materialism	Metaphysical materialism was strongly influenced by the metaphysical, mechanical thinking of mechanical philosophy, which was a scientific and philosophical movement which explored mechanical machines and compared natural phenomena to mechanical devices. Metaphysical materialists believed that all change can exist only as an increase or decrease in quantity, brought about by external causes.
Metaphysics	A branch of philosophy that attempts to explain the fundamental nature of reality. Metaphysical philosophy has taken many forms through the centuries, but one common shortcoming of metaphysical thought is a tendency to view things and ideas in a static, abstract manner. Generally speaking, metaphysics presents nature as a collection of objects and phenomena which are isolated from one another and fundamentally unchanging. See p. 52.
Methodology	A system of reasoning: the ideas and rules that guide humans to research, build, select, and apply the most suitable methods in both perception and practice. Methodologies can range from very specific to broadly general, with philosophical methodology being the most general scope of methodology. See p. 44.
Mode	The way or manner in which something occurs or exists. See p. 19–20.
Mode of Existence of Matter	Refers to how matter exists in our universe; specifically, matter exists in our motion in a mode of motion. See p. 59.
Motion	Also known as “change;” motion/change occurs as a result of the mutual impacts which occur between two things, phenomena, or ideas in relation with one another. See p. 23, 47, 59–63. 74, 106–107, 122–127, 145, 163–165, 169-173-186, 197, 201–202.
Motion in Equilibrium	Motion in equilibrium is motion that has not changed the positions, forms, and/or structures of things. Motion in Equlibrium is only ever temporary in nature; all motion will eventually lead to changes in position, form, and/or structure. See p. 62.
Narodnik	Agrarian socialist movement of the 1860s and 70s in the Russian Empire, composed of peasants who rose up in a failed campaign against the Czar. See p. 29–30.
Natural law	See: Laws of Nature.
Natural Science	Science which deals with the natural world, including chemistry, biology, physics, geology, etc. See p. 13, 19, 26, 103.
Negation	The development process through which two contradicting objects mutually develop one another until one is overtaken by the other. In dialectical materialism, negation takes the form of dialectical negation. See p. 123, 175176, 183, 185–202.
New Economic Policy	Also known as the NEP; this early Soviet policy was devised as Vladimir Illyich Lenin to be a temporary economic system that would allow a market economy and capitalism to exist within Russia, alongside state-owned business ventures, all firmly under the control of the working-classdominated state. See p. 33–34.
Objective Dialectics	The dialectical processes which occur in the material world, including all of the motion, relationships, and dynamic changes which occur in space and time. See p. 98, 102–103, 182.
Objective Existence	Existence which manifests outside of and independently of human consciousness, whether humans can perceive it or not. See p. 50, 58, 228.
Objective Idealism	A form of idealism which asserts that the ideal and consciousness are the primary existence, while also positing that the ideal and consciousness are objective, and that they exist independently of nature and humans. See p. 50.
Objectiveness	An abstract concept that refers to the relative externality of all things, phenomena, and ideas. Every thing, phenomena and idea exists externally to every other thing, phenomena, and idea. This means that to each individual subject, all other subjects exist as external objects. See p. 111–114, 124.
Obviousness	See: Obviousness and Randomness
Obviousness and Randomness (Category Pair)	The philosophical category of Obviousness refers to events that occur because of the essential internal aspects of a subject which become reasons for certain results in certain conditions: the obvious has to happen in a certain way, it can’t happen any other way. The Randomness category refers to things that happen because of external reasons: things that happen, essentially, by chance, due to impacts from many external relations. A random outcome may occur or it may not occur, and may occur in many different ways. Obviousness and Randomness have a dialectical relationship with one another. See p. 144–146.
Opportunism	A system of political opinions with no direction, no clear path, and/or no coherent viewpoint, focusing on whatever actions or decisions might be beneficial for the opportunist in the short term. See p. 174.
Opposites	Such aspects, properties and tendencies of motion which oppose one another, yet are, simultaneously, conditions and premises of the existence of one another. See p. 61, 175–179, 181, 184, 190, 227.
Ordinary Consciousness	Perception that is formed passively, stemming from the daily activities of humans. See p. 210–216.
Period of Motion	Development which occurs between two quality shifts, including the quality shifts themselves. See p. 170.
Perspective	See: Viewpoint.
Petty Bourgeoisie	Semi-autonomous merchants, farmers, and so on who are self-employed, own small and limited means of production, or otherwise fall in between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Also called the petite bourgeoisie. See p. 3–6.
Petty Commodity Production	See: Simple Commodity Production.
Phenomena	Anything that is observable by the human senses. See p. 156. See also: Essence and Phenomena.
Physical Motion	Motion of molecules, electrons, fundamental particles, thermal processes, electricity, etc., in time and space. See p. 61.
Physical Reflection	Reflection which occurs any time two material objects interact and the features of the objects are transferred to one other. See p. 67–68.
Point of View	See: Viewpoint.
Populism	The political philosophy of the Narodnik movement; this political philosophy was focused on bringing about an agrarian peasant revolution led by intellectuals with the ambition of going directly from a feudal society to a socialist society built from rural communes. Populism overtly opposed Marxism and dialectical materialism and was based on subjective idealist utopianism. See p. 30.
Positivism	The belief that we can test scientific knowledge through scientific methods, and through logic, math, etc.; positivism tends to overlap significantly with empiricism in theory and practice. See p. 32, 209.
Possibility	See: Possibility and Reality.
Possibility and Reality (Category Pair)	The philosophical category of Possibility refers to things that have not happened nor existed in reality yet, but that would happen, or would exist given necessary conditions. The philosophical category of Reality refers to things that exist or have existed in reality and in human thought. See p. 160–162.
Practice	See: Praxis.
Pragmatism	Pragmatism refers to a form of subjectivism in which one centers one’s own immediate material concerns over all other considerations. See p. 218.
Praxis	Conscious activity which improves our understanding, and which has purpose and historical-social characteristics. Used interchangeably with the word “practice” in this text. See p. 205–206, 235.
Prejudice	See: Conservatism.
Primary and Secondary Contradictions	In the development of things, phenomena, and ideas, there are many development stages. In each stage of development, there will be one contradiction which drives the development process. This is what we call the primary contradiction. Secondary contradictions include all the other contradictions which exist during that stage of development. Determining whether a contradiction is primary or secondary is relative, and it depends heavily upon the material conditions and the situation being analyzed. See p. 178–179.
Primary Existence	Existence which precedes and determines other existences; materialists believe that the external material world is the primary existence which determines the ideal, while idealists believe that human consciousness (“the ideal”) is the primary existence from which truth is ultimately derived. See p. 50–51.
Primitive Materialism	An early form of materialism which recognizes that matter is the primary existence, and holds that the world is composed of certain elements, and that these were the first objects — the origin — of the world, and that these elements are the essence of reality. This was later developed into Metaphysical Materialism and, later, Dialectical Materialism. See p. 52.
Principle of General Relationships	A principle of dialectical materialism which states that all things, phenomena, and ideas are related to one another, and are defined by these internal and external relationships. See p. 106–107, 110, 114.
Private	See: Private and Common
Private and Common (Category Pair)	The Private philosophical category encompasses specific things, phenomena, and ideas; the Common philosophical category defines the common aspects, attributes, factors, and relations that exist in many things and phenomena. Private and Common are relative in nature and have a dialectical relationship with one another. See p. 128–138.
Private Laws	Laws which apply only to a specific range of things and phenomena, i.e.: laws of mechanical motion, laws of chemical motion, laws of biological motion, etc. See p. 162.
Production Force	The combination of the means of production and workers within human society. See p. 6, 23, 36.
Proletariat	The people who provide labor under capitalism; the proletariat do not own their own means of production, and must therefore sell their labor to those who do own means of production; also called the Working Class. See also: Bourgeoisie, Petty Bourgeoisie. See p. 1–8, 22–23, 25–26, 29–31, 33–35, 40–41, 63, 231.
Quality	The unity of component parts, taken together, which defines a subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. See p. 119–121.
Quality Shift	A change in quality which takes place in the motion and development process of things, phenomena, and ideas, occurring when quantity change meets a certain perceived threshold. See p. 124, 153, 164, 168–174.
Quantity	The total amount of component parts that compose a subject. See p. 119–121.
Quantity range	The range of quantity changes which can accumulate without leading to change in quality related to any given thing, phenomenon, or idea. See p. 168–171.
Quintessence	Original Vietnamese word: tinh hoa. Literally, it means “the best, highest, most beautiful, defining characteristics” of a concept, and, unlike the English word quintessence, it has an exclusively positive connotation. See p. 8, 21, 43, 45, 52.
Randomness	See: Obviousness and Randomness.
Rational Consciousness	The higher stage of the cognitive process, which includes the indirect, abstract, and generalized reflection of the essential properties and characteristics of things and phenomena. This stage of consciousness performs the most important function of comprehending and interpreting the essence of the perceived subject. See p. 219–225.
Reason	See: Reason and Result
Reality	See: Possibility and Reality.
Reason and Result (Category Pair)	The Reason philosophical category is used to define the mutual impacts between internal aspects of a thing, phenomenon or idea, or between things, phenomena, or ideas, that bring about changes. The Result philosophical category defines the changes that were caused by mutual impacts which occur between aspects and factors within a thing, phenomenon, or idea, or externally between different things, phenomena, or ideas. Not to be confused with the metaphysical concept of “cause and effect,” which attributes a single cause to any given effect. See p. 138–144.
Reasoning	The final phase of rational consciousness, formed on the basis of synthesizing judgments so as to extrapolate new knowledge about the perceived subject. See p. 223–225, 228–229.
Reflection	The re-creation of the features of one form of matter in a different form of matter which occurs when they mutually impact each other through interaction. See p. 64–75, 79–80, 90–92, 103, 165, 208–211, 214–215, 219–224, 228, 232, 237.
Relative and Absolute	“Absolute” and “Relative” are philosophical classifications which refer to interdependence: That which is absolute exists independently and with permanence. That which is relative is temporary, and dependent on other conditions or circumstances in order to exist. See p. 56, 233. See also: Absolute Truth, Relative Truth, Relativism, Truth.
Relative Truth	Truth which has developed alignment with reality without yet having reached complete alignment between human knowledge and the reality which it reflects; knowledge which incompletely reflects material subjects without complete accuracy. See p. 230, 232. See also: Absolute Truth, Relative and Absolute, Relativism, Truth.
Relativism	A position that all truth is relative and that nothing can ever be absolutely, objectively known; that only Relative Truth can be found in our existence. See p. 56–58, 233–234. See also: Absolute Truth, Relative and Absolute, Relative Truth, Truth.
René Descartes	(1596 — 1650) French metaphysical philosopher who developed early methods of scientific inquiry. See p. 20, 53.
Result	See: Reason and Result.
Richard Avenarius	(1843 — 1896) German-Swiss philosopher who developed a system of subjective idealism known as “Empirio-Criticism.” See p. 27–29.
Rigidity	An unwillingness to alter one’s thoughts, holding too stiffly to established consciousness and knowledge, and ignoring practical experience and observation, which leads to stagnation of both knowledge and consciousness. See p. 217–218.
Robert Owen	(1771 — 1858) Wealthy Welsh textile manufacturer who tried to build a better society for workers in New Hampshire, Indiana, in the USA by purchasing the town of New Harmony in 1825. Owen’s vision failed after two years, though many other wealthy capitalists in the early 19^th century were inspired by Owen to try similar plans, which also failed.
Scientific	An adjective which describes methodologies, approaches, and practices of gaining knowledge and insight which are methodological and/or systematic in nature. See p. 1–2.
Scientific Consciousness	Conscious activities which actively gather information from the methodological and/or systematic observations of the characteristics, nature, and inherent relationships of research subjects. Scientific consciousness is considered indirect because it takes place outside of the course of ordinary daily activities. See p. 58, 210, 212, 215–216.
Scientific	Experimental Human activities that resemble or replicate states of nature and society
Activity	in order to determine the laws of change and development of subjects of study. This form of activity plays an important role in the development of society, especially in the current historical period of modern science and technological revolution. See p. 206–208.
Scientific Materialist Viewpoint	A perspective which begins analysis of the world in a manner that is both scientifically systematic in pursuit of understanding and firmly rooted in a materialist conception of the world. See p. 105.
Scientific Socialism	A body of theory and knowledge (which must be constantly tested against reality) focused on the practical pursuit of changing the world to bring about socialism through the leadership of the proletariat. See p. 1–2, 21, 37–39.
Scientific Worldview	A worldview that is expressed by a systematic pursuit of knowledge that generally and correctly reflects the relationships of things, phenomena, and processes in the objective material world, including relationships between humans, as well as relationships between humans and the world. See p. 3839, 44–45, 48.
Second International	Founded in Paris in 1889 to continue the work of the First International; it fell apart in 1916 because members from different nations could not maintain solidarity through the outbreak of World War I. See p. 35, 174.
Self-motion	In the original Vietnamese, the word “tự vận động.” Literally meaning: “it moves itself.” See p. 59–60, 124.
Sensation	The subjective reflection of the objective world in human consciousness as perceived through human senses. See p. 27, 56–58, 68–69, 72, 85, 221–222.
Sensuous Human Activity; Sensuous Activity	A description of human activity developed by Marx which acknowledges that all human activity is simultaneously active in the sense that our conscious activity can transform the world, as well as passive in the sense in that all human thoughts fundamentally derive from observation and sense experience of the material world. See p. 13.
Simple Commodity Production	What Marx called the “C→M→C” mode of circulation. See p. 16–18.
Simple Exchange	When individual producers trade the products they have made directly, themselves, for other commodities. See p. 16–17.
Social Being	The material existence of human society, as opposed to social consciousness. See also: Base. See p. 24, 54–55.
Social Consciousness	The collective experience of consciousness shared by members of a society, including ideological, cultural, spiritual, and legal beliefs and ideas which are shared within that society, as opposed to social being. See p. 22, 24, 32, 54–55, 80. See also: Superstructure.
Social Motion	Changes in the economy, politics, culture, and social life of human beings. See p. 61–62.
Socialization	The idea that human society transforms labor and production from a solitary, individual act into a collective, social act. In other words, as human society progresses, people “socialize” labor into increasingly complex networks of social relations: from individuals making their own tools, to agricultural societies engaged in collective farming, to modern industrial societies with factories, logistical networks, etc. See p. 6, 36.
Socialized Production Force	A production force which has been socialized — that is to say, a production force which has been organized into collective social activity. See p. 6.
Socio-Political Activity	Praxis activity utilized by various communities and organizations in human society to transform political-social relations in order to promote social development. See p. 206–208.
Solipsism	A form of idealism in which one believes that the self is the only basis for truth. See p. 218.
Sophistry	The use of misleading arguments, usually with the intention of deception, with a tendency of presenting non-critical aspects of a subject matter as critical, to serve a particular agenda. The word comes from the Sophists, a group of professional teachers in Ancient Greece, who were criticized by Socrates (in Plato’s’ dialogues) for being shrewd and deceptive rhetoricians. See p. 32–33, 56, 118, 182, 194.
Stage of Development	The current quantity and quality characteristics which a thing, phenomenon, or object possesses. Every time a quality change occurs, a new stage of development is entered into. See p. 24, 39, 125, 173–174, 179, 190, 196–197, 200, 212, 221.
Stagnation	An inability or unwillingness to change and adapt consciousness and practice in accordance with developing material conditions. Stagnation can stem from, or cause, overstatement of absolute truth in theory and forestall necessary development of both consciousness and practical ability. See p. 125, 218, 233. See also: Rigidity.
Struggle of Opposites	The tendency of opposites to eliminate and negate each other. See p. 61, 181, 184.
Subjective Factors	Factors which, from the perspective of a given subject, that same subject is capable of impacting. See p. 162–163, 175, 202.
Subjective Dialectics; Dialectical Thought	A system of analysis and organized thinking which aims to reflect the objective dialectics of the material world within human consciousness. Dialectical thinking has two component forms: dialectical materialism and materialist dialectics. See: p. 98–99, 103.
Subjective Idealism	Subjective idealism asserts that consciousness is the primary existence and that truth can be obtained only or primarily through conscious activity and reasoning. Subjective idealism asserts that all things and phenomena can only be experienced as subjective sensory perceptions, with some forms of subjective idealism even explicitly denying the objective existence of material reality altogether. See also: Empirio-Criticism, Objective Idealism. See p. 26–27, 50.
Subjectivism	A philosophical position in which one centers one’s own self and conscious activities in perspective and worldview, failing to test their own perceptions against material and social reality. See p. 56, 182, 217–218, 233–234.
Suitability	The applicability of a subject for a specific application or role. See p. 154.
Superstructure	The ideal (non-material) components of human society, including: media institutions, music, and art, as well as other cultural elements like religion, customs, moral standards, and everything else which manifests primarily through conscious activity and social relations. See p. 23. See also: Base.
Surplus Value	The extra amount of value a capitalist is able to secure by exploiting wagelabourers (by paying workers less than the full value of their labour). Workers will spend part of their workday reproducing their own labourpower (through earning enough to eat, secure shelter and other cultural needs) and the rest of the time will be spent producing surplus value which is then appropriated by the capitalist as profit. See p. 18, 22–23, 39.
Symbolization	The representation of an objective thing or phenomenon in human consciousness which has been reflected by sensation and conception. See p. 221–222.
Systematic Structure	A structure which includes within itself a system of component parts and relationships. See p. 114.
Theoretical Consciousness	The indirect, abstract, systematic level of perception in which the nature and laws of things and phenomena are generalized and abstracted. See p. 210–214, 217–218.
Theoretical Knowledge	Knowledge which is abstract and generalized, resulting from theoretical conscious activities which include repeated and varied observations. See p. 214, 217.
Theory	An idea or system of ideas intended to explain an aspect, characteristic, or tendency of objective reality. See p. 235.
Theory of Accumulation/Surplus Value	See: Law of Development of Capitalism.
Thing-in-Itself	The actual material object which exists outside of our consciousness, as it exists outside of our consciousness. See p. 72–74, 101, 158.
Third International	Also known as the Communist International (or the ComIntern for short); founded in Moscow in 1919, its goals were to overthrow capitalism, build socialism, and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. It was dissolved in 1943 in the midst of the German invasion of Russia in World War II. See p. 35.
Three Component Parts	The three essential elements of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, first identified of Marxism-Leninism by Lenin in The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism. 1. The Philosophy of Marxism. 2. The Political Economy of Marxism. 3. Scientific Socialism.See p. 21, 32, 34, 38.
Threshold	The amount, or degree, of quantity change at which quality change occurs. Truth is primarily discovered through labor and practice in the physical world. See p. 120, 168–169, 171, 173.
Truth	A correct and accurate conscious reflection of objective reality. See p. 9–10, 49, 56, 70, 75, 94–96, 194, 204, 209, 215–219, 225–237. See also: Labor, Practice.
Unconditioned Reflex	Reactions which are not learned, but simply occur automatically based on physiological mechanisms occurring within an organism, characterized by permanent connections between sensory perceptions and reactions. See p. 66, 68.
Unilateral Consideration	The consideration of a subject from one side only. See p. 49.
Unintelligibility	A philosophical position which denies the human cognitive capacity to accurately perceive the external material world. See p. 48.
Unique Relationship	The least general form of relationship, which only occur between two specific things/phenomena/ideas. See p. 109, 130.
Unity in Diversity	A concept in materialist dialectics which holds that within universal relationships exist within and between all different things, phenomena, and ideas, we will find that each individual manifestation of any universal relationship will have its own different manifestations, aspects, features, etc. Thus even the universal relationships which unite all things, phenomena, and ideas exist in infinite diversity. See p. 42, 110–111, 114, 125, 130.
Universal Law of Consciousness	A universal law which holds that consciousness is a process of dialectical development in which practical activity leads to conscious activity, which then leads back to practical activity, in a continuous and never-ending cycle, with a tendency to develop both practical and conscious activity to increasingly higher levels. See p. 219.
Universal Laws	Laws that impact every aspect of nature, society, and human thought. Materialist dialectics is the study of these universal laws. See p. 15, 162–163, 227.
Universal Relationship	The most general kind of relationship; relationships that exist between and within every thing and all phenomena; along with development, universal relationships are one of the two primary subjects of study of materialist dialectics. See p. 80, 108, 109, 111, 165.
Use Value	A concept in classical political economy and Marxist economics which refers to tangible features of a commodity (a tradable object) that can fulfill some human requirement or desire, or which serve a useful purpose. See p. 15–18, 95.
Utopianism	1. A political and philosophical movement which held the belief that “a New Moral World” of happiness, enlightenment, and prosperity could be created through education, science, technology, and communal living. See p. 18. 2. The idealist philosophical concept which mistakenly asserts that the ideal can determine the material, and that ideal forms of society can be brought about without regard for material conditions and development processes. See p. 8, 17–18, 30, 94.
Value-Form	Also known as “form of value;” the social form of a commodity. Under capitalism, through the exchange of qualitatively different commodities, the money form of value is established as the general equivalent which can functionally be exchanged for all other values; money is therefore the most universal value-form under capitalism. See p. 15, 17, 155.
Viewpoint	Also known as point of view or perspective; the starting point of analysis which determines the direction of thinking from which phenomena and problems are considered. See p. 12, 20–21, 23, 25, 26, 30, 32–33, 38–39, 5559, 62, 64, 89, 93–94, 105, 111, 114–120, 122, 125–126, 130, 143, 147, 150, 172, 185–188, 195, 200–201, 233–235. See also: Comprehensive Viewpoint, Historical Viewpoint.
Viewpoint Crisis	A situation in which a specific viewpoint can’t be settled on, found, or agreed upon. See p. 26, 32–33.
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin	(1870 -1924) A Russian theorist, politician, dialectical materialist philosopher, defender and developer of Marxism in the era of imperialism, founder of the Bolsheviks, the Communist Party and the government of the Soviet Union, leader of Russia and the international working class. Referenced throughout.
Working Class	See: Proletariat
Worldview	The whole of an individual’s or society’s opinions and conceptions about the world, about humans ourselves, and about life and the position of human beings in the world. See p. 1, 11, 37–39, 44–45, 48, 52, 96, 138, 201, 208–209, 218, 234. See also: Scientific Worldview.

File:T-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-2.png

For centuries, the banyan tree has been the symbol of communal life in Vietnam.

Traditionally, the entrance to a village is graced by a large and ancient banyan tree. It is in the shade of these trees that villagers gather to socialize, draw water from wells, and make collective decisions together. The drooping accessory trunks represent the longevity of villagers — and of the village itself — while the arching canopy represents the safety and protection of the village. The shape of the banyan tree is seen in the full moon, which casts peaceful light across the Earth to guide travelers in the dark of night.

Vietnam’s revolution against Japanese fascism and French colonialism began in 1945 beneath the cover of the Tân Trào Banyan Tree, which still stands in the city of Tuyên Quang.

It is in this deep-rooted, humanistic spirit of collective action that we founded Banyan House Publishing. We hope to deliver volumes which will inspire action and change throughout the village that is our world.

Visit us at:
BanyanHouse.org

File:T-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-103.png

↑ Karl Marx, 1818–1883 (German): Theorist, politician, dialectical materialist philosopher, political economist, founder of scientific socialism, leader of the international working class.
↑ Friedrich Engels, 1820–1895 (German): Theorist, politician, dialectical materialist philosopher, leader of the international working class, co-founder of scientific socialism with Karl Marx.
↑ Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1870–1924 (Russian): Theorist, politician, dialectical materialist philosopher, defender and developer of Marxism in the era of imperialism, founder of the Communist Party and the government of the Soviet Union, leader of Russia and the international working class.
↑ Material conditions include the natural environment, the means of production and the economic base of human society, objective social relations, and other externalities and systems which affect human life and human society. See Annotation 79, p. 81.
↑ Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, 1770 — 1831 (German): Philosophy professor, an objective idealistic philosopher — representative of German classical philosophy.
↑ Ludwig Feuerbach, 1804 — 1872 (German): Philosophy professor, materialist philosopher.
↑ The Holy Family is a book co-written by Marx and Engels which critiqued the Young Hegelians, including Feuerbach.
↑ Adam Smith, 1723 — 1790 (British): Logic professor, moral philosophy professor, economist.
↑ David Ricardo, 1772 — 1823 (British): Economist.
↑ Claude Henri de Rouvroy Saint Simon, 1760 — 1825 (French): Philosopher, economist, utopianist activist.
↑ Charles Fourier, 1772 — 1837 (French): Philosopher, economist, utopianist activist.
↑ Robert Owen, 1771 — 1858 (British): Utopianist activist, owner of a cotton factory.
↑ The Law of Development of Capitalism referenced here is the Theory of Accumulation/Surplus Value, which holds that the capitalist class gains wealth by accumulating surplus value (i.e., profits) and then reinvesting it into more capital to gain even further wealth; thus the goal of the capitalist class is to accumulate more and more surplus value which leads to the development of capitalism. Over time, this deepens the contradictions of capitalism. This concept is related to the M→C→M mode of circulation, discussed in Annotation 14, p. 16, and is discussed in detail in Part 3 of the book this text is drawn from (Political Economy) which we hope to translate in the future.
↑ Das Kapital: Karl Marx’s most important contribution to political economy. It is composed of four volumes. It is the work of Marx’s whole career and an important part of Engels’ career, as well. Marx started writing Das Kapital in the 1840s and continued writing until he died (1883). Das Kapital I was published in 1867. After Marx’s death, Engels edited and published the second volume in 1885 and the third volume in 1894. The Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the USSR edited and published Das Kapital IV, also known as Theories of Surplus-Value, in the 1950s, long after the death of Marx and Engels.
↑ Populist faction: A faction within the Russian revolution which upheld an idealist capitalist ideology with many representatives such as Mikhailovsky, Bakunin, and Plekhanov. Populists failed to recognise the important roles of the people, of the farmers and workers alliance, and of the proletariat. Instead, they completely centered the role of the individual in society. They considered the rural communes as the nucleus of “socialism.” They saw farmers under the leadership of intellectuals as the main force of the revolution. The populists advocated individual terrorism as the primary method of revolutionary struggle.
↑ Delegate Document of the 11^th National Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam.
↑ Delegate document of the 9^th national congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam.
↑ Delegate document of the 10^th national congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam.
↑ See Annotation 6, p. 8.
↑ The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1913.
↑ Karl Marx, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1914.
↑ Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, Friedrich Engels, 1886.
↑ According to the Samkhya school, Pradhana is the original form of matter in an unmanifested,indifferentiated state; Prakriti is manifested matter, differentiated in form, which contains potential for motion.
↑ Thales, ~642 — ~547 B.C. (Greek): Philosopher, mathematician, astronomer, politician.
↑ Anaximene, ~585 — ~525 B.C. (Greek): Philosopher.
↑ Heraclitus, ~540 — ~480 B.C. (Greek): Philosopher, founder of ancient dialectics.
↑ Democritus, ~460 — ~370 B.C. (Greek): Philosopher, naturalist, a founder of atom theory.
↑ Francis Bacon, 1561 — 1626 (British): Philosopher, novelist, mathematician, political activist.
↑ Rene Descartes, 1596 — 1650 (Fench): Philosopher, mathematician, physicist.
↑ Thomas Hobbes, 1588 — 1679 (British): Political philosopher, political activist.
↑ Denis Diderot, 1713 — 1784 (French): Philosopher, novelist.
↑ Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen, 1845–1923 (German): Physicist.
↑ Henri Becquerel, 1852–1908 (French): Physicist.
↑ Sir Joseph John Thomson, 1856–1940 (British): Physicist, professor at London Royal Institute.
↑ In the original Vietnamese, the word tự vận động is used here, which we roughly translate to the word self-motion throughout this book. Literally, tự vận động means: “it moves itself.”
↑ Source: “Food for Thought: Was Cooking a Pivotal Step in Human Evolution?” by Alexandra Rosati, Scientific American, February 26, 2018.
↑ Written by Professor Tracy L. Kivell and published in The Royal Society.
↑ Stone Tools Helped Shape Human Hands by Sara Reardon, published in New Scientist Magazine.
↑ The German Ideology, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, 1846.
↑ See Annotation 3, p. 2 and Annotation 29, p. 24.
↑ For a discussion of the material basis of social laws, see Annotation 10, p. 10, Annotation 78, p. 80, and Annotation 79, p. 81.
↑ See: Annotation 72, p. 68.
↑ See: Annotation 90, p. 88.
↑ See: The Role of Matter in Consciousness, p. 89.
↑ See: The Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness, p. 88.
↑ See:Annotation 68, p. 65.
↑ See: Nature and Structure of Consciousness, p. 79.
↑ See: Annotation 93, below.
↑ See: Annotation 10, p. 10.
↑ For discussion of the meaning of methodology, see Methodology, p. 44.
↑ See: Nature of Consciousness, p. 79.
↑ See: The Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness, p. 88.
↑ See: Annotation 211, p. 205.
↑ See: Annotation 114, p. 116.
↑ See: Nature and Structure of Consciousness, p. 79.
↑ See: Annotation 222, p. 218.
↑ See: The Opposition of Materialism and Idealism in Solving Basic Philosophical Issues, p. 48.
↑ See: Annotation 10, p. 10.
↑ See: Annotation 232 and The Properties of Truth, on p. 228.
↑ See: Praxis, Consciousness, and the Role of Praxis in Consciousness, p. 204.
↑ Karl Marx, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1914.
↑ See Annotation 9, p. 10.
↑ Dialectics of Nature, Friedrich Engels, 1883.
↑ Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Friedrich Engels, 1880.
↑ The Old Preface to Anti-Dühring, Friedrich Engels, 1878.
↑ The Old Preface to Anti-Dühring, Friedrich Engels, 1878.
↑ Kant’s “transcendental dialectic” was used to critique rationalism and pure reason, but was not a fully developed dialectical system of thought. Hegel’s idealist dialectics were more universal in nature. See Annotation 9, p. 10.
↑ The Old Preface to Anti-Dühring, On Dialectics, Friedrich Engels, 1878.
↑ Conspectus of Hegel’s Science of Logic, Vladimir Ilyich. Lenin, 1914.
↑ Afterword to the Second German Edition of Capital Volume I, Karl Marx, 1873.
↑ Anti-Dühring, The 1885 Preface, Friedrich Engels, 1878.
↑ Anti-Dühring, Friedrich Engels, 1878.
↑ See p. 107.
↑ Dialectics of Nature, Friedrich Engels, 1883.
↑ See Annotation 117, p. 119.
↑ The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1913.
↑ See Annotation 98, p. 100.
↑ See Private and Common, p. 128; Essence and Phenomenon, p. 156.
↑ See Annotation 117, p. 119.
↑ See Annotation 190, p. 181.
↑ See Annotation 108, p. 112.
↑ See p. 108.
↑ Once Again On The Trade Unions, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1921.
↑ See: Annotation 108, p. 112.
↑ See: Annotation 106, p. 109.
↑ See: Annotation 107, p. 110.
↑ Once Again On The Trade Unions, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1921. See also: Mode and Forms of Matter, p. 59.
↑ See Annotation 62, p. 59.
↑ Once Again On The Trade Unions, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1921.
↑ On the Question of Dialectics, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1915.
↑ Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Friedrich Engels, 1880.
↑ Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, Friedrich Engels, 1886.
↑ See Annotation 10, p. 10 and Annotation 108, p. 112.
↑ Philosophical Notebooks, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1914–16.
↑ Philosophical Notebooks, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1914–16.
↑ To N. D. Kiknadze, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, written after November 5, 1916.
↑ Anti-Dühring, Friedrich Engels, 1878.
↑ See Annotation 108, p. 112.
↑ See Annotation 207, p. 202.
↑ Summary of Dialectics, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1914.
↑ Anti-Dühring, Friedrich Engels, 1877.
↑ On the Questions of Dialectics, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1915.
↑ On the Questions of Dialectics, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1915.
↑ On the Questions of Dialectics, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1915.
↑ On the Questions of Dialectics, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1915.
↑ Conspectus of Hegel’s Science of Logic, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1914.
↑ Conspectus of Hegel’s Science of Logic, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1914.
↑ Karl Marx, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1914.
↑ Anti-Dühring, Friedrich Engels, 1878.
↑ Theses On Feuerbach, Karl Marx, 1845.
↑ Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1908.
↑ Conspectus of Hegel’s Science of Logic, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1914.
↑ Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1908.
↑ Once Again On The Trade Unions, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1921.
↑ Revolutionary Ethics, Ho Chi Minh, December 1958.
↑ Note: Absolute Truth in dialectical materialist philosophy should not be confused with Hegel’s conception of Absolute Truth as a final point at which human consciousness will have achieved absolute, complete, and final understanding of our universe.

[1] Karl Marx, 1818–1883 (German): Theorist, politician, dialectical materialist philosopher, political economist, founder of scientific socialism, leader of the international working class.

[2] Friedrich Engels, 1820–1895 (German): Theorist, politician, dialectical materialist philosopher, leader of the international working class, co-founder of scientific socialism with Karl Marx.

[3] Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1870–1924 (Russian): Theorist, politician, dialectical materialist philosopher, defender and developer of Marxism in the era of imperialism, founder of the Communist Party and the government of the Soviet Union, leader of Russia and the international working class.

[4] Material conditions include the natural environment, the means of production and the economic base of human society, objective social relations, and other externalities and systems which affect human life and human society. See Annotation 79, p. 81.

[5] Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, 1770 — 1831 (German): Philosophy professor, an objective idealistic philosopher — representative of German classical philosophy.

[6] Ludwig Feuerbach, 1804 — 1872 (German): Philosophy professor, materialist philosopher.

[7] The Holy Family is a book co-written by Marx and Engels which critiqued the Young Hegelians, including Feuerbach.

[8] Adam Smith, 1723 — 1790 (British): Logic professor, moral philosophy professor, economist.

[9] David Ricardo, 1772 — 1823 (British): Economist.

[10] Claude Henri de Rouvroy Saint Simon, 1760 — 1825 (French): Philosopher, economist, utopianist activist.

[11] Charles Fourier, 1772 — 1837 (French): Philosopher, economist, utopianist activist.

[12] Robert Owen, 1771 — 1858 (British): Utopianist activist, owner of a cotton factory.

[13] The Law of Development of Capitalism referenced here is the Theory of Accumulation/Surplus Value, which holds that the capitalist class gains wealth by accumulating surplus value (i.e., profits) and then reinvesting it into more capital to gain even further wealth; thus the goal of the capitalist class is to accumulate more and more surplus value which leads to the development of capitalism. Over time, this deepens the contradictions of capitalism. This concept is related to the M→C→M mode of circulation, discussed in Annotation 14, p. 16, and is discussed in detail in Part 3 of the book this text is drawn from (Political Economy) which we hope to translate in the future.

[14] Das Kapital: Karl Marx’s most important contribution to political economy. It is composed of four volumes. It is the work of Marx’s whole career and an important part of Engels’ career, as well. Marx started writing Das Kapital in the 1840s and continued writing until he died (1883). Das Kapital I was published in 1867. After Marx’s death, Engels edited and published the second volume in 1885 and the third volume in 1894. The Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the USSR edited and published Das Kapital IV, also known as Theories of Surplus-Value, in the 1950s, long after the death of Marx and Engels.

[15] Populist faction: A faction within the Russian revolution which upheld an idealist capitalist ideology with many representatives such as Mikhailovsky, Bakunin, and Plekhanov. Populists failed to recognise the important roles of the people, of the farmers and workers alliance, and of the proletariat. Instead, they completely centered the role of the individual in society. They considered the rural communes as the nucleus of “socialism.” They saw farmers under the leadership of intellectuals as the main force of the revolution. The populists advocated individual terrorism as the primary method of revolutionary struggle.

[16] Delegate Document of the 11^th National Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam.

[17] Delegate document of the 9^th national congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam.

[18] Delegate document of the 10^th national congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam.

[19] See Annotation 6, p. 8.

[20] The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1913.

[21] Karl Marx, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1914.

[22] Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, Friedrich Engels, 1886.

[23] According to the Samkhya school, Pradhana is the original form of matter in an unmanifested,indifferentiated state; Prakriti is manifested matter, differentiated in form, which contains potential for motion.

[24] Thales, ~642 — ~547 B.C. (Greek): Philosopher, mathematician, astronomer, politician.

[25] Anaximene, ~585 — ~525 B.C. (Greek): Philosopher.

[26] Heraclitus, ~540 — ~480 B.C. (Greek): Philosopher, founder of ancient dialectics.

[27] Democritus, ~460 — ~370 B.C. (Greek): Philosopher, naturalist, a founder of atom theory.

[28] Francis Bacon, 1561 — 1626 (British): Philosopher, novelist, mathematician, political activist.

[29] Rene Descartes, 1596 — 1650 (Fench): Philosopher, mathematician, physicist.

[30] Thomas Hobbes, 1588 — 1679 (British): Political philosopher, political activist.

[31] Denis Diderot, 1713 — 1784 (French): Philosopher, novelist.

[32] Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen, 1845–1923 (German): Physicist.

[33] Henri Becquerel, 1852–1908 (French): Physicist.

[34] Sir Joseph John Thomson, 1856–1940 (British): Physicist, professor at London Royal Institute.

[35] In the original Vietnamese, the word tự vận động is used here, which we roughly translate to the word self-motion throughout this book. Literally, tự vận động means: “it moves itself.”

[36] Source: “Food for Thought: Was Cooking a Pivotal Step in Human Evolution?” by Alexandra Rosati, Scientific American, February 26, 2018.

[37] Written by Professor Tracy L. Kivell and published in The Royal Society.

[38] Stone Tools Helped Shape Human Hands by Sara Reardon, published in New Scientist Magazine.

[39] The German Ideology, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, 1846.

[40] See Annotation 3, p. 2 and Annotation 29, p. 24.

[41] For a discussion of the material basis of social laws, see Annotation 10, p. 10, Annotation 78, p. 80, and Annotation 79, p. 81.

[42] See: Annotation 72, p. 68.

[43] See: Annotation 90, p. 88.

[44] See: The Role of Matter in Consciousness, p. 89.

[45] See: The Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness, p. 88.

[46] See:Annotation 68, p. 65.

[47] See: Nature and Structure of Consciousness, p. 79.

[48] See: Annotation 93, below.

[49] See: Annotation 10, p. 10.

[50] For discussion of the meaning of methodology, see Methodology, p. 44.

[51] See: Nature of Consciousness, p. 79.

[52] See: The Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness, p. 88.

[53] See: Annotation 211, p. 205.

[54] See: Annotation 114, p. 116.

[55] See: Nature and Structure of Consciousness, p. 79.

[56] See: Annotation 222, p. 218.

[57] See: The Opposition of Materialism and Idealism in Solving Basic Philosophical Issues, p. 48.

[58] See: Annotation 10, p. 10.

[59] See: Annotation 232 and The Properties of Truth, on p. 228.

[60] See: Praxis, Consciousness, and the Role of Praxis in Consciousness, p. 204.

[61] Karl Marx, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1914.

[62] See Annotation 9, p. 10.

[63] Dialectics of Nature, Friedrich Engels, 1883.

[64] Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Friedrich Engels, 1880.

[65] The Old Preface to Anti-Dühring, Friedrich Engels, 1878.

[66] The Old Preface to Anti-Dühring, Friedrich Engels, 1878.

[67] Kant’s “transcendental dialectic” was used to critique rationalism and pure reason, but was not a fully developed dialectical system of thought. Hegel’s idealist dialectics were more universal in nature. See Annotation 9, p. 10.

[68] The Old Preface to Anti-Dühring, On Dialectics, Friedrich Engels, 1878.

[69] Conspectus of Hegel’s Science of Logic, Vladimir Ilyich. Lenin, 1914.

[70] Afterword to the Second German Edition of Capital Volume I, Karl Marx, 1873.

[71] Anti-Dühring, The 1885 Preface, Friedrich Engels, 1878.

[72] Anti-Dühring, Friedrich Engels, 1878.

[73] See p. 107.

[74] Dialectics of Nature, Friedrich Engels, 1883.

[75] See Annotation 117, p. 119.

[76] The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1913.

[77] See Annotation 98, p. 100.

[78] See Private and Common, p. 128; Essence and Phenomenon, p. 156.

[79] See Annotation 117, p. 119.

[80] See Annotation 190, p. 181.

[81] See Annotation 108, p. 112.

[82] See p. 108.

[83] Once Again On The Trade Unions, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1921.

[84] See: Annotation 108, p. 112.

[85] See: Annotation 106, p. 109.

[86] See: Annotation 107, p. 110.

[87] Once Again On The Trade Unions, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1921. See also: Mode and Forms of Matter, p. 59.

[88] See Annotation 62, p. 59.

[89] Once Again On The Trade Unions, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1921.

[90] On the Question of Dialectics, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1915.

[91] Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Friedrich Engels, 1880.

[92] Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, Friedrich Engels, 1886.

[93] See Annotation 10, p. 10 and Annotation 108, p. 112.

[94] Philosophical Notebooks, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1914–16.

[95] Philosophical Notebooks, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1914–16.

[96] To N. D. Kiknadze, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, written after November 5, 1916.

[97] Anti-Dühring, Friedrich Engels, 1878.

[98] See Annotation 108, p. 112.

[99] See Annotation 207, p. 202.

[100] Summary of Dialectics, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1914.

[101] Anti-Dühring, Friedrich Engels, 1877.

[102] On the Questions of Dialectics, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1915.

[103] On the Questions of Dialectics, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1915.

[104] On the Questions of Dialectics, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1915.

[105] On the Questions of Dialectics, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1915.

[106] Conspectus of Hegel’s Science of Logic, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1914.

[107] Conspectus of Hegel’s Science of Logic, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1914.

[108] Karl Marx, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1914.

[109] Anti-Dühring, Friedrich Engels, 1878.

[110] Theses On Feuerbach, Karl Marx, 1845.

[111] Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1908.

[112] Conspectus of Hegel’s Science of Logic, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1914.

[113] Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1908.

[114] Once Again On The Trade Unions, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1921.

[115] Revolutionary Ethics, Ho Chi Minh, December 1958.

[116] Note: Absolute Truth in dialectical materialist philosophy should not be confused with Hegel’s conception of Absolute Truth as a final point at which human consciousness will have achieved absolute, complete, and final understanding of our universe.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]

[79]

[80]

[81]

[82]

[83]

[84]

[85]

[86]

[87]

[88]

[89]

[90]

[91]

[92]

[93]

[94]

[95]

[96]

[97]

[98]

[99]

[100]

[101]

[102]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-#title 55555555555555555
+'''CURRICULUM OF'''<br />
-#lang en
+'''THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF MARXISM-LENINISM'''<br />
-#pubdate 2024-08-16T06:50:42
+'''PART 1'''
+'''THE WORLDVIEW AND PHILOSOPHICAL METHODOLOGY OF MARXISM-LENINISM'''
+''For University and College Students''
-* 111111
+''Not Specializing in Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh Thought''
-* X
+'''FIRST ENGLISH EDITION'''
-** [Front Matter]
+Translated and Annotated by Luna Nguyen
-*** [Title Page]
+Foreword by Dr. Vijay Prashad
-Atassa:
+Introduction by Dr. Taimur Rahman
-Readings in
+Edited, Annotated, and Illustrated by Emerican Johnson
-Ecoextremism
+Proofread by David Peat
-<strong>
+Additional Contributions and Editorial Support by Iskra Books
-<br></strong>
-Atassa #1 2016
+Published in association with ''The International Magazine''
-licensed under creative commons
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-2.png]]
-® @ (§)
+=== License ===
-<em>
+This work is licensed under a<br />
-<br></em>
+Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
-*** [Contents]
-Presentation the editors 1
+You are free to:
-The Flower Growing Out of the Underworld:
+'''Share''' — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
-An Introduction to Eco-extremism
+'''Adapt''' — remix, transform, and build upon the material
-Abe Cabrera 3
+The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
-The spilling of blood on the paths of “absolute truth” Orkelesh 13
+Under the following terms:
-Apostles and Heretics John Jacobi 15
+'''Attribution''' — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
-ITS: The Invisible Menace <em>Regresión</em> 35
+'''NonCommercial''' — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
-Sighs Lunas de abril 43
+'''ShareAlike''' — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
-Lessons Left by the Ancients:
+'''No additional restrictions''' — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
-The Battle of Little Big Horn <em>Regresión</em> 47
+The full text of this license is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
-The Return of the Warrior
+<br />
-Ramon Elani 53
+<blockquote>
+“Step by step, along the struggle, by studying Marxism-Leninism parallel with participation in practical activities, I gradually came upon the fact that only socialism and communism can liberate the oppressed nations and the working people throughout the world from slavery.”
-Atassa: Lessons of the Creek War (1813-1814)
+''- Ho Chi Minh''
+</blockquote>
-Abe Cabrera 77
+=== Support for This Work ===
-[[#bookmark50][The Seris, the Eco-extremists, and Nahualism Hast Hax 105]]
+Translating, annotating, and typesetting this book has taken three years, which would not have been possible without the support of our supporters on GoFundMe. GoFundMe is also the reason we are able to make the digital version of this entire text available for free online. We would therefore like to recognize all of our supporters:
-(Roma Infernetto-“Shit World”)
-To Profane and Devour
-A member of the Memento
-Mori Nihilist Sect 111
-<em>Regresión</em> #3 Editorial 115
-<br>
-Indiscriminate Anarchists
+{|
+| | ''Zach L.''
+| ''Jake B.''
+| ''Katia S.''
+| ''Jimi C.''
+|
+|-
+| | ''Kathryn S.''
+| ''Matthew S.''
+| ''Manuel V.''
+| ''Luiza S.''
+|
+|-
+| | ''Timothy P.''
+| ''Joshua E.''
+| ''Sarah K.''
+| ''Sarah F.''
+|
+|-
+| | ''De’Vonte'' ''T.''
+| ''Corey K.''
+| ''Aidan M.''
+| ''Danion S.''
+|
+|-
+| | ''Douglas H.''
+| ''Justin F.''
+| ''Blake P.''
+| ''Liam H.''
+|
+|-
+| | ''Ayodele E.''
+| ''Jesse T.''
+| ''Patrick O.''
+| ''Mendel A.''
+|
+|-
+| | ''Stephanie P.''
+| ''Christopher R.''
+| ''Daniel H.''
+| ''Marcos F. T.''
 |
+|-
+| | ''Bryan D.''
+| ''Helios A. C.''
+| ''Ryan P.''
+| ''Peter L.-D.''
 |
+|-
+| | ''Jeff H.''
+| ''Michael M.''
+| ''Matthew P.''
+| ''Abby L.''
-<br>
-Seminatore
 |
+|-
+| | ''Matheus G. P.''
+| ''Ellenore M.''
+| ''Duy V.''
+| ''Erin P.''
 |
+|-
+| | ''Luke F.''
+| ''Jason T.''
+| ''Georgio M.''
+| ''Astor C.''
-<br>
 |
+|-
+| | ''Ayo E.''
+| ''Michael E.''
+| ''Noah B.''
+| ''Alex E.''
 |
+|-
+| | ''David B. G.''
+| ''Heath H.''
+| ''Ian H.''
+| ''Simon L.''
+|
+|-
+| | ''Joel V.''
+| ''Boyles B.''
+| ''Jackson M.''
+| ''Andrew H.''
+|
+|-
+| | ''Jake B.''
+| ''Ashley C.''
+| ''Karen N.''
+| ''Robert D.''
+|
+|-
+| | ''K. Masunungure''
+| ''Daniel S.''
+| ''Mckenzie P.''
+| ''Chandler F.''
+|
+|-
+| | ''Daniel A.''
+| ''Aadil B.''
+| ''Julianna D. P.''
+| ''Audrey M.''
+|
+|-
+| | ''Ville I.''
+| ''Joshua R.''
+| ''Kyle R.''
+| ''Larry V. K. III''
+|
+|-
+| | ''Ariel G.''
+| ''Maximilian H.''
+| ''Peter F.''
+| ''Zero P.''
+|
+|-
+| | ''Aaron L.''
+| ''John P.''
+| ''Josh P.''
+| ''Daniel G.''
+|
+|-
+| | ''Jason T.''
+| ''John M.''
+| ''Kayla D.''
+| ''Dmitri S.''
+|
+|-
+| | ''Crescenzo P.''
+| ''Matthew L.''
+| ''Lindsay H.''
+| ''Jeremy A. C.''
+|
+|-
+| | ''Antonio R.''
+| ''Glenn A.''
+| ''Adam M.''
+| ''Anthony M.''
+|
+|-
+| | ''Roger W.''
+| ''Edward C.''
+| ''Dennis C.''
+| ''Amiad H.''
+|
+|-
+| | ''Hunter S.''
+| ''Caitlin B.''
+| ''Griffin M.''
+| ''Mat C.''
+|
+|-
+| | ''Joseph Z. B.''
+| ''Aaron W.''
+| ''Nicholas H.''
+| ''Pastor J.''
+|
+|-
+| | ''Cam S.''
+| ''Benjamin S.''
+| ''Brandon H.''
+| ''Richard M.''
+|
+|-
+| | ''Adam K.''
+| ''Michael C.''
+| ''Ashley E.''
+| ''Robert D.''
+|
+|-
+| | ''Olga C.''
+| ''Megan B.''
+| ''Simon C.''
+| ''Alexandria J.''
+|
+|-
+| | ''Roberto P.''
+| ''Manuel G. F.''
+| ''Jonis F.''
+| ''Darsius'' ''ACAB''
+|
+|-
+| | ''Gerard D.''
+| ''Sam W.''
+| ''John G.''
+| ''Anna N.''
+|
+|-
+| | ''Voltie'' ''M.''
+| ''James H.''
+| ''Eric R.''
+| ''Anthony Z.''
+|
+|-
+| | ''Kaylee C.''
+| ''Kevin P.''
+| ''Audrin'' ''T.''
+| ''Joshua B.''
+|
+|-
+| | ''Edil F.''
+| ''Calum S.''
+| ''Nam T.''
+| ''Kyril W.''
+|
+|-
+| | ''Zeke T.''
+| ''Jesse R.''
+| ''Orhan M.''
+| ''Morgan H.''
+|
+|-
+| | ''Gideon S.''
+| ''Taylor H.''
+| ''Ross P.''
+| ''Tarana'' ''I.-M.''
+|
+|-
+| | ''Saumya I.''
+| ''Siddharth P.''
+| ''Sam P.''
+| ''Dirk K.''
+|
+|-
+| | ''Jason G. A., Jr.''
+| ''Melinda K.''
+| ''Jillian R.''
+| ''Jacob N.''
+|
+|-
+| | ''Richard H.''
+| ''Shane F.''
+| ''Derric A.''
+| ''Robyn M.''
+|
+|-
+| | ''Lachlainn'' ''H.''
+| ''Marc G.''
+| ''Blaine H.''
+| ''The Slopstache''
+|
+|}
+There is still plenty of work to be done to complete the translation of this entire curriculum. If you would like to financially support our efforts, you can support us at:
+BanyanHouse.org
-Today XXV//X 141
+=== Dedication and Gratitude ===
-Surviving Civilization:
-Lessons from the Double Lives of Eco-extremists <em>Regresión</em> 145
-To the Mountains Lunas de abril 153
-Kaczynski’s Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How;
-A Critical Assessment S. 159
-The Singing River anon 177
+This book is dedicated to all the backers of the GoFundMe campaign that raised the funds to allow me to translate this text. What I initially believed would be a straightforward three-month process of translating ended up taking over three ''years'' of not just translation but also research, study, review, annotation, editing, proofreading, peer review, and more — with the incredible support of a full team of talented comrades — in order to make sure that everything would be digestible and intelligible for audiences outside of Vietnam. So, sincerely, thank you to everyone who backed this project for your patience, support, and encouragement.
-<br>
+Thank you to my husband and comrade, Emerican Johnson, who helped me throughout the translation process, and who did such a fantastic job editing, annotating, and illustrating this text. He was my constant dialectical companion as we grappled together with the spirit and meaning of the writings of Marx, Lenin, and Engels that are the bedrock of this text.
-<center>
+Thank you, also, to Iskra Books for the absolutely vital work they have done in helping us to edit this book and hold it to a high standard. We literally could not have done it without you. In particular, thank you to Ben Stahnke for organizing and cheerleading us through to the end, and to David Peat, for the painstaking, meticulous, and no-doubt frustrating work of proofreading our very, very, very imperfect writing!
-</center>
+Thanks also to ''The International Magazine'', who have provided guidance and suggestions throughout the process of developing this translation. I have had the opportunity to work with ''The International Magazine'' on various projects and I can recommend no better monthly periodical for internationalist communists to learn about socialist movements around the world.
-<br>
+We owe a great deal of gratitude to Dr. Vijay Prashad and Dr. Taimur Rahman for taking the time to read through our translation and, in addition to providing their feedback and encouragement, also taking the time to write the foreword and introduction to the text. I know that you are both extremely busy with your own important literary, academic, and political work, so this assistance is so very much appreciated.
-** [[Presentation]]
+Finally, I would like to thank the Vietnamese intellectuals and experts who have done such an amazing job at taking hundreds of texts and distilling them down into the original volume which I have translated here. The elegance and precision with which they have been able to capture the essence of Marxism-Leninism is a monumental contribution to the workers of the world, and I only hope my translation does their work justice.
-Atassa is the Muskogee word for “war club.” The atassa was the symbol of the Red Sticks, a faction within the Muskogee or Creek nation that from 1813 to 1814 fought against the encroachment of white settlers on their lands in what is now the states of Georgia and Alabama in the present-day United States. For us, it is a symbol of a war that came too late, too late to save their sacred ground and rhythm of life, too late to fight the mass of invaders who would transform the land into something unrecognizable. Nevertheless, the war was fought, because their instincts, and arguably the land itself, demanded it.
+March, 2023<br />
+Luna Nguyen
-Eco-extremism has no presence in the United States or in the English-speaking world. It started in Mexico as an illegalist tendency, not at all concerned with proselytism or popularity, and has since spread to other countries to the South and in a certain form to Europe. Those involved in this journal are thus not eco-extremists, and we don’t advocate that anyone consider this journal an exhortation to action or advocacy for illegality. Like the corridos (ballads) also coming from the South celebrating the actions of figures of the drug trade, we are here to “tell it like it is,” not changing anything or condemning any of these actions since we don’t find that attitude particularly helpful. Like the narco- corrido, our only message is: “This exists, and you have to think about it, whether you like it or not.”
+=== Foreword ===
-We hope that our little labor will serve to inform and inspire a different perspective in the Anglophone reader.
+In December 1998, Fidel Castro addressed the Young Communist League’s 7<sup>th</sup> Congress in Havana, Cuba. The Soviet Union and the Communist state system in Eastern Europe had collapsed, which greatly weakened the cause of socialism. Not only was Cuba hit hard by the loss of its major trading partners and political ally, but socialists in general were penalised by the lethal argument made by the imperialist sections that “socialism had been defeated.” After 1991, Fidel revived the phrase “Battle of Ideas,” which was had been used in The German Ideology by Marx and Engels. To the Young Communists, Fidel said:
-With Wild Nature on our side.
+<blockquote>
+We must meet, in the heat of the battle, with the leading cadres to discuss, analyse, expand on, and draft plans and strategies to take up issues and elaborate ideas, as when an army’s general staff meets. We must use solid arguments to talk to members and non-members, to speak to those who may be confused or even to discuss and debate with those holding positions contrary to those of the Revolution or who are influenced by imperialist ideology in this great battle of ideas we have been waging for years now, precisely in order to carry out the heroic deed of resisting against the most politically, militarily, economically, technologically and culturally powerful empire that has ever existed. Young cadres must be well prepared for this task.
+</blockquote>
-<right>
+Bourgeois ideology had tried to sweep aside its most fundamental critique – namely Marxism – by saying that “socialism had been defeated” and that Marxism was now obsolete. Marxist criticisms of the “casino of capitalism” – as Fidel called it – were being set aside both inside and outside the academy, with neoliberal policy confident enough to ignore each and every criticism. Fidel argued that young communists must learn the fundamentals of Marxism – including both dialectical and historical materialism – and must learn this in a way that was not religious thinking but would allow them to become “new intellectuals” of the movement, not those who repeat dogma but who learn to understand the conjuncture and become “permanent persuaders” for socialism (the two phrases in quotations are from Gramsci’s prison notebooks). The general ideological confidence of the cadre was not clear, and that confidence and their clarity needed to be developed in a project that Fidel called the Battle of Ideas.
-the editors
-</right>
-<br>
+During this period, communists around the world conceded that the demise of the Soviet Union had created a serious dilemma for the left. Not only were we penalised by the argument that “socialism has been defeated,” but our own arguments to explain the turbo-charged drive toward globalisation and neoliberalism and to make the case for a socialist alternative were not strong enough. One indication of that weakness was the 2001 World Social Forum meeting held in Brazil, which promoted the slogan – Another World is Possible, a weak slogan in comparison to a more precise slogan, such as – Socialism is Necessary. Young people drifted into our ranks in this decade, angered by the wretched social conditions created by the permanent austerity of neoliberalism, but bewildered about how to transform the political environment. The lack of Marxist political education was felt by socialist forces across the world, which is why many parties around the world began to revive a conversation about internal political education for cadre and active engagement with other social forces regarding the pressing issues of our time. Fidel called these two processes – internal education for the Party and external engagement on the dilemmas of humanity – the Battle of Ideas.
-<center>
+In line with this broad direction, the government of Vietnam worked with the national publishing house Sự Thật (The Truth) to develop a curriculum for universities and colleges in the country. They developed this order of study along five subject areas: Marxist-Leninist Philosophy, Marxist-Leninist Political Economy, Scientific Socialism, Vietnamese Communist Party History, and Ho Chi Minh Thought. This project worked to educate an entire population that would be able to understand the world in a rational and factual manner, outside the illusions of bourgeois ideology. Four years later, Communist Party of Vietnam adopted a resolution to take this work forward, and – under the leadership of Professor Nguyễn Viết Thông – produced this textbook that brought together the many themes of Marxism into focus for the introductory student and cadre. A book such as this is never easy to create, since it must introduce a form of thought that is critical of the foundations of bourgeois ideology – so it is a critique – but at the same time it provides a worldview to understand the actual world in which we live – so it is a science. The text must, therefore, show how bourgeois thought is partial and at the same time how socialist thought, creatively applied, will allow one to have a firmer grip of reality and be able to participate in fighting to transcend the obstinate facts of human indignity that are reproduced by capitalism. No manual such as this is without its flaws and without its limitations, but no education can start without a manual such as this one. The Vietnamese comrades have done a great service to the left movement by producing a text such as this, which can be used for study and then used as a model to develop similar texts in different parts of the world.
-</center>
+Ho Chi Minh, whose interpretation of Marxism and whose ideas about the Vietnamese Revolution, are all over this text once said: “Study and practice must always go together. Study without practice is useless. Practice without study leads to folly.” There can be no better injunction to get to work, to study and develop one’s theoretical armour and to use that theory as the guide to one’s work in the Battle of Ideas and in the battle for the streets, because this unity between theory and action is indeed praxis (thực tiễn), not just practice, but conscious human activity. That is what Fidel encouraged in his lectures on the Battle of Ideas.
-<br>
+Dr. Vijay Prashad.<br />
+March 2023<br />
+Caracas, Venezuela.
-** [[The Flower Growing Out of the Underworld:]] An Introduction to Eco-extremism
+=== Preface to the First English Edition ===
-<right>
+The text of this book constitutes part one of a four-part curriculum on Marxism-Leninism developed and published by the Ministry of Education and Training of Vietnam. This curriculum is intended for students who are not specializing in the study of Marxism-Leninism, and is intended to give every Vietnamese student a firm grounding in the political philosophy of scientific socialism.
-Abe Cabrera
-</right>
-**** Una salus victis nullam sperare salutem.
+The entire curriculum consists of:
-**** (The one hope of the conquered is to not hope for salvation.)
+Part 1: Dialectical Materialism (this text)
-**** --Virgil, The Aeneid
+Part 2: Historical Materialism
-**** If death comes we will keep destroying things in hell; disgusting world, I will laugh as I see you falling, in this eternal confrontation...
+Part 3: Political Economy
-**** --Eleventh Communiqué of the Individualists Tending Toward the Wild, 2016
+Part 4: Scientific Socialism
-Eco-extremism is one of the newest schools of thought in our time, but more than a school of thought, it is a plan of action, an attitude of hostility, and a rejection of all that has come before it in techno-industrial society. Born out of various radical ideologies such as animal liberation, insurrectionary anarchism, anarchoprimitivism, and the neo-Luddism of Theodore Kaczynski, it has germinated and sprouted forth into something entirely other: into a love poem to violence and criminality; a radical ecological vision where hope and humanism are overcome by the barrel of a gun, the explosion of the incendiary device, and the knife stalking human prey in the darkness. All of its true adherents are currently unknown. It is not an ideology that was formed in the academy or even in alternative political spaces. Its writings can only be found (some would say ironically) on anonymous sites on the Internet. Eco-extremism was formed in the shadows, and will remain there, a clandestine threat until all eco-extremists are captured or killed... that is, until others take their place.
+In Vietnam, each part of the curriculum encompasses one full semester of mandatory study for all college students. Each part builds upon the previous, meaning that this text is the foundation for all political theory education for most college students in Vietnam.
-Shortly after I wrote my essay in <em>Ritual Magazin</em>e, “Towards Savagery: Recent Developments in Eco-Extremist Thought in Mexico,” the main group described in that essay, <em>Reacción Salvaje</em> (Wild Reaction) disbanded (in August 2015), citing a new stage of their struggle and development. Many of the websites that I used for my research also went silent or announced their end. Nevertheless, eco-extremist rumblings could be heard in the south, echoed via the news stories on the Internet. Groups such as the Pagan Sect of the Mountain committed attacks in Mexico State and other parts of that country, using the same rhetoric against the “hyper-civilized,” and without concern for morality and mass technological society. One of the main journals of eco-extremism, <em>Regresión</em>, continued to be published out of Mexico.
+However, it is important to note that this is not the first encounter with dialectical materialism which Vietnamese students wil have had with these ideas, because Vietnamese students also study dialectical materialism, historical materialism, political economy, and scientific socialism from primary school all the way through high school.
-By January of 2016, new eco-extremist websites and even an extensive video documentary on eco-extremism emerged online. By the end of the month, the First Communiqué of the re-founded Individualists Tending Toward the Wild (<em>Individualistas Tendiendo a lo Salvaje</em>, ITS) was issued on the main eco-extremist website, <em>Maldición Eco-extremista</em>, as well as on anti-authoritarian news outlets. Soon, it began to emerge that the continuation of ITS had spread to other countries, namely, Chile, Argentina, and later Brazil, along with allied Nihilist Terrorist groups in Italy. Eco-extremist texts have been translated into languages ranging from Spanish and English to Turkish, Czech, and Romanian. Eco-extremist actions in the last calendar year have ranged from arson, bomb threats, indiscriminate bombings, to the murder of a scientific worker at Mexico’s largest university. To our knowledge, no one has yet been arrested or investigated for these crimes.
+As such, the text of this book — in and of itself — would probably seem overwhelmingly condensed to most foreign readers who are new to studying dialectical materialism. Therefore, we have decided to extensively annotate and illustrate this text with the information which would have been previously obtained in a basic Vietnamese high school education and/or provided by college lecturers in the classroom.
-Recent eco-extremist theory has emphasized action above historical study and theory. Much of the polemical energy earlier this year was consumed by a defense of “indiscriminate attack:” that is, bombing, shooting, arson, etc. that does not take into account innocent bystanders, but strikes at a target regardless of what collateral damage might result. Other issues of contention have been the relationship between nihilism (the idea that ITS and other ecoextremists do not believe in a future and fight in the here and now for no particular strategic goal) and egoism, primitivism, animism/ paganism, and individualism. In what follows I will discuss essential terms and concepts that I hope will clarify eco-extremist language and rhetoric. It should be noted at the outset that eco-extremism does not aim for absolute clarity for the impartial observer, but rather seeks to stimulate affinity in those who are similarly at odds with technology, artificiality, and civilization.
+It is our desire that these annotations will be helpful for students who hope to learn these principles for application in political activity, but we should also make it clear to academic researchers and the like that our annotations and illustrations are ''not'' present in the original Vietnamese work.
-Eco-extremism is a tendency that seeks to recover the wild. It exalts one’s ancestral warrior instincts and declares war on all that is civilized. Eco-extremism is embodied in individual ecoextremists hiding in plain sight who emerge with cold ferocity at the opportune time. The eco-extremist is an individualist in that he defies the prohibition of the collective or community, any community, to fight, injure, maim, or kill. No collective has the authority to tell him or her what to do, as they have all forfeited their (non-existent) authority with their continuous war against Wild Nature. Along with the renunciation of the collective is a renunciation of hope or any “future primitive.” Eco-extremists believe that this world is garbage, they understand progress as industrial slavery, and they fight like cornered wild animals since they know that there is no escape. They look death in the eye, and yell, “Hoka Hey!” (Today is a good day to die.)
+We hope that this book will be useful in at least three ways:
-Eco-extremism is violent resistance that mimics the reflexive reaction of Wild Nature itself against what seeks to alienate and enslave all living and inanimate things. It is against the artificiality of modern society, and all that subjugates human instinct to a “higher end.”
+* As a comprehensive introductory textbook on dialectical materialism and for selfstudy, group study, classroom use, cadre training, etc.
+* As a quick and easy to reference handbook for reviewing the basic concepts of dialectical materialism for students of theory who are already familiar with dialectical materialism.
+* As a companion book for further reading of theory and political texts rooted in dialectical materialist philosophy.
-Let us, however, start to define our terms.
+Also, please note: because this book is intended to be used as a quick reference and handbook for further study, there are many instances where we duplicate references, quotations, and other such information. We hope that this repetition may be an aid for study by reinforcing important concepts and quotations.
-<strong>Wild Nature</strong>: Wild Nature is the primary agent in eco-extremist war. The philistines oppose the invocation of Wild Nature as atavism or superstition, but they do so merely out of their own domestication and idiocy. Wild Nature is all that grows and is manifested on the planet in animate and inanimate objects, from pebbles to oceans, from microorganisms to all of the flora and fauna that have developed on Earth. It also encompasses all of the stars, galaxies, moons, suns, meteors, etc. More specifically, Wild Nature is the acknowledgement that humanity is not the source and end of physical and spiritual reality, but merely a part of it, and perhaps not even a major part. Eco-extremism, insofar as it thinks about epistemology at all, is based on realism as governed by our animal senses and instincts. As Chahta-Ima stated in his essay, “What do we mean when we say, ‘nature’?”:
+This book — Part 1 of the curriculum, which focuses on the universal philosophical system of dialectical materialism — serves as the foundation of all political theory and practice in the Vietnamese educational system as well as in the Communist Party of Vietnam and other organizations such as the Ho Chi Minh Communist Youth Union, the Women’s Union, the Farmer’s Union, the Worker’s Union, etc. Dialectical materialism is the framework for theory and practice as well as the common lens through which Vietnamese socialists relate, communicate, and work together.
-**** Nature exists because the human mind is weak and limited. It is mortal, it is made of flesh, and ultimately this is its limit, even if we can’t see it. It’s playing a game with the rest of existence, and it will lose. The existence of nature is the limit of thought. It is the fact that all things are not for us, our thoughts do not make things: the things are there for the taking, and would be there without our intervention.
+This book focuses almost exclusively on the written works of three historical figures:
-**** In other words, we are not gods, we are not spirits, precisely because those things don’t exist as we have come to understand them. Our thought does not and cannot comprehend everything, which is why it is so miserably unreliable.
+''Karl Marx'' and ''Friedrich Engels''... who initially developed the universal philosophy of dialectical materialism by synthesizing various pre-existing philosophical, political, economic, and historical tendencies including the idealist dialectical system of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, the political economics of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, the materialist positions of Ludwig Feuerbach, and countless others.
-Eco-extremism thus posits a pessimism concerning human endeavors and achievements, whether these are physical, spiritual, or moral. That is why it opposes civilization, especially in its technoindustrial manifestation. Modern civilization seeks to subjugate all to itself, and its hubris is its downfall. Eco-extremists seek to be instruments of that downfall, though they do not believe that they can bring it about themselves. More importantly, Wild Nature is found in us primarily in our instincts and in feeling the groan of the Earth in the face of the destruction caused by civilized life. This tendency seeks (albeit imperfectly) to recover beliefs based in the mountains, deserts, coasts, swamps, forests, animals, phases of the moon, and so on.
+''...and Vladimir Illyich Lenin'', who further developed and defended dialectical materialism, expanded the analysis of imperialism, demonstrated how to apply dialectical materialism to local material conditions specific to Russia at the turn of the 20<sup>th</sup> century, and made many other important contributions to dialectical materialist theory and practice.
-Many eco-extremists hear the call of their ancestors who resisted their subjugation. When Wild Nature speaks it does so in the language of their Teochichimeca ancestors, the Selk’nam, the Yahis, the Navajo, the Maoris, the European barbarians, the Wa- ranis, the Taromenanes, the Seris, the Toba, and any other group that fought against the extinguishing of their ancient way of life. Wild Nature is thus within us, in the individuality that refuses the thought and morality of civilization and domestication. <strong>Individualism:</strong> More than a philosophical current, individualism is an important tactical choice within mass society. It’s the decision to become a wolf in the midst of all of the sheep. It is the decision to look after one’s own interest and act accordingly. Individualists learn from solitude and look for self-realization because they have understood that one can no longer abide by the norms and customs that civilization has dictated to them. Individualists deny accepted morality, and they reject the values taught to them from birth. They don’t wait to take initiative, but rather join together with those of similar disposition to improve their theory and practice. Individualism is a weapon against the progressive collectivism imposed by the system. As one eco-extremist wrote:
+Obviously, there are countless other writers, revolutionaries, philosophers, and scientists who have contributed to dialectical materialism and scientific socialism. This book focuses primarily on Marx, Engels, and Lenin, because these figures laid the foundations and formulated the basic principles of the philosophy of dialectical materialism and the methodology of materialist dialectics which are most universally applicable in all endeavors.
-**** ‘I and afterwards I!’ I cry trying to finish off my domestication, breaking the bonds of useless relationships, launching headlong into a war against civilization and its slaves. Against its collectivism, its altruism and humanism. Death to the relationships founded on hypocrisy! Long life to sincere affinities! My allies who fight this already-lost war along with me know: For me it will always be me before them, and vice versa: their ‘I’ before my ‘I’. Thus we will continue since we are amoral and egoist individuals.
+It is our desire that translating this important work into English will lead to further study, understanding, and appreciation of dialectical materialism as an applied philosophy which socialists can find value in returning to periodically. At the end of the book, we offer a glossary of terms which doubles as an index, appendices with summaries of important concepts and principles, and an afterword, in which we offer advice for further study and application of dialectical materialism.
-Individualist eco-extremists are cautious and spiritual, they love deeply and when they hate, they don’t forgive. They are indiscriminate when they act, as well as cold and calculating. They prowl about with guile just like the fox, and camouflage themselves in urban and rural landscapes. Eco-extremists use everything at hand to accomplish their goals, yet they try to bind themselves to the sacred past knowing that the time for peace is no more. They seek to offer their victims as a sacrifice to their ancestors and the Earth itself. As in many of the past wars against civilization, the driving force behind it is neither morality or justice, but vengeance.
+At the time of publication, we are already in the process of translating and annotating Part 2 of this curriculum, which focuses on historical materialism, with the hopes of eventually releasing the full curriculum. Once it is complete, it will also be made available at ''BanyanHouse.org'' — where we also invite questions, constructive feedback, and suggestions.
-<strong>Indiscriminate attack:</strong> The modern progressive mind objects to indiscriminate attack since it has not yet been able to shake off Western morality. For eco-extremists, acting indiscriminately is one of the primary methods of attack. To attack indiscriminately is to strike a target without regard for so-called innocent bystanders or collateral damage. While eco-extremist individualists usually take aim at targets that are significant to the techno-industrial society (government ministries, universities, transport vehicles), individualist terrorists do so with the intent of inflicting the maximum amount of damage, and this includes human casualties. As ITS expressed in its Fifth Communiqué of this year,
+=== Introduction ===
-**** We consider as enemies all those who contribute to the systematic process of domestication and alienation: the scientists, the engineers, the investigators, the physicists, the executives, the humanists, and (why not?), affirming the principle of indiscriminate attack, society itself and all that it entails. Why society? Because it tends toward progress, technological and industrial. It contributes to the consolidation and advance of civilization. We can think of all who form part of society as being mere sheep who do what they are told and that’s it, but for us it’s not that simple. People obey because they want to. If they had a choice and, if it were up to them, they would love to live like those accursed millionaires, but they rot in their poverty as the perennially faithful servants of the system that enslaves us as domestic animals.
+Just a generation ago, Vietnam was the site of the most brutal war of the 20<sup>th</sup> century. More tonnage of bombs were dropped on the Vietnamese people than were dropped by all sides combined throughout the Second World War. In addition, countless acts of cruelty were used to scorch the very soil of the nation. By the end of Vietnam’s Resistance War Against Imperialist USA (known to the world as “the Vietnam War”), Agent Orange, napalm, and unexploded munitions had left a land deeply scarred and a people traumatised by decades of death and murder. The impression one had was that although Vietnam had won the war, it was so badly devastated that it could not hope to win the peace. But, miraculously, Vietnam is winning this war today, as the Vietnamese economy has become one of the fastest growing in the world and quality of life for the people is improving at a pace which could scarcely have been predicted in 1975.
-Eco-extremism carries out indiscriminate attacks as an echo of Wild Nature itself and to show that its hostility toward society is real. Tsunamis don’t suddenly stop when they reach poor neighborhoods, alligators don’t distinguish between the innocent and the guilty in their nocturnal hunts, and hurricanes don’t attack people according to race. Eco-extremism is part of that cycle of action and reaction. The time for revolutionary action has long passed, and eco-extremists aim to carry out a real war, with real casualties, and actions that are not merely symbolic but actually draw blood.
+No one could have imagined that Vietnam would turn around so dynamically and rapidly. How did they achieve this economic miracle? How could this nation — so recently devastated by imperialism and war — possibly be able to reconstruct, revive, rejuvenate, and rebuild? That story is now unfolding before our eyes.
-<strong>Nihilism:</strong> Nihilism is primarily a refusal of the future. As I described in my essay, “Primitivism Without Catastrophe,” human societies at all levels, but especially techno-industrial society, are exceedingly complex, made up of as many unwieldy parts as there are people. Thus, any aspiration to shepherd people into a collective course of action, whether it is humanism, socialism, liberalism, or even anarchism will not work, and will be opposed by those who seek to resist their own techno-industrial enslavement.
+Vietnam’s development has not come without hardship, struggle, setbacks, and mistakes. The people of Vietnam have had to learn hard lessons through struggle and practice to develop and strengthen ideological and theoretical positions. In this manner, the philosophical development of Vietnam deserves study and attention from socialists around the world. To outsiders, Vietnam can appear to be rife with contradictions. As depicted by Western journalists, Vietnam is simultaneously a success story driven by capitalist markets and a failing socialist state. Every victory is chalked up to private enterprise, while every setback is attributed to socialism. In this sense, the media has failed to understand the essential character of the core contradictions which drive the development of Vietnam politically, socially, and economically.
-In the “Eco-Extremist Mafia” (as they like to call themselves) there are Nihilist Terrorists, particularly in Italy. These nihilists adhere to the position that true nihilism is active nihilism or it is not at all. It is no use to speak of one’s “nihilism” or “egoism” while one pays taxes and obeys traffic laws. Such a purely passive egoism or nihilism is perhaps more akin to Buddhism or the philosophical nihilism of the 19th century, which upholds all of the things that condemn one to be a cog in the great societal machine, but offers some sort of invisible integrity or purity (or a particular “emancipated space”) akin to “spiritual liberation.” Active Nihilist Terrorism, as practiced by the Memento Mori Nihilist Sect and others, seeks to attack what obviously enslaves the individual to society, and that attack must always be a physical attack against real targets such as machines, buildings, etc. and the humanoid automatons who build and run them. All other manifestations of nihilism or egoism are no better than Christian or Far Eastern asceticism.
+Luna Nguyen has used social media and played an incredibly important role in helping the English speaking world understand the complexities of such contradictions that beguile so many academics and experts. She has helped to give an insider’s perspective on her own country’s path of development towards socialism.
-**** The pure blow to life that flows at the margin of ‘living.’ I am the criminal nihilist who denies obsolete humanity, transcending the moral-mortal human, existence in an identifying and categorical representation in equal evaluations.
+Nguyen’s translation of Part 1 of this influential work, ''Introduction to the Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism'', a textbook studied by university and college students across Vietnam, is yet another big step in the direction of making Vietnam’s understanding of their own country’s development available to the English reading world.
-**** Nechaevshchina, “Nihilist Funeral”
+For me, as an outsider, it is fascinating not only to see how deeply Vietnamese society takes an interest in European philosophical development (referencing Hume, Hegel, Descartes, Marx, Engels, and so many other Europeans, almost as if they are figures seated in some ancient monastery in Fansipan), but, even more importantly, how they have assimilated that knowledge into the wider context of their own history, society, and culture. The textbook truly comes alive in all the parts where these ideas are shown to be relevant to Vietnam itself. For instance, the textbook stands out with discussions of Ho Chi Minh’s concept of “proletarian piety,” which artfully blends elements of Vietnamese culture with Marxist concepts of class consciousness, or the story of Chi Pheo, who stands as a sympathetic stand-in for the interpretation of the unique characteristics of the Vietnamese Lumpenproletariat. The book itself is an instance of the dialectic of the universal and the particular, the abstract and the concrete.
-<strong>Paganism/animism:</strong> Eco-extremism is founded on pagan animism, and it attempts to rescue ancestral deities that have often been forgotten by Christian/secular society. For both deeply personal and strategic reasons, the eco-extremist seeks to revive the worship of the spirits of the Earth and to offer sacrifices to them. The strategic component is to renounce and oppose the philosophy of secular scientism upheld by some anarchists who cry, “No gods, no masters!” Eco-extremists acknowledge the need for spiritual authorities, even if these are poorly understood or mostly forgotten, as they still ultimately determine the course of life and death. No warrior can make war on his own: there are always greater forces at work, ones that even techno-industrial civilization cannot dominate. In the eco-extremist war, in spite of tactical individualism, a spiritual component is needed to carry out an attack against this putrid society and get away with it. It also reminds the eco-extremist that ultimately whether he or she lives or dies is not up to them, but up to forces that have been and will be, even after we are gone. As Halputta Hadjo stated in his monograph, “The Calusa: A Savage Kingdom?,”
+Just as importantly, it shows that, in Vietnam, Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh Thought are not mere perfunctory rituals that are repeated like a learnt formula for this or that exam; but that although the Vietnamese political economy in its current form certainly contains contradictions which must be negated in the process of building the lower stage of socialism, the government remains seriously committed to the goals, theory, and practice of Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh Thought.
-**** [The eco-extremist] can lash out or he can surrender, but whatever he does, he does within the blindness and impotence of his own carnal nature. That is no reason to give up, and it is no reason to despair. It is every reason, however, to revere those forces that created things this way, and these are the ‘spirits’ or the ‘gods’ of a specific environment, whatever you want to call them. The attitude of ecoextremists is undying hostility toward technological civilization in the name of the spirits that are his lost patrimony.
+Hence, I highly recommend this book, not merely because it is a well-illustrated and easy-to-read book on the principles of dialectical materialism, but more importantly because it offers an insight into how the Vietnamese government collects and synthesises the philosophical developments that are, on the one hand, the collective legacy of all of humanity, and, on the other hand, the concrete manifestations of a revolutionary theory of (and for the oppressed yearning for) freedom in every corner of the world.
-Like the savage warrior of the past, the eco-extremist is reminded that, while the scalp and blood of the enemy might be his in the short term, in the long term, his fate is to decay like all flesh, with his spirit rejoining the wind and the dust. The eco-extremist does not run from his “spooks,” his “dark side,” or his ignorance, but embraces them to give him courage against the enemy. These are his gods, his own guardian spirits that are emissaries from Wild Nature. He does not require the mathematical rationality of the domesticated to act, but acts out of instinct with understanding to strike at his foe. His one solace is that he too is Wild Nature, that its lament is his lament, that its ultimate victory will be his own, even if he will not live to see it with his physical eyes. In the end, all lofty sentiments and ideas are a mere heartbeat away from being extinguished, which should give the eco-extremist a sense of urgency in the fight against domestication and artificiality.
+March, 2023
-*** Conclusion: War with an expiration date, war without end
+Dr. Taimur Rahman<br />
-Eco-extremism is the tragic sense of life embodied in our epoch. It is a product of the contradictions of our time, of the haziness of anthropological scholarship, of the renunciation of political action, and of the contemporary ideological impasse. This tendency knows that this impasse will not be solved by better philosophies or moral codes, but only in the destruction of all that exists, including the “hyper-civilized” (i.e. all of us). Techno-industrial society is a problem that should have never existed in the first place, and all of the defects and contradictions of eco-extremism as an ideology are the result of society’s contradictions reflected as in a distorted mirror. There is no solution. The only appropriate response is fire and bullets.<strong></strong>
+=== Editor’s Note ===
-This attitude puts the eco-extremist at odds not only with the authorities of techno-industrial society, but also with other so-called radical groups. There are no “call outs” or expressions of solidarity in eco-extremism. There is no attempt by eco-extrem- ism to morally or philosophically justify itself. Innocence or guilt never enter into the eco-extremist calculus. Indeed, this tendency eagerly absorbs the so-called worst aspects of modern society, including common criminality, without any lawyerly effort to justify itself through the logic of civilized justice. The recent introduction to the essay, “The Calusa: A Savage Kingdom?” highlights the societal actors and groups that eco-extremism seeks to imitate in our time:
+Working on this project has been one of the most illuminating experiences of my life. In translating this work, Luna has opened a door for English speakers into the wide world of Vietnamese scholarship and pedagogy as it relates to socialist theory and philosophy.
-**** ‘The Calusa: A Savage Kingdom?’ teaches a valuable lesson; namely, that much can be learned from both the small nomadic groups and the great pre-Columbian civilizations. Here there is no danger of falling into a theoretical ‘contradiction,’ as eco-extremists can reference the Selk’nam as well as the Mayas. They can refer to the experiences of petty criminals as well as those of the large mafias; the Guatemalan gangs as well as the rigid organization of the Islamic State. That is to say, eco-extremists are free to refer to whatever they like, without any hint of morality, with the only condition that it gives a particular useful lesson concerning the planning and execution of their war.
+Luna and I have done our best to capture the original meaning and spirit of the text. Furthermore, as we have mentioned elsewhere, our annotations and illustrations are intended only to contextualize and expand on the core information of the original text similarly to the class/lecture setting for which the curriculum is intended.
-Theoretical eclecticism is only countered in the eco-extremist with single-mindedness in violent attack. The eco-extremist has cast off his or her affinity with the hyper-civilized and sees virtually everyone as an enemy. These individualists have come to value attack more than their very lives, as countless other warriors and savages have done before them. They don’t ask for help from those whom they have come to see as at best useless, and at worst the hated adversary worthy of death. The eco-extremists are already on the radar of the authorities of the countries where they operate, and beyond. They are under no illusion that they will be able to evade them indefinitely.
+In their lives, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were never able to finish clarifying and systematically describing the philosophy of dialectical materialism which their work was built upon. Engels attempted to structurally define the philosophy in Dialectics of Nature, but unfortunately that work was never completed since he decided to prioritize publishing the unfinished works of Marx after his untimely death.
-Wild Nature corrodes civilization little by little with entropy as water diminishes a stone. Along with climate change, earthquakes, and other natural disasters, new individualists resisting their domestication will take the eco-extremists’ place, perhaps mindful of those who have come before them. We are now entering an age of extremes, an age of uncertainty, where leftist illusions and conservative platitudes can no longer prepare us for our future course. The individualist will continue to be an invisible menace, immune from the moral coercion of the herd, and working in the complete privacy of his or her own thoughts and desires. The masses may rage and the authorities lament, but there will always be pockets of destructive refusal, emerging like sparks in the dark only to go out again, until this society is ground into powder, and the spirits of all warriors go off once more to hunt in the land of the ancestors. Axkan kema, tehuatl, nehuatl! (Until your death or mine!)
+I believe that this text is a great step forward in that work of systematically describing the philosophical system of dialectical materialism and the methodological system of materialist dialectics. I also believe it’s worth noting how the Vietnamese scholars who crafted this curriculum have embedded the urgent necessity of action — of creative application of these ideas — throughout the text in a way that I find refreshing and reflective of the works of Marx and Engels themselves.
-<right>
+As the text will explain, dialectical materialism is a universal system of philosophy which can be utilized to grapple with any and every conceivable problem which we humans might encounter in this universe. In Vietnam, dialectical materialism has been used to delve into matters of art, ethics, military science, and countless other fields of inquiry and endeavor. It is my hope that this book will, likewise, lead to a wider and fuller understanding and (more importantly) application of dialectical materialism in the Western world.
-November 2016
-</right>
-<br>
+March, 2023
-<center>
+Emerican Johnson
-</center>
+=== A Message From ''The International Magazine'' ===
-<br>
+''The International Magazine'' began in 2020 to connect international socialist movements and to strengthen the voice of oppressed people across the globe. We have been following the work of Vietnamese communists in their unique path towards peace, prosperity, and the construction of socialist values with a keen eye and much interest. It is with this spirit of international solidarity and a deep desire to learn from and share wisdom from our comrades around the world that we celebrate the release of this First English Edition of The Worldview and Philosophical Methodology of Marxism-Leninism Part 1: The Worldview and Philosophical Methodology of Marxism-Leninism.
-** The spilling of blood on the paths of “absolute truth”
+Ho Chi Minh once said: “In order to build socialism, first and foremost, we need to have socialist people who understand socialist ideology and have socialist values.”
-<right>
+To this end, Vietnamese communists have expended tremendous resources building a curriculum on Marxist-Leninist philosophy and analysis which includes dialectical materialism, materialist dialectics, scientific socialism, historical materialism, and political economy. These topics are taught in primary and secondary schools and are mandatory subjects for all students attending public universities in Vietnam. Beyond that, Vietnam offers free degrees to students who wish to study Marxist theory and philosophy and Ho Chi Minh Thought (defined as the application of Marxist philosophy to the unique material conditions of Vietnam). In this manner, Vietnam has demonstrated a steadfast commitment to developing “socialist people” “with socialist values.”
-Orkelesh
-</right>
-Blood, my blood, impetuous against the lament of the multitude. Cold, in its wandering red, in the middle of and on the pavement of “absolute truth.”
+We are, therefore, extremely excited to have worked with Luna Nguyen on the translation and annotation of Part 1 of the Vietnamese university curriculum on the worldview and philosophical methodology of Marxism-Leninism into English, which will make this unique perspective of socialist theory available to comrades around the world for the first time.
-The heart beats in an atrocious manner, I feel the necessity to act. What thing is this, who is it, which or what innate force is within me?
+After having read through this volume, which outlines the fundamentals of dialectical materialism and materialist dialectics, we find the most important lesson to be the relationship between theory and practice. According to the Vietnamese scholars who authored the original text, Marxist-Leninist philosophy must be considered a living, breathing philosophy which requires application in the real world — through practice — in order to be made fully manifest.
-I feel, it ascends and comes forth, it excites my senses and rejects the order that I should give it.
+We hope that readers of this volume will carry forward this guidance through practice which suits your material conditions, wherever you are in the world.
-What is within me, beating red blood, that which I perceive is the unknown and the hidden roaming among relations, within them, interested and disinterested, they serve my existential project. Today, like yesterday, the vagabond turns in search of the extreme, of the destruction of the truth, which impacts reality, it doesn’t exist.
+If you would like to learn the perspective of socialists from other nations around the world, we invite you to visit our website at InternationalMagz.com — the home of ''The International Magazine'' online. There, you will find articles written by comrades from a wide variety of backgrounds and nationalities with a clear bias towards anti-capitalism, anti-fascism, and anti-imperialism!
-It doesn’t exist for the “I”? That’s it!
+In solidarity,
-I look and it surrounds me, the swarm of “emotional” people who say “yes” and “excuse me,” they don’t hear and they don’t know what they are for themselves... to snatch their apathetic essence of life.
+The Editorial Team of ''The International Magazine''
-I smile and hide in a false suit, I walk in the thought of the enigma and resolve.
+=== Notes on Translation ===
-Bitch humans, prey that takes and carries, to suction the vital liquid, that congeals their truths, the bottom of their miserable existence.
+Vietnamese is a very different language from English, which has presented many challenges in translating this book. Whenever possible, I have tried to let the “spirit” of the language guide me, without altering the structure, tone, and formatting of the book.
-Moral fear is felt, I have to do what I want, to do harm with my brutal instinct, to slice and copulate intensely.
+One thing you will likely notice right away: this book is highly condensed! This is because most Vietnamese students are already familiar with these concepts. We have added annotations to try to make the book more digestible for those of you who are new to Marxism-Leninism, and these annotations are explained on the next page.
-Lascivious and impure desire, irrational and bloody, descendant of sudden death.
+I have worked hard to try to make the language in this book consistent with the language used in popular translations of works from Marx, Lenin, etc., that would be familiar to English-language students of Marxism-Leninism. That said, different translators have been translating these texts into English for over a century, such that different word choices have been used to relate the same concepts, and even Marx, Engels, and Lenin used different terms to describe the same concepts in many instances (not to mention the fact that Marx and Engels wrote primarily in German, whereas Lenin wrote primarily in Russian).
-Blood, my blood, impetuous against the lament of the multitude.
+As such, I have made it my first priority to keep the language of this translation internally consistent to avoid confusion and, again, to match the spirit of the original text as much as possible. As a result, you may find differences between the translation choices made in this text and other translations, but it is my hope that the underlying meaning of each translation is properly conveyed.
-<br>
+March, 2023
-<center>
+Luna Nguyen
-</center>
+=== Guide to Annotations ===
-<br>
+This book was written as a textbook for Vietnamese students who are not specializing in Marxism-Leninism, and so it is meant to be a simple and condensed survey of the most fundamental principles of dialectical materialism to be used in a classroom environment with the guide of an experienced lecturer. That said, a typical Vietnamese college student will already have been exposed to many of the concepts presented herein throughout twelve years of primary and secondary education. As such, in translating and preparing this book for a foreign audience who are likely to be reading it without the benefit of a lecturer’s in-person instruction, we realized that we would need to add a significant amount of annotations to the text.
-** [[Apostles and Heretics]]
+These annotations will take the following forms:
-<right>
+* Short annotations which we insert into the text itself [will be included in square brackets like these].
-John Jacobi
-</right>
-*** [[Introduction]]
+-----
-Several years ago when I left high school, I became a homeless anarchist. During that time I was introduced to the works of Ted Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber. The pointed arguments in the man’s manifesto convinced me (this was unsettling for me when, halfway through it, I learned of the author). More importantly, it put words to many of the problems I had with the world around me. In response, I began several failed projects and then started one that stuck, <em>The Wildernist</em>, which I used as a means to connect with some of Kaczynski’s associates in Spain—the editors of <em>Ûltimo Reducto</em> (UR), <em>Anonimos con Cautela</em> (AC), and <em>Isumatag</em>, who I will call <em>indomitistas</em>. Eventually I succeeded, and my conversations with the groups, especially UR, introduced me to a landscape of eco-radical ideologies hidden to the ignorant observer.
+Longer annotations which add further context and background information will be included in boxes like this.
-For example, around this time, I learned more about ITS. My knowledge until that point went only as far as this: they were a terrorist group in Mexico that had been inspired heavily by Ted Kaczynski--differing from him only in that they didn’t espouse revolution--and had produced eight communiqués (which I had read). Some missing pieces of the puzzle quickly revealed their origins. First, I learned that the main project of the Spaniards thus far has been translating Kaczynski’s works into languages other than English. The Portuguese version was finished up just when I started corresponding with the group (this explains why Kaczynski had requested a Portuguese-English dictionary from me several months before). But the Spanish version had been finished by UR long ago—and published right around the time that ITS appeared on the scene. In the back of this edition was an essay by UR, “Izqui- erdismo,” which I translated for the second issue of <em>The Wildernist</em>.
+-----
-All this indicated, just as we had all suspected, that ITS was a group of amateur criminals who found the ideas appealing, but who were responding primarily to Kaczynski’s call for revolu- tion—and were in disagreement with it. UR himself voiced these suspicions in his critique of ITS, written right around their fifth communiqué, which marked a drastic change in their discourse, as one can observe by reading the sixth, seventh, and eight communiqués. Later, the suspicions were confirmed when ITS published their fullest critique of the indomitistas to date, “<em>Algunas respuestas sobre el presente y NO del futuro</em>” (Some answers about the present and NOT the future).They note that they were indeed influenced by UR and Kaczynski, and that they vigorously disagree with the idea of revolution, preferring instead to act now as terrorists. Only later would they explain the ideological foundations of this view, which I will explain more fully later on.
+We have also added diagrams to our annotations, as well as a detailed glossary/index and appendices, which are located in the back of the book. We hope these will resources will also be of use in studying other texts which are rooted in dialectical materialist philosophy.<br />
-The indomitistas, especially UR, are not fans of ITS, and they do not want to be connected to them. Indeed, UR seems to view ITS as a thorn in his side, not a tolerable splinter group. Nevertheless, I noticed that the eco-extremists continued to use language and terms that the indomitistas had been using and that I had popularized in <em>The Wildernist</em>: progressivist, humanist, etc. I also became weary of UR. While brilliant, he is difficult to work with, sometimes naive, unnecessarily incendiary... To illustrate, one might note that his critique of ITS—a terror group—began with a note on their grammatical inconsistencies. And in his critiques of my own writings, he would take great, exaggerated issue with phrases like “more or less” because of their ambiguity. It was getting to be a bit much, and I felt I could be more effective as an autonomous actor. So I broke away. The result was the journal <em>Hunter/Gatherer,</em> and a more popular growth of wildism, another unique take in the family of ideologies related to Kaczynski’s anti-industrial critique.
+=== Original Vietnamese Publisher’s Note ===
-As the wildists grew, we changed our discourse in places where we disagreed with the indomitistas, such as the ubiquitous use of the ill-defined term, “leftism.” Instead, we used the terms “progressivism,” “opportunism,” and “humanism.” To our surprise, ITS followed suit. Other aspects of our language also appeared in ITS’ communiqués, magazine, blogs, and texts. It seemed that even if there were disagreements, some eco-extremists read and were influenced by the newsletter and the wildist tendency.
+In 2004, under the direction of the Central Government, the Ministry of Education and Training, in collaboration with Sự Thật [Vietnamese for “The Truth,” the name of a National Political Publishing House], published a [political science and philosophy] curriculum for universities and colleges in Vietnam. This curriculum includes 5 subjects: Marxist-Leninist Philosophy, Marxist-Leninist Political Economy, Scientific Socialism, Vietnamese Communist Party History, and Ho Chi Minh Thought. This curriculum has been an important contribution towards educating our students — the young intellectuals of the country — in political reasoning, so that the next generation will be able to successfully conduct national innovation.
-In other words, although there are sharp lines delineating complicity and ideological loyalty between the groups, the content of the ideologies differ in what would appear to the outsider as cause for only minor squabbles. Indeed, should any group burst from their obscurity, they would probably be known most by their common influence and primary progenitor, Ted Kaczynski.
+With the new practice of education and training, in order to thoroughly grasp the reform of the Party’s ideological work and theory, and to advocate for reform in both teaching and learning at universities and colleges in general, on September 18<sup>th</sup>, 2008, the Minister of Education and Training, in collaboration with Sự Thật, have issued a new program and published a textbook of political theory subjects for university and college students who are not specialized in Marxism — Leninism with Associate Professor and Doctor of Philosophy Nguyen Viet Thong as chief editor. There are three subjects:
-And this is not entirely unjustified, since each of the actors are, due to inherent ideological similarities, drawn to pay attention to the others. A map of influence, then, would look very much like a tangled web, one that this essay will explore.
+Curriculum of the Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism
-*** [[Kaczynski’s Crusade]]
+Curriculum of Ho Chi Minh Thought
-Ted Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber, is a US terrorist known for his 17-year bombing campaign as the group F.C., which targeted individuals involved in technical fields like computing and genetics.
+Curriculum of the Revolutionary Path of the Communist Party of Vietnam.
-In early 1995, the <em>New York Times</em> received a communiqué from F.C. in the mail:
+Curriculum of the Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism was compiled by a collective of scientists and experienced lecturers from a number of universities, with Pham Van Sinh, Ph.D and Pham Quang Phan, Ph.D as co-editors. This curriculum has been designed to meet the practical educational requirements of students.
-**** This is a message from F.C....we are getting tired of making bombs.
+We hope this book will be of use to you.
-**** It’s no fun having to spend all your evenings and weekends preparing dangerous mixtures, filing trigger mechanisms out of scraps of metal, or searching the sierras for a place isolated enough to test a bomb. So we offer a bargain.
+April, 2016
-The bargain offered by the group was simple: publish its manifesto, and it will stop sending bombs.
+NATIONAL POLITICAL PUBLISHING HOUSE — SỰ THẬT
-The manifesto, entitled <em>Industrial Society and Its Future</em>, was a 35,000 word polemic detailing the threats that industrial society posed to freedom and wild nature. At the crux of the document’s analysis was a concept called “the power process,” or an innate human need to engage in autonomous goal setting and achievement. Despite this psychological necessity, “<em>in modern industrial society, only minimal effort is necessary to satisfy one’s physical needs</em>.” As a result of the mismatch between human need and industrial conditions, modern life is rife with depression, helplessness, and despair, and although some people can offset these side effects with “surrogate activities,” the manifesto says that these are often undignifying, menial tasks. Interestingly, these concepts have numerous parallels in contemporary psychology, the most notable similar idea being Martin Seligman’s concept of learned helplessness.
+=== Original Vietnamese Preface ===
-Ultimately, the manifesto extols the autonomy of individuals and small groups from the control of technology and large organizations, and it offers the hunter-gatherer way of life as a vision of what that kind of autonomy might look like. Still, the end of the manifesto only argues for the practical possibility of revolution against industry (rather than a complete return to hunter-gatherer life), and it outlines some steps to form a movement capable of carrying out that revolution.
+To implement the resolutions of the Communist Party of Vietnam, especially the 5<sup>th</sup>
-Hoping that it would allow someone to identify the perpetrator, the FBI encouraged the <em>New York Times</em> and <em>Washington Post</em> to publish F.C.’s manifesto. The two newspapers took the advice, and the manifesto was soon published as an eight-page insert to the Washington Post, with publication costs partly funded by the <em>Times</em>.
+Central Resolution on ideological work, theory, and press, on September 18<sup>th</sup>, 2008, The Ministry of Education and Training has issued Decision Number 52/2008/QD-BGDDT, issuing the subject program: The Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism for Students Non-Specialised in Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh Thought. In collaboration with Truth — the National Political Publishing House — we published the Curriculum of the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism for Students Non-Specialised in MarxismLeninism and Ho Chi Minh Thought.
-The FBI was right about the manifesto: it did help someone identify the author. Shortly after the work’s publication, David Kaczynski contacted a lawyer to share his suspicion that the Unabomber was his brother, Ted. After examining the submitted evidence, the FBI raided the man’s home, finding everything they needed to put him on trial for the crimes of the Unabomber.
+The authors of this text have drawn from the contents of the Central Council’s previous programs (Marxist-Leninist Philosophy, Marxist-Leninist Political Economy, and Scientific Socialism) and compiled them into national textbooks for Marxist-Leninist science subjects and Ho Chi Minh Thought, as well as other curriculums for the Ministry of Education and Training. The authors have received comments from many collectives, such as the Ho Chi Minh National Academy of Politics and Administration, the Central Propaganda Department, as well as individual scientists and lecturers at universities and colleges throughout the country. Notably:
-After a circus of a trial, Kaczynski ended up pleading guilty to the Unabomber crimes, and in turn he was given a life sentence and sent off to the Supermax facility in Florence, Colorado.
+Associate Professor To Huy Rua, Ph.D, Professor Phung Huu Phu, Ph.D, Professor Nguyen Duc Binh, Professor Le Huu Nghia, Ph.D, Professor Le Huu Tang, Ph.D,
-The response to the manifesto, while certainly not without a fair share of criticism, included many positive comments from well-adapted and successful members of society. One of these people, Bill Joy, was the inventor of the Java programming language and the founder of Sun Microsystems. In other words, he could easily have received a bomb from F.C. Yet in 2000 Joy wrote his now-famous essay “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us,” in which he describes his troubled surprise when he read an incisive passage on the threat new technologies pose — only to discover that the passage was pulled from the Unabomber Manifesto. “<em>He is clearly a Luddite</em>, Joy writes, <em>but simply saying this does not dismiss his argument; as difficult as it is for me to acknowledge, I saw some merit in [his] reasoning...</em>”
+Professor Vo Dai Luoc, Ph.D, Professor Tran Phuc Thang, Ph.D, Professor Hoang
-Other reactions have been similar. Journalist and science writer Robert Wright famously stated, “<em>There’s a little bit of the Un- abomber in most of us</em>.” And political scientist and UCLA professor James Q. Wilson, the man behind the famous “broken windows theory,” wrote in the <em>New York Times</em> that the manifesto was “<em>a carefully reasoned, artfully written paper. If it is the work of a madman, then the writings of many political philosophers — Jean Jacques Rousseau, Tom Paine, Karl Marx — are scarcely more sane.</em>”
+Chi Bao, Ph.D, Professor Tran Ngoc Hien, Ph.D, Professor Ho Van Thong, Associate
-Perhaps most striking, however, was how much the general public expressed adoration and fascination with the Unabomber.
+Professor Duong Van Thinh, Ph.D, Associate Professor Nguyen Van Oanh, Ph.D,
-**** “I’ve never seen the likes of this,” said one criminologist, “Millions of people ... seem to identify in some way with him. ”
+Associate Professor Nguyen Van Hao, Ph.D, Associate Professor Nguyen Duc Bach, PhD. Pham Van Chin, Phung Thanh Thuy, M.A., and Nghiem Thi Chau Giang, M.A.
-Kaczynski was arrested and on trial during the early age of the internet, and fan websites quickly popped up all over, including the famous Usenet group, alt.fan.unabomber. Stickers appeared that said “Ted Kaczynski has a posse;” t-shirts appeared that had the famous Unabomber sketch and the word “dad” printed on it; and many organisations contributed to a nationwide Unabomber for President campaign. “Don’t blame me,” one campaign ad said, “I voted for the Unabomber.”
+After a period of implementation, the contents of the textbooks have been supplemented and corrected on the basis of receiving appropriate suggestions from universities, colleges, the contingent of lecturers of political theory, and scientists. However, due to objective and subjective limitations, there are still contents that need to be added and modified, and we would love to receive more comments to make the next edition of the curriculum more complete.
-Even now Kaczynski has his open advocates. For example, David Skrbina, a philosophy of technology professor at the University of Michigan, corresponded with Kaczynski for years, edited a book by him, and has written several essays supporting genuine engagement with Kaczynski’s works. One of the essays is provocatively entitled “A Revolutionary for Our Times.”
+MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
-So as uncomfortable as this might make some, the man’s terrorism was profoundly successful at getting his ideas in front of an enormous population. Not only was the manifesto published, in full, by the <em>New York Times</em> and <em>Washington Post</em>, it was also published in numerous smaller publications; it was placed all over the internet, including one of the first internet portals, Time Warner’s Pathfinder; it was stored in government and legal databases and archives that would ensure his ideas lived on indefinitely; and it elicited the insight and commentary of countless intellectuals and public figures, among other things. In all, the manifesto reached an astoundingly large audience, which mostly consisted of everyday Americans, and which ensured that even if no individual or group took the ideas seriously immediately after publication, it would remain stored in countless places, waiting for potential future actors to be inspired. As of yet, no one has suggested a plausible alternative that Kaczynski could have taken to publish his text with the same amount of influence, response, and immortality that he achieved through his terrorism. As Skrbina puts it, “<em>In the end, we are appalled by Kaczyn- ski—because he won.</em>”
+=== Table of Contents ===
-*** [[The Apostles]]
+'''Introduction to The Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism'''
-But Kacynski is still alive, and may win even more battles before his death. Since his arrest and imprisonment in 1995, he has cultivated an impressive network of penpals that includes professors, artists, scientists, authors, and some activists. The most interesting group in this network, however, are the indomitistas, or converts to Kaczynski’s ideology who are dedicated to doing the necessary work of revolution.
+'''I. Brief History of Marxism Leninism'''
-Well-numbered, the group’s primary influencers are the editors of UR and <em>Isumatag</em>, publications in Spain advocating Kaczynski’s anti-industrial revolution. Other public representatives of the group include <em>Anonimos con Cautela</em> from Mexico and some blogs run by Portuguese indomitistas.
+. Marxism and the Three Constituent Parts
-As noted before, much of the work of the indomitistas was not particularly original. Indeed, they mostly did menial tasks, like translating Kaczynski’s manifesto into Spanish and Portuguese, or rehashing the specifics of Kaczynski’s ideology in their publications.
+. Summary of the Birth and Development of Marxism-Leninism
-But there was one original effort they worked on closely with Kaczynski, and it was primarily led by UR: an ongoing formalizing of their ideology, with philosophical and scientific rigor (rather than with the flatter and more populist rhetoric Kaczynski himself used in his manifesto and other propaganda).
+'''II. Objects, Purposes, and Requirements for Studying the Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism'''
-I hesitate to explain the specifics of the indomitistas’ take on their ideology, because the best word to describe the group is “picky”—in fact, not all of them even like the term “indomitista.” Attempting to outline their beliefs is an exercise in futility, because inevitably some small aspect will be wrong, misstated, or not stated just right, to which some individual, probably the editor of UR, will respond saying in an exaggerated manner that the outline was damaging to the cause.
+. Objects and Purposes of Study
-It is best, then, for me to forego a broad overview for a concrete example that will illustrate exactly what the indomitistas were trying to do. It was, to put it simply, an exegesis of Kaczynski’s manifesto. (This is why ITS’ epithet for the indomitistas, the “apostles of Kaczynski,” has pointed accuracy.)
+. Some Basic Requirements of the Studying Method
-For example, in <em>Industrial Society and Its Future</em> he writes,
+. Excerpt from ''Modifying the Working Style''
-**** 94. By ‘freedom’ we mean the opportunity to go through the power process, with real goals not the artificial goals of surrogate activities, and without interference, manipulation, or supervision from anyone, especially from any large organization. Freedom means being in control (either as an individual or as a member of a small group) of the life-and-death issues of one’s existence: food, clothing, shelter, and defense against whatever threats there may be in one’s environment. Freedom means having power; not the power to control other people but the power to control the circumstances of one’s own life. One does not have freedom if anyone else (especially a large organization) has power over one, no matter how benevolently, tolerantly, and permissively that power may be exercised. It is important not to confuse freedom with mere permissiveness (see paragraph 72).
+'''Chapter I: Dialectical Materialism'''
-But later, when Professor Skrbina worked with him to publish a collection of his writings, he added a postscript noting that some aspects of his manifesto were outdated or somewhat wrong. He specifically mentions his definition of freedom above,
+'''I. Materialism and Dialectical Materialism'''
-**** Último Reducto has recently called attention to some flaws in my work, [some] serious ... in the second and third sentences of paragraph 94 of ISAIF I wrote: [see above]. But obviously people have never had such control to more than a limited extent. They have not, for example, been able to control bad weather, which in certain circumstances can lead to starvation. So what kind and degree of control do people really need? At a minimum they need to be free of “interference, manipulation, or supervision... from any large organization,” as stated in the first sentence ofparagraph 94. But if the second and third sentences meant no more than that, they would be redundant. So there is a problem here in need of a solution. I’m not going to try to solve it now, however. For the present let it suffice to say that ISAIF is by no means a final and definitive statement in the field that it covers. Maybe someday I or someone else will be able to offer a clearer and more accurate treatment of the same topics.
+. The Opposition of Materialism and Idealism in Solving Basic Philosophical Issues
-To resolve this problem, UR advocated dropping the term “freedom” completely and replacing it with the term “wildness.” Under his framework, there was capital-N Nature, all-that-is, the same way the physicists would use the word. Some of this Nature is dominated by humans or technics, called “artifice;” other aspects of Nature remain untrammeled by humans or technics, called “wild Nature.” UR argued that this framework was a better one to express the ideology, because “freedom” is too ambiguous: freedom from what, freedom to do what, and freedom for whom?
+. Dialectical Materialism — the Most Advanced Form of Materialism
-UR pointed out that Kaczynski already implicitly answered these questions in his manifesto.
+'''II. Dialectical Materialist Opinions About Matter, Consciousness, and the Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness'''
-**** 183. But an ideology, in order to gain enthusiastic support, must have a positive ideal as well as a negative one; it must be for something as well as against something. The positive ideal that we propose is Nature. That is, wild nature: Those aspects of the functioning of the Earth and its living things that are independent of human management and free of human interference and control. And with wild nature we include human nature, by which we mean those aspects of the functioning of the human individual that are not subject to regulation by organized society but are products of chance, or free will, or God (depending on your religious or philosophical opinions).
+. Matter
-**** 184. Nature makes a perfect counter-ideal to technology for several reasons. Nature (that which is outside the power of the system) is the opposite of technology (which seeks to expand indefinitely the power of the system). Most people will agree that nature is beautiful; certainly it has tremendous popular appeal. The radical environmentalists already hold an ideology that exalts nature and opposes technology. It is not necessary for the sake of nature to set up some chimerical utopia or any new kind of social order. Nature takes care of itself: It was a spontaneous creation that existed long before any human society, and for countless centuries many different kinds of human societies coexisted with nature without doing it an excessive amount of damage. Only with the Industrial Revolution did the effect of human society on nature become really devastating. To relieve the pressure on nature it is not necessary to create a special kind of social system, it is only necessary to get rid of industrial society. Granted, this will not solve all problems. Industrial society has already done tremendous damage to nature and it will take a very long time for the scars to heal. Besides, even preindustrial societies can do significant damage to nature. Nevertheless, getting rid of industrial society will accomplish a great deal. It will relieve the worst of the pressure on nature so that the scars can begin to heal. It will remove the capacity of organized society to keep increasing its control over nature (including human nature). Whatever kind of society may exist after the demise of the industrial system, it is certain that most people will live close to nature, because in the absence of advanced technology there is no other way that people can live. To feed themselves they must be peasants, or herdsmen, or fishermen, or hunters, etc. And, generally speaking, local autonomy should tend to increase, because lack of advanced technology and rapid communications will limit the capacity of governments or other large organizations to control local communities.
+. Consciousness
-<center>
+. The Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness
-—and—
-</center>
-**** 69. It is true that primitive man is powerless against some of the things that threaten him; disease for example … But threats to the modern individual tend to be man-made. They are not the results of chance but are imposed on him by other persons whose decisions he, as an individual, is unable to influence. Consequently he feels frustrated, humiliated, and angry.
+. Meaning of the methodology
-Here is becomes clearer what kind of freedom Kaczynski is talking about: the ability for nature, including man’s nature, to function with relatively little domination from other men or their technical systems. In other words, he advocates wildness.
+'''Chapter 2: Materialist Dialectics'''
-Though this seems like a pedantic point, the distinction counts as a time when the pickiness of the indomitistas was beneficial, since there are some vital differences between “freedom” and “wildness” that ITS touches on later in their communiqués. Indeed, although ITS shuns excessive theorizing, it actually does function from a fairly thorough theoretical basis that was strongly influenced by Kaczynski and the indomitistas.
+'''I. Dialectics and Materialist Dialectics'''
-For example, there is a difference between advocating freedom from an oppressive government and advocating wildness for human nature and society. In fact, if it is in man’s nature to form oppressive governments, then the two would be synonymous. Analogously, one might consider the absurdity of advocating a wolf pack’s liberation from the tyranny of the alpha wolf, because the alpha wolf structure is manifestly an expression of their natures, and to enforce something contrary to their natural tendencies would require taming or eventually domesticating them.
+. Dialectics and Basic Forms of Dialectics
-Both the indomitistas and the eco-extremists also advocate the distinction because of the way it distinguishes eco-radical demands from the demands of green ideologies influenced by dominant values. For example, anarcho-primitivists advocate what they call liberation, in the context of gender, race, class, and animal moral standing; but Kaczynski (and the indomitistas) argue that the natural, primitive human being sometimes lived in societies that treated animals cruelly, had strict gender roles, were ethnocentric, and were stratified to a degree more severe than the primitivists are willing to admit. Of course, not all societies had all of these elements, but since some did, and in their natural condition, then a group advocating the restoration of wild human nature would not be able to espouse moralities that would require hypocritical technical coercion to enforce.
+. Materialist Dialectics
-The indomitistas, point by point, combed the same intellectual razor through the entire manifesto, eventually creating a glossary of theoretical terms like “Progress,” “progressivism,” “humanism,” “leftism,” and “techno-industrial society.” They also formalized the moral foundations of Kaczynski’s critique by, intentionally or not, drawing on an age-old philosophical distinction between “natural” and “artificial” values. The specifics of the ideas are explained in UR’s untranslated dialogue, entitled “Con Amigos Como Éstos,” with a neo-Luddite group in Spain, and all of them strongly influenced the eco-extremists, especially in their first phase as ITS.
+'''II. Basic Principles of Materialist Dialectics'''
-*** [[The Heretics]]
+. The Principle of General Relationships
-ITS issued its first communiqué in 2011, and the influence of Kaczynski and the indomitistas was immediately obvious to anyone familiar with their writings. Indeed, that the indomitistas had just finished the official Spanish translation of <em>Industrial Society and Its Future</em> helps explain why ITS decided that then, of all times, was the moment to act.
+. Principle of Development
-But ITS was never as enamored with the strict Kaczynski line as the indomitistas were. Their initial communiqués even featured aspects typical of left-wing discourse, like substituting the -a and -o in gendered nouns for -x, which the indomitistas had already unequivocally distanced themselves from. They also, wittingly or not, seemed heavily influenced by anarchist insurrectionist theory, even though they deny as much in a response to <em>Isumatag</em>’s critique of them.
+'''III. Basic Pairs of Categories of Materialist Dialectics'''
-Despite the mild syncretism, by and large the ITS of 20112014 only rehashed Kaczynski’s core arguments and the other, secondary clarifications the indomitistas had added since then. They spoke of the power process and “<em>dominadora</em>” (a term important to UR’s early work), and even mimicked the foonote-heavy, academic style typical of Kaczynski and his followers.
+. Private and Common
-They made clear, however, that they had one major reservation with Kaczynski’s ideology: they did not believe that revolution against the techno-industrial system was possible. Their reasoning at the time was mostly practical. Techno-industrial society, they said, was like a many-headed hydra that could not be defeated in the simplistic manner that Kaczynski imagined, and argued that he probably only still believes in revolution because he is unfamiliar with how rapidly the 21st century embraced biotechnology, computing technologies, and artificial intelligence.
+. Reason and Result
-The indomitistas, predictably, did not react very well to this, but at first they gave what was, for them, a surprising amount of leeway in their critiques of ITS. UR, for example, though harsh, explicitly avoided the “<em>worn and generally sterile debate</em>” about violence, and he seemed to want to correct misconceptions more than condemn, and distance himself from, the group. But ITS only became more convinced of its disbelief in revolution, dog-whistling as much in their communiqués until they finally acknowledged in public that they had been responding to the indomitistas all along. This “exchange” of sorts ended bitterly. ITS began mocking the indomitistas as the “apostles of Kaczynski,” proudly declaring themselves heretics who were not so naive as to believe in revolution. UR speaks of the group now with very little concern for politeness. And in his very first letter to me, Kaczynski condemned the group and disavowed any relationship to them.
+. Obviousness and Randomness
-As ITS realized it wasn’t going to convince the indomitistas, they rebranded themselves <em>Reaccion Salvaje</em> (Wild Reaction) and enlisted other eco-terror groups nearby under the same moniker. The ideological turn was stark. Although they still used Kaczynski’s general framework to critique industrial society, they now put concerted effort into distinguishing themselves from him and, of the indomitistas, UR in particular. They stopped using terms like “the power process,” unique to the Unabomber manifesto, and developed their own terms like “hyper-artificial.” They also abandoned the apostles’ signature writing style for more colloquial communiqués and began expressing complex theoretical ideas in easy-to-understand, populist terms. For example, earlier in their history they went to great lengths to explain why they fought, even though they believed it was likely, or perhaps even definite, that they would die or be imprisoned by the end of it; with their new phase, they abandoned carefully reasoned arguments (at least in their communiqués) for an elegant analogy: <em>We</em>, they write, <em>are like the bee who stings its enemy even when that sting means certain death</em>. And by most measures, this was a definite advance for their cause, since most people do not have the wherewithal to comb through the morass of abstractions that was their original rhetorical style.
+. Content and Form
-Most importantly, a few core aspects of their doctrine changed. For example, whereas their argument against revolution began as a mostly practical one, as they transitioned into Reac- cion Salvaje, they emphasized that revolution was undesirable even if it were possible. They noted how revolutions are aberrations of modernity, only possible because of a distorted view that the mass imbues the individual with meaning. But they were not attempting to respect the masses, to progress, to revolt; they were ready to disregard the mass for the individual completely, to regress, to react. Their decision to engage in terrorism transformed from a mere expression of hopelessness at the failed prospects of revolution and into a celebration of individual resistance. Terrorism was to them now an act of rewilding their own natures.
+. Essence and Phenomenon
-With their now total embrace of a terroristic strategy—which they call a “war on nerves”—ITS changed on two other core doctrines distinguishing them from the indomitistas. The first was a move away from strict philosophical materialism, which did not accept the existence of anything supernatural, to a revivalist version of animism, which in the context of the Mexican eco-extremists amounted to reclaiming ancestral religious beliefs. This change was fundamental, since originally the group mimicked UR’s talk of objective Truth, and condemnation of mysticism as a psychological abnormality. They wrote in their fourth communiqué:
+. Possibility and Reality
-**** ITS’ explanations do not have anything of magic, fantasy, or mysticism, because Wild Nature, like Technological Dominating Civilization, are two aspects with great prominence today, although they daily enclose Nature, reducing it to nothing and to uncertainty.
+'''IV. Basic Laws of Materialist Dialectics'''
-**** For ITS, Nature is not a goddess, it is not our mother, nor anything like this. Nature is what it is, it is an objective and pointed absolute; to qualify it, adore it, or idealize it would be to fall into irrational sacredness, which we are completely against.
+. Law of Transformation Between Quantity and Quality
-These views and their differences are elaborated slightly in an interview I conducted with an eco-extremist propagandist, published in the sixth issue of <em>Hunter/Gatherer</em>. Ultimately, because the differences in metaphysical beliefs among eco-extremists is reduced
+. Law of Unification and Contradiction Between Opposites
-to personal choice and does not significantly affect other aspects of the ideology, the change is not worth exploring more in depth here. For now, it is sufficient to explain the change in terms of ITS’ new rhetorical framework: in rewilding their own natures, they would do the best they could to reclaim the belief systems natural to the human psychology, and they would not apologize for it.
+. Law of Negation of Negation
-This idea of rewilding human nature, however, did come with one last doctrinal revision that had a profound impact on ITS’ place among eco-radical ideologies. I speak of their infamous defense of “indiscriminate attack.” In their second phase as ITS, they write:
+'''Chapter 3: Cognitive Theory of Dialectical Materialism'''
-**** We salute those who attack indiscriminately this compromised society, just as we rejoice in the arrows that pierce the bodies of loggers in the Amazon and surrounding places. It fills us with joy when tornadoes destroy urban areas, as well as when storms flood and endanger defenseless citizens. The same is the case when we see those who freeze to death in the cold winter, or when we see people wounded in earthquakes, for these are responses and reactions as well to the Technological System and civilization. We learn from nature and its violent reactions. Nature doesn’t stop when faced with subways, or rural or urban buildings. It doesn’t respect the common citizen or the scientific specialist. It is relentless, it destroys everything in its path without consideration for morality. With this, we are personifying in animist style Wild Nature...
+. Praxis, Consciousness, and the Role of Praxis in Consciousness
-In other words, ITS had transformed the Kaczynskian framework into a family of ideologies that primarily functioned to justify a relentless terroristic strategy against human civilization. They had criticized the “apostles of Kaczynski” before for placing too much emphasis on critique, not enough on action; now they had perfectly merged doctrine and praxis, producing something that the global industrial system would never be able to absorb, as it does with most mass movements.
+. Dialectical Path of Consciousness to Truth
-Around this same time, I was becoming disillusioned with the indomitistas and, with a small network of a few others, made a similar ideological break with them to outline the wildist philosophy. In the course of distinguishing ourselves, the new network of wildists abandoned the vague term “leftist,” redefined terms like “humanist” and “Progress” into something more exact, and emphasized the necessity to extend the conservation imperative to human nature, among other things. To our surprise, ITS followed suit in many of the same areas. To this day we remain mostly unaware of whether we were developing concurrently along a similar line as ITS, or whether we accidentally influenced them after we caught their eye when we publicly broke from their and our ideological progenitors. Regardless, it is clear that the ideologies have a strong family resemblance to each other, and this is significant because it helps explain the logical arguments that underpin the elegant but populist rhetoric eco-extremists now use in their communiqués.
+'''Afterword'''
-For example, the concept of “indiscriminate attack” is not an arbitrary doctrine, as many radical critics of the eco-extremists have implied. In fact, there is a very clear, very justified set of logical steps from the moral premises underpinning anti-progressive ecoradicalism and the praxis of indiscriminate attack. Let me explain.
+'''Appendices'''
-After the network of wildists, the Wild Will Coalition, became an independent force, we emphasized the importance of “extending the conservation imperative” to human nature. We pointed out that there was an enormous disparity between the morality of the savage and the morality of the citizen. The savage has no loyalty to a mass society or its large organizations; his loyalty is only to his circle of close friends, family members, environments, etc.—a circle we referred to as <em>relations</em>, and UR referred to as the untranslatable <em>allegados</em>. In contrast, the citizen, especially in the current humanist phase of civilization, extends moral consideration to masses upon masses of people and subordinates himself to the institutions that sustain these masses.
+Appendix A: Basic Pairs of Categories Used in Materialist Dialectics
-Usually this is framed as human beings “self-actualizing” and expressing their natures. But Wild Will used ideas from sociobiology, David Hume, Friedrich Nietzsche, anthropology, and many other fields, and figures to show how it is more accurate to view the disparity between savage and citizen as a result of the cultivation of human nature, much like the disparity between wilderness and wheat fields is due to the cultivation of the land. Thus, to rewild, we must reject humanist morality—and any civilized morality that values the mass too highly, like state nationalism or Christianity.
+Appendix B: The Two Basic Principles of Dialectical Materialism
-Kaczynski had already touched on these points before in <em>Industrial Society and Its Future</em> (see paragraphs 26-28), but where the indomitistas only put effort into extracting values and value priorities from Kaczynski’s critique, Wild Will (and apparently the eco-extremists as well) investigated the repercussions these ideas would have on <em>action</em>.
+Appendix C: The Three Universal Laws of Materialist Dialectics
-For example, a common argument against anti-civilization politics states that the collapse of civilization would lead to widespread death and is therefore undesirable. Of course, the argument is already weakened if the anti-civ individual accepts that total and rapid civilizational collapse is extremely unlikely, leaving only regional collapses as an assured part of the future. But it is made even weaker when we realize that, absent any other moral commitments, the basic ideas that justify anti-civ politics do not require us to be all that concerned with the masses, and the same ideas explicitly reject any imposed obligation to care.
+Appendix D: Forms of Consciousness and Knowledge
-Of course, there are many caveats to this, at least according to wildists. For example, it is not that the eco-radical must not care about the well-being of others in a sentimental sense. It is perfectly normal to respond to news of a starving child far away with sadness and empathy. What is peculiarly modern, however, is the obligation to extend active moral consideration to that child—and even to put him or the level of the closest of our relations. This is a demand that goes beyond our natural ability, so educational systems socialize us, inculcating us with what David Hume called “artificial values;” large organizations like NGOs or human rights councils fill in the gaps in natural human ability to act on these values; our natures must be further modified for the efficiency of those organizations, and so on.
+Appendix E: Properties of Truth
-Wildists addressed this problem by reminding themselves that the basic values of anti-civilization politics, in vulgar terms, created in them a willingness to see civilization collapse even if that meant returning to hunter/gatherer conditions. But if this is a true willingness, then our actions cannot be tempered in any way by moralities created by the social system for its own self-preservation. Kaczynski, for example, wrote that if we prioritize individuals and small groups over large organizations, we have ample reason to reject industrial society. But in true practice, this means being willing to see those large organizations burn, even violently, for the sake of that small group. Consider the way traditional societies or traditionalist ethnic groups botch industrial operations with nepotism or suspicion of police. Anti-civilization politics is similar, but more consciously antagonistic to industrial operations.
+Appendix F: Common Deviations from Dialectical Materialism
-So if we are to take ourselves seriously as opponents of civilization, we must be willing to act according to our values regardless of the repercussions these have on the things we feel no real loyalty to, even, perhaps even especially, when sentimental loyalty has been socialized into us. This approach to praxis applies equally well to revolutionary and non-revolutionary strategies: even if the institutions we hate will always exist, we do not have to respect them. The oft-repeated slogan within wildist circles, then, is to “<em>act according to our values, without regard for civilization</em>.”
+'''Glossary and Index'''
-Wildists are in practice not quite as extreme as the eco-ex- tremists, however, for two reasons. One is that although our values, taken seriously, permit a large degree of moral latitude, pragmatic considerations more severely limit what we can do if we aim to be successful. For example, while it may not be morally condemnable to engage in some acts of violence, often those same acts would induce a response too harsh for a budding radical group to handle. Furthermore, even though we recognize that we must take our values seriously, and we believe that most humans who are indoctrinated with humanist moralities have been propagandized to believe such things, the facts of the situation demand a certain amount of tolerance on this front. Even a person logically convinced of every idea in wildism would find that the morality of the savage is so utterly contrary to everything he has been raised to believe that he cannot live by it as uncompromisingly as is ideal. As a result, there is a debate among wildists about how much tolerance we should have for people attempting to “extend the conservation imperative.” We tend to talk about a “tactical spectrum” where the most moderate live on one side and the most uncompromising on the other, and we’ve generally agreed that our role is to link each of these elements together wherever possible. As a result, wildists tend to inhabit the middle part of the spectrum.
+<br />
-The eco-extremists, on the other hand, take these same ideas and apply them in a less tempered and conservative way, and this is why they have so unapologetically defended indiscriminate attack. Unlike wildists, eco-extremists are not trying to build a coalition so much as inhabit the most extreme possible part of the spectrum. Oddly enough, this idea comes from Kaczynski. He writes the following in his recent book on strategy and tactics for an anti-industrial movement:
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-3.png|''“Great Victory for the People and Army of South Vietnam!”'']]
-**** 15. If the goal of revolutionaries is the complete elimination of the technological society, then they must discard the values and the morality of that society and replace them with new values and a new morality designed to serve the purposes of revolution. Trotsky put it this way:
+<br />
-**** @@@Bolshevism created the type of the authentic revolutionist who subordinates [his ideas and his moral judgments] to historic goals irreconcilable with contemporary society … [T]he Bolshevik party created not only a political but a moral medium of its own, independent of bourgeois social opinion and implacably opposed to it. Only this permitted the Bolsheviks to overcome the waverings in their own ranks and reveal in action that courageous determination without which the October [Revolution] would have been impossible.
+= Introduction to the Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism =
-**** Suitable recruits to the revolutionary movement will include only those who are prepared to abandon the old values and morality and adopt in their place the revolutionary values and morality. The revolutionary message needs to be addressed to and designed for, not the general public, but the small minority of people who have the potential to become committed members of the revolutionary organization. 16. It follows that the revolutionaries should never retreat from their extreme positions for the sake of popularity or to avoid offending the moral or other sensibilities of the general public. If the revolutionary organization were to dilute its message or prevaricate in order to avoid offending people it would discourage its own members and lose their respect, weakening their commitment to the organization; it would lose the respect of the best kind of potential recruits while attracting many who were incapable of total commitment to the organization; and it would lose the respect of the general public. A revolutionary organization should seek not to be liked, but to be respected, and it should have no aversion to being hated and feared. Mao regarded hatred of a revolutionary organization as a sign that it was effective. It is to such an organization that many people will turn in a time of crisis when they have lost all confidence in the existing social order and are desperate or angry.
+== I. Brief History of Marxism-Leninism ==
-In sum, the eco-extremists defend indiscriminate attack because they are willing only to ally themselves with the most uncompromising, most rebellious, most extreme elements of techno-industrial society. And this strategy works. Consider the way al-Qaeda or the Islamic State have attracted young militants, to the detriment of the thousands of other radical Islamist groups, because they have a reputation of no compromise. It is likely that as the problems of civilization become more apparent, and as regional collapses start to become more frequent due to these crises (even if only temporarily), the individuals who wish to “go savage” in these conditions will see the eco-extremists, not the wildists, not the indomitistas, and not Kaczynski, as the network to join. I guess we’ll see.
+=== 1. Marxism and the Three Constituent Parts ===
-*** [[Final Thoughts]]
+Marxism-Leninism is a system of scientific opinions and theories which were built by Karl Marx<ref>Karl Marx, 1818–1883 (German): Theorist, politician, dialectical materialist philosopher, political economist, founder of scientific socialism, leader of the international working class.</ref> and Friedrich Engels<ref>Friedrich Engels, 1820–1895 (German): Theorist, politician, dialectical materialist philosopher, leader of the international working class, co-founder of scientific socialism with Karl Marx.</ref>, and defended and developed by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin<ref>Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1870–1924 (Russian): Theorist, politician, dialectical materialist philosopher, defender and developer of Marxism in the era of imperialism, founder of the Communist Party and the government of the Soviet Union, leader of Russia and the international working class.</ref>. Marxism-Leninism was formed and developed by interpreting reality as well as building on preceding ideas. It provides the fundamental worldview* and methodology of scientific awareness and revolutionary practice. It is a science that concerns the work of liberating the proletariat from all exploitative regimes with the ambition of liberating all of humanity from all forms of oppression.
-So this is the landscape of the new eco-radicalism: Kaczynski the crusader, his apostles the indomitistas, and the heretics: wildists and eco-extremists. By now it should be clear that eco-extremists did not simply pop into the world with bombs and rhetoric; to the contrary, they are only the latest manifestation of a set of anti-civilization ideas that are spreading rapidly. This new ecoradicalism is not the stale ecological politic of mainstream environmentalism, nor is it like the weak and compromising “radical” ideologies like primitivism or eco-socialism. No, this is anticivilization politic taken seriously: a full rejection of not just the material basis of civilized society, but the moral and philosophical basis too. Of course, at the moment these new eco-radicals look like lone prophets in the wilderness, or worse, lost lepers there. But this is only because of how fundamentally contrary the new values run to the values of civility—an accomplishment, not a failure. And as climate change, antimicrobial resistance, mass surveillance, species extinctions, etc.—the problems central to the ideology—continue to dominate the politics of the 21st century, we can only expect the values to spread further. The only question that remains is which approach will take on. Will it be the traditional revolutionary approach of Kaczynski? The coalitionbuilding approach of the wildists? Or will it be the savagery and terror of the eco-extremists?
+Marxism-Leninism is made up of three basic theories which have strong relationships with each other. They are: ''Philosophy of Marxism-Leninism, Marxist-Leninist Political Economics,'' and ''Scientific Socialism''.
-As someone who keeps up with conversations about these questions within various radical ecological subcultures, I believe that the eco-extremists are being underestimated. People seem to believe that the eco-extremist strategy does not work, and, partially due to the eco-extremists themselves, there is a general feeling that the ideologies claiming the name have no strong foundation. Anarchist commentators, for example, frequently liken the terror cells to angsty boys enamored with Nietzsche and lusting for blood in place of unrequited sexual lust. I hope to have eliminated both criticisms. Clearly, the eco-extremist strategy has a logic to it, and some interesting historical precedents; and certainly the eco-extremist ideologies share a solid philosophical foundation. Whether that is all due to their own rigor and creativity or whether it is simply a residual effect of the indomitistas’ work remains to be seen. Practically, though, it does not matter. So long as they continue on their current path, they may well be the tendency that defines eco-radicalism in the 21st century.
+''Philosophy of Marxism-Leninism'' studies the basic principles of the movement and development of nature, society and human thought. It provides the fundamental worldview and methodology of scientific awareness and revolutionary practice.
-<br>
+Based on this philosophical worldview and methodology, ''Marxist-Leninist Political Economics'' studies the economic rules of society, especially the economic rules of the birth, development, and decay of the capitalist mode of production, as well as the birth and development of a new mode of production: the communist mode of production.
-<center>
+''Scientific Socialism''** is the inevitable result of applying the philosophical worldview and methodology of Marxism-Leninism, as well as Marxist-Leninist Political Economics, to reveal the objective rules of the socialist revolution process: the historical step from capitalism into socialism, and then communism.
-</center>
+-----
-<br>
+==== Annotation 1 ====
-** ITS: The Invisible Menace
+<nowiki>*</nowiki> A ''worldview'' encompasses the whole of an individual’s or society’s opinions and conceptions about the world, about ourselves as human beings, and about life and the position of human beings in the world.
-<right>
+<nowiki>**</nowiki> The word “science,” and, by extension, “scientific” in Marxism-Leninism has specific meaning. Friedrich Engels was the first to describe the philosophy which he developed with Marx as “Scientific Socialism” in his book Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.
-<em>Regresión</em> #6, Editorial
-</right>
-**** What we say today may be forgotten, but what we do will last. A.
+However, it should be noted that the English phrase “scientific socialism” comes from
-*** [[April [2016] It continues:]]
+Engels’ use of the German phrase “wissenschaftlich sozialismus.”
-Indiscriminate amoral attack and the moral anarcho-nun Many moons have passed since the eco-extremist tendency has been spreading to many corners of the world, particularly in the Americas. In February, we were witnesses to how groups like the Individualists Tending Toward the Wild (ITS), by far the most representative of the tendency, emerged in Chile and Argentina with arsons, threats, explosives, and package-bombs. From Mexico, the evil spore had arrived in the southern continent, where it has implanted itself.
+“Wissenschaft” is a word which can be directly translated as “knowledge craft” in German, and this word encompasses a much more broad and general concept than the word “science” as it’s usually used in English.
-On March 2nd, ITS came out with a joint communiqué announcing its international expansion, and in April, some commentators began to feel uncomfortable at the words and actions of the group. Some revealed their thoroughly Western morality and rejected the “insanity” defended by eco-extremists, namely, indiscriminate attack. We are speaking specifically of the anarchists from many projects of “counter-information,” editors of insurrectionalist journals, and anarcho-nun groups who didn’t hesitate to criticize. These people have been addressed by our friends at Maldición Eco-extremista (ME, a blog hosted on the Noblogs server, an alternative web publishing platform) in their harsh and sarcastic criticism published on June 8th entitled, “Our response is like an earthquake,” which can be found online.
+In common usage, the word “science” in English has a relatively narrow definition, referring to systematically acquired, objective knowledge pertaining to a particular subject. But “wissenschaft” refers to a systematic pursuit of knowledge, research, theory, and understanding. “Wissenschaft” is used in any study that involves systematic investigation. And so, “scientific socialism” is only an approximate translation of “wissenschaftlich sozialismus.” So, “scientific socialism” can be understood as a body of theory which analyzes and interprets the natural world to develop a body of knowledge, which must be constantly tested against reality, with the pursuit of changing the world to bring about socialism through the leadership of the proletariat.
-Since that time, differences between these anarchists and ecoextremists have only deepened, so much so that the the majority of blogs that once published eco-extremist communiqués have ceased doing so. That’s all for the best since these well-intentioned revolutionary anarchists worried about the populace have never represented us anyway. It was only a matter of time before we had to part ways.
+-----
-*** [[May The international target: Incubators of progress]]
+Even though these three basic theories of Marxism-Leninism deal with different subjects, they are all parts of a unified scientific theory system: the science of liberating the proletariat from exploitative regimes and moving toward human liberation.
-In May, groups of ITS decided to execute a show of strength by issuing a communiqué taking responsibility for seven explosive attacks in April against universities and centers of learning in Santiago, Buenos Aires, Mexico City, and Mexico State. By this, the Eco-Extremist Mafia proved that this isn’t a game.
+=== 2. Summary of the Birth and Development of Marxism-Leninism ===
-In Chile, the “Mystical Horde of the Forest” of ITS attacked the Department of Physical Sciences and Mathematics, though the explosive device was deactivated, first by a worker and then by the police. Nevertheless, it captured the attention of university and scientific circles, mainly by reviving the trauma that they suffered in 2013 when the old ITS attacked the Chilean scientist Andrés Águila of the Biotechnology Department of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) in Morelos, Mexico.
+There have been two main stages of the birth and development of Marxism-Leninism:
-June War of nerves and destabilization, savage fire, and blood In June, chaos was unleashed by ITS in three countries where it then had a presence. First, Savage Constellations, the Argentine ITS group, claimed responsibility on June 19th for the repeated bomb threats against Buenos Aires schools in May. Parents at the schools publicly protested for the government to catch those responsible for the threats. Obviously, this demand was not met. They also claimed responsibility for the bomb threat against the Northern Diagonal C Line of the Buenos Aires subway and against the National University of Quilmes (on June 16th and 17th respectively.) In both places, hundreds of people had to be evacuated, and in the case of the subway, service was stopped on many lines. To top off their day of chaos, the individualists of ITS audaciously placed a bomb on the Northern Diagonal directed to the President of the Subway system. This did not detonate, but it was a direct threat.
+''1.'' ''Stage of formation and development of Marxism'', as developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
-On June 22nd, Uncivilized Southerners, a Chilean ITS group, took responsibility for the fire on May 24th at the Vivo Mall in the center of Santiago. The fire spread, the mall had to be evacuated, and the authorities had to call in sixteen emergency units to put out the fire, which left extensive material damage.
+''2.'' ''Stage of defense and developing Marxism into Marxism-Leninism'', as developed by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.
-On June 28th, the only ITS group that had not taken responsibility for anything to that point, namely, ITS-Mexico, stabbed an UNAM worker, leaving him to die on the grounds of the most prestigious campus in the country, the University City.
+==== a. Conditions and Premises of the Birth of Marxism ====
-The 29th, ITS took responsibility for the action through the blog, Maldición Eco-extremista, which caused panic among the university community as well as certain national security sectors.
+-----
-ITS-Mexico committed another murder. The first had been carried out by one section of the old ITS in 2011, when the biotechnologist Méndez Salinas of the Biotechnology Institute of the UNAM in Morelos was shot in the head. This time, the modus operandi was different. Firearms were not used, but rather a silent and hidden weapon. One thrust into the armpit was enough for the Head of Chemical Services of the Chemistry Department to bleed out slowly.
+==== Annotation 2 ====
-The media coverage of this act was immediate. All of the major press and media nationally and even internationally publicized the story. “Eco-extremist group commits murder in the University City.” The spotlight was once again on ITS. Newspaper stories mentioned again how the group had been responsible for a number of attacks with package bombs and a murder in 2011 (as mentioned above.) They mentioned the numerous terrorist attacks on scientists in Hidalgo, Guanajuato, Morelos, Mexico City, and Mexico State. They mentioned the groups’ bombings in Veracruz and Coahuila in that year and in 2013.
+The following sections will explain the conditions which led to the birth of Marxism. First, we will examine the Social-Economic conditions which lead to the birth of Marxism, and then we will examine the theoretical premises upon which Marxism was built. Later, we will also discuss the impact which 18<sup>th</sup> and 19<sup>th</sup> century advances in natural science had on the development of Marxism.
-But the difference here was that the nightmare came back. Those who felt relieved that this only happened in Mexico now knew that these attacks also occurred in Chile and Argentina, and the group threatened to spread further. And if we dig deeper into the sources, we would notice that ITS found affinity with the acts and ideas of the terrorist nihilist sects in Italy. These sects have not hesitated from expressing their complicity with eco-extremism from the start of the latter’s emergence. They have supported such attacks as indiscriminate bombings, the abandoning of letter-bombs aimed at civil life, fierce arson, the mailing of package bombs to certain targets, and so on. This is how the “Nihilist Sect of Free Death,” “The Memento Mori Nihilist Sect,” and the “Cenaze Nihilist Terrorist Clan” undoubtedly form part of the International Mafia, since they share a Passion for Terror with the eco-extremists.
+''- Social-Economical Conditions''
-*** [[July Silence]]
+Marxism was born in the 1840s. This was a time when the capitalist mode of production was developing strongly in Western Europe on the foundation of the industrial revolution which succeeded first in England at the end of the 18<sup>th</sup> century. Not only did this industrial revolution mark an important step forward in changing from handicraft cottage industry capitalism into a more greatly mechanized and industrialized capitalism, it also deeply changed society, and, above all, it caused the birth and development of the proletariat.
-In July, ITS kept a low profile after their unrelenting and surprising activity of June. The only major act of this period was an interview with the Mexican program, Radio Formula 1, on the first of that month. Here ITS mocked authorities and underlined the incompetence of investigators.
+-----
-The authorities with their extensive access to the informative apparatus tried to cover up ITS Mexico’s murderous act (which was described in its fourteenth communiqué). One lie after another was spread by the media, and, as usual in Mexico, they agreed on the murder being a settling of scores or revenge as the official story—it was then swept under the rug and filed away. It is in this way that the initials “ITS” are put to rest once more by the media, until the group decides once again to stir them.
+==== Annotation 3 ====
-*** [[August As if it wasn’t clear already:]] It goes on... even if they take our blog away
+Marx saw human society under capitalism divided into classes based on their relation to the means of production.
-A few days before the Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro in 2016, the authorities thought that they had everything under control. Years of preparation by the government were spent trying to pacify civil nonconformity. The protesting citizenry seems to have understood this well and decided to decrease their activity accordingly. The favelas were contained, the most dangerous criminals were locked up, and the only real concern was the terrorist threat of the Islamic State in the region. It didn’t take much time for the special military anti-terrorism police to intercept communications between Islamic radicals and arrest them along with leaders of various mosques. All was ready, they thought, and they could relax...
+''Means of production'' are physical inputs and systems used in the production of goods and services, including machinery, factory buildings, tools, and anything else used in producing goods and services. ''Capitalism'' is a political economy defined by private ownership of the means of production.
-But on August 1st, the citizenry woke up to the news that a powerful bomb had gone off in front of the Conjunto Nacional Shopping Center in the center of Brasilia, the capital of Brazil. The authorities in their first reports stated that it was a terrorist attack consisting of a bomb made of a pressure cooker filled with blasting powder and nails, and that they had opened an investigation of the attack.
+Within the framework of Dialectical Materialism, all classes are defined by internal and external relationships [see ''The Principle of General Relationships'', p. 107]; chiefly, classes are defined by their relations to the means of production and to one another.
-On the third of the month, on ME, a communiqué was published taking responsibility for the blast. ITS had spread to Brazil.
+The ''proletariat'' are the working class — the people who provide labor under capitalism, but who do not own their own means of production, and must therefore sell their labor to those who ''do'' own means of production: the ''bourgeoisie''. As the owners of the means of production, the bourgeoisie are the ruling class under capitalism.
-The Secret Wilderness Society had joined the ITS international project and successfully detonated a bomb in the Brazilian capital. They exploded the pressure cooker bomb without concern for bystanders who might have been walking by. This in an area patrolled by military police, and it took place a few days from the start of the Olympic Games. Their ominous communiqué made threats and expressed their fury in words. It was evident that ITS is not being stopped. The Eco-extremist Mafia continues onward...
+According to Marx and Engels, there are other classes within the capitalist political economy. Specifically, Marx named the ''petty'' ''bourgeoisie'' and the ''lumpenproletariat''. Marx defined the ''petty bourgeoisie'' as including semi-autonomous merchants, farmers, and so on who are self-employed, own small and limited means of production, or otherwise fall in between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
-To welcome ITS-Brazil to the international project of war against civilization and human progress, other ITS groups took responsibility for attacks happening in August. On the 14th, two ITS groups in Chile took responsibility for a frustrated explosive attack in Santiago and numerous bomb threats against universities, malls, and subway stations.
+In the ''Manifesto of the Communist Party,'' Marx described the petty bourgeoisie as:
-On the 19th, ITS-Argentina took responsibility for the poisoning of numerous bottles of Coca-Cola that they left in the refrigerators of two shopping centers in Buenos Aires, a formidable attack against the lives of hyper-civilized southerners.
+<blockquote>
+... fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society... The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen.
+</blockquote>
-On the 23rd, two ITS-Mexico groups took responsibility for an attack on a suburban train in Mexico State and a package bomb that was sent to a known genomic scientist in Mexico City.
+Vietnam’s Textbook of History for High School Students gives this definition of the petty bourgeoisie in the specific context of Vietnamese history:
-After all of that activity, much attention was given again to ME. Finally, the administrators of Noblogs decided to block its content, and they continue to block it, under the pretext that it contains material dangerous to the stability of its server. That is to say, if “one day in the future,” “someone” decided to cyber- netically attack ME, all of the sites hosted by Noblogs would be affected. The administrators of Noblogs decided not to run that risk and to close ME. Aside from that, the people of Noblogs are anarchists and people of the left—collectivists, feminists, etc. Thus, eco-extremism is not compatible with their worldview. This was also a significant reason to remove ME from their server. Quickly, the individualists of ME decided to switch their site over to the server of Espivblogs, another site administered by anarchists, while trying to recover lost information on the original blog.
+<blockquote>
+The petty bourgeois class includes: intellectuals, scientists, and small business owners, handicraftsmen, doctors, lawyers, and civil servants. The vast majority of contemporary intellectuals before the August Revolution of 1945, including students, belonged to the petty bourgeoisie. In general, they were also oppressed by imperialism and feudalism, often unemployed and uneducated.
-*** [[September That which doesn’t kills us makes us stronger: that’s a fact]]
+The petty bourgeoisie were intellectually and politically sensitive. They did not directly exploit labor. Therefore, they easily absorbed revolutionary education and went along with the workers and peasants.
-With new addresses at Blackblogs and Torpress (on the Tor dark web) the friends at ME continue their work of publishing. On the 12th of that month, all of the groups of ITS in Mexico, Chile, Argentina, and Brazil issued a communiqué aimed at the administrators of Noblogs concerning their decision to close ME as if they were the administrators of Facebook or Twitter. In the communiqué, ITS does not forget to call out those who have talked shit against them and eco-extremism, specifically Zerzan, the <em>Earth First! Journal</em>, and the rest of the peanut gallery. In one part of the communiqué they write:
+However, the intelligentsia and students often suffer from great weaknesses, such as: theory not being coupled with practice, contempt for labor, vague ideas, unstable stances, and erratic behavior in political action.
-**** The anarchist counter-information blogs, alternative servers, and the authorities of the countries where we have a presence may attempt to defame and silence us on the web. They can censor and ignore our actions and communications. They can move heaven and earth to try to bury us in historical forgetfulness. They are in their “right” to try to do so. But when they learn of a ferocious act of indiscriminate arson in Chile, or an attack against the populace in Argentina, or when the rumor reaches them of a terrorist bomb explosion in Brazil, or when they see scalped dead people in Mexico, let there be no doubt: ITS did it.
+Some other petty bourgeoisie (scientists and small businessmen, freelancers, etc.) were also exploited by imperialism and feudalism. Their economic circumstances were precarious, and they often found themselves unemployed and bankrupt. Therefore, the majority also participated in and supported the resistance war and revolution. They are also important allies of the working class.
-For the observant, they will notice that this communiqué was signed by new groups adhering to ITS from the city ofTorreon, Coahuila: The Cachiripa Fury Faction and the Pack of Coyotes Faction. On the 16th these newest ITS groups issued a communiqué taking responsibility for past attacks and one recent one: the mailing of perfume mixed with acid to the Director of Admissions of the Tec of Monterrey Laguna Campus, indicating the spread of ITS groups not only internationally, but also in Mexican territory: in the Wild North of Mesoamerica.
+In general, these members of the petty bourgeoisie had a number of weaknesses: self-interest, fragmentation, and a lack of determination. Therefore, the working class has a duty to agitate and spread propaganda to such members of the petty bourgeoisie, organize them, and help them to develop their strong points while correcting their weaknesses. It is necessary to skillfully lead them, make them determined to serve the people, reform their ideology, and unite with the workers and peasants in order to become one cohesive movement. Then, they will become a great asset for the public in resistance war and revolution.
+</blockquote>
-*** Anti-Conclusion This is not end, it’s just getting started
+Marx defined the “lumpenproletariat” as another class which includes the segments of society with the least privilege — most exploited by capitalism — such as thieves, houseless people, etc.
-The above is only the most recent history of the invisible menace that is ITS. It has been written in spite of the fact that others have sought to erase that history. It is the story of a group that has pushed the envelope and crossed political and linguistic borders.
+In the ''Manifesto of the Communist Party,'' Marx defined the lumpenproletariat as: “The ‘dangerous class’ (''lumpenproletariat''), the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society.” Marx did not have much hope for the revolutionary potential of the lumpenproletariat, writing that they “may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.”
-Its members have found each other in dreams, in covens, in the Tlatol. They have conspired in the shadows and have jumped like the alligator toward its prey, with speed and surprise. Thus, we encourage all of the groups of ITS in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Mexico to continue their war. Forward, Eco-extremist Mafia!
+''Political Theories'', an official journal of the Ho Chi Minh National Institute of Politics, discussed the lumpenproletariat in the specific context of Vietnamese revolutionary history:
-With complicity as well with all who take responsibility for savage and hidden attacks, for the unknown and the mayhem, the chaos and nothingness. For those who have decided to carry out physical criticism and not remain in obscurity. For those who mock, who enjoy, and who are passionate for explosives and arson. For the bomb threats where hundreds need to be evacuated. For those who carry out bloody crimes and who leave wounded victims. For those who instinctively thirst for destruction. For those who don’t get discouraged by failed attacks and who learn from their mistakes. For the anarchist terrorists, for the amoral, indiscriminate attackers. For the impertinent uncivilized murderers, for the serial pyromaniacs, for the anti-social people who use dynamite, for the criminals and thugs, for those who feel blood in their veins and act in fury and/or have fun at night demonstrating their disdain. For those who unwind themselves in uninhibited fashion during an attack.
+<blockquote>
+It should be noted that Marxism-Leninism has never held that the historical mission of the working class is rooted in poverty and impoverishment. Poverty and low standards of living make workers hate the regime of capitalism, and causes disaster for workers, but the basic driving force behind the revolutionary struggle of the working class lies in the very nature of capitalist production and from the irreconcilable contradiction between the working class and the bourgeoisie.
-Complicity with the Anarchist Sect of the Mountain, of Peru, with the Kapibara Group and the Karr-kai Cell of Chile, with the Individualities for the Dispersing of Chaos in Spain, with the nihilist terrorist sects in Italy mentioned above, with the Wildfire Cell, of Finland and Germany, with the Hostility Group Against Domination, in Porto Alegre and Some Accursed of Civilization, in Brazil, with the Pagan Sect of the Mountain, The Ninx Verde, Ninx Azul Cell, and chi chi Cell, in Mexico State, with the “Ecoextremist Circle of Terrorism and Sabotage” and the “Indiscriminate Group” in Mexico City, with the “Wild Group for Action for the Earth” in Oaxaca, with the anonymous who don’t bother to take an acronym but continue the war regardless.
+Moreover, it should not be conceived that a class is capable of leading the revolution because it is the poorest class. In the old societies, there were classes that were extremely poor and had to go through many struggles against the ruling class, but they could never win and keep power, and did not become the ruling class of society.
-<center>
+History has proven that the class that represents newly emerging productive forces which are able to build a more advanced mode of production than the old ones can lead the revolution and organize society into the regime they represent. Fetishizing poverty and misery is a corruption of Marxism-Leninism...
-Complicity and power to them all!
-</center>
-<br>
+The very existence of the lumpenproletariat is strong evidence of the inhumane nature of capitalist society, which regularly recreates a large class of outcasts at the bottom of society.
+</blockquote>
-<center>
+In the late 19<sup>th</sup> and early 20<sup>th</sup> centuries, millions of Vietnamese people were forced to leave their homes in rural farmlands to work for plantations and factories which were owned by French colonialists. These workers were functionally enslaved, being regularly physically abused by colonial masters, barred from any education whatsoever, and receiving only the bare minimum to survive. As a result, under French colonial rule, about 90% of Vietnamese were illiterate and the French aimed to indoctrinate Vietnamese people into believing that they were inferior to the French.
-</center>
+The French colonialists also worked with Vietnamese landlords to exploit peasants in rural areas. Those peasants received barely enough to survive and, like the plantation slaves, were prohibited from receiving education. Because Vietnamese peasants and colonial slaves composed the majority of workers while being so severely oppressed and living in conditions of such abject poverty, it was difficult to fully distinguish between the proletariat and the lumpenproletariat in Vietnam during the colonial era.
-<br>
+During this time, Ho Chi Minh and other Vietnamese communists developed the philosophy of “Proletarian Piety.” The word “piety,” here, is a translation of the Vietnamese word ''hiếu'', which originally comes from the Confucianist philosophy of “filial piety.” Filial piety demanded children to deeply respect, honor, and obey their parents. Through the concept of Proletarian Piety, Ho Chi Minh adapted this concept to proletarian revolution, calling for communists to deeply love, respect, and tirelessly serve the oppressed masses. This philosophical concept sought to unite the proletariat, lumpenproletariat, and petty bourgeoisie into one united revolutionary class. Even some feudal landlords and capitalists — who were, themselves, oppressed by the colonizing French — were willing to fight for communist revolution and were welcomed into the revolutionary movement if they were willing to adhere to the principle of proletarian piety. The working class and peasantry would lead the revolution, the more privileged classes would follow, and all communist revolutionists would serve the oppressed masses through sacrifice and struggle.
-** [[Sighs]]
+During this period, many novels were written and circulated widely which featured main characters who were members of the lumpenproletariat or enslaved by the French, such as ''Bỉ'' ''Vỏ,'' a story about a beautiful peasant girl who was forced to become a thief in the city, and ''Chí Phèo'', the story of a peasant who worked as a servant in a feudal landlord’s house who was sent to prison and became a destitute alcoholic after being released. The purpose of these stories was to show the cruelty of the colonialist-capitalist society of Vietnam in the 1930’s and to inspire proletarian piety, including empathy and respect for the extreme suffering and oppression of the lumpenproletariat, peasantry, and colonial slaves. These stories also presented sympathetic views of intellectuals and members of the petty bourgeoisie: for instance, in the novel ''Lão'' ''Hạc'', the son of a peasant leaves to work for a French plantation and the father never sees him again. The aged peasant becomes extremely poor and sick without the support of his son, and the only person in the village who helps him is a teacher, representing the intellectual segment of the petty bourgeoisie.
-<right>
+The writers of these novels were communists who wanted to promote the principles of proletarian piety. Rather than looking down on the most oppressed members of society, and rather than sewing distrust and contempt for the petty bourgeoisie, Vietnamese communists inspired solidarity and collaboration between all of the oppressed peoples of Vietnam to overthrow French colonialism, feudalism, and capitalism. Proletarian piety was crucial for uniting the divided and conquered masses of Vietnam and successfully overthrowing colonialism. Note that these strategies were developed specifically for colonial Vietnam. Every revolutionary struggle will take place in unique ''material conditions''<ref>Material conditions include the natural environment, the means of production and the economic base of human society, objective social relations, and other externalities and systems which affect human life and human society. See Annotation 79, p. 81.</ref>, and the composition and characteristics of each class will vary over time and from one place to another. It is important for revolutionists to carefully apply the principles of dialectical materialism and materialist dialectics to accurately analyze class conditions in order to develop strategies and plans which will most suitably and efficiently lead to successful revolution.
-Lunas de abril
-</right>
-Together we walk the hostile labyrinths. You take my hand. My heart beats. We try to hide our nervousness with a smile or some light caress that gives an air of tranquility. I look at you; you look at me. Our backs carry the device. You know, my friend, you know why I do this.. .why you do this.. .why we do this. Everything that is gray surrounds us, and you shed a tear in that night of bitter disenchantment. We share tears under the stars that claim the poetry of dawn. How many times have we asked ourselves, “Is everything lost?” in the face of machinery that does not stop and imbeciles who are somehow alive within their inert movements. From within the rage that embraces us when we see distant mountains with forests devastated by the city, the hate grows, and the love of gunpowder appears. We continue our path. The cold air sticks in my throat, fills my lungs, and escapes. The icy climate brings to my mind the image of that forest that served as a blanket for us when our kissing words were silent and our shadows joined to start the war, this war in which we will not be victorious. We walk without raising suspicion; black cats taught us to move between the nights, walking the decadent cities, passing unnoticed in silence. We arrive, and solitary stars smile on us. Our hands no longer tremble; the nervousness vanishes. The rage travels to every corner of our bodies. You look at me; I look at you. You like me; I like you. I place the device, and it transforms me into a coyote thirsting for revenge. We understand, my friend. Words are not enough. With patience that only you possess, you light the flame. Seconds pass, and in the busy streets the nervousness reappears.
+The deep contradictions* between the socialized production force** and the capitalist relations of production*** were first revealed by the economic depression of 1825 and the series of struggles between workers and the capitalist class which followed.
-You continue, calm, and I laugh at myself. Now I laugh at myself, mock myself. We flee; we are the accursed shadows that infiltrate the streets. I can sense that a patrol is right behind me in the empty street. A mix of happiness, sadness, hate, and melancholy. We escape. proud of what we are and to have encountered each other in the middle of this grey life. Proud to be eco-extremists. For yourself, you will always be you; for myself, I will always be me. Upon sharing caresses and attacks, we knew this. I believe in you; you believe in me. This is neither idle chatter, romanticisms, nor idealistic clichés. Our trust was built by actions—my leaving my life in your hands and yours in mine, without hesitation. And if one day we fall? We both know that we will avenge ourselves. The oblivion will annihilate our experience, but the living memory of our actions will find shape in bullets and fires. Now safe, we caress each other’s bodies. I kiss you; you kiss me. You share with me your motivation to continue warring. We decide to arm ourselves and fight until the end of our existence. It isn’t easy to lead a double life, to lie to even those closest to us so as not to raise any suspicions. We make fun of the moralist commentaries of the good citizens. We think with a smile of these citizens who hate us so much, “They could never imagine.” Our bodies, now naked, are discovering and rediscovering each other as we remember the first attacks, the mistakes, the experiments. Your orgasm that brings with it mine, the moans, the scratches, the sighs.
+-----
-<center>
+==== Annotation 4 ====
-For my friend, for all of our friends...
-</center>
-<center>
+<nowiki>*</nowiki> See: ''Definition of Contradiction and Common Characteristics of Contradiction'', p. 175.
-For our savage nature!
-</center>
-<center>
+<nowiki>**</nowiki> In Marxism, “socialization” is simply the idea that human society transforms labor and production from a solitary, individual act into a collective, social act. In other words, as human society progresses, people “socialize” labor into increasingly complex networks of social relations: from individuals making their own tools, to agricultural societies engaged in collective farming, to modern industrial societies with factories, logistical networks, etc.
-Until your death or mine!
-<br>Long live eco-extremism!
-</center>
-<br>
+The production force is the combination of the means of production and workers within any society. The “Socialized Production Force,” therefore, is a production force which has been socialized — that is to say, a production force which has been organized into collective social activity. Under capitalism, the “Socialized Production Force” consists of the proletariat, or the working class, as well as means of production which are owned by capitalists.
-<right>
+<nowiki>***</nowiki> Marx and Engels defined “relations of production” as the social relationships that human beings must accept in order to survive. Relations of production are, by definition, not voluntary, because human beings must enter into them in order to receive material needs in order to survive within a given society. Under capitalism, the relations of production require the working class to rent their labor to capitalists to receive wages which they need to procure material needs like food and shelter. This is an inherent contradiction because a small minority of society (the capitalist class) own the means of production while the vast majority of society (the working class) must submit to exploitation through wage servitude in order to survive.
-</right>
-<strong>
+Examples of such early struggles include: the resistance of workers in Lyon, France in 1831 and 1834; the Chartist movement in Britain from 1835 to 1848; the workers’ movement in Silesia (Germany) in 1844, etc. These events prove as historical evidence that the proletariat had become an independent political force which pioneered the fight for a democratic, equal, and progressive society.
-<br></strong>
-<center>
+-----
-</center>
+==== Annotation 5 ====
-<br>
+Here are some brief descriptions of the early working class movements mentioned above:
-** Lessons Left by the Ancients: The Battle of Little Big Horn
+'''Resistance of Workers in Lyon, France:'''
-<right>
+In 1831 in France, due to heavy exploitation and hardship, textile workers in Lyon revolted to demand higher wages and shorter working hours. The rebels took control of the city for ten days. Their determination to fight is reflected in the slogan: “Live working or die fighting!”
-<em>Regresión</em> #3
-</right>
-The Battle of Little Big Horn was one of the most distressing events for the United States Army during the so-called Indian Wars. In the battle, the Native Americans—led by, among others, the [Lakota] Sioux chief Thasúqke Witkó or Crazy Horse; the spiritual leader of the Lakota, Sitting Bull; and ChiefTwo Moons of the Cheyennes—achieved a crushing defeat of the white invaders. What follows is a short account of one of many histories of fighting to the death against civilization and progress, one of many that contains important lessons for us today.
+This resistance was brutally crushed by the government, which supported the factory owners. In 1834, silk mill workers in Lyon revolted again to demand the establishment of a republic. The fierce struggle went on for four days, but was extinguished in a bloody battle against the French army. About 10,000 insurgents were imprisoned or deported.
-The Little Big Horn is the name of a river in the territories of the state of Montana in the United States. White colonists had mostly occupied the neighboring area, the Black Hills, since the finding of mines replete with gold. In the year 1976, the government of the United States tried to buy the lands for mineral exploitation. This upset many natives who still lived in the area. The government’s control spread throughout these territories, giving only two options to the ancestral owners of the land: either they could sell their land and be assigned to a reservation, or they would be violating the law. Many chose the latter option, and it was in this manner that the resistance was catalyzed.
+'''The Chartist Movement in Britain:'''
-The government gave the natives a date by which time they were to leave their ancestral territories. Before the issued date came to pass, in disobedience of the government mandate, military units began to forcefully evict various native villages. The people of Two Moons and Crazy Horse were attacked and had to abandon their positions. It was then that they turned to Sitting Bull, whom they henceforth considered their spiritual leader and who then held the most influence of the whole native community.
+Chartism was a working class movement in the United Kingdom which rose up in response to anti-worker laws such as the Poor Law Amendment of 1834, which drove poor people into workhouses and removed other social programs for the working poor. Legislative failure to address the demands of the working poor led to a broadly popular mass movement which would go on to organize around the People’s Charter of 1838, which was a list of six demands which included extension of the vote and granting the working class the right to hold office in the House of Commons.
-Sitting Bull called for unity with other clans to defend themselves against the European menace. Thus, at the command of the new head of the tribe, they celebrated a type of gathering with fifteen thousand natives attending, according to contemporary accounts.
+In 1845, Karl Marx visited Britain for the first time, along with Friedrich Engels, to meet with the leaders of the Chartist movement (with whom Engels had already established a close relationship). After various conflicts and struggles, Chartism ultimately began to decline in 1848 as more socialist-oriented movements rose up in prominence.
-It is said that upon seeing so many people united, Sitting Bull prayed to Wakan Tanka (who was, according to the Sioux’s worldview, the Great Spirit) that the hunting be good for his people and that the men be strong and indomitable. So that this would happen, Sitting Bull did the Dance of the Sun, in which he danced for two days and two nights without food or water, praying and watching the movements of the sun. At the end of the dance, the spiritual leader had a revelation. He saw a large quantity of white soldiers and natives fall from the sky; according to him, the fallen soldiers were offerings for Wakan Tanka and the native warriors should murder them and not take their weapons, hair, or any of their belongings. If they went against this rule, he said, it would go badly for the natives.
+'''Workers’ Movement in Silesia, Germany:'''
-With glowing spirits, the tribal chiefs like Crazy Horse got together their men and left in search of the offering for Wakan Tanka and simultaneously to defend their lands from which they would never leave without a fight. On the 16th of June, a small party of native guards spied a column of thirteen hundred white men and allied Indians between the mountains close to their camp in the area by Rosebud Creek. The leader of these men was General George Crook.
+In June, 1844, disturbances and riots occurred in the Prussian province of Silesia, a major center of textile manufacturing. In response, the Prussian army was called upon to restore order in the region. In a confrontation between the weavers and troops, shots were fired into the crowd, killing 11 protesters and wounding many others. The leaders of the disturbances were arrested, flogged, and imprisoned. This event has gained enormous significance in the history of the German labor movement.
-The defense had begun, and the men armed themselves for war. If the invaders got any closer there was the possibility that there would be casualties of women and children in combat.
+In particular, Karl Marx regarded the uprising as evidence of the birth of a German workers’ movement. The weavers’ rebellion served as an important symbol for later generations concerned with poverty and oppression of the working class in German society.
-At dawn of the following day, Chief Crazy Horse unexpectedly ambushed the enemy. The white troops were dispersed by means of a rapidly executed war tactic, and the horde of savages divided into small groups in order to hunt down those who had become easy targets while separated from their columns. After repelling the invasion, the nomads camped on the shores of the Little Big Horn.
+It quickly became apparent that the revolutionary practice of the proletariat needed the guidance of scientific theories. The birth of Marxism was to meet that objective requirement; in the meantime, the revolutionary practice itself became the practical premise for Marxism to continuously develop.
-On the 25th of June in the same year, the Lieutenant General George Armstrong Custer (who was a hero of the Civil War, the youngest general in the country’s army, and the darling of the press, who dubbed him “The Boy General”) divided his column of six hundred soldiers into three groups to try to ambush the warriors who had so demoralized General Crook and his men a few days before.
+''- Theoretical Premises''
-One of the three groups fired directly at the tipis at the front of the camp—in response, the warriors shouted “Hoka Hey,” which in Lakota means, “Today is a good day to die,” and attacked with their bows and arrows, hatchets, and shotguns. As they killed many of the soldiers by the river, the survivors were forced to flee.
+The birth of Marxism not only resulted from the objective requirement of history, it was also the result of inheriting the ''quintessence''* of various previously established frameworks of human philosophical theory such as German classical philosophy, British classical political economics, and utopianism in France and Britain.
-The second group, commanded by Custer, decided to attack from the other flank of the nomadic camp. The spiritual leader Sitting Bull watched over the women and children while the strategies of the savages made the soldiers fall into chaos, defenseless from the mad flight of their horses that were frightened by the natives. In a matter of minutes, the enemies were besieged and reduced. From atop the high hills, Crazy Horse’s men screamed words of war. The terrorized Americans killed their remaining horses to use them as shields. The battle was fierce and chaotic. According to the chronicles, one could see the warriors killing the soldiers in hand-to-hand combat or from horseback with hatchets and arrows fired from point blank range in a scene full of screams, howls, the smell of gunpowder, and the blasts of guns. At the end of the battle, the great General Custer lay dead with shots to his head and chest, and his men were decimated. The native savages took the soldier’s clothing, scalps, and castrated them as well as taking their belongings, all of which went against what the spiritual leader, Sitting Bull, had told them. Disobeying this vision would later be seen by the natives as the beginning of the end, since with this battle they won the enmity of a large sector of the American society and would be massacred and hunted like animals by the American military.
+-----
-The third and final group of invaders had gathered with the few survivors of the first group. They called for help, and more soldiers arrived. Crazy Horse could not afford to lose more of his men and so ordered that the camp be packed up so that they could leave victorious. The final great strategy used by the old warriors was to divide the group up into many small groups so as to avoid focalizing forces. Many small groups were more difficult to engage than one large one. It was with this in mind that the natives dispersed in all directions.
+==== Annotation 6 ====
-There are various lessons that can be learned from this fight against civilization.
+<nowiki>*</nowiki> In the original Vietnamese, the word ''tinh'' ''hoa'' is used, which we roughly translate to the word ''quintessence'' throughout this book. Literally, it means “the best, highest, most beautiful, defining characteristics” of a concept, and, unlike the English word ''quintessence'', it has an exclusively positive connotation. ''Quintessence'' should not be confused with the universal category of ''Essence'', which is discussed on p. 156.
-First: Strategy is very important when it comes to winning a fight or battle. In our case, the individualist war against the technological system should be approached with tactics and intelligence. We know very well that saying this does not pretend to take into account winning completely against the system, but rather to deal blows to the mega-machine to the best of our abilities. These actions become individualist victories, and escaping unscathed or undetected should be the goal during terrorist as well as sabotage attacks.
+German classical philosophy, especially the philosophies of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel<ref>Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, 1770 — 1831 (German): Philosophy professor, an objective idealistic philosopher — representative of German classical philosophy.</ref> and Ludwig Feuerbach<ref>Ludwig Feuerbach, 1804 — 1872 (German): Philosophy professor, materialist philosopher.</ref>, had deeply influenced the formation of the Marxist worldview and philosophical methodology.
-Second: Examining the fight described above, we see the old ones united behind one objective: defending their way of life in nature. Their fierceness played a very important role—though during the battle there were individuals wounded and even killed, the focal point remained the fight against civilization and progress, a fight to the death. Our fight should also be fierce and overwhelming, that is to say, extremist. Those who were not capable of taking a hard stance were not part of this war. Those who are ready to kill and die defending their natural humanity that has yet to be robotized, and their savage nature that remains indomitable, should take this into account. Crazy Horse was assassinated one year later when he led the savage nomads against the US Army. He died under a hail of bullets from Indians allied with the enemy. His body was full of holes from the lead of civilization, but his proud example as a warrior was left like a living legend for the later generations who, like him, defend themselves and resist the advance of that which is alien to their nature.
+-----
-Third: Falling upon the enemy when they least expect it is another lesson from this episode. To be effective and carry out an attack unscathed, it is not practical to attack when the authorities might be aware of the danger. For example, every 8th of August, the Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education sends out an alert recalling that in 2011 the eco-extremist group Individuals Tending Towards the Wild sent a package bomb that injured two technologists. On this day especially, were there to be any attempt against the same academic institution, it would be a danger to those carrying it out, and the act would be more likely to fail, given that they employ additional but discreet police around this time. Although I would personally like to see another attack at the same institution on the same day that would mock all of this additional security, I realize that that is not pertinent.
+==== Annotation 7 ====
-Fourth: Some foolish individuals who are familiar with our stances have asked in the past: “Are you going to fight the system using its own weapons?”
+German classical philosophy was a movement of ''idealist'' philosophers of the 18<sup>th</sup> and 19<sup>th</sup> centuries. Idealism is a philosophical position that holds that the only reliable experience of reality occurs within the human consciousness. Idealists believe that human reason is the best way to seek truth, and that consciousness is thus the only reliable source of knowledge and information.
-The natives that we cite above went into war with everything that they had on hand: bows and arrows, hatchets and clubs, horses and rifles. These weapons were useful when they fell upon the whites and their indigenous allies. What would have happened if these natives had rejected the weapons of the white people and clung instead to their old implements for hunting and fighting? Maybe they wouldn’t have been victorious at Little Big Horn, among other battles.
+One of Hegel’s important achievements was his critique of the metaphysical method.
-The casualties on the side of the army were much higher than those of the natives, and one of the factors that contributed to this was that the warriors used repeating firearms (that is to say, they could fire numerous times in a row without having to reload) that they had previously stolen from the enemy. The Americans and their allies only had single-shot rifles (which could only fire one round before having to be reloaded). The invaders’ time-consuming weaponry meant that the natives could fire while they rode their horses directly at the soldiers, cornering them while they tried to reload their weapons.
+-----
-Thus in the response to the question of means, we say that we cannot limit ourselves to the old weaponry just because we criticize the technological system. We should use the weapons of the system against itself. Just as the Native American participants did not hesitate to use those repeating firearms, we are not going to hesitate to use any modern weapon that might cause the enemy casualties.
+==== Annotation 8 ====
-With this we conclude the text. Everyone can draw their own conclusions.
+Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that attempts to explain the fundamental nature of reality by classifying things, phenomena, and ideas into various categories. Metaphysical philosophy has taken many forms through the centuries, but one common shortcoming of metaphysical thought is a tendency to view things and ideas in a static, abstract manner. Metaphysical positions view nature as a collection of objects and phenomena which are isolated from one another and fundamentally unchanging. Engels explained the problems of metaphysics in ''Socialism: Utopian and Scientific'':
-<br>
+<blockquote>
+The analysis of Nature into its individual parts, the grouping of the different natural processes and objects in definite classes, the study of the internal anatomy of organized bodies in their manifold forms — hese were the fundamental conditions of the gigantic strides in our knowledge of Nature that have been made during the last 400 years.
+</blockquote>
-<center>
+<blockquote>
+But this method of work has also left us as legacy the habit of observing natural objects and processes in isolation, apart from their connection with the vast whole; of observing them in repose, not in motion; as constraints, not as essentially variables; in their death, not in their life. And when this way of looking at things was transferred by Bacon and Locke from natural science to philosophy, it begot the narrow, metaphysical mode of thought peculiar to the last century.
+</blockquote>
-</center>
+Francis Bacon (1561 — 1626) is considered the father of empiricism, which is the belief that knowledge can only be derived from human sensory experience [see Annotation 10, p. 10]. Bacon argued that scientific knowledge could only be derived through inductive reasoning in which specific observations are used to form general conclusions. John Locke (1632 — 1704) was another early empiricist, who was heavily influenced by Francis Bacon. Locke, too, was an empiricist, and is considered to be the “father of liberalism.”
-<br>
+Engels was highly critical of the application of metaphysical philosophy to natural science. As Engels continues in ''Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:''
-** [[The Return of the Warrior]]
+<blockquote>
+To the metaphysician, things and their mental reflexes — ideas — are isolated, are to be considered one after the other and apart from each other, are objects of investigation fixed, rigid, given once for all. He thinks in absolutely irreconcilable antitheses... For him a thing either exists or does not exist; a thing cannot at the same time be itself and something else. Positive and negative absolutely exclude one another; cause and effect stand in a rigid antithesis one to the other.
-<right>
+At first sight this mode of thinking seems to us very luminous, because it is that of so-called sound common sense. Only sound common sense, respectable fellow that he is, in the homely realm of his own four walls, has very wonderful adventures directly he ventures out into the wide world of research. And the metaphysical mode of thought, justifiable and necessary as it is in a number of domains whose extent varies according to the nature of the particular object of investigation, sooner or later reaches a limit, beyond which it becomes one-sided, restricted, abstract, lost in insoluble contradictions. In the contemplation of individual things, it forgets the connection between them; in the contemplation of their existence, it forgets the beginning and end of that existence; of their repose, it forgets their motion. It cannot see the wood for the trees.
-Ramon Elani
+</blockquote>
-</right>
-**** War ... is a means to achieve an individual goal: the warrior’s desire for glory, the warrior himself is his own goal. Will not to power but to glory.
+Dialectical Materialism stands in contrast to metaphysics in many ways. Rather than splitting the world into distinct, isolated categories, Dialectical Materialist philosophy seeks to view the world in terms of relationships, motion, and change. Dialectical Materialism also refutes the hard empiricism of Bacon and Locke by describing a dialectical relationship between the material world and consciousness [see: ''The Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness'', p. 88].
-**** Clastres
+-----
-**** I am a spear that roars for blood.
+For the first time in the history of human philosophy, Hegel expressed the content of dialectics in strict arguments with a system of rules and categories.
-**** Song of Amergin
+-----
-Rejecting entirely the ideologies of humanism and progressivism, I pose the figure of the savage warrior. The society of war, understood as opposed in every way to the anonymous mechanized war of the 20th and 21st centuries, ruptures the society of the State, the society of the techno-industrial world. The warrior stands at the crossroads of life and death, the human and the animal, memory and oblivion. Negotiating a constellation of cosmopraxis is his task. Eduardo Viveiros de Castro draws our attention to the differences between treatments of the dead among Andean and Lowlands tribes. In the case of the former, the Incan traditions of entombment and the funerary industrial complex venerate the ancestors, the founders of the state, the bureaucrats, the administrators. In the latter, in the societies of war, the dead are treated as enemies, to be eradicated and forgotten via ritual ingestion. There is a war between the living and the dead. Those who worship the dead reinforce chains of bondage. Those who devour them wildly assert their own autarchy. The warrior renounces heredity, no honor can be gained through lineage. It is only his own acts of valor that may award him the glory he seeks. In what follows I contextualize the figure of the warrior apropos its most elegant theorist, Pierre Clastres.
+-----
-Clastres’ voice speaks like an echo of things long forgotten. A tendency, a gesture that walks alongside us but hidden in the shadows of millenia. We <em>know</em> Clastres’ words before we have ever heard them. The fire of the warrior flickers inside us all. De Castro: “<em>One sometimes has the feeling that it is necessary to read him</em> [Clastres] <em>as if he were an obscure pre-Socratic thinker.</em>” Indeed we can truly perceive the essence of the world in the bloody ghosts he conjures. De Castro points us to Clastres’ comparison between Guarani shamans and Heraclitus. All philosophies of dynamism and the world are woven together to form a banner against the monolith of the machine. If, despite its timeless chthonic resonance, reading Clastres fills us with the experience of strangeness, of destiny, of darkness, and mystery, we can see that all we need to do is pull the blinders from our eyes. Clastres invites us to hear once again the beat of the drum that echoes in our blood. When we dive into the familiar yet murky lagoons of the warrior soul, Clastres reminds us, there is only one question: how far are we seriously willing to go? He understood, as we must too, that the cosmic fate of our civilization is at stake.
+==== Annotation 9 ====
-*** Nothing is more outmoded than the man of war: he has long since been transformed into an entirely different character, the military man.
+Dialectics is a philosophical methodology which searches for truth by examining contradictions and relationships between things, objects, and ideas. Ancient dialecticians such as Aristotle and Socrates explored dialectics primarily through rhetorical discourse between two or more different points of view about a subject with the intention of finding truth.
-It is tempting and common, De Castro remarks, to think of Clastres as a hedgehog, that he only has one idea but it is vast beyond measure. The primitive warrior stands against the state. Tribal war, in all of its brutality and cruelty, exists to prevent the annihilation of the universe. As we shall see, however, Clastres’ writing detonates into a galaxy of poetry and philosophy, diffuse and sparkling against the dark sky. For ultimately, it is not the State, but the meaning of humanity itself that the warrior exposes and drags into the light. In the words of Claude Lefort: “<em>Only man can reveal to man that he is man.</em>” Thus what Clastres shows us about the meaning of violence and war becomes of metaphysical concern, not merely and in fact in opposition to the realm of politics. The boundaries, the demarcations of territory are transgressed by the warrior. In its absence of this transgressive force, we are domesticated livestock. The warrior, who raids, abducts, and scorches, crosses all lines and resists all control beyond his own meaning. It is glory alone, and the prophets who direct him towards its achievement, that impel him. He comes, he goes. The laws he follows supersede the pettiness of the State. The monstrosity of technoindustrial society overcodes and overdetermines at every opportunity. Nothing threatens its hegemony like the deterritorialization of war. For this reason, the figure of the nomad, understood as proto-warrior, has been seized by thinkers such as Bruce Chatwin, Deleuze, and Guattari. Clastres directs our gaze to the warrior, proudly sustaining a world of multiplicity with every thrust of the spear and each bloody scalp adorning the walls.
+In this classical form of dialectics, a thesis is presented. This thesis is an opening argument about the subject at hand. An antithesis, or counter-argument, is then presented. Finally, the thesis and antithesis are combined into a synthesis, which is an improvement on both the thesis and antithesis which brings us closer to truth.
-*** Throughout his work, Kleist celebrates the war machine...Goethe and Hegel are old men next to Kleist.
+Hegel resurrected dialectics to the forefront of philosophical inquiry for the German Idealists. As Engels wrote in ''Socialism: Utopian and Scientific'':
-In being-for-war, death is a biocosmic event that produces alterity. The warrior rushes toward death. It is not clear that the desire for glory entirely eclipses the desire for death. The dead continue to fight in spirit form, the shaman brandishing his axe is besieged by them at all times. The Yanomami shaman Kopenawa says that when the earth begins to rot “<em>humans will become other, just as it happened in the beginning of time</em>.” Vengeful spirits will hack the sky to pieces with their machetes, the forest behind the sky will fall upon us. So swift will be the end that we will not have time to scream. The spirits, untethered from the earth, will smash the sun, moon, and stars. And there shall be nothing but darkness.
+<blockquote>
+Hegel’s work’s greatest merit was the taking up again of dialectics as the highest form of reasoning. The old Greek philosophers were all born natural dialecticians, and Aristotle, the most encyclopaedic of them, had already analyzed the most essential forms of dialectic thought.
+</blockquote>
-It is the year 1970. Pierre Clastres lives among the Yanomami and declares them “<em>the last free society in the world</em>.” He remarks upon their incredible flatulence, a product of the high levels of banana in their diet. At night Clastres is left alone in the camp with the women for the men have gone off to raid. They attack their enemies at night and run back into the jungle to avoid the inevitable swift counterattack. The dead are burned upon a pyre, their bones ground to dust to be snorted. Days of leisure and laughter are punctuated by forays across the river. Canoes are full of men covered with scars. Men gather in the dirt to duel over wives with clubs. Clastres travels with several canoes of armed warriors to trade for drugs. The hallucinogenic seeds needed grow only in the territory of a particular tribe. They hold a tight grip on their monopoly. In addition to tools and other useful items of trade, there is great demand for prestige items. These include women’s dresses, which are worn by the warriors, who have no concern for gendered attire. They blow the drug into each other’s nostrils through reed tubes. As Clastres’ party prepares to leave, a young boy from the other tribe jumps into their canoe. He wants to go with them. His mother pulls him back and he beats her with a paddle. With the help of several other women, she succeeds in dislodging him from the canoe. He bites her.
+Hegel’s great contribution to dialectics was to develop dialectics from a simple method of examining truth based on discourse into an organized, systematic model of nature and of history. Unfortunately, Hegel’s dialectics were idealist in nature. Hegel believed that the ideal served as the primary basis of reality. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels strongly rejected Hegel’s idealism, as well as the strong influences of Christian theology on Hegel’s work, but they also saw great potential in his system of dialectics, as Marx explained in ''Capital (Volume 1)'':
-<center>
+<blockquote>
+The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.
+</blockquote>
-</center>
-*** The sea as a smooth space is a specific problem of the war machine.
+-----
-Boys in Yanomami society, Clastres observes, are “<em>encouraged to demonstrate their violence and aggression. Children play games that are often brutal. Parents avoid consoling them. The result of this pedagogy is that it forms warriors.</em>” The missionaries have failed utterly to dispel their love of violence. Guns given as gifts by the Salesians, with the stipulation that they be used for hunting and nothing else, are quickly integrated into the Yanomami war machine. “<em>Try to convince warriors to renounce an easy victory</em>,” Clastres writes, “<em>These are not saints.</em>” The presence of firearms of course makes it possible for larger scale massacres. Clastres points out, however, that it is common practice to invite a tribe to feast with the intention of slaughtering them all. Such acts are never forgotten and blood feuds are passed down through the generations. In a day with twenty-one hours of leisure time, there are ample opportunities to cultivate animosity for one’s enemies. As Clastres writes in his journal,
+Starting with a critique of the mysterious idealism of Hegel’s philosophy, Marx and Engels inherited the “rational kernel” of Hegelian dialectics and successfully built materialist dialectics.
-*** One late afternoon among the Karohiteri, a storm breaks out, preceded by violent whirlwinds which threaten to carry away the roofs. Immediately, all of the shamans position themselves along the tents, standing, attempting to push back the tornado. This wind, these gusts, are in fact evil spirits, surely sent by shamans from an enemy tribe.
+-----
-At last the shaman captures the evil spirits in a basket and chops it to pieces with his axe. Clastres scorns peace. His dream and prayer for the Yanomami is “<em>a thousand years of war! A thousand years of celebration!</em>” Harmony, he writes, is gained only through the digging of mines, drilling for oil, factories, and shopping malls, police.
+-----
-The thesis that Clastres is best known for is simple: the permanent state of war that one finds in most indigenous societies is a strategy, deliberately employed, to retain territorial segmentation and prevent the development of the State or monolithic culture. Tribal war resists globalization. Clastres:
+==== Annotation 10 ====
-*** The war machine is the motor of the social machine: the primitive social being relies entirely on war, primitive society cannot survive without war. The more war there is, the less unification there is, and the best enemy of the State is war. Primitive society is society against the State in that it is society-for-war.
+In order to understand the ways in which the critique of Hegel’s philosophy by Marx and Engels led to the development of dialectical materialism, some background information on materialism — and the conflicts between idealist and materialist philosophy in the era of Marx and Engels — is needed.
-Thus the Incas, enshrined in their stone temples and sky citadels, looked upon the tribes of the forest with fear, hatred, and disgust. To the perfumed Inca aristocrats, the lawless, kingless inhabitants of the pampas and jungles were less than human. In this regard they set the standard that the Spaniards would later adopt in dealing with all Amerindians.
+Materialism is a philosophical position that holds that the material world exists outside of the mind, and that human ideas and thoughts stem from observation and sensory experience of this external world. Materialism rejects the idealist notion that truth can only be sought through reasoning and human consciousness. The history and development of both idealism and materialism are discussed more in the section ''The Opposition of Materialism and Idealism in Solving Basic Philosophical Issues'' on page 48.
-<center>
+In the era of Marx and Engels, the leading philosophical school of materialism was known as ''empiricism''. Empiricism holds that we can ''only'' obtain knowledge through human sense perception. Marx and Engels were materialists, but they rejected empiricism (see Engels’ critique of empiricism in Annotation 8, p. 8).
-</center>
+One reason Marx and Engels opposed the strict empiricist view was that it made materialism vulnerable to attack from idealists, because it ignored objective relations and knowledge that went beyond sense data. The empiricist point of view also provided the basis for the ''subjective idealism'' of George Berkeley [see Annotation 32, p. 27] and the ''skepticism'' of David Hume. Berkeley’s Subjective Idealism is empiricist in that it supports the idea that humans can only discover knowledge through direct sense experience. Therefore, Berkeley argues, individuals are unable to obtain any real knowledge about abstract concepts such as “matter.”
-Yanomami warriors
+Similarly, David Hume’s radical skepticism, which Engels called “agnosticism,” denied the possibility of possessing any concrete knowledge. As Hume wrote in ''A Treatise on Human Nature'': “I am ready to reject all belief and reasoning, and can look upon no opinion even as more probable or likely than another.” Hume’s radical skepticism lay in his empiricist belief that the only source of knowledge is sense experience; but Hume went a step further, doubting that even sense experience could be reliable, adding: “The essence and composition of external bodies are so obscure, that we mustnecessarily, in our reasonings, or rather conjectures concerning them, involveourselves in contradictions and absurdities.”
-Techno-industrial society condemns violence even as it facilitates and makes possible degrees and kinds of violence unimaginable to even the most blood-thirsty and cruel of traditional societies. We are taught to fear and abhor violence. We are taught that there is no meaning in war. Even as this culture wages ruthless war against the cosmos itself. This incoherence resonates throughout society. When Clastres wrote of violence among the Yanomami, Tupi-Guarani, and Guayaki in the 60s and 70s, the culture among the anthropologists was no different.Violence was either dismissed from scholarship or it was deployed by racist ethnographers to denigrate primitive societies. Clastres did not fear the knife and saw in the spilling of blood a truth that has been repressed and forgotten. When the Europeans, hiding like hermit crabs in their steel armor, came to the shores of North and South America, Australia, Africa, Siberia, and the Islands of the Pacific, they were struck without exception by the love of war they found among the people. Nomads and farmers alike, primitive communities were seen to be “<em>passionately devoted to war</em>.” To the Europeans, this love of war could not exist with their doctrine of peace: the Indians had to be taught to abandon their violent ways through hundreds of years of torture, ethnocide, and genocide.
+Later, in the appendix of the same text, Hume argues that conscious reasoning suffers from the same unreliability: “I had entertained some hopes (that) the intellectual world ... would be free from those contradictions, and absurdities, whichseem to attend every explication, that human reason can give of the material world.”
-No matter where we look among primitive communities we will find violence blazing forth like a torch in the dark night. For all the cultural variations and nuance, this one thing appears to be universal. The myth of the peaceful primitive is pernicious. As we will see below, part of the reason this myth exists in the first place is the absence of an understanding of what war means outside the context of our own stunted and repressed conceptions of violence. Clastres writes: “<em>one image continuously emerged from the infinite diversity of cultures: that of the warrior.</em>” What is the meaning of this figure? How do we explain or understand the universal love of war? What does it mean for our society to have turned its back on this primal force, to abandon it to be the work of robots or sterile corporate employees? We have lost “<em>the spectacle of our free warlike vitality</em>.” And it has been replaced by a most murderous and vile peace.
+Engels dismissed radical skepticism as “scientifically a regression and practically merely a shamefaced way of surreptitiously accepting materialism, while denying it before the world.” Engels directly refutes radical skepticism in ''Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:''
-Anthropologists have tried to understand primitive violence in a variety of ways and much of their thinking has trickled down to the layperson. They echo the poisoned gifts of The Enlightenment. The meaning of violence is consistently misconstrued. The figure of the warrior and his quest for glory dismissed and devalued. And because of this, the entirety of the primitive spirit is misunderstood. In the first case it is argued that violence and war simply evolved as a survival mechanism via hunting. Andre Leroi-Gourhan being one of the foremost proponents of this theory. For Leroi-Gourhan, the warrior is simply an extension of the hunter. Mankind’s need for food produced the hunter and the hunter--the man who possesses weapons and knows how to use them--produced the war and the warrior. Leroi-Gourhan writes, “<em>Throughout the course of time, aggression appears as a fundamental technique linked to acquisition, and in the primitive, its initial role is hunting where aggression and alimentary acquisition are merged.”</em>
+<blockquote>
+... how do we know that our senses give us correct representations of the objects we perceive through them? ... whenever we speak of objects, or their qualities, of which (we) cannot know anything for certain, but merely the impressions which they have produced on (our) senses. Now, this line of reasoning seems undoubtedly hard to beat by mere argumentation. But before there was argumentation, there was action... And human action had solved the difficulty long before human ingenuity invented it. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. From the moment we turn to our own use these objects, according to the qualities we perceive in them, we put to an infallible test the correctness or otherwise of our sense-perception.
+</blockquote>
-In other words, if aggression is innate, which it appears to be, then it must serve an evolutionary function. Leroi-Gourhan imagines that the instinct for violence must be used productively and in that regard his mind is limited by needs as banal as food. Violence for him is nothing more than a predatory urge adjusted through the prism of social economy. Clastres cuts through Leroi- Gourhan like a hot knife through fat.
+This concept of determining the truth of knowledge and perception through practical experience is fundamental to dialectical materialist philosophy and the methodology of materialist dialectics, and is discussed in further detail in Chapter 3, p. 204.
-Our disagreement with Leroi-Gourhan is not that he treats humans as animals, on the contrary. The difference is that he attributes the wrong animal instinct to human violence. “<em>Human society,</em>” Clastres writes, “<em>stems not from zoology but from sociology.</em>” Clastres disarms Leroi-Gourhan with surprising ease and dexterity, which any hunter will have already noted. Aggression is entirely absent from the experience of the hunt. In fact, to hunt in an aggressive mindset practically ensures that you will go home hungry. As Clastres says “<em>what principally motivates the primitive hunter is appetite, to the exclusion of all other sentiments</em>.” He also allows for the importance of ritual in the hunt. Aggression is entirely absent. The motives for war and violence in primitive cultures, Clastres explains, lies far deeper. War is pure aggression, the desire to annihilate your enemy, the desire to bathe in blood, to raise grisly trophies to the heavens. No, a far greater need than hunger is at work here. Clastres: “<em>even among cannibal tribes, the goal of war is never to kill the enemies in order to eat them</em>.” So much for Leroi-Gourhan and his “naturalist discourse” of war.
+Another weakness of empiricism is that it denies the objectiveness of ''social relations'', which cannot be fully and properly analyzed through sensory experience and observation alone. Marx saw that social relations are, indeed, objective in nature and can be understood despite their lack of sensory observability, and that doing so is vital in comprehending subjects such as political economy, as he observes in ''Capital Volume I'':
-The second, and perhaps most persistent, theory of primitive violence is based in economics. This belief is widespread at all levels of society. People commit violence and go to war over resources and material wealth. This notion is inevitably accompanied by a contempt for the act of violence: it is merely an avenue, a strategy, of the poor, of those who have no other (better) recourse. As Clastres remarks, this idea is taken as being so obvious that it hardly requires justification. Violence arises from competition over a scarcity of resources. In our hearts we know this not to be true. What an unsatisfying argument. The origins of this belief can be traced, Clastres directs us, to the 19th century, in which it was taken for granted that the primitive life was one of “poverty and misery.” The primitive here is imagined as a destitute and wretched citizen of the techno-industrial world, who has been turned vicious and cruel by privation and scarcity. Since they are unable to provide for themselves, they must go to war for the scraps.
+<blockquote>
+(The true) reality of the value of commodities contrasts with the gross material reality of these same commodities (the reality of which is perceived by our bodily senses) in that not an atom of matter enters into the reality of value. We may twist and turn a commodity this way and that — as a thing of value it still remains unappreciable by our bodily senses.
+</blockquote>
-This notion of primitive scarcity is further bolstered by Marxist anthropology. Clastres, who was a member of the Communist Party until 1956, understands the pitfalls of progressivism. “<em>What is Marxism if not the Marxist theory of history</em>,” Clastres writes. In order for this apparatus to function, the earlier stages of human history must be shown to be deficient:
+In other words, Marx pointed out that no amount of sense data about a commodity will fully explain its value. One can know the size, weight, hardness, etc., of a commodity, but without analyzing the social relations and other aspects of the commodity which can’t be directly observed with the senses, one can never know or understand the true value of the commodity. The materialism of Marx and Engels acknowledges the physical, material world as the ''first basis'' for reality, but Marx and Engels also understood that it was vital to account for other aspects of rational knowledge (such as social relations). Marx and Engels believed that empiricist materialism had roughly the same flaw as idealism: a lack of a connection between the material and consciousness. While the idealists completely dismissed sense data and relied exclusively on reasoning and consciousness, the empiricists dismissed conscious thought to focus solely on what could be sensed.
-**** So that history can get underway, so that the productive forces can take wing, these same productive forces must first exist at the start of this process in the most extreme weakness, in the most total underdevelopment: lacking this, there would not be the least reason for them to develop themselves and one would not be able to articulate social change.
+It is important to note that, while Marx and Engels rejected ''empiricism,'' they did not reject ''empirical knowledge'' nor ''empirical data'' which is collected from scientific observation [see Annotation 216, p. 210]. On the contrary, empirical data was key to the works of Marx and Engels in developing dialectical materialism. As Lenin explained: “(Marx) took one of the economic formations of society – the system of commodity production – and on the basis of a vast mass of data which he studied for not less than twenty-five years gave a most detailed analysis of the laws governing this formation and its development.” And so, the dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels served to bridge the gap between idealism and materialism. They believed that our conscious thoughts are derived from ''material'' processes, but that consciousness can also influence the material world. This is discussed in more detail in the section ''“Materialism and Dialectical Materialism”'' on page 48.
-Unfortunately, as is now well established, primitive cultures experienced very little scarcity and their productive capacity was vast. Here Clastres reiterates Marshall Sahlin, “<em>primitive societies, whether it be a question of nomad hunters or sedentary farmers are ... veritable leisure societies.</em>” In light of this, the economic theory of primitive war collapses utterly. The idea of going to war with a neighboring tribe for food or some other resource is perfectly nonsensical. As Clas- tres points out primitive communities are profoundly self-sufficient and when trade is necessary it occurs peaceably among neighbors. It is also well observed that numerous primitive communities were faced with such dramatic abundance that they developed festivals solely devoted to the ritual destruction of resources. No one has ever gone to war because they were hungry.
+-----
-The final anthropological theory of primitive war that Clas- tres identifies is embodied in the idea of exchange. Here we find Clastres pitted against his teacher Claude Levi-Strauss. For Levi- Strauss, primitive war is the shadow side of primitive commerce. Communities are obliged to participate in systems of exchange. When these systems are successful they experience productive and mutually beneficial commerce. When exchange collapses or goes sour war erupts. Levi-Strauss writes “<em>commercial exchanges represent potential wars peacefully resolved, and wars are the outcome of unfortunate transactions.</em>” This view of war presents it as a terrible accident, implicitly arguing that commerce is the superior form of social interaction. How quick we are to welcome the suffering of the spirit if it will save us from the suffering of the flesh! And yet how quick the body heals itself while the spirit clings to its wounds. Anything but war! cries techno-industrial society and its spokesmen. But yet can we even say that commerce does not murder and torture the flesh? Are not the crimes committed in the names of commerce greater by far than those of war? Levi-Strauss and his colleagues could not ignore this fact: <em>commerce is often an alternative to war, and the manner in which it is conducted shows that it is a modification of war.</em> Yes, commerce has a body count that would put history’s greatest wars to shame.
+Marx and Engels also criticized many limitations of Feuerbach’s methodology and viewpoint* — especially Feuerbach’s prescriptions for how to deal with social problems — but they also highly appreciated the role of Feuerbach’s thought in the fight against idealism and religion to assert that nature comes first, and that nature is permanent and independent from human willpower.
-In other words, Levi-Strauss sees exchange as the most elemental aspect of primitive group dynamics. Everything else is understood as merely a variation on a theme. Clastres will not accept this. It is war, he rages, that makes us what we are.
+-----
-In the techno-industrial world we see commerce as a universal imperative. But commerce is only required when communities have become weakened and lost their ability to sustain themselves. We know that life within primitive communities was one of abundance and leisure. Given that, we must re-evaluate Levi-Strauss’ notions of war as simply an example of commerce gone wrong. The very essence of the primitive community lies in its autarchy, “<em>we produce all that we need (food and tools), we are therefore in a position to do without others. In other words, the autarkic ideal is an anti-commercial ideal.</em>” Of course this is not to suggest that commerce did not exist at all but Clastres is absolutely right in challenging the analysis of his teacher. To suggest that the relationship within primitive life to war and commerce is accidental and primary, respectively, is to radically overstate the importance of commercial transactions in such communities. Levi-Strauss would have us believe that war is the accessory in relation to the principal, which is commerce. Thus, Clastres writes, Levi-Strauss completely overlooks the importance of war.
+==== Annotation 11 ====
-*** Early Islam, a society reduced to the military enterprise.
+<nowiki>*</nowiki> Viewpoint, point of view, or perspective, is the starting point of analysis which determines the direction of thinking from which problems are considered. Marx and Engels were critical of Feurbach’s hyper-focused ''humanist'' viewpoint.
-So if war within the primitive context is not a substitute or mutation of commercial exchange, nor a struggle for the control of resources, nor an evolutionary trait developed by predators, what is it? And how can we understand its nearly universal presence? These are the questions that haunted Clastres shortly before he died (in 1977, at the age of 43, in a car accident). At the time of his death he was working on a new book analyzing the meaning of war in primitive society. Two essays from that unfinished volume remain. In these texts Clastres refined his idea that warfare and torture were deliberately implemented by primitive communities to prevent the emergence of the state or other hegemonic powers and thus to prevent radical inequality. The violence imposed almost constantly on all members of society reminded everyone of their place:
+Feuerbach’s atheism and materialism offered an important foundation for Marx and Engels to develop from an idealist worldview into a materialist worldview, which led them directly to developing the philosophical foundation of communism.
-**** The law they come to know in pain is the law of primitive society, which says to everyone: You are worth no more than anyone else; you are worth no less than anyone else. The law, inscribed on bodies, expresses primitive society’s refusal to run the risk of division, the risk of a power separate from society itself, a power that would escape its control. Primitive law, cruelly taught, is a prohibition of inequality that each person will remember.
+-----
-This is the monism of primitive life. Violence cultivates the assemblage of multiplicities, to borrow a phrase from Clastres’ followers Deleuze and Guattari. Furthermore, Clastres demonstrated, contra Hobbes, that warfare only occurred between different groups, not within them. We return to where we began, war is about nothing but the pursuit of glory.
+==== Annotation 12 ====
-The key point to be made about war in the tribal context is that it itself is a goal, it is a response to a need. For Clastres, the primitive society is one that is both singular and plural, diffuse and concentrated, dispersed and congealed. It is no wonder that his work was so influential for Deleuze and Guattari and their theorization of the nature of schizophrenia and the rhizome. We can immediately perceive the shadowy presence of the body without organs in Clastres’ analysis of the primitive group. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The tribe is an ensemble made of tiny ruptures in the form of its members. Clans, military orders, ceremonial brotherhoods integrate the individual. What are we? We are here. We are the place. We are the things associated with this place. We are its stuff. The locality of the primitive community makes its sedentary or nomadic nature irrelevant. Whether settled farmers or roaming hunters, there is a place and a territorial right. To be abroad, away from home is an experience of terror. In this sense there is also a “movement of exclusion,” those beyond the forest, beyond the plain, the other. We might be tempted to think of war as a symptom of territorialization. But then wouldn’t the anthropologists find that wars occur in defense of tribal boundaries? It is not so. War is offensive. Territory is invaded, penetrated, rather than maintained.
+Ludwig Feuerbach was one of the “Young Hegelians” who adapted and developed the ideals of Hegel and other German Idealists. Feuerbach was a humanist materialist: he focused on humans and human nature and the role of humans in the material world. Like Marx and Engels, Feuerbach dismissed the religious mysticism of Hegel. Importantly, Feuerbach broke from Hegel’s religious-mystical belief that humans descended from supernatural origins, instead describing humans as originating from the natural, material world.
-How is it that the primitive world appears as a galaxy of stars? Self-contained groups and bands that each in its own difference light up the night.
+Feuerbach also distinguished between the objectivity of the material external world and the subjectivity of human conscious thought, and he drew a distinction between external reality as it really exists and external reality as humans perceive it. Feuerbach believed that human nature was rooted in specific, intrinsic human attributes and activities. As Feuerbach explains in ''The Essence of Christianity'': “What, then, is the nature of man, of which he is conscious, or what constitutes the specific distinction, the proper humanity of man? Reason, Will, Affection.”
-Each community, in that it is undivided, can think of itself as a We. This We in turn thinks of itself as a totality in the equal relationship that it maintains with the equivalent We’s that constitute other villages, tribes, bands, etc. The primitive community can posit itself as a totality because it institutes itself as a unity: it is a whole, because it is an undivided We.
+Feuerbach explained that the actions of “thinking, willing, and loving,” which correspond to the essential characteristics of “reason, will, and love,” are what define humanity, continuing: “Reason, Will, Love, are not powers which man possesses, for he is nothing without them, he is what he is only by them; they are the constituent elements of his nature, which he neither has nor makes, the animating, determining, governing powers — divine, absolute powers — to which he can oppose no resistance.”
-How is this multiplicity maintained when within the community there exists such unity? Simple. There is nothing there for the economically or politically ambitious man. One who accumulates can do nothing but watch as his riches are devoured by his kin. He who aspires to power becomes chained to the throne, his throat ripped out and made to be nothing more than a mouthpiece for <em>the law</em>. This is his reward if he does his job well. If not he is butchered. The shape that looms up before us is a monolith. A vision of death, stasis, calcification. Without movement or energy. But the crystalline soul of the primitive world, cold, hard, and perfect, is shattered, burst open and given life in the flaming heart of war.
+In his ''Collected Works'', Feuerbach further explains that materialism is supported by the fact that nature predates human consciousness:
-Finally we come to it. The twisting heart of the jungle and the chaco, lit by the uncanny ghost-fire of the moon. War is a way for the tribes “<em>to probe the very being of their society</em>.” What is the nature of the undivided world? It is to refuse to identify with others, outsiders at best. We are who we are because we are not you. And we will assert our identity in blood. We are all the same! Proclaims the industrial machine, the fiber optic nerve stem of civilization. We are all united in the slavishness of techno-industrial society. We are identical. We are living death. “<em>Identification</em>,” Clastres writes, “<em>is a movement towards death.</em>” The warfare and bloodshed of primitive society is a celebration, “<em>an affirmation of life</em>.” The monad is always threatened by decay and collapse, the crumbling force that lays waste to all our monuments. War is the power that resists dispersion.
+<blockquote>
+Natural science, at least in its present state, necessarily leads us back to a point when the conditions for human existence were still absent, when nature, i.e., the earth, was not yet an object of the human eye and mind, when, consequently, nature was an absolutely non-human entity (''absolut'' ''unmenschliches Wesen''). Idealism may retort: but nature also is something thought of by you (''von dir gedachte''). Certainly, but from this it does not follow that this nature did not at one time actually exist, just as from the fact that Socrates and Plato do not exist for me if I do not think of them, it does not follow that Socrates and Plato did not actually at one time exist without me.
+</blockquote>
-We know that war is universal among primitive communities. Clastres cautions us against extracting from this fact a confirmation of Hobbes’ “<em>war of all against all</em>.” Such, instead, is the war of techno-industrial society. The globalized world is facilitated by a war machine that runs at such an accelerated pace that hegemonic power and dominion spreads unabated. Everyone and everything is an enemy and as such everything is victor or vanquished. Gradually all opposition is subdued. All autonomy is brought under control. Pax imperium. Peace reigns only after the earth itself is buried beneath a mountain of bones. Peace is death. The friendship of all is impossible because it annihilates the nature of identity. The enmity of all is impossible because it leads to the silent peace of the grave. Clastres: “<em>primitive society...cannot consent to universal peace which alienates its freedom; it cannot abandon itself to general war which abolishes its equality</em>.” This is precisely Levi-Strauss’ error in equating primitive war with exchange, you can’t be friends with everyone any more than you can be enemies with everyone.
+Marx and Engels were heavily influenced by Feuerbach’s materialism, but they took issue with Feuerbach’s sharp focus on human attributes and activities in isolation from the external material world. As Marx wrote in ''Theses on Feuerbach:'' “The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism – that of Feuerbach included – is that... reality... is conceived only in the form of the object... but not as sensuous human activity.”
-This is the complexity of primitive society: there are enemies and there are allies. The former necessitates the latter. And these categories are always in flux:
+“Sensuous human activity” has a very specific meaning to Marx; it grew from two conflicting schools of thought:
-**** a community never launches into a war adventure without first protecting itself by means of diplomatic acts—parties, invitations— after which supposedly lasting alliances are formed, but which must constantly be renewed, for betrayal is always possible, and often real.
+The idealists believed the external world can only be understood through the ''active'' subjective thought processes of human beings, while the empiricist materialists believed that human beings are ''passive'' subjects of the material world. Marx synthesized these contradicting ideas into what he called “sensuous activity,” which balanced idealist and materialist philosophical concepts.
-Such alliances are created and maintained primarily through the exchange of women, who are also accumulated as spoils of war. This paradox, the exchange of women in securing alliances and the capture of women in war, illustrates, for Clastres the disdain toward exchange economy. Why should we trade for women when we can simply go get some for ourselves: “<em>the risk</em> [of war] <em>is considerable (injury, death), but so are the benefits: they are total, the women are free.</em>” Incidentally, here is a further refutation of Levi-Strauss’ proposition that primitive society is built around exchange. Clas- tres saw that exchange itself is only done in service of war, in other words, exchange only occurs as a way to secure military allies.
+According to Marx, humans are simultaneously ''active'' in the world in the sense that our conscious activity can transform the world, and ''passive'' in the sense that all human thoughts fundamentally derive from observation and sense experience of the material world (see Chapter 2, p. 53). So, Marx and Engels believed that Feuerbach was misguided in defining human nature by our traits alone, portraying “the essence of man” as isolated from the material world and from social relations. In addition, Feuerbach’s humanism was based on an abstract, ideal version of human beings, whereas the humanism of Marx and Engels is firmly rooted in the reality of “real men living real lives.” As Engels wrote in ''Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy'':
-War is a way of preserving the community. The cohesion, permanence, and stability of primitive life are all achieved through an unending state of war. This does not mean, of course, that we are always warring, but we are always <em>at</em> war, we are always <em>about</em> war, we always <em>are</em> war. The permanence of war in primitive society creates the image and idea of totality upon which all else depends. My identity is preserved through war. I am different because of war. I exist at all through war. To maintain the uniqueness and separation of identities and communities is not a byproduct of war, it is the purpose of war. War produces “<em>the multiplication of the multiple</em>.” This is the force that resists the centripetal, the movement toward the center. The bloodshed of the warrior creates an elastic structure that allows for both dispersion and cohesion.
+<blockquote>
+He (Feuerbach) clings fiercely to nature and man; but nature and man remain mere words with him. He is incapable of telling us anything definite either about real nature or real men. But from the abstract man of Feuerbach, one arrives at real living men only when one considers them as participants in history... The cult of abstract man, which formed the kernel of Feuerbach’s new religion, had to be replaced by the science of real men and of their historical development. This further development of Feuerbach’s standpoint beyond Feuerbach was inaugurated by Marx in 1845 in ''The Holy Family''.<ref>''The Holy Family'' is a book co-written by Marx and Engels which critiqued the Young Hegelians, including Feuerbach.</ref>
+</blockquote>
-*** For ages on end agricultural implements and weapons of war have remained identical.
+Marx and Engels believed that human nature could only be understood by examining the reality of actual humans in the real world through our relationships with each other, with nature, and with the external material world. Importantly, it was Marx’s critique of Feuerbach which led him to define political action as the key pursuit of philosophy with these immortal words from ''Theses on Feuerbach:'' “Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.”
-As we can see, what applies to a critique of the state also travels far beyond. When we talk about war and the warrior standing against the state, we understand that we are talking about something much deeper. Techno-industrial society itself depends utterly on the banishment of the warrior, who is subsumed into forms that are more amenable to this world and its logic. The bureaucrat. The accountant. The technician. As Clastres remarks, “<em>the refusal of the State is the refusal of exonomy, of exterior Law, it is quite simply the refusal of submission.</em>” There is no Law but our Law, the Law of the knife, the tooth. Insofar as war is directed outwards toward the enemy, the <em>other</em>, it is also an internal policy that preserves the integrity and stability of the community from within. War facilitates the preservation of autonomy in society and its indivisibility, its totality. We understand that the state is that which imposes division within society. The state is the apparatus of fragmentation and as long as primitive war remains, there is always a counter force to the power that threatens to blow apart the connections that keep us together. No amount of freedom can be suffered to erode.
+-----
-*** What the nomads invented was the man-animal-weapon, man-horse-bow assemblage.
+The British classical political economics, represented by such economists as Adam Smith<ref>Adam Smith, 1723 — 1790 (British): Logic professor, moral philosophy professor, economist.</ref> and David Ricardo<ref>David Ricardo, 1772 — 1823 (British): Economist.</ref>, also contributed to the formation of Marxism’s historical materialist conception [see p. 23].
-So who is the warrior? Who is this man that lives war? In the primitive context every man is no more or less than his capacity for violence. There is, of course, what Clastres terms “<em>a hierarchy of prestige</em>,” which is to say that some men are naturally more brave, particular warlike skills may differ slightly. However, the status of the warrior and his place among his fellows does not confer upon him an increase in political power. There are no subdivisions within this group and command bears no honor; obedience and discipline have little truck here. Every man fights for one particular thing and the orders of the war chief are not of primary concern. Indeed, as Clastres found, chiefs who presume to dictate to warriors are ignored at best and slaughtered at worst. No, the warrior fights for his own personal ends exclusively, he “<em>obeys only the law of his desire or will</em>.” In this regard there is considerable variety in the figure of the warrior as it presents itself in primitive communities.
+Smith and Ricardo were some of the first to form theories about labor value in the study of political economics. They made important conclusions about value and the origin of profit, and about the importance of material production and rules that govern economies. However, because there were still many limitations in the study methodology of Smith and Ricardo, these British classical political economists failed to recognise the historical characteristic of value*; the internal contradictions of commodity production**; and the duality of commodity production labor***.
-While it is true that we can say that primitive man is by definition a warrior, it is no less true that not all men are equally called to their task. The core of the war-making men is made up of those who have become enflamed by their passion for blood and glory. These are men who have devoted themselves utterly to violence and the pursuit of honor. They exist for nothing else. Every man is a potential warrior but not everyone fulfills this destiny. Clastres puts it thus: “ <em>all men go to war from time to time... some men go to war constantly</em>.” Clearly when a village is attacked, it can be assumed that all men will act as warriors. But it is this special class that must engage in warlike activities even in times of peace. They do not go to war to respond to the needs of others but because they hear the drum beating at all times within their breast.
+-----
-Moments of external threat and collective danger can transform any community into a community of war and this is naturally universal. What is more particular is the growth of the warrior societies. Nevertheless there are ample instances of communities that have institutionalized the practice of war. In these communities there is an utter dedication to war as the center for all political and ritual power. We know this to be true of the Huron, the Algonkin, the Iroquois, the Cheyenne, the Sioux, the Blackfoot, and the Apache. But for Clastres the prime examples are to be found in the tribes of the Grand Chaco, a harsh, dry, thorny wasteland covering much of Paraguay, Argentina, and Bolivia. Among the <em>chaquenos</em> war is valorized above all else, a lesson learned the hard way by the Conquistadors.
+==== Annotation 13 ====
-So profoundly did the tribes of the Chaco worship war that the 18th century Jesuits had to simply give up their mission because they could do nothing to lessen the <em>chaquenos</em> love for battle and bloodshed. In 1966 when Clastres traveled among the Abipone, the Guaicuru, and the Chulupi, the memory of ancient battles was still fresh and the idea of the warrior was still present in the minds of the people. Membership within the warrior societies is a form of nobility and the glory and prestige accumulated by a group of warriors is reflected onto the community as a whole. The role of society here is to enact ceremonies: dances and rituals that encourage and celebrate the achievements of its warriors in order to ensure that they will continue to seek prestige. <em>The socketed bronze battle-ax of the Hyksos and the iron sword of the Hittites have been compared to miniature atomic bombs.</em>
+<nowiki>*</nowiki> '''Historical Characteristic of Value'''
-Among these warriors it is the most aggressive who are most valued and therefore they are mostly made up of young men. The Guaicuru established ritual ceremonies for entrance into warrior societies that were distinct from the initiation rites that all young men went through. And yet entrance into this select group also did not guarantee acceptance into the <em>niadagaguadi</em>, or brotherhood of warriors. The latter was ensured only by accomplishing particular feats of arms in battle and other warlike exploits. In other words, the choice to become a warrior means to pursue this goal with singular focus, determination, and most importantly, passion. The 18th century Jesuit Sanchez Labrador wrote of the Guaicuru: “<em>they are totally indifferent to everything, but take care of their horses, their labrets, and their weapons with great zeal</em>.” Fostering this care for violence is the main task of primitive pedagogy and European observers have frequently remarked with horror on the brutal violence that is often done to very small children, who are given to understand this as a prelude to the life of war that they will enter. Labrador and his fellow missionaries were thwarted at every step by the fact that the concept of loving thy neighbor held no meaning whatsoever for the <em>chaquenos</em> and Christianization in that context was impossible: “<em>The young Abipone are an obstacle to the progress of religion. In their ardent desire for military glory and spoils, they are avidly cutting the heads of the Spanish and destroying their carts and their fields</em>.” The warrior, as we have said above, insists on the need for war at all costs, whether or not peace has been established.
+Marx generally admired the work of Smith and Ricardo, but saw major flaws which undermined the utility of their classical economic theories. Perhaps chief among these flaws, according to Marx, was a tendency for Smith and Ricardo to uphold an ''ahistoric'' view of society and capitalism. In other words, classical economists see capitalism as existing in harmony with the eternal and universal laws of nature, rather than seeing capitalism as a result of historical processes of development [see Annotation 114, p. 116]. Marx did not believe that the economic principles of capitalism resulted from nature, but rather, from historical conflict between different classes. He believed that the principles of political economies changed over time, and would continue to change into the future, whereas Smith and Ricardo saw economic principles as fixed, static concepts that were not subject to change over time. As Marx explains in ''The Poverty of Philosophy:''
-The experience of the Jesuits in the Chaco was echoed by their French counterparts in the Northern Hemisphere. Champlain, in seeking to cement alliances and peace treaties between the Algonkin and Iroquois for trade purposes, was constantly undermined. He writes that his efforts were undone in one particular instance by “<em>nine or ten scatterbrained young men who undertook to go to war, which they did without anyone being able to stop them, for the little obedience they give to their chiefs</em>.” Here we see again that the chief is powerless before the warrior. War cannot be stopped, regardless of the political impetus to do so.
+<blockquote>
+Economists express the relations of bourgeois production, the division of labour, credit, money, etc. as fixed, immutable, eternal categories... Economists explain how production takes place in the above mentioned relations, but what they do not explain is how these relations themselves are produced, that is, the historical movement that gave them birth... these categories are as little eternal as the relations they express. They are historical and transitory products.
+</blockquote>
-Even as they were engaged in exterminating a continent, the Europeans constantly attempted to interrupt local wars. The French did so by buying back as many Iroquois prisoners as they could from the Huron to spare them from torture and the tribes themselves from inevitable retaliation. A particular Huron chief responded thusly to one such offer for ransom:
+<nowiki>**</nowiki> '''Internal Contradictions of Commodity Production'''
-**** I am a man of war and not a merchant, I have come to fight and not to bargain; my glory is not in bringing back presents, but in bringing back prisoners, and leaving, I can touch neither your hatchets nor your cauldrons; if you want our prisoners so much, take them, I still have enough courage to find others; if the enemy takes my life, it will be said in the country that since Ontonio took our prisoners, we threw ourselves into death to get others.
+In Marxist terms, a commodity is specifically something that has both a use value and a value-form (see Annotation 14, p. 16), but in simpler terms, a commodity is anything that can be bought or sold. Importantly, capitalism transforms human labor into a commodity, as workers must sell their labor to capitalists in exchange for wages. Marx pointed out that contradictions arise when commodities are produced under capitalism: because capitalists, who own the means of production, decide what to produce based solely on what they believe to be most profitable, the commodities that are being produced do not always meet the actual needs of society. Certain commodities are under-produced while others are over-produced, which leads to crisis and instability.
-This inability to dissuade warriors from violence is by no means exclusive to European interlopers. The same dynamic can be found within communities as well. Clastres recounts a story told to him by the Chulupi about a famous raid on a Bolivian camp in the 1930s that was undermined by a group of young warriors who decided instead that the enemy should be massacred to a man. Feeling that this bloodthirstiness would compromise the success of the mission, the young men were excluded from the endeavor by the veterans and chiefs. “<em>We do not need you. There are enough of us</em>,” responded the young warriors. Clastres reports that they were no more than twelve.
+<nowiki>***</nowiki> Duality of Commodity Production Labor
-**** Genghis Khan and his followers were able to hold out for a long time by partially integrating themselves into the conquered empires, while at the same time maintaining a smooth space on the steppes to which the imperial centers were subordinated.
+In ''Capital'', Marx describes commodity production labor as existing in a duality — that is to say, it exists with two distinct aspects:
-As we have established, war functions in primitive society as a way to preserve autonomy and prevent the accumulation of political power and the growth of the state. The role of the warrior is to make war. And the warrior is the man who has passion for war. But what is the source of this passion? Simply put, the warrior’s passion for war stems from his desperate, wild hunger for prestige, honor, and glory. This fact helps us understand the existential dimensions of the act of warring. The warrior can only realize himself if society confers meaning upon him. Prestige is the content of this meaning. The community awards prestige to the warrior in exchange for accomplishing specific exploits, which as we have seen in turn increases the prestige and honor of the community as a whole. The calculus of prestige is determined by society and it may be that certain war-acts are considered imprudent and thus no prestige is granted. It is perhaps needless to say that heredity or lineage bears no prestige. In other words, nobility cannot be inherited; glory can only be attained by the hand of the man who seeks it; it is nontransferable.
+First, there is ''abstract labor'', which Marx describes as “labor-power expended without regard to the form of its expenditure.” This is simply the expenditure of human energy in the form of labor, without any regard to production or value of the labor output. Second, there is ''concrete labor'', which is the aspect of labor that refers to the production of a specific commodity with a specific value through labor.
-So by what particular acts can the warrior accumulate prestige? In the first case, Clastres identifies the importance of spoils. Since war in primitive society is generally not waged in order to increase territory, gaining spoils is primary. Spoils contain both material and symbolic significance. On the one hand there are spoils such as weapons or metals, which can be used to make more weapons. On the other hand, among the <em>chaquenos</em>, horses occupy a peculiar position in the hierarchy of spoils. Because of the vast number of horses in the Chaco, they bear virtually no use or exchange value despite constituting a large portion of war spoils. Indeed, Clastres reports that certain individuals among the Abipone and Guaicuru possessed dozens if not hundreds of horses. Possessing too many horses was also a considerable drain on the resources of the family or community. Instead, the stealing of horses contributes to the accumulation of prestige via pure glory or sport. This is, of course, not to say that tribes would not guard their horses vigilantly or that horse stealing did not involve bloodshed and death.
+Marx argues that human labor, therefore, is simultaneously, an activity which will produce some specific kind of product, and also an activity that generates value in the abstract. Marx and Engels were the first economists to discuss the duality of labor, and their observations on the duality of labor were closely tied to their theories of the different aspects of value (use value, exchange value, etc.), which was key to their analysis of capitalism.
-Prisoners are the most valuable spoils among the <em>chaquenos</em>. Sanchez Labrador wrote of the Guaicuru, “their desire for prisoners... is inexpressible and frenzied” The experience of being a prisoner in primitive communities varies greatly from tribe to tribe. In certain cases prisoners do all the work, allowing men, women, and children to spend their time exclusively at leisure. In other communities the distinction between prisoner and non-prisoner is vague; prisoners live and fight alongside their captors. The high value of prisoners among the tribes of the Chaco can be attributed at least in part to low population growth. Labrador observed that many families had one child or just as often, none. Additionally in many communities women outnumbered men by six to one. Naturally we can assume an extremely high incidence of mortality among young men but the extreme male to female ratios would have mitigated this fact via polygyny. Likewise we must also account for epidemics brought by the Conquistadors. The extreme hostility of the <em>chaqeunos</em> towards outsiders, however, dramatically lessened the impact of foreign microbes. Thus both cases seem to only partially explain the phenomenon. Clastres concludes that the women of the Chaco simply did not want to bear children.
+-----
-This is the cosmically tragic element of the primitive society- for-war, the will to war brings with it the refusal to bear children: “<em>young women agreed to be the wives of warriors, but not the mothers of their children</em>.” This is why capturing prisoners, especially children and foreign women, was considered so important. Children could easily be integrated into society through the Law of violence and foreign women were less likely to maintain the <em>chaquena</em> distaste for breeding.
+Smith and Ricardo also failed to distinguish between simple commodity production and capitalist commodity production*, and could not accurately analyse the form of value** in capitalist commodity production.
-Of course there are further socioeconomic dimensions of war beyond the accumulation of spoils for prestige. The Abipone and Guaicuru abandoned agriculture because it was incompatible with permanent war. Raids provide symbolic gains and, as we have seen, a necessary stimulant to population growth but it also becomes an efficient means of acquiring consumer goods. Why invest the labor power required for agriculture when you are raiding for glory anyway? This dynamic is illustrated in Guaicuru linguistics, which designates the term warrior as “those thanks to whom we eat.” The warrior is therefore the community’s provider. The Apache, for example, having likewise abandoned agriculture, only authorized warfare if it was determined that the action would yield sufficient spoils.
+-----
-But there are additional pathways for the warrior to gain prestige beyond spoils. In fact, as Clastres and others have observed, a warrior who returned to the village without the scalp of a dead enemy gained no glory regardless of how many horses, women, and how much steel he brought back. The practice of scalping, common in South and North America, explicitly indicates a young man’s admission into a warrior society. Clastres brings attention here to a remarkable but subtle distinction. A man who kills an enemy but refuses to scalp him cannot be warrior. For one who has been consecrated to battle, it is insufficient to kill, he is compelled to take his trophy. Here we can think of the earlier distinction between men dedicated to the pursuit of war and those who simply respond to the needs of the community when circumstances demand it.
+==== Annotation 14 ====
-The scalp, as a trophy of war, is an object of immense significance. For one thing, Clastres writes, “there is a hierarchy of scalps. Spanish heads of hair, though not disdained, were not, by far, as esteemed as those of Indians.” One might assume that the scalp of the Spaniard, the Conquistador, the genocider, would be highly desirable but it is a testament to the autonomy and pride of the <em>chaquenos</em> that they did not think enough of the Spaniards to count killing one as a meaningful accomplishment for a warrior. For the Chulupi, for example, the scalp of a Toba tribesman was the most valuable prize, due to generations of shared animosity between the two groups. After a warrior’s death his family burns all of his accumulated scalps upon his tomb; his soul will rise to warrior heaven upon a path formed by the smoke. To the Chulupi, there is nothing better than ascending upon a path made from the smoke of Toba scalp.
+<nowiki>*</nowiki> '''Commodity Production'''
-We have said that scalping an enemy is a requisite for entrance into warrior society but it is only the beginning of his path. The warrior, like Hegel’s slave, is always in a state of becoming. Just as he inherits nothing from the glorious acts of his fathers, with each scalp he takes he must begin again. It does not matter how many scalps a warrior has hanging on the walls of his hut. Once he stops taking scalps, his glory is at an end. The quest and hunger for prestige is a compulsion. Clastres, who correctly places the warrior in an existential context, writes, “the warrior is in essence condemned to forging ahead.” He never has enough scalps. His bloodlust is never quenched. The warrior is thus paradoxically a quintessentially modern figure. He is always dissatisfied and restless. He is a neurotic. He is formed and conditioned by conflicted forces, a soul that yearns for glory but is dependent on a society to recognize and reward it: “<em>for each exploit accomplished, the warrior and society utter the same judgement: the warrior says, That’s good, but I can do more, I can increase my glory. Society says, That’s good, but you should do more, obtain our recognition of a superior prestige.</em>” This paradox is all the more acutely felt as the exploits and the glory they confer are exclusively individual. The warrior does not embody a team mentality. It is every man for his own glory.
+''Simple commodity production'' (also known as ''petty commodity production'') is the production of commodities under the conditions which Marx called the “Simple Exchange” of commodities. ''Simple exchange'' occurs when individual producers trade the products they have made directly, themselves, for other commodities. Under simple exchange, workers directly own their own means of production and sell products which they have made with their own labor.
-So just as it is insufficient for a warrior to have taken the step to scalp a foe and enter the ranks of those men who are living war, it is likewise insufficient for a warrior to continue repetitively venturing out, killing an enemy, and returning with a scalp. This cycle can only confer so much prestige because at a certain point, a warrior can only risk so much by such exploits. For the pursuit of prestige, the warrior must distinguish himself from all other warriors as well. Thus he must continuously seek newer, riskier, bloodier exploits. Every act of war is a challenge to the warrior’s fellows: can you do better? This can be done in a number of ways. A warrior or war party might decide to go deeper and deeper into an enemy’s territory, thus cutting himself off from an easy avenue of escape. A warrior might go to war against an enemy that is especially known for courage, aggressiveness, or prowess. An especially brave warrior might go warring at night, which is typically considered imprudent due to the added threat of hostile spirits. Finally, a warrior might push his way to the front lines of the battle, deliberately putting his body in the way of the enemy’s arrows or rifles. The act that universally confers the highest degree of prestige is that of a single warrior who separates himself from his tribesmen to attack the enemy at his strongest position, in his own camp: “alone against all.” This is the only thing left for the warrior of great prestige.
+Simple commodity production and simple exchange use what Marx referred to as “C'''→'''M'''→'''C mode of circulation” [see Annotation 60, p. 59]. Circulation is simply the way in which commodities and money are exchanged for one another.
-Remarkably, this height of warlike vigor is shared among tribes throughout the Western Hemisphere. Champlain writes of an attempt to dissuade an Algonkin warrior from single-handedly attacking a Iroquois camp, “<em>he responded that it would be impossible for him to live if he did not kill his enemies</em>.” Similarly the French Jesuits among the Huron observed with horror that
+'''C→M→C stands for:'''
-**** sometimes an enemy, totally naked and with only a hatchet in hand, will even have the courage to enter the huts of a town at night, by himself, then, having murdered some of those he finds sleeping there, to take flight for all defense against a hundred and two hundred people who will follow him one and two entire days.
+Commodity '''→''' Money '''→''' Commodity
-The stories of valor Clastres was told among the Chulupi echo this kind of suicidal bravery; one famous warrior, having surpassed all other feats of glory had no choice but to mount his horse and drive ever deeper into enemy territory. Alone, attacking one camp after another, he survived in this manner for days before he was finally cut down. The cult of bravery is such that the Chulupi even venerate the memory of a warrior of the Toba, their eternal enemies. This man was known to infiltrate Chulupi camps night after night and scalp several men before disappearing without a trace. Eventually he was tracked down by a Chulupi war party and died under torture without ever crying out.
+So, with simple commodity production and simple exchange, workers produce commodities, which they then sell for money, which they use to buy other commodities which they need. For example, a brewer might make beer, which they sell for money, which they use to buy food, housing, and other commodities which they need to live.
-It is precisely this disdain for danger, pain, and death that corresponds to greater glory. As Clastres points out, the Spaniards were always confused that when they captured a Tupi-Guarani warrior he would never try to escape. Bravely facing torture and death bring glory, escape does not. As a matter of fact, an escaped prisoner is rejected by his community if he returns: “<em>he is a prisoner, his destiny must thus be fulfilled</em>.” This destiny is invariably one of torture, death, followed by cannibalism. So the fate of the warrior is to continue to put himself in increasingly dangerous situations and eventually, no matter his past successes, he is fated to die alone, at the hands of his enemies. He is a nomad wanderer, always traversing the line between life and death: “<em>the warrior is, in his being, a being-for-death</em>.” The death instinct may not trump the instinct for glory and prestige but we must observe that the one becomes the other. The death instinct may be a more influential factor than we might like to admit.
+In the C'''→'''M'''→'''C mode of circulation, the producers and consumers of commodities have a direct relationship to the commodities which are being bought and sold. The sellers have produced the commodities sold with their own labor, and they directly consume the commodities which they purchase with the money thus obtained.
-In one of the last essays Clastres wrote before his death he recounts a meeting with two old Chulupi men. Both were around sixty five years old. They had both seen countless battles, were covered in scars, and had each killed dozens of men. Nevertheless, as Clastres was surprised to discover, neither of the men had taken scalps and entered the Kaanokle, or warrior society. When Clastres asks them why they did not want to join this most prestigious group, they both responded that they simply did not want to die. This is profoundly illustrative of the death instinct dynamic that we have described above: “<em>to insist on the glory attached to the title of warrior amounts to accepting the more or less long term price: death</em>.” To be a warrior, as we have seen, means to never stop pursuing glory and to never stop facing greater and greater danger. For many men it is better to renounce the endless pursuit of prestige and simply be forgotten by the community than to become imprisoned within a passion for killing. This is the sorrow of the warrior: renounce prestige, fame, and glory or live every day drenched in blood, driving always closer and closer to death.
+''Capitalist commodity production'' and ''capitalist exchange'', on the other hand, are based on the M'''→'''C'''→'''M’ mode of circulation.
-Ultimately, Clastres’ significance is in ensuring that we understand how fundamental violence is to primitive societies. And further that we understand that primitive violence is not an unfortunate blemish in an otherwise idyllic existence, to be swept under the rug and ignored in order to promote a prescriptive vision for the future. Clastres demonstrated that what is desirable, substantive, and eminently deserving of emulation in primitive society is precisely due to and constituted by ever-present, permanent violence. We must refuse to shy away from the importance of violence in the creation of community. We must acknowledge, in fact, that violence alone, properly understood, is the only means to achieve the kind of society we desire.
+'''M→C→M’ stands for:'''
-<br>
+Money '''→''' Commodity '''→''' More Money
-<right>
+Under this mode of circulation, capitalists spend money to buy commodities (including the commodified labor of workers), with the intention of selling commodities for MORE MONEY than they began with. The capitalist has no direct relationship to the commodity being produced and sold, and the capitalist is solely interested in obtaining ''more money.''
-</right>
-<strong>
+Capitalist commodity production, therefore, uses the M'''→'''C'''→'''M’ mode of circulation, in which capitalists own the means of production and pay wages to workers in exchange for their labor, which is used to produce commodities. The capitalists then sell these commodities for profits which are not shared with the workers who provided the labor which produced the commodities.
-<br></strong>
-** [[Atassa: Lessons of the Creek War
+<nowiki>**</nowiki> '''Value-Form'''
-<br>(1813-1814)]]
-<right>
+This is one of the most important, and potentially most confusing, concepts in all of Marx’s analysis of capitalism. Marx explains these principles at length in ''Appendix of the 1<sup>st</sup> German Edition of Capital, Volume 1'', but here are some of the fundamentals:
-Abe Cabrera
-</right>
-**** Three men searched for their friends and kin among the dead, ‘some still bleeding, all scalped & mutilated, and smoked with fire,’ while shouts of the murderers could be distinctly heard & their campfires seen to the east. Hundreds of painted war clubs littered the battlefield, each signifying a Redstick enemy slain.
+One of Marx’s key breakthroughs was understanding that commodities have many different properties which have different effects in political economies.
-**** Gregory Waselkov,
+Just as Commodity Production Labor exists in a duality of Concrete Labor and Abstract Labor (see Annotation 13, p. 15), commodities themselves also exist in duality according to Marx:
-**** A Conquering Spirit: Fort Mims and the Redstick War of 1813-1814, pg. 145
+Commodities have both “use-value” and “value.”
-**** All of this is also re-wilding: to return to the primitive in a conflict inherited from our ancestors; to put into practice the tactics that the ancients used but in our own conditions. In fact, the murder that ITS carried out also represents ‘individualist re-wilding’. The goal of assassinating an UNAM employee was not just to take him out and create negative reactions to this act, but rather with the same act, the members of ITS also murdered the civilized person within, killing little by little with thrusts of the knife those Western values imposed on them from childhood onward.
+Use-Value (which corresponds to Concrete Labor) is the commodity’s ''tangible form'' of existence; it is what we can physically sense when we observe a commodity. By extension, use-value encompasses how a commodity can be used in the material world.
-**** Xale,
+Value, or the Value-Form, is the ''social form'' of a commodity, which is to say, it represents the stable relationships intrinsic to the commodity [see ''Content and Form'', p. 147].
-**** “Hard Words:
+Note that this relates to the dialectical relationship between the material and the ideal [see ''The Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness'', p. 88].
-**** An eco-extremist conversation”
+Value-forms represent relational equivalencies of commodities, i.e.: '''20 yards of linen = 10 pounds of tea'''
-It has been over 150 years since Karl Marx in <em>The Eighteenth</em> <em>Brumaire of Louis Napoleon</em> reflected on how events occur in history, as it were, twice: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce. Yet it is arguable that to differentiate between the two (tragedy and farce), one has to assume that history tends toward a particular direction. An event that is similar to a past event, so the logic goes, somehow failed to learn “the lessons” of its unpleasant predecessor. This idea makes assumptions concerning humans in a particular context acting in groups: that they have agency, that they have complete transparency in realizing what they are doing, that certain lessons can be learned after the fact, etc. If, on the other hand, we appreciate the blindness and resolve needed for heroism in an endeavor, any act can appear to be foolishness to the observer looking on in hindsight. All that the actors see in the middle of things is necessity. Our struggle may not be one of “learning the lessons” and breaking the cycle of tragedy and farce. It may simply be an issue of returning to the “heroism” of tragedy. That is to say, perhaps we must return to the tragic as an escape from progress: to realize that things must be thus, and it is our own reaction that is most important when faced with an inevitable outcome. It’s an issue of whether we fight or lay down our arms because we are blind to an elusive “future.”
+These relational equivalencies are tied to the equivalent labor value (see Annotation 15 below, and Annotation 26, p. 23) used to produce these commodities. The value-form of a commodity is the ''social form'' because it embodies relational equivalencies:
-This essay describes a tragedy, one in which--in order to preserve a society--its people had to destroy it. We speak here of the Creek or Red Stick War in what is now the US Southeast, which took place from 1813 to 1814. The indigenous combatants in this war most likely did not suspect that their war would end badly for them. I will argue, however, that the war itself was inevitable, as was perhaps its outcome. In this assertion, I am not being deterministic, but rather I am arguing that for the Creeks to have avoided mortal conflict with Euro-American civilization, they would have had to cease to be Creeks. Instead, the Red Stick Creeks fought valiantly and violently against the white settler as they deemed the loss of their lives a small thing compared to the loss of their land and honor. The Red Sticks would purify their land of civilization or die trying. Ferocity and cruelty in battle against a superior enemy were the primary means of their re-wilding, a re-wilding that sparked civilization’s war of annihilation against the Red Sticks. The “inevitability” of this tragic ending is the central lesson from the Creek War.
+. The value-form represents the relationship between the commodity and the labor which was used to produce the commodity.
-*** [[The Emergence and Shape of Creek Society]]
+. The value-form represents the relationship between a commodity and one or more other commodities.
-The Creek or Muskogee Confederation in the early 19th century was a community that had evolved over centuries of political change and societal collapse. The Creeks were a group of clans that had once inhabited a landscape of large chiefdoms known as the Mississippian cultures. By the arrival of Hernando de Soto in the early 16th century, these chiefdoms had slightly declined but were still vibrant enough to pose a significant barrier to Spanish incursions. Population collapse due to disease and changing political factors internally led to these chiefdoms dispersing and then slowly devolving into confederations, the names of which are familiar today: the Creeks, the Choctaw, the Chickasaws, the Cherokees, and the Seminoles. The unity of the Creeks in particular up to the time of their war with the US was often precarious and filled with tensions that emerged along geographic and class lines.
+As Marx explains in ''Appendix to the 1<sup>st</sup> German Edition of Capital'': “Hence by virtue of its value-form the (commodity) now stands also in a social relation no longer to only a single other type of commodity, but to the world of commodities. As a commodity it is a citizen of this world.”
-All of these confederacies or tribes shared a common cosmovision that was no doubt a remnant of the once great Mississippian cultures. And within the tribes themselves, there were always disputes between the tribal center and the village periphery. The Creeks were divided into various towns that in turn were divided between “Lower Creeks” (inhabiting the area along the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers in what is now Georgia) and “Upper Creeks” (inhabiting the area along Coosa, Tallapoosa, and Alabama Rivers and their tributaries in what is now the state of Alabama). The Upper Creeks were by far the larger group, outnumbering the Lower Creeks two to one (Green, 22).
+Understanding the social form of commodities — the value-form — was crucial for Marx to develop a deeper understanding of money and capitalism. Marx argued that classical economists like Ricardo and Smith conflated economic categories such as “exchange value,” “value,” “price,” “money,” etc., which meant that they could not possibly fully understand or analyze capitalist economies.
-For the purposes of describing what would come to be known as the Red Stick War, we will limit ourselves to commenting on three essential aspects of Creek culture: matrilineal kinship, the nature of Creek agriculture, and the Green Corn or Busk ceremony. These three aspects in my view contributed most to Creek traditionalism as interpreted through the militant ideology of Pan-Indianism. The inability to integrate into patriarchal yeoman farmer agricultural society is what led the Creeks to defend their way of life with unprecedented acts of violence.
+-----
-Matrilineal kinship and the nature of Creek agriculture were closely related and defined the essential division of labor between men and women. In following matrilineal descent, all children born to a woman were automatically members of her clan without any formal relation to the father’s clan. The most important male in a Creek child’s life was not the father, but a male member of the wife’s clan, usually an older maternal uncle. Matrilineal descent allowed comparatively interesting family histories wherein a prominent member of Creek tribe could have a great deal of European ancestry, but still be considered fully Creek, at least culturally. For example, William Weatherford, or Hopinika Fulsahi (Truth Maker), was a key leader of the Redsticks in their attack on Fort Mims, but his great-grandfather, grand-father, and father were Europeans who had married Creek women. The children born of those relationships were all raised by the mother’s clan, including William Weatherford (Shuck-Hall, 4). Nevertheless, increased intermarriage put a strain on the matrilineal kinship as a new métis (mixed blood) class began to associate increasingly with European ways (including patrilineal kinship) while keeping the Creek language and certain aspects of their culture. This was a leading factor in the decision to carry out the massacre at Fort Mims, which we will discuss below.
+British classical political economists like Ricardo and Smith outlined the scientific factors of the theories of labor value* and contributed many progressive thoughts which Marx adapted and further developed.
-<center>
+==== Annotation 15 ====
-</center>
+<nowiki>*</nowiki> Adam Smith and David Ricardo revolutionized the labor theory of value, which held that the value of a good or service is determined by the amount of human labor required to produce it.
-Massacre at Fort Mims
+Thus, Marx was able to solve the contradictions that these economists could not solve and he was able to establish the theory of surplus value*, scientific evidence for the exploitative nature of capitalism, and the economic factors which will lead to the eventual fall of capitalism and the birth of socialism.
-These matrilineal kinship relationships also shaped the domestic and public space within Creek towns. Men dominated the town square and the decision-making bodies, but women were considered the mistresses of the home and hearth. This supremacy in the home was demonstrated by the ceremony that took place on the first morning after the marriage of Creek woman, called the <em>asaamachi</em>. In this ceremony, the new wife would intentionally burn her husband’s first meal to demonstrate that the man was the subordinate within the relationship, and that his offspring would be members of his wife’s clan and not his own (ibid). Women could thus have a great deal of indirect influence on Creek political life, as was believed to be the case of William Weatherford, whose third wife is thought to have influenced his militant traditionalism. Overall, the place of the man was the town (<em>talwa</em>) square, the forest during the hunt, and the battlefield.
+==== Annotation 16 ====
-Agriculture played a large part in Creek society and cosmology, yet was almost the exclusive domain of women. This exclusivity was based on a trope common in Southeastern tribes of the man being the “taker of life,” and the woman being the “giver of life.” Matrilineal kinship is largely believed to be founded on the premise that the women and children who had gone through so much trouble to clear patches of forest for cultivation with stone axes and fire should not have them taken away by a male interloper who marries into the clan (Waselkov, 6). Thus, to the people who did all of the agricultural work went the reward, with the man providing meat from his hunt and receiving in return sustenance from the corn and other crops that his wife’s clan cultivated. This also meant that men handling agricultural matters was culturally unthinkable, save for some mandatory clearing of forest where a stronger back and hands were needed.
+<nowiki>*</nowiki> David Ricardo developed the concept of surplus value. Surplus value is the difference between the amount of income made from selling a product and the amount it costs to produce it. Marx would go on to expand on the concept of surplus value considerably.
-The major feast of the Creek year, as in many other parts of the Southeast, was the Green Corn or Busk Festival, a harvest festival that was simultaneously a purging of the expired order and a celebration of new abundance. In some villages, old pots, utensils, and clothes were symbolically destroyed to symbolize the breaking with an expired and corrupt past. In later times, the use of European goods and clothing were also forbidden in some towns during the Busk. The sacred village fire was extinguished and rekindled in four to eight days of fasting, purification, and moral attentiveness. The central deity in Mississippian cultures was the sun, and fire was deemed to be its emissary. Over the course of the year, the central fire of the town from which all of the individual fires were kindled could become “polluted” with acts of violence, the violation of sexual taboos, and similar transgressions (Martin, 39). Once the old fire was extinguished and the new one kindled, the first fruits of the corn harvest were “sacrificed” to the new fire. The symbolic color of the Busk was white as opposed to red (which was the color of war). The Busk could only take place during a time of peace, since war ceremonies supplanted the Busk until hostilities ceased. Many of these cultural tropes would inform the symbolism of Creek cultural renewal leading up to the Redstick War of the early 19th century.
+Utopianism'''' had been developing for a long time and reached its peak in the late 18<sup>th</sup> century with famous thinkers such as Henri de Saint-Simon<ref>Claude Henri de Rouvroy Saint Simon, 1760 — 1825 (French): Philosopher, economist, utopianist activist.</ref>, François Marie Charles Fourier<ref>Charles Fourier, 1772 — 1837 (French): Philosopher, economist, utopianist activist.</ref> and Robert Owen<ref>Robert Owen, 1771 — 1858 (British): Utopianist activist, owner of a cotton factory.</ref>. Utopianism sought to elevate the humanitarian spirit and strongly criticised capitalism by calling attention to the misery of the working class under capitalism. It also offered many far-ranging opinions and analyses of the development of human history and laid out some basic foundational factors and principles for a new society. However, Utopianism could not scientifically address the nature of capitalism. It failed to detect the Law of Development of Capitalism<ref>The Law of Development of Capitalism referenced here is the Theory of Accumulation/Surplus Value, which holds that the capitalist class gains wealth by accumulating surplus value (i.e., profits) and then reinvesting it into more capital to gain even further wealth; thus the goal of the capitalist class is to accumulate more and more surplus value which leads to the development of capitalism. Over time, this deepens the contradictions of capitalism. This concept is related to the M'''→'''C'''→'''M mode of circulation, discussed in Annotation 14, p. 16, and is discussed in detail in Part 3 of the book this text is drawn from (Political Economy) which we hope to translate in the future.</ref> and also failed to recognise the roles and missions of the working class as a social force that can eliminate capitalism to build an equal, non-exploitative society.
-To summarize, Creeks society was a subsistence agricultural/ hunting and gathering society based on matrilineal kinship informed by the pressures and influences of European contact. This society kept many of the characteristics of Mississippian cultures as had most major cultures in the Southeast. The Creeks emerged as a loose confederation of towns sharing certain linguistic and ceremonial characteristics. Increased European encroachment would bring access to trade goods that compromised the Creek way of life, leading to tensions that would erupt in a civil war that would escalate into total war against the nascent United States of America.
+==== Annotation 17 ====
-*** [[The Trade Trap]]
+The early industrial working class existed in miserable conditions, and the political movement of utopianism was developed by people who believed that a better world could be built. The utopianists believed they could create “a New Moral World” of happiness, enlightenment, and prosperity through education, science, technology, and communal living. For instance, Robert Owen was a wealthy textile manufacturer who tried to build a better society for workers in New Harmony, Indiana, in the USA. Owen purchased the entire town of New Harmony in 1825 as a place to build an ideal society. Owen’s vision failed after two years for a variety of reasons, and many other wealthy capitalists in the early 19<sup>th</sup> century drew up similar plans which also failed.
-European influence was not strongly felt in the Creeks’ territory until the late 17th century. While some trade goods arrived from Spanish Florida before that time, little direct interaction happened between the peoples who inhabited what is now Georgia and Alabama and the outside world. This began to change with the founding of the city of Charleston in 1670. Trade goods such as glass, metals, beads, and other materials slowly made their way into Creek territory. With the defeat of tribes to the north and increased European colonization, the Creeks were integrated into the regional and global economy. In order to acquire European goods, they could provide two things in exchange: slaves and deerskins.
+Utopianism was one of the first political and industrial movements that criticized the conditions of capitalism by exposing the miserable situations of poor workers and offering a vision of a better society, and was one of the first movements to attempt to mitigate the faults of capitalism in practice.
-The introduction of firearms facilitated this trade. Hunting for deer and the capture and subjugation of slaves in war occurred before the European conquest, but not at the level needed by emerging international markets. The Europeans sought deerskins for clothing, bookbinding, and other manufacturing uses, and they were one of the main exports of the colonies. Captured Indian slaves were used as labor for the tobacco plantations on the coast before the mass importation of African slaves. The hunt and war were obligations of the man in these societies, and thus firearms augmented their abilities to do what they had done from time immemorial. For example, tribes like the Apalachees that did not have access to English firearms, became vulnerable to slave raids from surrounding tribes (Martin, 59). Increased trade with the Europeans resulted in an arms race between tribes where European powers (England, France, and Spain) played tribes against each other to acquire better terms of exchange.
+Unfortunately, the utopianists were not ideologically prepared to replace capitalism, and all of their attempts to build a better alternative to capitalism failed. Marx and Engels admired the efforts of the utopianist movement, and studied their attempts and failures closely in developing their own political theories, concluding that the utopianists failed in large part because they did not understand how capitalism developed, nor the role of the working class in the revolution against capitalism.
-Gradually, Africans replaced indigenous peoples as the primary labor force on plantations, and the deer populations diminished as a result of overhunting. Creek society also underwent substantial changes. The firearm became the main instrument of war and the hunt, and could only be obtained by trade. Cooking utensils, cloth, and alcohol also became necessities that only trade with the Europeans could provide. Alcohol was a particularly problematic vice that often resulted in indigenous people being swindled out of their deerskins (Martin, 66). Since Creek men had to be out on the hunt for most of the year to acquire enough deerskins for trade, the women were left with the old people and children to run village life on their own. Wandering further distances to acquire deerskins meant that they would often encroach on the territories of their neighbors, leading to wars with the Choctaws and Cherokees in particular. This “bad blood” between the Creeks and their neighbors would play a substantial role in a divide-and- conquer strategy that would subjugate the the Southeast tribes and expel them from their territories.
+As Engels wrote in ''Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:''
-Into the 18th century, Europeans powers jockeyed for influence in the region, and thus often bought off tribes in a patronage relationship. The Choctaws, for example, were allies of the French against the English, and the Creeks and Cherokees were in a patronage relationship with the English against the French and the Spanish. The deerskin trade also brought European traders into the region who intermarried into matrilineal Creek society. The offspring of wealthy traders often became influential (in spite of the muted role that fathers played in Creek kinship). Europeans also brought horses and cattle into these lands, which became both sources of wealth and nuisances for the Creek towns. For example, grazing cattle often trespassed and destroyed fields devoted to subsistence agriculture (Martin, 80).The presence of the Europeans and their livestock led to conflict in early 19th century Creek society: namely, métis Creeks were assimilating into US society based on the European nuclear family and not the Creek sprawling matrilineal clan system. These new communities subsisted and even thrived by practicing commercial agriculture dependent on slaves and livestock. The presence of these foreign and mixed elements into Creek society would be a major source of division that would fuel Creek nativist sentiments.
+<blockquote>
+(The) historical situation also dominated the founders of Socialism. To the crude conditions of capitalistic production and the crude class conditions correspond crude theories. The solution of the social problems, which as yet lay hidden in undeveloped economic conditions, the Utopians attempted to evolve out of the human brain. Society presented nothing but wrongs; to remove these was the task of reason. It was necessary, then, to discover a new and more perfect system of social order and to impose this upon society from without by propaganda, and, wherever it was possible, by the example of model experiments. These new social systems were foredoomed as Utopian; the more completely they were worked out in detail, the more they could not avoid drifting off into pure phantasies.
+</blockquote>
-*** [[Tecumseh’s Call to Spiritual Warfare]]
+Engels is explaining, here, that — in a sense — the utopian socialists were victims of arriving ''too early''. Capitalism had not yet developed enough for its opponents to formulate plans based on actual material conditions, since capitalism was only just emerging into a stable form. Without a significant objective, material basis, the utopians were forced to rely upon reasoning alone to confront capitalism.
-Following the French and Indian War and the Revolutionary War of the late 18th century, the Creek Confederation became increasingly centralized in a Creek National Council, with the power of individual towns diminishing as a result. Encroachment was felt especially with the creation of the US and the state of Georgia right next to Creek lands. White settlers hungry for land began to annex Creek territory that they deemed underdeveloped or neglected since Creek subsistence agriculture left large tracts of land “untouched” as hunting grounds for deer and other game. For white European society, the development of land for agriculture and other purposes was the only real legal manner to claim dominion over it (Inskeep, 112). The growing presence of white settlers meant for some that assimilation into the new US society was inevitable.
+In this sense, the early historical utopianists fell into ''philosophical utopianism'' in its broader sense — defined by the mistaken assertion that the ideal can determine the material [see Annotation 95, p. 94]. In believing that they could build a perfect society based on ideals and “pure fantasy” alone without a material basis for development, the utopians were, in essence, idealists. As Engels explained: “from this nothing could come but a kind of eclectic, average Socialism.” Engels concluded that in order to successfully overthrow capitalism, revolution would need to be grounded in materialism: “To make a science of Socialism, it had first to be placed upon a real basis.”
-The new President of the US, George Washington, appointed Benjamin Hawkins as the US Indian agent to the Creeks in 1785. Hawkins’ role in the Creek Confederacy quickly became one of civilizer and de facto chief counselor. Hawkins encouraged the adoption of livestock breeding, yeoman commercial agriculture, and Christianity by Creek society, The goal was to make transitory warlike hunters into peaceful farmers who were devoted to their plots and who passed on their land from father to son. What Hawkins sought to foster is what Joel Martin in his book, <em>Sacred Revolt</em>, calls the “gaze of development” (92). That is, he wanted to transform the Creek semi-wild landscape into something more “productive,” and by that thwart the ambitions of white settlers to annex the land outright and crowd out the indigenous peoples. By this process, they would be assimilated into Euro-American civilization and not excluded from it.
+-----
-Hawkins’ efforts were successful in many towns, but in these experiments, there were winners and losers. Mixed-blood Creeks who were the progeny of prominent planter families often prospered, as prestigious clans maneuvered to unite with the rural upper class of settler society. Other Creeks had a difficult time understanding institutions such as slavery, as they acquired slaves but put them to little use in the area of commercial agriculture (Martin, 105). In certain cases, Creek towns served as a refuge for runaway slaves who were often welcomed for their manufacturing and agricultural abilities. This was a threat to the white settler society where commercial agriculture was based on slave labor. Overall, accumulation was foreign to Creek society outside of the clan kinship structure, and Hawkins and other civilizers had to inculcate into the Creeks the ideas of thrift and wealth accumulation instead of the redistribution of abundance via clan relationships (Martin, 108).
+The humanitarian spirit and compassionate analysis which the utopians embodied in their efforts to lay out concrete features of a better future society became important theory premises for the birth of the scientific theory of socialism in Marxism.
+''- Natural Science Premise:''
-|
+Along with social-economic conditions and theory premises, the achievements of the natural sciences were also foundational to the development of arguments and evidence which assert the correctness of Marxism’s viewpoints and methodology.
-<br>
+==== Annotation 18 ====
- |
+''Natural science'' is science which deals with the natural world, including chemistry, biology, physics, geology, etc.
- | |
-<br>
+Three major scientific breakthroughs which were important to the development of Marxism include:
-Into this tense situation came Tecumseh and his brother, the Shawnee prophet Tenskwatawa. It is likely that both were partCreek, and they had come south in 1811 to spread their Pan-Indian message of unity in order to cast out the whites and end the encroachment of the US into traditional indigenous lands. Their tour of the South was met at first with a cool reception, with the Choctaw chief Pushmataha following them throughout his tribal territory and exhorting that the people should disregard their speeches (Pushmataha being a great friend of the whites) (Weir, 63). Tecumseh encountered a more receptive audience to his traditionalist prophetic message among the Creeks. At the same times, Hawkins was trying to convince the Creeks to allow a highway through Creek land linking the settlements in Tennessee to the Gulf of Mexico. White settlements continued to spread into Creek hunting grounds, making life difficult for those who refused to settle into the yeoman farmer way of life. Tecumseh added fuel to the fire by shaming the Creeks when he contrasted their sedentary occupations of spinning and farming with the “<em>wild and fearless independence of their ancestors</em>” (Martin, 122). The sighting of the Great Comet of 1811 coincided exactly with Tecumseh’s visit, which indicated to the disgruntled Creeks that the heavens themselves were echoing Tecumseh’s message of renewal (Weir, 59).
+''•'' ''The law of conservation and transformation of energy'' scientifically proved the inseparable relationships and the mutual transformation and conservation of all the forms of motion of matter in nature.
-Another significant portent, the Great Earthquake of 1811, was recorded around the time of Tecumseh’s visit by the settler, Margaret Eades Austill, who had been a girl at the time of the Creek War:
+''•'' ''The theory of evolution'' offered a scientific basis for the development of diverse forms of life through natural selection.
-**** One night after a fearful day, the Indians followed us for miles [and] we camped in an old field. Just as supper was announced, a most terrific earthquake took place, the horses all broke loose, the wagon chains jingled, and every face was pale with fear and terror. The Indians came in numbers around us looking frightened, and grunting out their prayers, and oh, the night was spent in terror by all but the next day some of the Indians came to us and said it was Tecumseh stamping his foot for war. (Inskeep, 33-34)
+''•'' ''Cell theory'' was a scientific basis proving unity in terms of origins, physical forms and material structures of living creatures. It also explained the development of life through those relationships.
-Leaders of the Creek anti-civilization movement soon began to appear among the traditional “doctors,” “medicine makers,” and “knowers.” These became known as the “the prophets” among the combatant Creeks. By 1812, these prophets were the main opposition to the chiefs especially in the Upper Creek towns that were policing actions of militants against the settlers, often flogging and putting to death those who took actions against the white encroachers. This was in keeping with one of the primary endeavors of the modernizers: replacing the traditional law of revenge based on kinship with the rule of law based on a central tribal government. The Cherokees, for example, fully embraced the new legal system forbidding clan revenge (Inskeep, 26). The Creek prophets, on the other hand, found a receptive audience among those who saw that the white invasion violated both the land and their ancestors, and that vengeance and purification were needed. Just as the Busk ceremony was the high holy time when the new fire and the world itself were purified, so a New Busk was being prepared by the Maker of Breath to purify the land of the white plague. The symbol of this new movement became the <em>atassa</em>, the war club painted red; a weapon that had fallen into disuse in favor of tomahawks and guns. Those seeking to purify the land of Europeans and all of their influence would be known to history as the Red Sticks.
+These scientific discoveries led to the rejection of theological and metaphysical viewpoints which centered the role of the “creator” in the pursuit of truth.
-*** [[The Creek Primitivist War]]
+==== Annotation 19 ====
-The Creek or Red Stick War of 1813-1814 started as a civil war that escalated into a conflict that drew in the US. The war began as a crusade to exterminate the traitors and internal enemies within the Creek nation. The first major battle was provoked by a planned preemptive strike by Thlucco, chief of the town of Tuckabatchee, who at the behest of Hawkins decided to try to nip the Red Stick rebellion in the bud. The leader of the Red Stick faction, Hopoithle Miko, took Tuckabatchee after eight days of siege on July 22nd, 1813, driving the peaceful assimilationist Creeks from the town. Joel Martin summarizes the significance of the number eight in the Creek cosmology:
+For centuries in Europe, natural science and philosophy had been heavily dominated by theological viewpoints which centered God in the pursuit of truth. Descartes, Kant, Spinoza, and many other metaphysical philosophers who developed the earliest theories of modern natural science centered their religious beliefs in their philosophies. These theological viewpoints varied in many ways, but all shared a characteristic of centering a “creator” in the pursuit of philosophical and scientific inquiry.
-**** The symbolic significance of this timing would not have been lost on the Muskogees. As a multiple of the number four, the number stood for the cardinal directions and all creation, the number eight was sacred. Moreover, eight days was the normal length of time to perform the poskita or the Busk ceremony in important square grounds, including Tuckabatchee. Finally, the number eight was associated with the shaman’s ‘star.’ Venus. During the time of Venus’s inferior conjunction, the planet leaves its position in the morning or evening sky, disappears for nine nights, and eight days, and then reappears in the opposite sky. Shamans consider this cycle to be emblematic of their own passage to and from secret spiritual realms. (131-132)
+Together, the law of conservation and transformation of energy, the theory of evolution, and cell theory provided an alternative viewpoint which allowed scientists to remove the “creator” from the scientific equation. For the first time, natural scientists and philosophers had concrete theoretical explanations for the origin and development of the universe, life, and reality which did not rely on a supernatural creator.
-The conflict was thus not merely political, but also cosmological and spiritual in nature. It was deemed to be a restoration of the Creek cosmos, the reestablishment of ceremonial and social order after interference from European civilization. To this end, the prophets exhorted people to renounce material objects such as silver, brass, glass, and beads, as well as hoes, axes, and other goods that had been acquired in the trade trap mentioned above. Warriors were instructed to rely less on guns and more on bow and arrows, less on white implements of war and more on their war clubs. (Martin, 142) Among the most hated symbol of civilization was livestock, so much so that, toward the end of the Creek War, an observer reported that they had all been slaughtered and that “<em>not a track of a cow or hog was to be seen in Creek country.</em>” (Holland Braun, 15) Even agriculture was neglected, as Benjamin Hawkins observed when he wrote in a letter, “<em>One thing surprises me, they have totally neglected their crops and are destroying every living eatable thing... They are persevering in this mode of destruction</em>.” (Martin, 142-143)
+Marx and Engels closely observed and studied the groundbreaking scientific progress of their era. They believed strongly in materialist scientific methods and the data which they produced, and based their analysis and philosophical doctrines on such observations. They recognized the importance and validity of the scientific achievements of their era, and they developed the philosophy of Dialectical Materialism into a system which would help humans study and understand the whole material world.
-These practices also led to the abandonment of the towns altogether to re-found communities in the woods. Many Busk ceremonies included a temporary re-wilding by the men who spent four days in the wilderness purifying themselves. The Red Sticks and their families opted to return to the woods and live in small camps. New settlements were christened such as Eccanachaca (Holy Ground) on the Alabama River, which was chosen for its physical attributes and was protected by the powerful magic of the Red Stick prophets. The men hunted and the women returned to intensive gathering without access to their regular crops. This “pilgrimage into the woods” was a preparation for war, a return to the very space that was being attacked by civilization (ibid, 144).
+In ''Socialism: Utopian and Scientific'', Engels explained that ancient Greek dialecticians had correctly realized that the world is “an endless entanglement of relations and reactions, permutations and combinations, in which nothing remains what, where and as it was, but everything moves, changes, comes into being and passes away.”
-The other attribute of restoration was, as one could assume, extermination of those who refused the message of the Red Stick prophets. Joel Martin describes one instance of the slaughter of peaceful chiefs as a ritual sacrifice:
+Engels goes on to explain that it was understandable for early natural scientists to break their inquiries and analysis down into specialized fields and categories of science to focus on precise, specific, narrow subject matters so that they could build up a body of empirical data. However, as data accumulated, it became clear that all of these isolated, individual fields of study must somehow be unified back together coherently and cohesively in order to obtain a deeper and more useful understanding of reality.
-**** In Coosa, the friendly chiefs, apparently unaware of their imminent danger, were directed to sit down by a group of prophets. The prophets then circled and danced around the chiefs. Suddenly, the head prophet ‘gave a war whoop’ and attacked, killing as many chiefs as possible with war clubs, bows, and arrows. (129)
+As Engels wrote in ''On Dialectics:''
-This episode is indicative of the primitivism of the Red Sticks even in war. As the natural world itself and the Maker of Breath were deemed to be in the process of purifying the Earth, the Red Sticks believed that the magic of the prophets along with their clubs, knives, bows and arrows would be invincible against the white weapons of war. This was all in line with the words of Tecumseh:
+<blockquote>
+Empirical natural science has accumulated such a tremendous mass of positive material for knowledge that the necessity of classifying it in each separate field of investigation systematically and in accordance with its inner inter-connection has become absolutely imperative. It is becoming equally imperative to bring the individual spheres of knowledge into the correct connection with one another. In doing so, however, natural science enters the field of theory and here the methods of empiricism will not work, here only theoretical ''thinking'' can be of assistance.
+</blockquote>
-**** Kill the old Chiefs, friends of peace; kill the cattle, the hogs, and fowls; do not work, destroy the wheels and the looms, throw away your ploughs, and everything used by the Americans... Shake your war clubs, shake yourselves: you will frighten the Americans, their [fire]arms will drop from their hands, the ground will become a bog, and mire them, and you may knock them on the head with your war clubs... (Waselkov, 78)
+As science grows increasingly complex, a necessity develops for a philosophical and cognitive framework which can be used to make sense of the influx of information from disparate fields. In ''Dialectics of Nature,'' Engels explains how dialectical materialism is the perfect philosophical foundation for unifying scientific fields into one cohesive framework'':''
-As could be expected, there were those among the Red Sticks who were more pragmatic and did not exclude modern firearms from their war to defeat the traitorous modernizers. It should be noted that these events were sparked in part by the War of 1812, with the fate of the US itself hanging in the balance. It was this geopolitical situation that drove the Red Sticks’ attention south to ask for firearms from Spanish Florida. This would be the catalyst for the bloody episode that would bring the US into the war and later doom the Creek Confederacy to extinction east of the Mississippi River.
+<blockquote>
+Dialectics divested of mysticism becomes an absolute necessity for natural science, which has forsaken the field where rigid categories sufficed, which represent as it were the lower mathematics of logic, its everyday weapons.
+</blockquote>
-*** [[The Massacre at Fort Mims as Re-wilding]]
+So, Marx and Engels developed Dialectical Materialism not in opposition to science, but as a way to make better use of scientific data, and to analyze the complex, dynamic, constantly changing systems of the world in motion. While distinct scientific discoveries and empirical data are invaluable, each data point only provides a small amount of information within a single narrow, specific field of science. Dialectical Materialism allows humans to view reality — as a whole — in motion, and to examine the interconnections and mutual developments between different fields and categories of human knowledge.
-In spite of the beliefs of the prophets, a delegation of Red Sticks went to Pensacola in Spanish Florida to receive gunpowder, a quantity of lead, and other supplies (but no guns as they had hoped). The Spanish half-heartedly supplied the Red Sticks to curb US encroachments into their territory. Anglo-American settlers learned of this caravan of supplies, and on July 27, 1813, a militia consisting of settlers and mixed-blood Creeks from the Tensaw area (north of present-day Mobile) attacked the delegation at the Battle of Burnt Corn. At first routed by the perceived unprovoked attack, the Red Sticks rallied in the swamps and drove away the militia. What followed was the putting aside of geopolitical calculation in favor of traditional clan vengeance. Those who had been wronged by the ambush would need to respond with blood to appease their dead kin. Added to that was the perception of the Tensaw and Bigbe settlements as areas of Anglo-American settlement with significant mixed-blood Creek presence. The decision was promptly made to destroy these settlements with their war clubs and to purify the land with fire. The thought most certainly crossed the minds of the Red Sticks that an attack on Anglo- American settlements would bring the US into the war, bringing with it potential catastrophe. The logic of Creek blood vengeance trumped these calculations.
+-----
-The specific target was the plantation of Samuel Mims in the Tensaw area in what is now southern Alabama. Fort Mims was a fortified plantation in which whites and mixed-blooded Creeks took refuge in order to protect themselves from Red Stick incursions. Hundreds of Red Sticks began arriving in the forests around the fort. On August 29th, 1813, slaves began to report sightings of Indian warriors in the area. Their reports were dismissed and one slave was even flogged for spreading false rumors. On August 30 in the early morning, hundreds of Red Sticks crept toward the fort. The prophets had instructed four Red Stick warriors to run into the fort and slaughter the whites using only their war clubs. The prophets swore that their magic would protect these warriors and render the firearms of the whites harmless. At 10 or 11 in the morning, led by mixed-blooded Red Sticks William Weatherford and Peter McQueen, around 750 Red Sticks ran in silence toward the fort. When finally discovered, they let out a war whoop and the four warriors rushed into the gate armed only with war clubs. Three were killed almost instantaneously by white rifles, but one miraculously survived as he retreated.
+These scientific principles confirmed the correctness of the dialectical materialist view of the material world, with such features as: endlessness, self-existence, self-motivation, and self-transformation. They also confirmed the scientific nature of the dialectical materialist viewpoint in both material processes and thought processes.
-The rest of the late morning and early afternoon was a pitched battle between the Red Sticks and the white settlers, with much taunting back and forth in the Muskogee tongue. It was far from the easy victory promised by the prophets. At one point, the prophets exhorted the Red Sticks to lay down their firearms and attack only with their war clubs, which the defenders eagerly encouraged them to do as well. As Howard Weir writes in his book, P<em>aradise of Blood: The Creek War of 1813-1814</em>, the prophet, Paddy Walsh, indicated that the fort would fall into their hands if he ran around it three times, which he was able to do in spite of being wounded by the defenders in his sprint (174). Again, some prophets rushed the fort and commenced a war dance, only to be shot down by the incredulous defenders (ibid, 176). Leadership of the attack promptly returned to the war chiefs once the prophets’ magic was deemed worthless on the battlefield.
+-----
-Around mid-afternoon, the Red Sticks partially withdrew and argued whether they should cease the attack. Many sources indicate here that Weatherford himself stated that what they had done was quite enough and that they should withdraw. Some record that it was the freed slaves who exhorted the Red Sticks to finish off the fort. Many historians dismiss that explanation and state it was the Red Sticks themselves who agreed that they should rout the whites and traitorous Creeks and burn down the settlement. At that point, Weatherford withdrew to rescue the slaves on a relation’s plantation. At around 3 p.m, the final assault took place. The Red Sticks seized the gun ports of the defenders and began to set the buildings on fire with flaming arrows. Defenders and civilians alike either ran out of the buildings to be slaughtered by the Red Sticks or were burned alive.
+==== Annotation 20 ====
-What followed was a slaughter of exceptional brutality, but well in keeping with the ethos of Creek vengeance in war. It was “<em>an exercise in revenge and brutality</em>,” (Holland Braun, 21), a rage that was unleashed on those who sought to steal their sacred land and destroy the institutions that were the foundation of the Creek cosmos. Or as Gregory Waselkov put it, “<em>Now the purifying blaze of the poskita (Busk) would rid the nation of the apostate Creeks of the Tensaw</em>.” Scalps were taken liberally, while pure-blooded Creeks were spared and told to leave. Black slaves were rounded up and taken prisoner. One slave began to run away with a small child of a planter, only to think better of it and return with the boy to surrender to the Red Sticks. The boy was promptly clubbed and scalped to death while he cried out for his father, and the slave was taken captive (Weir, 181).
+''Endlessness'' refers to the infinite span of space and time in our universe. ''Self-existence'' means that our universe exists irrespective of human consciousness; it existed before human consciousness evolved and it will continue to exist after human consciousness becomes extinct. ''Self-motivation'' and ''Self-transformation'' refer to the fact that motion and transformation exist within the universe independent of human consciousness.
-The Red Sticks were meticulous and exceptionally cruel in butchering the last inhabitants of the fort. Children were smashed against the ground or on hard objects, Once scalped, the survivors still alive were thrown into burning buildings. Some also reported that, “<em>under the influence of the Shawnees among them, and contrary to their traditions, some of the Creeks severed the limbs of the dead, then strutted about the grounds of the burning fort waving the grisly trophies above their heads</em>” (Weir, 182).
+Engels wrote of the scientific nature of the dialectical materialist viewpoint in ''Socialism: Utopian and Scientific'':
-Weir also wrote the following, concerning the misfortunes of the women of the fort:
+<blockquote>
+Nature is the proof of dialectics, and it must be said for modern science that it has furnished this proof with very rich materials increasingly daily, and thus has shown that... Nature works dialectically and not metaphysically; that she does not move in the eternal oneness of a perpetually recurring circle, but goes through a real historical evolution.
+</blockquote>
-**** A special fate was reserved for the women. The Indians stripped them naked, scalped both head and nether parts, then raped some with fence rails and clubbed all to death like small game. Those unfortunate enough to be pregnant had their bellies slit open. Then the glistening fetus was snatched out, cord still attached, and laid, still living, carefully by the mother’s side in horrible tableaux—in the case of Mrs. Summerlin’s twins, on both sides of her. The indomitable Nancy Bailey met a similar end. When approached by an Indian who asked who her family was, she reportedly pointed to a body sprawled nearby and boldly exclaimed, ‘I am the sister of that great man you have murdered there.’ At which the enraged Indians clubbed her to the ground, slit open her belly, yanked out her intestines, and threw them onto the ground around her. (ibid)
-Far from being acts of gratuitous or extraordinary violence, what occurred at Fort Mims was well within the cultural and spiritual logic of traditional Creek culture. As Sheri Shuck-Hall writes in her article, “Understanding the Creek War and Redstick Nativism, 1812-1815”:
+-----
-**** The Redsticks believed that the Métis Creeks had killed their kinsmen at the Battle of Burnt Corn. Therefore clan retribution (sometimes referred to as blood law) was the immediate action that needed to be taken. Clan retaliation or revenge of a member’s death—whether accidental or not—was a long-standing social institution inherited from the Creeks’ Mississippian ancestors. Clan members in these circumstances would seek out the offenders. Based on ancient customs that existed before European contact, upon their capture clan members would tie the prisoners to a pole and would encourage them to sing a war song while being tortured. After the prisoners expired, clan members would remove the scalps and cut them into pieces. Then they would tie the pieces to pine twigs and lay them atop the roof of the house of the murdered person, whose blood they had avenged. They believed that this act appeased their clan member’s soul. Kinsmen would then celebrate for three days and nights. Another Creek tradition in the eighteenth century against non-Creek enemies or traitors of the talwas was death by burning. (14-15)
+In conclusion, the birth of Marxism is a phenomenon which is compatible with scientific principles; it is the product of the social-economic conditions of its time of origin, of the human knowledge expressed in science at that time, and it is also the result of its founders’ creative thinking and humanitarian spirit.
-As a movement to return to the traditional ways of living, the Creeks had to follow their traditions that demanded the violent deaths of their enemies. While they quickly succumbed to pragmatism in weaponry, the wronged clansmen had to follow traditional Creek law in avenging themselves on those who had killed their kin, even if those people were Anglo-American settlers who had been previously excluded from hostilities. Not only did these actions continue the physical purification of the land of European livestock and materials, but they also constituted a bloody attack on European civilized attitudes within themselves. This exceptional Busk ceremony purified both the sacred fire of the village and the living flame of traditional life within.
+==== b. The Birth and Development Stage of Marxism ====
+Marx and Engels initiated the birth and development stage of Marxism from around 1842~1843 through around 1847~1848. Later, from 1849 to 1895, Marxism was developed to be more thorough and comprehensive, but in this early period of birth and development, Marx and Engels engaged in practical activities [Marx and Engels were not just theorists, but also actively supported and participated with various revolutionary and working class organizations including the Chartists, the League of the Just, the Communist League, the International Workingmen’s Association, etc.] and studied a wide range of human thought from ancient times on through to their contemporaries in order to methodically reinforce, complement and improve their ideas.
-|
+Many famous works such as ''The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts'' (Marx, 1844), ''The Holy Family'' (Marx and Engels, 1845), ''Thesis on Feuerbach'' (Marx, 1845), ''The German Ideology'' (Marx and Engels, 1845–1846), and so on, clearly showed that Marx and Engels inherited the quintessence [see Annotation 6, p. 8] of the dialectical and materialist methods which they received from many predecessors. This philosophical heritage led to the development of the dialectical materialist viewpoint and materialist dialectics.
-<br>
+-----
- |
+==== Annotation 21 ====
- | |
-<br>
+There is a subtle, but important, distinction between Dialectical Materialism and Materialist Dialectics. This will be explained further in chapters I (p. 48) and II (p. 98).
-*** [[Tohopeka]]
+With works such as ''The Poverty of Philosophy'' (Marx, 1847) and ''The Manifesto of the Communist Party'' (Marx and Engels, 1848), Marxism was presented as a complete system of fundamental views with three theoretical component parts.
-Waselkov writes of the immediate aftermath of the Fort Mims massacre:
+-----
-**** For a brief two months, the Redstick nation would be free of the polluting presence of the Americans and their apostate Creek accomplices. The entire Upper Creek country of the Alabamas, Tal- lapoosas, and Abekas lay uncontested in Redstick hands, some 30 talwas with at least 8,000 inhabitants, a quarter of whom would die in the coming conflict.
+==== Annotation 22 ====
-News of the Fort Mims massacre spread quickly in the US. Great indignation spread concerning the brutal massacre of over 400 whites at the hands of savage Indians. For those in the region, it was the pretext that they needed to break the back of the Creek Confederacy, to finally have access to the hunting grounds that were deemed prime land for settlers. Efforts to organize a militia to rout the Red Sticks were led by Colonel (later General) Andrew Jackson and his volunteers from Tennessee. Added to this were significant contingents from the Cherokees and Choctaws, historic enemies of the Creeks, as well as “friendly” Creeks who opposed the Red Sticks.
+According to Lenin, the three component parts of Marxism (and, by extension, of Marxism-Leninism) are:
-The war from then on was generally one-sided in favor of the US forces. The invading army in Creek territory followed a scorched earth policy that caused the Creeks to flee their towns before they were overrun by the invading troops. The main obstacle that Jackson faced in his invasion was raising and feeding a militia and keeping them together long enough to finish off the Red Sticks in their strongholds. The fleeing Creeks on the other hand also faced starvation and general want. By late 1813, there was a general will among the allied forces to extinguish the menace of the Red Sticks, who were on the run and scrambling for ammunition, which they could no longer replenish. Wherever the US forces and their allies prevailed, they left destruction in their wake, echoing the atrocities at Fort Mims and previous skirmishes between Creeks and settlers.
+<blockquote>
+. The Philosophy of Marxism: Including Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism
-One major battle was the taking of Eccanachaca in late December 1813. It was believed that the Red Stick prophet Josiah Francis had used spells and incantations to place a magic line around the perimeter and any enemy who attempted to cross it would fall dead instantly (Weir, 285). William Weatherford organized the defense, but the town was quickly surrounded by the militia and allied forces. Weatherford and his Red Sticks fought a rearguard action allowing most of the inhabitants to escape through a hole in the US line, and Weatherford himself escaped with his leaping horse over a bluff into the Alabama River, and then swam to safety.
+. The Political Economy of Marxism: A system of knowledge and laws that define the production process and commodity exchange in human society.
-Upon taking the town, the soldiers were greeted with a horrific sight. A long pole was set in the ground from which dangled hundreds of scalps, from those of infants to the grey hair of the elderly. These were the trophies that the Red Sticks took from Fort Mims. The town was then pillaged and then set to the flame, as was much of the surrounding countryside in subsequent days (ibid, 294).
+. Scientific Socialism: The system of thought pertaining to the establishment of the communist social economy form.
+</blockquote>
-Skirmishes and other battles took place until February of 1814, when the 39th Infantry of the United States Army finally joined with Jackson’s forces, making them a force of 5,000 determined and disciplined men. From there, the objective was to march on the Red Stick settlement of Tohopeka on the Tallapoosa River. The Battle of Tohopeka is also known as the Battle of Horseshoe Bend on account of the horseshoe shape of the settlement bordered by the river. It had been chosen by the Red Sticks because it had not been inhabited before (in accordance with their desire for societal renewal) as well as its natural fortification as a peninsula. Added to this was a breastwork built by the Red Sticks that added additional protection. At the time of the battle, it is believed that 1,000 warriors and 400 women and children inhabited the town (Martin, 161).
+These are discussed in more detail in Chapter 2, p. 38.
-Steve Inskeep in his book, <em>Jacksonland: President Andrew Jackson, Cherokee Chief John Ross and the Great American Land Grab</em>, comments on the irony of creating such a fortification in the context of the Creek War. Inskeep points out how the greatest successes against the whites militarily came in hit-and-run guerilla warfare, and to concentrate one’s forces in a fortified settlement as the whites had done at Fort Mims was ultimately suicidal. Inskeep writes:
+In the book ''The Poverty of Philosophy'', Marx proposed the basic principles of Dialectical Materialism and Scientific Socialism,* and gave some initial thoughts about surplus value. ''The Manifesto of the Communist Party'' laid the first doctrinal foundation of communism. In this book, the philosophical basis was expressed through the organic unity between the economical viewpoint and socio-political viewpoint.
-**** [T]hese determined traditionalists broke with tradition. Possibly hoping to protect women and children from the white horsemen, they performed a fatal imitation of the white man’s art of war. If confronted by a superior force, they would be trapped for a massacre as surely as the white settlers at Fort Mims.
+-----
-On March 27th, 1814, 1,500 Anglo-American troops with 500 Cherokee allies and 100 friendly Creeks attacked Tohopeka in what would be the decisive defeat of the Red Sticks in the Creek War. In spite of the breastworks, the desperate Red Sticks were by that time low on ammunition and were mostly fighting with bows and arrows, as well as tomahawks and war clubs. Nevertheless, they put up a substantial defense of their town at first, fighting for the possibility of fending off the enemy until nightfall and escaping by canoe under the cover of darkness, thus living to fight another day.
+==== Annotation 23 ====
-Arguably the decisive blow in the battle was struck by Jackson’s Cherokee allies. Jackson shelled the breastwork defending Tohopeka to little effect until the Cherokee warriors, eager to engage their ancestral enemies, plunged themselves into the river and swam across, stealing the Red Sticks’ canoes and using them to get across the river themselves, thus creating an attack from the rear (Holland Braun, 133). This also made an organized escape from the peninsula impossible for the Red Sticks as well as their women and children. Opening a new line of attack meant that Red Stick forces were divided, allowing an opening for Jackson’s troops to storm over the breastwork and into the town, where the slaughter of the Red Sticks promptly commenced.
+<nowiki>*</nowiki> Scientific Socialism is a series of socio-political-economic theories intended to build socialism on a foundation of science within society’s current ''material conditions'' [see Annotation 79, p. 81]. Scientific Socialism is the topic of Part 3 of the textbook from which this entire text has been translated, which we hope to translate in the future.
-Weir describes the “work of destruction” against Tohopeka:
+''The Manifesto of the Communist Party'' outlined the laws of movement in history,* as well as the basic theory of socio-economic forms.
-**** Even Jackson was impressed: ‘The carnage was dreadful,’ he wrote... Not only was the destruction of the Red Clubs apocalyptic, but it lasted five hours or more until nightfall, and, in some parts of the Horseshoe, until 10:00 p.m. The blood fever infected the troops like a virus. As at Tallushatchee, but on a vaster, if not nastier scale, the Americans and their Indian allies gave no quarter and the Creeks purportedly asked for none. (418)
+-----
-Those Red Sticks attempting to flee were picked off while trying to swim away or were hunted down in the surrounding woods. This would be the last major battle in the Creek War. From the Battle of Burnt Corn to Tohopeka, an estimated 1,800 to 1,900 warriors were killed on the Creek side, by some estimates forty percent of the male population, along with hundreds of women and children (Martin, 163). Those women and children not killed in Tohopeka were made slaves to the Cherokees. And thus Benjamin Hawkins’ prediction before the war concerning the fate of the Red Sticks was realized:
+==== Annotation 24 ====
-**** You may frighten one an other with the power of your prophets to make thunder, earthquakes, and to sink the earth. These things cannot frighten the American soldiers... The thunder of their cannon, their rifles, and their swords will be more terrible than the works of your prophets. (Martin, 131)
+<nowiki>*</nowiki> The laws of movement in history are the core principles of ''historical materialism'', which is the topic of Part 2 of the textbook from which this entire text has been translated, which we hope to translate in the future.
-There were only a handful of survivors of Tohopeka, but many hundreds had fled south to join the Seminoles in their fight against European encroachment. Others continued guerilla warfare in isolated pockets in traditional Creek land. Some were able to make peace with Jackson and his forces. The most noted case among these was William Weatherford, who famously strode into Jackson’s camp to surrender himself, certain of his own execution. Jackson spared him on account of the bravery of this act, and Weatherford devoted himself to convincing the remaining Red Sticks to lay down their arms. On August 9th, 1814, the Creeks were forced to sign the Treaty of Fort Jackson which ceded 23 million acres of Creek land to the US, resulting in the loss of all of their holdings in Georgia and much of central Alabama. The loyal Creeks objected to this tremendous loss of land, though Jackson explained that the land was a payment to the US for prosecuting their internal war against the Red Sticks.
+The basic theory of socio-economic forms dictates that material production plays a decisive role in the existence and development of a society, and that the material production methods decide both the political and ''social consciousness'' of a society.
-This was only the beginning of Jackson’s true intention to expel all of the tribes out of the US Southeast, driving them west of the Mississippi River. When Andrew Jackson became President in 1829, he spent his years in office advocating for an Indian removal policy, which became a reality in 1838 with the beginning of the Trail of Tears: the expulsion of the Civilized Tribes from their ancestral homelands in the Southeast. One prominent Cherokee leader, Junaluska, had saved Jackson’s life during the Battle of Tohopeka when he tripped a captive Red Stick who broke free from his guards and attempted to stab the general. Junaluska lived to see the day when the man who he had saved expelled his own people from their lands. He is rumored to have said, “<em>If I had known that Jackson would drive us from our homes, I would have killed him that day at the Horseshoe</em>.” In not heeding Tecumseh’s call to unite under the banner of pan-Indianism, the divided tribes of the Southeast fell together.
+-----
-All was not lost, however. Even when the mixed-blood ex-Red Stick Weatherford was rehabilitated in white lore as Red Eagle, the reluctant savage who went to war and opposed Red Stick excesses, he could not shake from himself the spiritual formation received from his mother’s clan. On a hunting trip in 1824, Weatherford spotted a white tail deer that had been killed. The sight deeply moved Weatherford who returned to his home and told his family that a member of his hunting party would soon go to hunt in the spirit land of his ancestors. The next day, William Weatherford died. Even in defeat, Creek beliefs remained strong in those who had fought so valiantly to defend them. (Shuck-Hall, 11)
+==== Annotation 25 ====
-When the time came for the Creeks themselves to walk the Trail of Tears into exile, even then the fire of the Busk was not extinguished. As Martin writes, the people of Tuckabatchee and other towns carried an ark with coals from the sacred fire of the Busk to be kindled every day of their journey, as well as the ancient brass plates also used in the ceremony. When they finally arrived in Oklahoma, they buried the plates at the center of their settlement and kindled the fire using the sacred coals so that it could continue to burn in their new home. (168)
+''Social consciousness'' refers to the collective experience of consciousness shared by members of a society, including ideological, cultural, spiritual, and legal beliefs and ideas which are shared within that society. This is related to the concept of base and superstructure, which is discussed later in this chapter.
-*** [[Lessons from the Creek War]]
+''The Manifesto of the Communist Party'' also showed that for as long as classes have existed, the history of the development of human society is the history of class struggle. Through class struggle, the proletariat can liberate ourselves only if we simultaneously and forever liberate the whole of humanity. With these basic opinions, Marx and Engels founded Historical Materialism.
-One author describes the Creek War and the massacre of Fort Mims in particular as watershed moments that led to disaster for all of the tribes of the Southeast:
+By applying Historical Materialism to the comprehensive study of the capitalist production method, Marx made an important discovery: separating workers from the ownership of the means of production through violence was the starting point of the establishment of the capitalist production method. Workers do not own the means of production to perform their labor activities for themselves, so, in order to make income and survive, workers have to sell their labor to capitalists. Labor thus becomes a special commodity, and the sellers of labor become workers for labor-buyers [the proletariat and capitalist class respectively]. The value that workers create through their labor is higher than their wage. And this is how surplus value* is formed. Importantly, this means that the surplus value belongs to people who own the means of production — the capitalists — instead of the workers who provide the labor.
-**** This event [Fort Mims] destroyed all possibility of good relations with the whites in the Mississippi Territory. Immediately, there was a universal demand for the removal of all Southern Indians. Had it not been for the disastrous massacre, it is possible that the Creeks and other southern Indians might have remained in the Southeast, where they more readily would have been assimilated into white society. Certainly they could have never held all or even most of their land. It should be remembered that these southern Indians have been largely assimilated in Oklahoma, a continuation of the process started before the removal... Fort Mims must be viewed as even more of a catastrophe for the Indians when one considers that a large part of the fight was between pro-white and anti-white factions of the Creek Nation itself. (Holland Braund, 16-17)
+-----
-Here is not the place to take such counterfactuals seriously. On the other hand, we cannot discount the importance that the Creek War had on the process that resulted in the removal of all Indian tribes from what is now the Southeastern US. The Red Stick insurgency was one of the largest and most significant attempts to resist the encroachment of US civilization into indigenous lands. It was also one of the bloodiest, killing hundreds of settlers and indigenous people in dramatic acts of barbarism. However, at its root was the impossibility of compromise between two cultures concerning land, kinship, and religious belief. The Creek engagement with the land envisioned subsistence agricultural plots tended by women and children with vast wilderness in which men hunted deer and other game for meat. This was the basis of their matrilineal kinship system as well as their religious beliefs tied into the harvest and the periodic cleansing of wildness in their sedentary camps. Yeoman commercial farming based on the plow and livestock simply could not co-exist with that way of life. Modernization required the transformation of the land itself; it encroached on their fields and destroyed wilderness. The Red Stick War was thus a defense of the land and their ancestors, as well as a repudiation of the material culture that undermined their traditional beliefs and practices.
+==== Annotation 26 ====
-Coupled with this re-wilding as the Creeks understood it was the re-wilding of culture, a resistance to the introduction of Western-style civilization and government, as well as the rule of a foreign law. The Red Stick insurgency was sparked by the Creek National Council’s attempt to rein in the actions of wayward warriors attacking white settlers, often executing them in manners not in keeping with Creek custom. The “friendly” Creeks sought to steer their nation between their own traditions and use of land; and the greed of settlers who saw Creek land as underutilized and thus the object of conquest. Many are in agreement with the author at the beginning of this section who states that the civilized Creeks would have succeeded had it not been for the warlike Red Sticks. That sentiment, however, seems to indicate ignorance of Creek culture itself, as well as the willingness of white settlers to usurp land by any means necessary.
+<nowiki>*</nowiki> Surplus value is equal to labor value (the amount of value workers produce through labor) minus wages paid to workers. Under capitalism, this surplus value is appropriated as profit by capitalists after the products which workers created are sold.
-The only path left to the traditional Creeks was a destructive path, a path that they sought to avoid at first by excluding white outsiders from their warfare. Their war was against the traitors, those who policed their fellow warriors at the behest of Benjamin Hawkins, their white handler. It was in hindsight naive to try to compartmentalize their war, as the ambush at Burnt Corn demanded vengeance for the dead according to their newfound traditionalism. Fort Mims then had to fall to a Biblical-style purge where the evil force of European civilization was removed from the land by fire. It was only in that way that the spirits of their dead would be appeased. This same fate would fall on them at To- hopeka, a re-wilded settlement that was the last major stand of the Red Sticks against the weapons of modern civilization. Here we see an example of a trope that consistently accompanied the Savage in the many wars against civilization within what is now the US: they are often not started for reasons of liberation or to defend abstract rights, but are rather the product of revenge, a revenge demanded by their own law and way of life. Without a violent restoration after the disturbance of their social order, they could not be the people who they had always been.
+So, in discovering the origin of surplus value, Marx pointed out the exploitative nature of capitalism [because capitalists essentially steal surplus labor value from workers which is then transformed into profits], though this exploitative nature is concealed by the money-commodity relationship.
-The one counterfactual “what if” that should be addressed here centers around Tecumseh and his prophets. What if he had persuaded other tribes to join the Red Sticks in a pan-Indian rebellion against US land encroachments? What if the Cherokees and Choctaws had put aside their own need for vengeance and had joined the Red Sticks, instead of seeing the US war against them as an opportunity to exact their own revenge against an ancient enemy? What if the Red Sticks had built an army as wellarmed and organized as the US forces, and had defeated the whites at Tohopeka or at a similar battle? Here I am reminded of a passage that the eco-extremist writer, Chahta-Ima, wrote in his essay, “Saving the World as the Highest Form of Domestication,” regarding another indigenous war against civilization:
+-----
-**** But perhaps, even then, the ends do not justify the means. Or rather, the ‘ends’ are really the ‘means’ projected and amplified into a monstrous and logical conclusion. Even if the Apache chiefs had conscripted every warrior and forced them to fight, even if some of the warriors hadn’t run off and become scouts hunting their own people for the white army, even if they could have held off the US Army for a few more years, they would not have done so as Apaches, or as the people that they always were. Here it would be something akin to, ‘in order to save the city, we had to destroy it.’ Or better, in order to prevent the city from being planted in the land of the Apache, they had to become the city in civilized reasoning. And they knew what that meant: slavery in one form or another. They accepted the consequences of their refusal, even if they had second thoughts about it.
+==== Annotation 27 ====
-In the case of the Red Sticks, “burying the hatchet” and compromising with enemy tribes and “friendly Creeks” in their own midst were simply not possible. The very idea of doing this would have meant putting on the mind of the civilizer and would have undermined their traditions altogether. The same would have been the case with the Choctaws and the Cherokees who slaughtered them: they were going to war for their own reasons and executed it according to their own logic. It is arguable in war that, in order to defeat the enemy, one must become like the enemy, but that reasoning only goes so far. The Red Sticks wanted to keep their life of autonomous towns with vast wilderness between them, as well as localized customs and kinship ties. In order to defeat the civilizing Creeks and their Euro-American patrons, they would have had to destroy that order and become something else sufficiently large and organized to defeat civilization.
+Under capitalism, a worker’s labor is a commodity which capitalists pay for with money in the form of wages. Workers never know how much of their labor value is being withheld by employers, which conceals the nature of capitalist wage-theft.
-Here then we arrive at the tragic aspect of this episode of history. Just as the real agent in a classical tragedy is not the hero or any of the actors but Fate itself, so the real agent in the Red Stick War was Creek land itself. That land was being attacked by the whites and their livestock (which were eradicated by the Red Sticks), and any compromise with the traitors within and the whites without would have been a rejection of the Maker of Breath and their ancestors. There they stood, to paraphrase Martin Luther, and they could do no other. Their land and the ancestors who had lived on it demanded blood, and at Fort Mims, the Red Sticks gave it to them. While they had a vague hope that the magic of prophets would save them, it did not take long for them to realize that this would not occur. The only thing left for them to do was to accept the consequences: death for their warriors, slavery for those taken captive, and living to fight another day for those who could flee.
+The theory of surplus value was deeply and comprehensively researched and presented in ''Capital''<ref>''Das Kapital:'' Karl Marx’s most important contribution to political economy. It is composed of four volumes. It is the work of Marx’s whole career and an important part of Engels’ career, as well. Marx started writing ''Das Kapital'' in the 1840s and continued writing until he died (1883). ''Das Kapital I'' was published in 1867. After Marx’s death, Engels edited and published the second volume in 1885 and the third volume in 1894. The Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the USSR edited and published ''Das Kapital IV'', also known as ''Theories of Surplus-Value'', in the 1950s, long after the death of Marx and Engels.</ref> by Marx and Engels. This work not only paves the way to form a new political-economic theory system based on the working class’s viewpoint, it also firmly consolidates and develops the historical-materialist viewpoint through the theory of socio-economic forms.
-The eco-extremist eye can gaze over this former Creek land, now paved with roads and covered with buildings, plowed over with fields and polluted with industrial waste, and see how much we have lost. Our modern techno-industrial civilization is built on the burial grounds of the Red Sticks and other nameless thousands who died resisting civilization. We no longer speak the language of the land, and we cannot possibly value it as they did, but we know their story, and that means something for those of us who love this earth just as they did. The impetus of ecoextremist war in a place like this would not be the memories and traditions of a resounding people long silenced by gunpowder and the bayonet. The impetus would be our having lost that people and so much more. And the agent would not be the native laws and beliefs the origin of which no one remembers, but a visceral disgust at a cold and unfeeling culture where the relationship between people has been replaced by a relationship between artificial things.
+-----
-Those who share this disgust have emerged as solitary and tragic warriors in a struggle to the death against civilization. Like the Red Sticks, these warriors in the shadows are not able to come together en masse lest they become another target or another gear in the system of domestication and artificiality. They communicate haphazardly, they watch their backs, they realize that there is no safe place to hide. They will get caught, they will be imprisoned, and they will get killed sooner or later. But the only alternative would be to renounce that remaining glimmer of humanity that the Red Sticks, the Chichimecas, the Selk’nam, and the Arrow Peoples of the Amazon had in the face of Leviathan. Most of us will accept compromise, but few, a precious few, are realizing that they cannot do that, and they fight on accordingly. They may die and be forgotten, but new cunning warriors will take their place, since in the end, this is not our war, but the war of Wild Nature, of the land and seas, of the winds and the stars, of all things that civilization seeks to blot out and control. It is those things that will give valor to generation unto generation of warriors, just as it gave valor to the Red Sticks, until civilization itself is blotted out by the cosmic dust of time.
+==== Annotation 28 ====
-*** [[Works Cited]]
+Karl Marx explained that the goal of writing ''Capital'' was “to lay bare the economic law of motion of modern society.” By “laws of motion,” Marx refers to the origins and motivations for change within human society. Historical materialism holds that human society develops based on internal and external relationships within and between aspects of society. Historical materialism is the topic of Part 2 of the textbook from which this entire text has been translated, which we hope to translate in the future.
-Green, Michael D.; Porter III, Frank W. general editor. <em>The Creeks</em>. New York : Chelsea House, 1990.
+According to the theory of socio-economic forms [which is the basis of historical materialism], the movements and developments of human society are natural-historical processes based on dialectical interactions between forces of production and relations of production; between infrastructure basis [commonly referred to as “base” in English] and superstructure.
-Holland Braun, Kathryn E. (ed.) <em>Tohopeka: Rethinking the Creek War and the War of 1812</em>. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2012.
+-----
-Inskeep, Steve. <em>Jacksonland: President Andrew Jackson, Cherokee Chief John Ross, and the Great American Land Grab</em>. New York: Penguin Press, 2015.
+==== Annotation 29 ====
-Martin, Joel. Sacred Revolt: <em>The Muskogees’ Struggle for a New World</em>. Boston: Beacon Press, 1991.
+The forces of production consist of the combination of means of production and workers within society. Under capitalism, the production force consists of the proletariat (working class) and means of production which are owned by the bourgeoisie (capitalist class).
-Shuck-Hall, Sheri M. “Understanding the Creek War and Redstick Nativism, 1812-1815”. Retrieved online: http://www. univ-brest.fr/digitalAssetsUBO/9/9118_UNDERSTANDING_ THE_CREEK_WAR.pdf
+Marx viewed society as composed of an ''economic base'' and a ''social superstructure''. The base of society includes the material relationships between humans and the means of productions and the material processes which humans undertake to survive and transform our environment. The superstructure of society includes all components of society not directly relating to production, such as media institutions, music, and art, as well as other cultural elements like religion, customs, moral standards, and everything else which manifests primarily through conscious activity and social relations.
-Waselkov, Gregory A. <em>A Conquering Spirit: Fort Mims and the</em> <em>Redstick War of 1813-1814</em>. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2006.
+In the preface to ''A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy'', Marx explained:
-Weir, Howard T. III. <em>A Paradise of Blood: The Creek War of 18131814</em>. Yardley: Westholme Publishing, 2016.
+<blockquote>
+In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will; these relations of production correspond to a definite stage of development of their material forces of production. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society — the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life determines the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.
+</blockquote>
-<br>
+RELIGION GOVERNMENT EDUCATION
-<center>
+POLITICAL ECONOMY NATURE
-</center>
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-4.png|''The base of society includes material-based elements and relations including political economy, means of production, class relations, etc. The superstructure includes human-consciousness-based elements and relations including government, culture, religion, etc.'']]
-<br>
+In other words, Marx argued that superstructure (which includes social consciousness) is shaped by the infrastructural basis, or base, of society. This reflects the more general dialectical relationship between matter and consciousness, in which the material, as the first basis of reality, determines consciousness, while consciousness mutually impacts the material [see ''The Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness'', p. 88]. So, the base of society — being material in nature — ''determines'' the superstructure, while the superstructure ''impacts'' the base. It couldn’t possibly be the other way around, according to the dialectical materialist worldview, because the primary driving forces of conscious activity are rooted in material needs.
-** [[The Seris, the Eco-extremists, and Nahualism]]
+The theory of socio-economic forms proves that the materialist viewpoint of history is not just a hypothesis, but a scientifically-proven principle.
-<right>
+-----
-Hast Hax
-</right>
-The Seris were a group of natives of what is now the state of Sonora in Mexico.They were hunter-gatherers as well as fisherman. Being nomads par excellence, they inhabited the region that extends from the Encino Desert to the San Ignacio River, in municipalities such as Guayamas and passing through Tiburón and San Estaban Islands, among others—that is, the islands close to what is now Sonoran territory, which they reached using primitive seacraft.
+==== Annotation 30 ====
-The Seris were divided into bands that were further divided into clans. The majority of Seris were warriors, as clans occasionally declared war on each other. These wars were generally filled with a generous amount of animism. For example, the story of Hepétla (The Invincible) was that he was a shaman from Band III who sent an incursion of warriors toward neighboring groups, killing many people.
+As Lenin explains in ''What the “Friends of the People” Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats:''
-As with any native group, this people had an intimate relationship with their environment. Their belief systems based themselves on the sea currents, the cycles of rain, sun, and moon. They worshipped the shark and the tortoise and other animals of the desert. Seri cosmology was simple, since they lived in a hostile environment and their nomadic life meant that they could construct no temples nor devise complex deities.
+<blockquote>
+Now — since the appearance of Capital — the materialist conception of history is no longer a hypothesis, but a scientifically proven proposition. And until we get some other attempt to give a scientific explanation of the functioning and development of some formation of society — formation of society, mind you, and not the way of life of some country or people, or even class, etc. — another attempt just as capable of introducing order into the “pertinent facts” as materialism is, that is just as capable of presenting a living picture of a definite formation, while giving it a strictly scientific explanation -until then the materialist conception of history will be a synonym for social science. Materialism is not ‘primarily a scientific conception of history’... but the only scientific conception of it.
-It was said that band and group shamans could carry and break large stones with only their minds.
+-----
-Each band was distinct; only a few gave fierce resistance to the arrival of the Europeans. These savages never allowed themselves to be conquered by either the sword or the cross. They were hostile toward all foreigners, and they fought to the death to preserve their ancestral knowledge and beliefs. Indeed, even today, the Seris or Comcaac (as they call themselves) are one of the few indigenous groups who do not practice syncretism between Catholicism and traditional animist beliefs and practices. In Seri territory, there are neither Catholic churches nor priests, though there are some Protestant churches.
+''Capital'' is Marx’s main work which presents Marxism as a social science by illuminating the inevitable processes of birth, development, and decay of capitalism; the replacement of capitalism with socialism; and the historical mission of the working class — the social force that can implement this replacement. Marx’s materialist conception of history and proletarian revolution continued to be developed in ''Critique of Gotha Programme'' (Marx, 1875). This book discusses the dictatorship of the proletariat, the transitional period from capitalism to socialism, and phases of the communism building process, and several other premises. Together, these premises formed the scientific basis for Marx’s theoretical guidance for the future revolutionary activity of the proletariat.
+</blockquote>
-On the arrival of the Spaniards, around 1855, the Europeans undertook the conquest of these territories and the conversion of the hostile Seris to the Catholic faith. They soon realized that the Seris were exceptionally uncooperative and the land was also tremendously hostile. The Seris were very warlike, and they did not wish to be enslaved or rented out as manual labor. At the first opportunity, they would always escape, they did not know how to plant, and did not have accumulated riches like previously conquered Mesoamerican peoples. Faced with all of this resistance, the Spaniards, along with the Mexican ranchers, sought to exterminate them outright. This is when the Encinas War started, a conflict that would last twelve years.
-It should be noted that not all Seri bands reacted in the same manner to the invasion. Among the more hostile groups was Band VI, which was also the most primitive. They lived in caves and didn’t even use the bow and arrow. Their only hunting implement was the harpoon, and they fed on shellfish, iguanas, and the maguey plant. They lived on San Esteban Island, distrusted everyone, and were impetuous. This band was not at all interested in the new world nor in the whites, as they were for all intents and purposes isolated on their small island. However, they were among the first to be attacked by the invaders.
+-----
-It is told that a European ship landed on San Esteban Island, and that the crew tricked the Seris with gifts to come on board; they proceeded to imprison most of them, killing the men and taking the women and children as captives to the mainland.
+==== Annotation 31 ====
-At the same time, Band II was known for pillaging and stealing cattle from the whites, and for this reason they were decimated by the Spanish. The remnants of the band retreated into the inaccessible swamps of Kino Bay; but they were later found and slaughtered save for a few young warriors who escaped to Tiburón Island, where they warned others of the Spanish threat. It was in this way that Bands I, III, and IV united against the invaders and the indigenous people aligned with the whites. Tiburón Island thus became a battleground. Many Spaniards died in battles with the hostile warriors. The craggy mountains had many hiding places for the indigenous combatants who used their ancestral knowledge to inflict serious blows on the Europeans.
+When Marx refers to a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” he does ''not'' mean “dictatorship” to mean “totalitarian” or “authoritarian.” Rather, here “dictatorship” simply refers to a situation in which political power is held by the working class (which constitutes the vast majority of society). “Dictatorship,” here, refers to full control of the means of production and government. This stands in contrast to capitalism, which is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, in which capitalists (a small minority of society) have full control of the means of production and government.
-For example, the Spanish did not know how to find fresh
+==== c. The Defending and Developing Stage of Marxism ====
-<br>
+''- Historical Background and the Need for Defending and Developing Marxism''
-water on the island. On various occasions the whites had to retreat, dehydrated and exhausted after their expeditions. They did not find the natives in the mountains; it was as if the people had vanished.
+In the late 19<sup>th</sup> century and early 20<sup>th</sup> century, capitalism developed into a new stage, called imperialism. The dominant and exploitative nature of capitalism became increasingly obvious. Contradictions in capitalist societies became increasingly serious — especially the class struggles between the proletariat and capitalists. In many colonised countries, the resistance against imperialism created a unity between national liberation and proletarian revolution, uniting people in colonised countries with the working class in colonial countries. The core of such revolutionary struggles at this time was in Russia. The Russian proletariat and working class under the leadership of the Bolshevik Party became the leader of the whole international revolutionary movement.
-For these reason, they had to use foreign diseases such as smallpox and measles to gradually reduce native numbers, leading to the near extinction of indigenous populations.
+During this time, both capitalist industry and natural sciences developed rapidly. Some natural scientists, especially physicists, lacked a grounding in materialist philosophical methodology and therefore fell into a viewpoint crisis. Idealist philosophers used this crisis to directly influence the perspective and activities of many revolutionary movements.
-In the middle of the Encinas War, the shamans said that the spirits of the animals accompanied the Seris in war, and the spirits helped them to succeed in their attacks. Those warriors with great spiritual power would tell stories to their clans of having been transformed into animals during battle. Thus, they could escape without the invaders noticing them. One example of this was a warrior known as Coyote Iguana who told of how he once was captured and bound hand and foot to be thrown into the sea and drowned. Instead, he changed into an iguana and was able to escape his executioners. On another occasion, he was chased and surrounded by the Spaniards, but then turned into a coyote and was able to escape undetected by his pursuers. This animist tradition was nothing unusual among the culture of the Seris. The ability to change oneself into an animal in certain circumstances, passing from the spiritual to the physical world, has been known in many world cultures, from the Aborigines of Australia to the Yanomamis of the Amazon. Today, this capacity to change either spiritually or physically is known as Nahualism. It is not unusual either that the eco-extremists in their communiqués relate how they became animals before and during their attacks, since it is an ancestral pagan tradition as well.
+-----
-<center>
+==== Annotation 32 ====
-</center>
+==== Imperialism ====
-<right>
+Lenin defined imperialism as “the monopoly stage of capitalism,” listing its essential characteristics as “finance capital (serving) a few very big monopolist banks, merged with the capital of the monopolist associations of industrialists” and “a colonial policy of monopolist possession of the territory of the world, which has been completely divided up.”
-Tiburon Island
-</right>
-By this short text, I encourage individualists to return to the pagan practices that terrified and confounded the Westerners of past eras. In this war against human progress, the physical realm is important but the spiritual is primordial. Let us learn then from the Seris. Let us learn the warlike and extremist defense of the wild. Let us become animals, and may the spirit of our ancestors guide us on the path that has been prepared for us.
+==== Subjective and Empiricist Idealism ====
-<center>
+In the late 19<sup>th</sup> century, natural scientists were exploring various philosophical bases for scientific inquiry. One Austrian physicist, Ernst Mach, attempted to build a philosophy of natural science based on the works of German-Swiss philosopher Richard Avenarius known as “Empirio-Criticism.” Empirio-Criticism, which also came to be known as Machism, has many parallels with the philosophy of George Berkeley. Berkeley (1685 — 1753) was an Anglo-Irish philosopher whose main philosophical achievement was the formulation of a doctrine which he called “immaterialism,” and which later came to be known as “Subjective Idealism.” This doctrine was summed up by Berkeley’s maxim: “''Esse est percipi''” — “To be is to be perceived.” Subjective Idealism holds that individuals can only directly perceive and know about physical objects through direct sense experience. Therefore, individuals are unable to obtain any real knowledge about abstract concepts such as “matter”.
-In the name of the Ineffable!
-</center>
-<center>
+The philosophy of Empirio-Criticism, which was developed by Avenarius and Mach, also holds that the only reliable human knowledge we can hold comes from our sensations and experiences. Mach argued that the only source of knowledge is sense data and “experience,” but that we can’t develop any actual knowledge of the actual external world. In other words, Mach’s conception of empirio-criticism holds all knowledge as essentially subjective in nature, and limited to (and by) human sense experience. Mach’s development of Empirio-Criticism (which can also be referred to as ''empirical idealism'' or ''Machism'')'''' was therefore a continuation of Berkeley’s subjective idealism. Both Berkeley’s Immaterialism and Empirio-Criticism are considered to be ''subjective idealism'' because these philosophies deny that the external world exists — or otherwise assert that it is unknowable — and, as such, hold that all knowledge stems from experiences which are essentially ''subjective'' in nature.
-With Wild Nature at our side!
-</center>
-<center>
+Mach argued that reality can only be defined by our sensual experiences of reality, and that we can never concretely know anything about the objective external world due to the limitations of sense experience. This stands in direct contradiction to dialectical materialism, which holds that we can develop accurate knowledge of the material world through observation and practice. Whereas Berkeley developed subjective idealist theological arguments to defend the Christian faith, Mach employed subjective idealism for purely secular purposes as a basis for scientific inquiry.
-Before the battle may we cry HOKA HEY!
-</center>
-<br>
+''Note: all quotations below come from Lenin’s book:'' Materialism and Empirio-Criticism''.''
-<strong>
+Vladimir Lenin strongly opposed Empirio-Criticism and, by extension, Machism, which was becoming popular among communist revolutionists in the late 19<sup>th</sup> century, because it pushed forward idealist principles which directly opposed the core tenets of dialectical materialism.
-<br></strong>
-<center>
+Lenin believed that revolutionaries should be guided not by idealism, but by dialectical materialism. He believed that Empirio-Criticism and Machism consisted of mysticism which would mislead political revolutionaries.
-</center>
+Lenin outlined Machian arguments against materialism:
-<br>
+<blockquote>
+The materialists, we are told, recognise something unthinkable and unknowable — ’things-in-themselves’ — matter ‘outside of experience’ and outside of our knowledge [see: Annotation 72, p. 68]. They lapse into genuine mysticism by admitting the existence of something beyond, something transcending the bounds of ‘experience’... When they say that matter, by acting upon our sense-organs, produces sensations, the materialists take as their basis the ‘unknown,’ nothingness; for do they not themselves declare our sensations to be the only source of knowledge?
+</blockquote>
-** [[(Roma Infernetto-“Shit World”) To Profane and Devour]]
+Lenin argued that this new form of Machist subjective idealism was, in fact, simply a rehashing of “old errors of idealism,” disguised and dressed up with new terminology. As such, Lenin simply reiterated the longstanding, bedrock dialectical materialist arguments against idealism [see Annotation 10, p. 10]. He was especially upset that contemporary Marxists of his era were being swayed by Machist Empirio-Criticism because he found it to be in direct conflict with dialectical materialism, writing: “(These) would-be Marxists… try in every way to assure their readers that Machism is compatible with the historical materialism of Marx and Engels.”
-<right>
+Lenin goes on to describe the work of philosophers such as Franz Blei, who critiqued Marxism with Machist arguments, as “quasi-scientific tomfoolery decked out in the terminology of Avenarius.” He saw Empirio-Criticism as completely incompatible with communist revolution, since idealism had historically been used by the ruling class to deceive and control the lower classes. In particular, he believed that Machist idealism was being used by the capitalist class to preach bourgeois economics, writing that “the professors of economics are nothing but learned salesmen of the capitalist class.”
-A member of the Memento Mori Nihilist Sect
-</right>
-<center>
+Lenin was deeply concerned that prominent Russian socialist philosophers were adopting Machist ideas and claiming them to be compatible with Marxism, writing:
-<em>A nihilist fragment that I dedicate to a “dead” enemy</em>
-</center>
-For me.
+<blockquote>
+The task of Marxists in both cases is to be able to master and adapt the achievements of these ‘salesmen’... and to be able to lop off their reactionary tendency, to pursue your own line and to combat the whole alignment of forces and classes hostile to us. And this is just what our Machians were unable to do, they slavishly follow the lead of the reactionary professorial philosophy.
+</blockquote>
-Kneel before me.
+Lenin further explains how Empirio-Criticism serves the interests of the capitalist class:
-You will stretch out and elongate yourself in a flat position.
+<blockquote>
+The empirio-criticists as a whole... claim to be non-partisan both in philosophy and in social science. They are neither for socialism nor for liberalism. They make no differentiation between the fundamental and irreconcilable trends of materialism and idealism in philosophy, but endeavor to rise above them. We have traced this tendency of Machism through a long series of problems of epistemology, and we ought not to be surprised when we encounter it in sociology.
+</blockquote>
-I spit black blood, effusive bile.
+In the conclusion of the same text, Lenin explains why communists should reject Empirio-Criticism and Machism with four “standpoints,” summarized here:
-I spit my venomous liquid against my enemy.
+. The theoretical foundations of Empirio-Criticism can’t withstand comparison with those of dialectical materialism. Empirio-Criticism differs little from older forms of idealism, and the tired old errors of idealism clash directly with Marxist dialectical materialism. As Lenin puts it: “only utter ignorance of the nature of philosophical materialism generally and of the nature of Marx’s and Engels’ dialectical method can lead one to speak of ‘combining’ empirio-criticism and Marxism.”
-You are trapped.
+. The philosophical foundations of Empirio-Criticism are flawed. “Both Mach and Avenarius started with Kant (see: Annotation 72, p. 68) and, leaving him, proceeded not towards materialism, but in the opposite direction, towards Hume and Berkeley (see: Annotation 10, p. 10)... The whole school of Mach and Avenarius is moving more and more definitely towards idealism.”
-Captured alive I breathe death.
+. Machism is little more than a relatively obscure trend which has not been adopted by most scientists; a “reactionary (and) transitory infatuation.” As Lenin puts it: “the vast majority of scientists, both generally and in this special branch of science... are invariably on the side of materialism.”
-You were dead before, with your useless life, in the necessity of my passion.
+. Empirio-Criticism and Machism reflect the “tendencies and ideology of the antagonistic classes in modern society.” Idealism represents the interests of the ruling class in modern society, and is used to subjugate the majority of society. Idealist philosophy “stands fully armed, commands vast organizations and steadily continues to exercise influence on the masses, turning the slightest vacillation in philosophical thought to its own advantage.” In other words, idealism is used by the ruling class to manipulate our understanding of the world, as opposed to materialism (and especially dialectical materialism) which illuminates the true nature of reality which would lead to the liberation of the working class.
-Imprisoned by a trap that I set.
+At this time, Marxism was widely disseminating throughout Russia, which challenged the social positions and benefits of capitalists. In reaction to Marxism, many ideological movements such as empiricism, utilitarianism, revisionism, etc. [see: Appendix F, p. 252] rose up and claimed to renew Marxism, while in fact they misrepresented and denied Marxism.
-Like a spider who weaves its web to trap its prey.
+In this context, new achievements of natural science needed to be analyzed and summarized in order to continue the authentic development of Marxist viewpoints and methodologies. Theoretical principles to fight against the misrepresentation of Marxism needed to be developed in order to bring Marxism into the new era. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin would fulfill this historical requirement with his theoretical developments.
-The cold strategic necessity and the ardent passion to advance in this “dead world.”
+''- The Role of Lenin in Defending and Developing Marxism.''
-Union of elements, poisonous particles of Ego Worship, they join and crash into each other, forming and destroying themselves.
+Lenin’s process of defending and developing Marxism can be separated into three periods: first, from 1893 to 1907; next, from 1907 to 1917; and finally from the success of the October socialist revolution in 1917 until Lenin’s death in 1924.
-The Criminal Nihilist is a ferocious animal in the dismal metropolis.
+From 1893 to 1907, Lenin focused on fighting against populists<ref>Populist faction: A faction within the Russian revolution which upheld an idealist capitalist ideology with many representatives such as Mikhailovsky, Bakunin, and Plekhanov. Populists failed to recognise the important roles of the people, of the farmers and workers alliance, and of the proletariat. Instead, they completely centered the role of the individual in society. They considered the rural communes as the nucleus of “socialism.” They saw farmers under the leadership of intellectuals as the main force of the revolution. The populists advocated individual terrorism as the primary method of revolutionary struggle.</ref>. His book ''What the Friends of the People are and How They Fight Against the Social Democrats (1894)'' criticized the serious mistakes of this faction in regards to socio-historical issues and also exposed their scheme of distorting Marxism by erasing the boundaries between Marxism’s materialist dialectics and Hegel’s idealist dialectics. In the same book, Lenin also shared many thoughts about the important roles of theory, reality, and the relationship between the two.
-Living flesh impoverished with interior putrefaction.
+==== Annotation 33 ====
-He receives terror from decadent humanity and he feels Terror
+The ''populist'' philosophy was born in Russia in the 19<sup>th</sup> century with roots going back to the Narodnik agrarian socialist movement of the 1860s and 70s, composed of peasants who rose up in a failed campaign against the Czar. In the late 19<sup>th</sup> century, a new political movement emerged rooted in Narodnik ideas and a new party called the Socialist Revolutionary Party was formed. The political philosophy of this movement, now commonly translated into English as “populism,” focused on an agrarian peasant revolution led by intellectuals with the ambition of going directly from a feudal society to a socialist society built from rural communes. This movement overtly opposed Marxism and dialectical materialism and was based on subjective idealist utopianism (see Annotation 95, p. 94).
-He is before me and kneeling, afflicted since his birth by the attribute of limitation facing honest and correct society.
+With the book ''What is to be Done?'' (1902), Lenin developed Marxist viewpoints on the methods for the proletariat to take power. He discussed economic, political, and ideological struggles. In particular, he emphasized the ideological formation process of the proletariat.
-You were wrong.
+==== Annotation 34 ====
-What I thought, what you thought, you saw it as an absolute in the absolute of your condition.
+In ''What is to be Done?,'' Lenin argues that the working class will not spontaneously attain class consciousness and push for political revolution simply due to economic conflict with employers and spontaneous actions like demonstrations and workers’ strikes. He instead insists that a political party of dedicated revolutionaries is needed to educate workers in Marxist principles and to organize and push forward revolutionary activity. He also pushed back strongly against the ideas of what he called “economism,” as typified by the ideas of Eduard Bernstein, a German political theorist who rejected many of Marx’s theories.
-You were confused, what I thought, you thought, you falsified your life and your victory in a geometrically perfect manner. Fallen into my hidden cave:
+Bernstein opposed a working class revolution and instead focused on reform and compromise. He believed that socialism could be achieved within the capitalist economy and the system of bourgeois democracy. Lenin argued that Bernstein and his economist philosophy was opportunistic, and accused economists of seeking positions within bourgeois democracies to further their own personal interests and to quell revolutionary tendencies. As Lenin explained in ''A Talk With Defenders of Economism:''
-Now you are the wandering dead
+<blockquote>
+The Economists limited the tasks of the working class to an economic struggle for higher wages and better working conditions, etc., asserting that the political struggle was the business of the liberal bourgeoisie. They denied the leading role of the party of the working class, considering that the party should merely observe the spontaneous process of the movement and register events. In their deference to spontaneity in the working-class movement, the Economists belittled the significance of revolutionary theory and class-consciousness, asserted that socialist ideology could emerge from the spontaneous movement, denied the need for a Marxist party to instill socialist consciousness into the working-class movement, and thereby cleared the way for bourgeois ideology. The Economists, who opposed the need to create a centralized working-class party, stood for the sporadic and amateurish character of individual circles. Economism threatened to divert the working class from the class revolutionary path and turn it into a political appendage of the bourgeoisie.
+</blockquote>
-You wanted, you know, to not doubt... yourself.
+''The Encyclopedic Dictionary of Vietnam'', published by the National Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam, defines opportunism, in this context, as “a system of political opinions with no direction, no clear path, no coherent viewpoint, leaning on whatever is beneficial for the opportunist in the short term.”
-To think and feel, to smell like a wild animal, in the middle of simulated mirrors of a mortal human being.
+Lenin critiques opportunist socialism — referring to it as a “critical” trend in socialism — in ''What is to be Done?:''
-Neither mirror, nor reflection given of things, but I will break and destroy absolute certainty.
+<blockquote>
+He who does not deliberately close his eyes cannot fail to see that the new “critical” trend in socialism is nothing more nor less than a new variety of opportunism. And if we judge people... by their actions and by what they actually advocate, it will be clear that “freedom of criticism” means “freedom for an opportunist trend in Social-Democracy, freedom to convert Social-Democracy into a democratic party of reform, freedom to introduce bourgeois ideas and bourgeois elements into socialism.”
-I sink myself in the abysmal poison, in the solipsistic profundity of MY exclusive hell.
+-----
-I open the abyss, hermetic and infinite, and I see the top, vertigo that sucks the infinitesimal of life and death, moribund desire of sense from splendid linear life.
+The first revolution of the Russian working class, from 1905 to 1907, failed. Lenin summarized the reality of this revolution in the book ''Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution'' (1905). In this book, Lenin explains that the capitalist class in Russia was actively engaged in its own revolution against Czarist feudalism. In this context of this ongoing bourgeois revolution, Lenin deeply developed Marxist concepts related to revolutionary methodologies, objective and subjective factors that will affect the working class revolution, the role of the people, the role of political parties etc.
+</blockquote>
-There is not a “common” yawn, here, in MY hidden cave, desire burns to annihilate the life that I have captured.
+==== Annotation 35 ====
-Brain at my side.
+From 1905 to 1907, Russia was beset by political unrest and radical activity including workers’ strikes, military mutinies, and peasant uprisings. Russia had just suffered a humiliating defeat in the Russo-Japanese war which cost tens of thousands of Russian lives without any benefits to the Russian people. In addition, the economic and political systems of Czarist Russia placed a severe burden on industrial workers and peasant farmers.
-The infernal dog with three heads.
+In response, the Russian proletariat rose up in various uprisings, demonstrations, and clashes against government forces, landlords, and factory owners. In the end, this revolutionary activity failed to overthrow the Czar’s government, and the Czar remained firmly in power until the communist revolution of 1917.
-The chaotic invocation of the infernal jaws.
+Lenin wrote ''Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution'' in 1905 in
-Elements uniting and encountering each other, they melt and mix with the shape of an evil shadow that pursues my body.
+Geneva, Switzerland. In it, he argues forcefully against the political faction within the Russian socialist movement that came to be known as the “Mensheviks.” The Mensheviks, as well as the Bolsheviks (Lenin’s contemporary faction) emerged from a dispute within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party which took place in 1903.
-The darkness of the night that blackens knowledge of the clean ray of peace.
+In the same text, Lenin argued that the Mensheviks misunderstood the forces that were driving revolutionary activity in Russia. While the Mensheviks believed that the situation in Russia would develop along similar lines to previous revolutionary activity in Western Europe, Lenin argued that Russia’s situation was unique and that Russian Marxists should therefore adopt different strategies and activities which reflected Russia’s unique circumstances and material conditions.
-It is a schizophrenic prayer, a petition for pleasure and pain, the sublime death agony of my Egoic Objective.
+Specifically, the Mensheviks believed that the working class should ally with the bourgeoisie to overthrow the Czar’s feudalist regime, and then allow the bourgeoisie to build a fully functioning capitalist economy before workers should attempt their own revolution.
-“O hound of hell, expel your venomous sperm on my enemy, desire for evil that annihilates morality, your judgement for the unfortunate human who is now before me.”
+Lenin, on the other hand, presented a completely different analysis of class forces in Russia. He believed the bourgeoisie would seek a compromise with the Czar, as both feudal and bourgeois classes in Russia feared a proletarian revolution.
-The profanation of a body.
+It’s important to note that Russia’s industrial workforce was very small at this time, and most Russians were peasant farmers. The Mensheviks believed Russian peasants would not be useful in a proletarian revolution, which is why they argued for allowing capitalism to be fully established in Russia before pushing for a working class revolution. They believed it was prudent to wait until the working class became larger and more dominant in Russia before attempting to overthrow capitalism. They believed that the peasant class would not be useful in any such revolution.
-Devouring his “breath of life.”
+In contrast, Lenin believed that the peasants and industrial workers would have to work together to have any hope of a successful revolution. He further argued that an uprising of armed peasants and workers, fighting side by side, would be necessary for overthrowing the Czar.
-<br>
+From 1907 to 1917, there was a viewpoint crisis among many physicists. This strongly affected the birth of many idealist ideologies following Mach’s Positivism that attempted to negate Marxism [See: Annotation 32, p. 27]. Lenin summarized the achievements of natural science as well as historical events of the late 19<sup>th</sup> century and early 20<sup>th</sup> century in his book ''Materialism and Empirio-Criticism'' (1909). By giving the classical definitions of matter, proving the relationships between matter and consciousness and between social existence and social consciousness, and pointing out the basic rules of consciousness, etc., Lenin defended Marxism and carried it forward to a new level. Lenin clearly expressed his thoughts on the history, nature, and structure of Marxism in the book ''The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism'' (1913). He also talked about dialectics in ''Philosophical Notebooks'' (1914–1916) and expressed his thoughts about the proletarian dictatorship, the role of the Communist Party, and the path to socialism in his book ''The State and Revolution'' (1919).
-<center>
+The success of the October revolution in Russia in 1917 brought about a new era: the transitional period from capitalism to socialism on an international scale. This event presented new theoretical requirements that had not existed in the time of Marx and Engels’ time.
-</center>
+In a series of works including: “''Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder'' (1920),
-<br>
+''Once Again on the Trade Unions'', ''The Current Situation and the Mistakes of Trotsky and Bukharin'' (1921), ''The Tax in Kind'' (1921), etc., Lenin summarized the revolutionary practice of the people, continued defending Marxist dialectics, and uncompromisingly fought against eclecticism and sophistry.
-** [[<em>Regresión</em>]] #3, Editorial
+==== Annotation 36 ====
-<right>
+In ''Anti-Dühring'', Engels identifies the historical missions of the working class as:
-Wild Reaction
-</right>
-<right>
+. Becoming the ruling class by establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat.
-Coyote Skin Cloak Faction
-</right>
-**** The following pages are a call to common sense, a warning call against the continuous devastating clearing of forests, a desperate cry against the invasion of cobblestone, against houses of six or eight floors, against adulterated food and drinks, against the intellectual strain of universities and the unrelenting factory work. It is also a virulent diatribe against the thinned and unhealthy air, against disease and the decay of races, and finally, it is a violent protest against the stupidity and illogicalities created by Civilization, a struggle against Science, Goddess of the present day, against Chemistry, against the Artificial.
+. Seizing the means of production from the ruling class to end class society.
-**** We can live without railroads, without cars, without telegraphs and telephones, without balloons and prostitution, without pedophilia and tuberculosis.
+''Eclecticism'' is an incoherent approach to philosophical inquiry which attempts to draw from various different theories, frameworks, and ideas to attempt to understand a subject, applying different theories in different situations without any consistency in analysis and thought. Eclectic arguments are typically composed of various pieces of evidence that are cherry picked and pieced together to form a perspective that lacks clarity. By definition, because they draw from different systems of thought without seeking a clear and cohesive understanding of the totality of the subject and its internal and external relations and its development over time, eclectic arguments run counter to the ''comprehensive'' and ''historical'' viewpoints [see p. 116]. Eclecticism bears superficial resemblance to dialectical materialism in that it attempts to consider a subject from many different perspectives, and analyzes relationships pertaining to a subject, but the major flaw of eclecticism is a lack of clear and coherent systems and principles, which leads to a chaotic viewpoint and an inability to grasp the true nature of the subject at hand.
-**** We just want a normal life, the exercise of Life, freedom in salvation can only be achieved through integral Nature and the abolition of cities, permanent source of inevitable epidemics.
+''Sophistry'' is the use of falsehoods and misleading arguments, usually with the intention of deception, and with a tendency of presenting non-critical aspects of a subject matter as critical, to serve a particular agenda. The word comes from the Sophists, a group of professional teachers in Ancient Greece, who were criticized by Socrates (in Plato’s dialogues) for being shrewd and deceptive rhetoricians. This kind of bad faith argument has no place in materialist dialectics. Materialist dialectics must, instead, be rooted in a true and accurate understanding of the subject, material conditions, and reality in general.
-**** Henry Zisly, August 1899
+Simultaneously, Lenin also developed his Marxist viewpoint of the factors deciding the victory of a social regime, about class, about the two basic missions of the proletariat, about the strategies and tactics of proletarian parties in new historical conditions, about the transitional period, and about the plans of building socialism following the New Economic Policy (NEP), etc.
-This paragraph was taken from “Towards the conquest of the natural state” written by Zisly, one of the most important representatives of the Naturien Movement, pioneers of anarchism and precursors of libertarian naturism in France. The Naturiens (as they called themselves) defended nature and loathed civilization. They saw it and industrial progress as a violent crash into the technological abyss, the adoption of alienation and the distancing from the natural, wild, and primitive. It is quite impressive that more than 100 years after Zisly’s comment, the Naturien criticism of civilization remains current. His words and his rejection of the artificial is what we claim, revive, and remember.
+-----
-This is the third issue of the magazine against techno-industrial progress, <em>Regresión</em>, a journal edited and published biannually. The aim of this magazine, as explained in its first issue, is the diffusion of anti-technological criticisms and the defense of wild nature, a defense with violent means that can be undertaken in the present. A defense that, when accomplished, undoubtedly positions the actors as individualists conscious of their reality, desiring to negate and destroy it.
+==== Annotation 37 ====
-In <em>Regresión</em>, we posit individualist extremism as our essence. This is our position when confronted with modern civilization that propagates humanist values and progress, values that are leading us toward the technological cliff. The social dynamics that we are under in this complex system often absorb us as individuals. They make us participate in the mass, in destructive consumerism and the routine life of slaves. We have decided, however, to resist this tide, to resist clandestinely and accept our contradictions from which we sustain ourselves and form ourselves as true individuals and unique subjects. One of our goals for the present is to resist and negate the life imposed on us from childhood and to create a simple and secluded life for ourselves as far away from modern cultural influences as possible. But to make this life for ourselves, far away from big cities and in the depths of nature, it is necessary on occasion to have money, money that we would prefer to steal from wherever we can, or to acquire in the hundreds of possible criminal ways that exist, rather than enslave ourselves in life as subordinates as is the case with most people. Having clarified this, the editorial group of this magazine sympathizes with the re-appropriation of money for concrete ends that helps people live a dignified life, without consideration concerning who has to be shot to acquire it. If an employee doesn’t hand over the boss’s money, he has forfeited his right to live. He is defending his master’s crumbs like a dog. He deserves a punch in the face or a bullet to the head. Similarly, the businessperson, owner, or executive who does not comply with the exigencies of the thief merits the same treatment or worse.
+The early 1920s were a period of great internal conflict in revolutionary Russia, with various figures and factions wanting to take the revolution in different directions. As such, Lenin wrote extensively on the direction he believed the revolution should be carried forth to ensure lasting victory against both feudalism and capitalism. He believed that the October, 1917 revolution represented the complete defeat of the Czar, however he believed the proletarian victory over the bourgeoisie would take more time. Russia was a poor, agrarian society. The vast majority of Russians under the Czar were poor peasants. Industry — and thus, the proletariat — was highly undeveloped compared to Western Europe. According to Lenin, a full and lasting proletarian victory over the bourgeoisie could only be won after the means of production were properly developed. In ''Fourth Anniversary of the October Revolution'', Lenin wrote:
-There is no mercy in these acts. It is all or nothing, it’s the extremism that we speak of without equivocation. If the money is needed for any individualist extremist end, it should be taken without regard for consequences. It should be mentioned here that money isn't everything, but we say all of this as realists. In this world governed by large corporations, it is necessary at times to acquire money to achieve certain ends and acquire certain means. Working is not an option to obtain these resources, but obtaining them by fraud, robbery, or theft is. Our ancestors who saw their way of life affected by the expansion of Mesoamerican and Western civilizations also had to do these things when necessary (pillaging, theft, deception, robbery, and/or murder). We are only fulfilling our historical role as inheritors of that fierce savagery.
+<blockquote>
+This first victory [the October, 1917 revolution] is not yet the final victory, and it was achieved by our October Revolution at the price of incredible difficulties and hardships... We have made the start... The important thing is that the ice has been broken; the road is open, the way has been shown.
+</blockquote>
-For the spread of delinquency and terrorism that satisfies individualistic instincts!
+So, Lenin knew that the victory over the Czar and feudalism was only a partial victory, and that more work needed to be done to defeat the bourgeoisie entirely. He believed the key to this victory over the capitalist class would be economic development, since Russia was still a largely agrarian society with very little industrial or economic development compared to Western Europe:
-<center>
+<blockquote>
-For the extreme defense of wild nature!
+Our last, but most important and most difficult task, the one we have done least about, is economic development, the laying of economic foundations for the new, socialist edifice on the site of the demolished feudal edifice and the semi-demolished capitalist edifice.
-</center>
+</blockquote>
-<center>
+Lenin’s plan for rapidly developing the means of production was his New Economic Policy, or the NEP. The New Economic Policy was proposed to be a temporary economic system that would allow a market economy and capitalism to exist within Russia, alongside state-owned business ventures, all firmly under the control of the working-class-dominated state. As Lenin explains in ''Fourth Anniversary of the October Revolution'':
-For the physical and moral attack on the structures of civilization!
-<br>Long live Wild Reaction and all groups that violently confront
-<br>modern technological society!
-</center>
-<right>
+<blockquote>
-Spring 2015
+At this very moment we are, by our New Economic Policy, correcting a number of our mistakes. We are learning how to continue erecting the socialist edifice in a small-peasant country.
-</right>
+</blockquote>
-<br>
+He continues later in the text:
-<center>
+<blockquote>
+The proletarian state must become a cautious, assiduous and shrewd “businessman,” a punctilious wholesale merchant — otherwise it will never succeed in putting this small-peasant country economically on its feet. Under existing conditions, living as we are side by side with the capitalist (for the time being capitalist) West, there is no other way of progressing to communism. A wholesale merchant seems to be an economic type as remote from communism as heaven from earth. But that is one of the contradictions which, in actual life, lead from a small-peasant economy via state capitalism to socialism. Personal incentive will step up production; we must increase production first and foremost and at all costs. Wholesale trade economically unites millions of small peasants: it gives them a personal incentive, links them up and leads them to the next step, namely, to various forms of association and alliance in the process of production itself. We have already started the necessary changes in our economic policy and already have some successes to our credit; true, they are small and partial, but nonetheless they are successes. In this new field of “tuition” we are already finishing our preparatory class. By persistent and assiduous study, by making practical experience the test of every step we take, by not fearing to alter over and over again what we have already begun, by correcting our mistakes and most carefully analyzing their significance, we shall pass to the higher classes. We shall go through the whole “course,” although the present state of world economics and world politics has made that course much longer and much more difficult than we would have liked. No matter at what cost, no matter how severe the hardships of the transition period may be — despite disaster, famine and ruin — we shall not flinch; we shall triumphantly carry our cause to its goal.
+</blockquote>
-</center>
+With these great works dedicated to the three component parts of Marxism [see Annotation 42, p. 38], the name Vladimir Ilyich Lenin became an important part of Marxism. It marked a comprehensive developing step from Marxism to Marxism-Leninism.
-<br>
+==== d. Marxism-Leninism and the Reality of the International Revolutionary Movement ====
-** [[Indiscriminate Anarchists]]
+The birth of Marxism greatly affected both the international worker movements and communist movements. The revolution in March 1871 in France could be considered as a great experiment of Marxism in the real world. For the first time in human history, a new kind of state — the dictatorship of the proletariat state (Paris Commune) was established.
-<right>
+-----
-Seminatore
-</right>
-**** How I dream sometimes of a world all in harmony: each tendency based in its own initiative, without clashing with another; without humiliating themselves, in order to be stronger tomorrow, when we should all run toward the great battle of the revolution! But all of that is only a dream.
+==== Annotation 38 ====
-**** Letter of Severino Di Giovanni to
+The Paris Commune was an important but short-lived revolutionary victory of the working class which saw a revolutionary socialist government controlling Paris from March 18 to May 28, 1871.
-**** Hugo Treni, May 15th, 1930
+During the brief existence of the Paris Commune, many important policies were set forth, including a separation of church and state, abolishment of rent, an end to child labor, and the right of employees to take over any business which had been abandoned by its owner. Unfortunately, the Paris Commune was brutally toppled by the French army, which killed between 6,000 and 7,000 revolutionaries in battle and by execution. The events of the Paris Commune heavily influenced many revolutionary thinkers and leaders, including Marx, Engels, and Lenin, and was referenced frequently in their works.
-In our time, the essence of particular things often changes. The real is modified and transformed into a pantomime that matches the supposed march of progress. Modernity has altered many things, from the environment to human behavior, and even political ideologies. This age demands from citizens (dissident or not) that they vehemently oppose inhumane violence of any sort. The moral values defended by civilization as a whole have brainwashed everyone. This brainwashing drives us toward individual amnesia and collective ignorance.
+In August 1903, the very first Marxist proletariat party was established — the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. It was a true Marxist party that led the revolution in Russia in 1905. In October 1917, the victory of the socialist revolution of the proletariat in Russia opened a new era for human history.
-Many political ideologies have been distorted in modern times, and little by little have evolved from being original and almost defensible to trite and abhorrent. This applies particularly to anarchist ideology, which over time has changed and transformed into something that it wasn’t originally.
+In 1919, the Communist International* was held; in 1922, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic was established. It marked the alliance of the proletariat of many countries. With the power of this alliance, the fight against Fascism not only protected the achievements of the proletariat’s revolution, but also spread socialism beyond the borders of Russia. Following the lead of the Soviet Union, a community of socialist countries was built, with revolutions leading to the establishment of socialism in the following countries [and years of establishment]: Mongolia [1921], Vietnam [1945], the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea [1945], Yugoslavia [1945], Albania [1946], Romania [1947], Czechoslovakia [1948], East Germany [1949], China [1949], Hungary [1949], Poland [1956], and Cuba [1959].
-For some time now, many anarchists have rejected the concept and practice of indiscriminate attack as defended by the ecoextremists. For modern anarchists, to speak of an act that seeks to strike a target without worrying about innocent bystanders is a sin against liberated humanity and a self-managed future, an irresponsible act that is incompatible with revolutionary morality. It’s true that in an indiscriminate attack morality doesn’t enter the equation, nor does revolution or anything of the sort. The only important thing is to strike at the target.
+-----
-Still, it confuses us how modern anarchists are scandalized by this practice, since these sorts of acts were what constituted anarchist praxis in the past and, a couple of centuries ago, made anarchists TRUE enemies of the government, the clergy, the bourgeoisie, and the army. To demonstrate this and develop this theme, we have rescued from various historical sources the following actions of actual anarchists. In this effort, we hope to dig them up from individual amnesia and collective propaganda spread by this modern progressive society. Like nuns recoiling before anarchic demons spreading terror and violence in their time, modern anarchists (even so-called nihilists), will tar all of this as some sort of Black Legend.
+==== Annotation 39 ====
-January 14, 1858: The anarchist Felice Orsini and his comrade attack Napoleon III, utilizing three Orsini bombs. Christened in honor of their infamous creator, they were balls of hard metal full of dynamite, with the outside containing small compartments filled with mercury fulminate. The explosive is triggered when the bomb hits a hard surface. In the case of the attack on Napoleon III, the first bomb was thrown and landed on the carriage’s chofer, the second on the animals that accompanied him, and the third on the window of the carriage. In this attack, eight people died and 142 were injured.
+<nowiki>*</nowiki> The First International, also known as the International Workingmen’s Association, was founded in London and lasted from 1864–1876. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were key figures in the foundation and operation of this organization, which sought better conditions and the establishment of rights for workers.
-February 17, 1880: The nihilist Stepan Khalturin, a member of the Russian secret society, <em>Narodnaya Volya</em>, detonated a bomb in the Winter Palace in Russia: eight soldiers died and 45 bystanders were wounded.
+The Second International was founded in Paris in 1889 to continue the work of the First International. It fell apart in 1916 because the members from different nations could not maintain solidarity through the outbreak of World War I.
-<right>
+The Third International, also known as the Communist International (or the ComIntern for short), was founded in Moscow in 1919 (though many nations didn’t join until later in the 1920s). Its goals were to overthrow capitalism, build socialism, and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. It was dissolved in 1943 in the midst of the German invasion of Russia in World War II.
-</right>
+These great historical events strongly enhanced the revolutionary movement of the working class all around the whole world. The people awakened and encouraged the liberation resistance of many colonised countries. The guiding role of Marxism-Leninism brought many great results for a world of peace, independence, democracy, and social progress.
-Orsini bomb
+However, because of many internal and external factors, in the late 1980s, the socialist alliance faced a crisis and fell into a recession period. Even though the socialist system fell into crisis and was weakened, the socialist ideology still survived internationally. The determination of successfully building socialism was still very strong in many countries and the desire to follow the socialist path still spread widely in South America.
-July 5, 1880: A powerful explosive was detonated in a warehouse of the Ramba de Santa Monica, Spain. A young worker at the scene was blown apart when the explosive was indiscriminately left there.
+Nowadays, the main feature of our modern society is fast and varied change in many social aspects caused by technology and scientific revolution. But, no matter how quickly and diversely our society changes, the nature of the capitalist production method never changes. So, in order to protect the socialist achievements earned by the flesh and blood of many previous generations; and in order to have a tremendous development step in the career of liberating human beings, it is very urgent to protect, inherit and develop Marxism-Leninism and also innovate the work of building socialism in both theory and practice.
-May 4, 1886: A meeting of anarchist organizations in Chicago against the repression of striking workers outside of the McCormick plant on May 1 was violently dispersed by police. In the melee, a homemade bomb was thrown at the police, killing one of them and wounding another. This attack was followed by a street battle where dozens were arrested, after which five protesters were condemned to death. The police raided the houses of those detained and found munitions, explosives, firearms, and hidden anarchist propaganda. Those condemned to death were thereafter known as the Chicago Martyrs.
+The Communist Party of Vietnam declared: “Nowadays, capitalism still has potential for development, but in nature, it’s still an unjust, exploitative, and oppressive regime. The basic and inherent contradictions of capitalism, especially the contradictions between the increasing socialization of the production force and the capitalist private ownership regime, will never be solved and will even become increasingly serious. The feature of the current period of our modern society is: countries with different social regimes and different development levels co-exist, co-operate, struggle and compete fiercely for the interests of their own nations. The struggles for peace, independence, democracy, development, and social progress of many countries will still have to cope with hardship and challenges but we will achieve new progress. ''According to the principles of historical development, human beings will almost certainly go forward to socialism.”''<ref>''Delegate Document of the 11<sup>th</sup> National Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam.''</ref>
-The traditional anarchist movement has canonized the Chicago anarchists as if they were “peaceful doves,” even though they were a real threat in their time, veritable <em>atentatores</em>.
+-----
-January 18, 1889: In Spain, a 70 year-old employee was killed when a bomb was placed on the staircase of the building where his boss lived.
+==== Annotation 40 ====
-February 8, 1892: In the so-called, Jerez de la Frontera Rebellion in Spain, more than 500 peasants, agitated by anarchists, attempted to take the city, resulting in the death of two residents and one peasant. The police undertook a campaign of repression against the anarchist movement of the time, arresting and later executing the anarchists who planned and carried out the rebellion. The next day, on February 9, on the eve of the executions, a bomb exploded in the Plaza Real in Barcelona. The bomb was abandoned in one of the flower pots in the garden near the place where the secret police usually gathered. Even though some historians say that the intended target was the police, the blast reached many innocent bystanders, including a junkman who was killed and a servant and her boyfriend whose legs were amputated.
+Historical materialism is the application of dialectical materialist philosophy and materialist dialectical methodology to the analysis of human history, society, and development. The principles of historical materialism, as developed by Marx, Engels, and Lenin, indicate that human society is moving towards socialism and will almost certainly — in time — develop into socialism, and then proceed towards a stateless, classless form of society (communism). These principles of historical materialism were initially formulated and discussed in several books by Marx, Engels, and Lenin, including:
-Anarchist vengeance for the execution of their comrades was fierce. The Italian anarchist, Paolo Schicchi, edited many newspapers exalting the violence, including <em>Pensiero e Dinamite</em>, in which he wrote after the attack:
+''•'' ''The German Ideology'', by Marx and Engels
-**** In order for the social revolution to triumph completely we have to destroy that race of thieves and murderers known as the bourgeoisie. Women, the elderly, children, all should be drowned in blood.
+''•'' ''Socialism: Utopian and Scientific'', by Marx and Engels
-Some anarchists were disturbed by the attack and rejected it vehemently, saying:
+''•'' ''Karl Marx'', by Lenin
-**** We cannot believe that an anarchist detonated the bomb in the Plaza Real... [This was an act] characteristic of savages. We cannot attribute it to anyone but the enemies of the working class. That is what we stated in May. We have repeated it in public meetings and in all places, and we repeat it again here. Detonating bombs is cowardice. One can glory in heroism when one risks one’s life in a face-to-face confrontation for a generous idea. One can explain and even offer praise if one approves of what happened at Jerez. But one cannot diminish the severity of the evil of what one prepares in the shadows that is intended to inflict injury on someone you don’t know. (i.e. indiscriminate attack)
+The Communist Party of Vietnam has also declared:
-March 11, 1892: Ravachol places a bomb in the house of Judge Bulot (an anti-anarchist) in France.
+“In the opinion of the Vietnam Communist Party, using Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh Thought as the foundation for our ideology, the guideline for our actions is an important developmental step in cognition and logical thinking<ref>''Delegate document of the 9<sup>th</sup> national congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam.''</ref>. Achievements that the Vietnamese people have gained in the war to gain our independence, in peace, and in the renovation era, are all rooted in Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh Thought. Therefore, we have to ‘creatively apply and develop Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh Thought in the Party’s activities. We have to regularly summarise reality, complement and develop theory, and soundly solve the problems of our society.’”<ref>''Delegate document of the 10<sup>th</sup> national congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam.''</ref>
-March 27, 1892: Ravachol detonates a bomb in the house of Prosecutor Benot. Even if these attacks did not result in any fatalities, they were still characteristic of an age of blood and dynamite which would strike out at bitter enemies (as well as anyone in the path) of the anarchists.
+-----
-March 30, 1892: Ravachol is arrested in Lherot Restaurant for the attack on the Very Restaurant. The next day, during the trial, anonymous terrorists detonate a bomb in Lherot Restaurant leaving many wounded. It should be mentioned that Rava- chol was considered a “common criminal” by the anarchists of his time, as his attacks were considered to be out of bounds of anarchist morality.
+==== Annotation 41 ====
-November 7, 1893: Santiago Salvador, a Spanish anarchist, threw an Orsini bomb into the audience of an opera at the Liceo Theater in Barcelona, Spain. Blood, corpses, and debris flew
+Ho Chi Minh Thought refers to a system of ideas developed by Ho Chi Minh and other Vietnamese communists which relate to the application of Marxist-Leninist philosophy and methodology to the specific material conditions of Vietnam during the revolutionary period.
-everywhere, resulting in 22 dead and 35 wounded.
+There is no universal road map for applying the principles of Marxism-Leninism. How the philosophy of Marxism-Leninism should be applied will vary widely from one time and place to another. This is why Ho Chi Minh and other Vietnamese communists had to develop Ho Chi Minh Thought: so that scientific socialism could be developed within the unique context of Vietnam’s particular historical development and material conditions.
-December 9, 1893: Ravachol’s execution by guillotine drives many anarchists to adopt “propaganda of the deed” in revenge. The anarchist Auguste Vaillant threw a powerful bomb at the French Chamber of Deputies, wounding 50 people.
+It is the duty of every revolutionary to study Marxism-Leninism as well as specific applied forms of Marxism-Leninism developed by revolutionaries for their own specific times and places, such as: Ho Chi Minh (Vietnam), Mao Zedong (China), Fidel Castro and Che Guevera (Cuba), etc. However, it must be recognized that the ideas, strategies, methodologies, and philosophies developed in such particular circumstances can’t be applied in exactly the same way in other times and places, such as our own contemporary material conditions.
-February 12, 1894: The individualist anarchist Émile Henry threw a bomb into the Café Terminus in Paris as revenge for the execution of Vaillant. One person was killed and 20 bourgeoisie were injured.
+''The Renovation Era'' refers to the period of time in Vietnam from the 1980s until the early 2000s during which the Đổi Mới (renovation) policies were implemented. These policies restructured the Vietnamese economy to end the previous subsidizing model (which was defined by state ownership of the entire economy). The goals of the Renovation Era were to open Vietnam economically and politically and to normalize relations with the rest of the world. The Đổi Mới policies were generally successful and paved the way to ''the'' ''Path to Socialism Era'' which Vietnam exists in today. The goals of the Path to Socialism Era are to develop Vietnam into a modern, developed country with a strong economy and wealthy people, which will allow us to transition towards the lower stage of communism, which Lenin called “socialism.”
-June 7, 1896: An attack took place in the middle of the Corpus Christi procession in Barcelona, Spain. An anonymous terrorist threw an Orsini bomb which was originally directed at the authorities present, but instead landed in a group of bystanders watching the return of the procession in the street. The bomb exploded, leaving 12 dead and 70 wounded. The bombing caused great indignation, leading the anarchists to claim that they weren’t responsible. The authorities blamed them anyway and made 400 arrests. Out of these only five were executed. This event has led to a decades-long controversy, with some arguing that the constant attacks in Spain by anarchists drove the authorities themselves to detonate the bomb so they could blame it on the anarchists, thus halting their activities. Others argue that the bomber was a French anarchist named Girault who fled after the massacre. Regardless, the Corpus Christi attack is either considered a historical lesson or a classic example of indiscriminate attack.
+And, finally: “We have to be consistent with Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh Thought. We have to creatively apply and develop the ideology correspondingly with the reality in Vietnam. We have to firmly aim for national independence and socialism.”
-May 31, 1906: In Madrid, the anarchist Mateo Morral threw a bouquet of flowers toward the carriage of King Alfoso XIII and his wife Victoria Eugenia. Hidden in the bouquet was an Orsini bomb that hit the trolley car cable and was deflected onto the crowd where it exploded leaving 25 dead (15 of them soldiers) and 100 wounded. The king and queen were unhurt in the blast.
+== II. Objects, Purposes, and Requirements for Studying the Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism ==
-June 4, 1914: An anarchist hideout and warehouse for explosives was destroyed in a large explosion on Lexington Avenue in New York City. Four anarchists and one bystander were blown to pieces in the explosion, with 20 bystanders lying wounded in the street. The police blamed the anarchists members of the IWW and of the Anarchist Red Cross for the blast.
+=== 1. Objects and Purposes of Study ===
-July 22, 1916: A powerful explosion occurred during the Preparedness Day Parade in San Francisco, CA. The bomb was hidden in a suitcase, activated by a timer, and filled with dynamite and shrapnel. Ten died and 40 were wounded in this attack. The police suspected the syndicalists or anarchist leaders from the Galleanist group. This latter group was given that name by the press after its leader Luigi Galleani, an Italian individualist anarchist living in the US whose intention was to unleash chaos and terrorism in the country. He was the editor of the fierce <em>Cronica Soversiva</em>. An example of what Galleani wrote in the paper follows:“<em>The storm has come, and soon it will blast you away; it will blow you up and annihilate you in blood and fire... We will dynamite you!</em>”
+The objects of study of this book, ''The Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism,'' are the fundamental viewpoints of Marxism-Leninism in its three component parts.
-He wasn’t joking.
+-----
-The anarchist Gustavo Rodriguez in his 2011 talk in Mexico entitled, “Anarchist Illegalism: Redundancy Matters!” indicates the following, regarding a couple of the attacks carried out by the Galleanists:
+==== Annotation 42 ====
-**** We can tell many anecdotes about this group—we can spend all day talking about them. But there are particular ones that at least merit brief mention here, such as the November 24, 1917 attack on the Police Garrison in Milwaukee, where a powerful time bomb exploded that contained many kilos of blasting powder. The device had been constructed by Mario Buda who was the group’s expert in explosives. He utilized his expertise to help Luigi Galleani come up with an explosives manual that circulated among insurrectionary anarchists and was translated into English by Emma Goldman. And while the plan was found to be ingenious—since these garrisons were well- fortified due to the tremendous amount of anarchist activity at the time—the problem was to get the bomb past the security of the well- protected police station.They did this by placing the bomb first at the base of a church and then passing the information to someone who they suspected of being a police informant. The bomb squad showed up almost immediately and moved the bomb from the church to the police station, thinking that its detonator had failed. Minutes after confirming that the device was now in the garrison, they detonated it, killing nine policemen and one civilian. And with this act, they killed two birds with one stone, since they not only hit their target but also were able to confirm the identity of the snitch.
+Remember that a viewpoint is the starting point of analysis which determines the direction of thinking and the perspective from which problems are considered. Also remember that Marxism-Leninism has three component parts:
-**** Another attack that should be mentioned was carried out by Nestor Dondoglio in Chicago in 1916. Dondoglio was a cook of Italian origin who was known as Jean Crones. When he found out that a large banquet was to be held in honor of the Catholic Archbishop of the city, Mundelein, with a large number of Catholic clergy in attendance, Dondoglio volunteered his services and stated that he would provide exquisite dishes for the occasion. He poisoned around 200 attendees by putting arsenic in their soup. None of the victims died since, in his enthusiasm to kill them all, he added so much poison that his victims vomited it out. The only death by poisoning occurred two days afterward when a Father O’Hara died, who was the parish priest of St. Matthew’s Church in Brooklyn, New York City, and previously the chaplain at the gallows of the Raymond St. Prison. Dondoglio then moved to the East Coast where he was hidden by one of his comrades until he died in 1932.
+'''1. The Philosophy of Marxism:'''
-<center>
+Including Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism
-</center>
+'''2. The Political Economy of Marxism:'''
-Wall Street bombing, 1920
+A system of knowledge and laws that define the production process and commodity exchange in human society.
-February 27, 1919: Four Galleanists died when one of their bombs prematurely went off in a textile factory in Franklin, Massachusetts.
+'''3. Scientific Socialism'''
-April 29, 1919: Galleanist anarchists send 30 package bombs to notable figures in authority throughout the US. One of the packages maimed a servant of Senator Thomas W. Hardwich of Georgia, who lost both hands, as well as the servant’s wife who was severely burned upon opening the package that had been left in front of the house.
+The system of thought pertaining to the establishment of the communist social economy form.
-June 2, 1919: The Galleanist Carlo Valdinoci died trying to place a bomb in the house of the lawyer Mitchell Palmer. Two bystanders also died in the explosion. The lawyer’s house as well as surrounding houses were heavily damaged by the blast. A note was found on the scattered remains of the anarchist and the debris which read: “<em>There will be a bloodbath; we will not retreat; someone will have to die; we will kill because it is necessary; there will be much destruction.</em>”
+These objects of study stand as the viewpoints — the starting points of analysis — of Marxist-Leninist philosophy and the three component parts of which it’s composed.
-June 3, 1919: A night watchman died detonating a bomb abandoned by the Galleanists in a New York courthouse.
+-----
-September 16, 1920: Mario Buda detonated the first car bomb (or rather a carriage bomb) in history. In a carriage parked in front of Wall Street he left a deadly bomb consisting of 45 kilos of dynamite that detonated by timer. The bomb destroyed the carriage, killing the horses, employees, messengers, bystanders, and everyone else in the vicinity of the blast. The bomb also destroyed the offices of Morgan Bank. Thirty eight people died and 400 were injured in the formidable indiscriminate attack.
+In the scope of '''Marxist-Leninist Philosophy''' [the first component part of Marxism-Leninism], these objects of study are:
-March 23, 1921: A group of individualist anarchists threw a bomb inside the Diana Theater in Milan, Italy, with the intention of killing Commissioner Gasti and King Victor Emmanuel. The terrorist bomb left 20 dead and 100 wounded, most of them ordinary citizens.
+* Dialectical Materialism — the fundamental and most universal worldview and methodologies which form the theoretical core of a scientific worldview*. [See Part 1, p. 44]
+* Materialist Dialectics — the science of development, of common relationships, and of the most common rules of motion and development of nature, society and human thought. [See Chapter 2, p. 98]
+* Historical Materialism — the application and development of Materialism and Dialectics in studying social aspects. [Historical materialism is the topic of Part 2 of the textbook from which this entire text has been translated, which we hope to translate in the future.]
-November 29, 1922: The individualist anarchists Renzo Novatore and Sante Pollastro were ambushed by three policeman near Genoa in Italy. In the melee. Novatore was killed by a bullet in the forehead while Pollastro fought ferociously, shooting two policeman, disarming the last one and letting him go free.
+-----
-May 16, 1926: A bomb made out of two hollowed-out cannon balls filled with blasting powder exploded in front of the US Embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The blast left a man-sized hole in the embassy wall that shocked authorities. The blast also destroyed the windows of surrounding houses and businesses. Although no one was injured, this act was one of many carried out by Severino Di Giovanni and his crew. These attacks evolved into ever more deadly terrorist attacks.
+==== Annotation 43 ====
-July 22, 1927: A powerful bomb exploded at night in the Palermo neighborhood of Buenos Aires. The target was a monument to Washington, but, even though it was a powerful explosion, damage to the monument was minimal. At the same time, another bomb exploded in the Ford Agency that destroyed the model car and all of the windows within a four block radius.
+<nowiki>*</nowiki> Remember that ''Scientific'' in Marxism-Leninism refers to a systematic pursuit of knowledge, research, theory, and understanding [see Annotation 1, p. 1]. Note, also, that ''Worldview'' refers to the whole of an individual’s or society’s opinions and conceptions about the world, about humans ourselves, and about life and the position of human beings in the world. This is discussed in more detail on page 44.
-December 24, 1927: A powerful bomb exploded in broad daylight, destroying a branch of the National City Bank in the center of Buenos Aires, Argentina. The bomb was detonated by acids but exploded prematurely, killing two bank employees and leaving 23 others wounded. The same day, another bomb in a suitcase was found in the Bank of Boston; it did not explode but it caused great terror in the populace and authorities.
+Thus, a ''scientific worldview'' is a worldview that is expressed by a systematic pursuit of knowledge of definitions and categories that generally and correctly reflect the relationships of things, phenomena, and processes in the objective material world, including relationships between humans, as well as relationships between humans and the world.
-Osvaldo Bayer in his book, <em>Severino Di Giovanni: Ideologue of Violence</em>, described the bomb in the following passage:
+In the scope of '''Marxist-Leninist Political Economics''' [the second component part of Marxism-Leninism], the objects of study are:
-**** The explosive device was the same as the one at National City Bank (which had been placed in a suitcase). This was an iron device about a meter and a half long with covers at each end sealed in cement. The inside was filled with gelignite, dynamite, and pieces of iron. On top of this was a glass tube divided in two containing in each part different acids (potassium chloride and sulfuric acid). The divider was made of cork or cardboard through which both liquids could seep. When they came into contact, they produced an explosion [more precisely, they produce a flame that ignites a charge that goes directly to the explosive]. While the suitcase was upright, the liquids stayed separated, but when it was laid on its side, the filtration process began and it was then a question of seconds.
+* The theory of value and the theory of surplus value.
+* Economic theory about monopolist capitalism and state monopolist capitalism.
+* General economic rules about capitalist production methods, from the stage of formation, to the stage of development, to the stage of perishing, which will be followed by the birth of a new production method: the communist production method.
-The explosive attacks on those days were against the economic interests of the US in the Argentine capital (the US Embassy, the monument to Washington, the American Ford dealership, and the Yankee banks described above). This was in support of an international campaign for the two jailed anarchists in the US, Sacco and Vanzetti, who were accused of belonging to a group of terroristanarchists and of committing robberies and expropriations.
+-----
-G. Rodriguez in the talk cited above describes the following concerning the relation between the two anarchists condemned to death and the terrorist illegalism of that time:
+==== Annotation 44 ====
-**** The overwhelming actions of the [Galleanist] anarchists would lead to their becoming the most persecuted anarchist group pursued by the federal authorities of the United States. On the other hand, the ‘official’ history, even in its ‘radical’ version in anarchist circles, would condemn their memory to forgetfulness while silencing their actions and ‘disappearing’ their texts and other theoretical engagements. The only exception was that of Sacco and Vanzetti whose story ‘legalist anarchists’ altered in order to canonize them as ‘martyrs’ of the movement. The same was done with the so-called ‘Martyrs of Chicago.’ Once again, we see the same tricks to cover-up the real history. The legal argument of the defense used to try to prove their ‘innocence’ became the ‘official story’ of what actually happened. With the exception of the anarchist historian Paul Avirich, who devoted himself to developing a better picture of anarchist activity of the time and the work of Bonnano on this topic, the rest of the literature published about the Sacco and Vanzetti case firmly denied their participation in the expropriation for which they were condemned. These expropriations were carried out at regular intervals by the [Galleanist] group in which they were active. The funds that they acquired from these expropriations were used to fund the printing of anarchist literature as well as to fund attacks, calls for reprisals, and in order to support imprisoned comrades and the unemployed or in some cases their families.
+Marxist-Leninist political economics is the topic of Part 3 of the textbook from which this entire text has been translated, which we hope to translate in the future.
-After this attack, there emerged the first divisions between anarchists who sympathized with terrorist violence and those who defended “Franciscan violence” [as Di Giovanni called it (after the Catholic religious order founded by St. Francis of Assisi—trans- lator’s note)]. This dispute was closely followed by anarchists of the time, especially by the editors of the anarchist newspaper, <em>La Protesta</em>. Bayer writes the following on this event in his aforementioned book:
+In the scope of '''Scientific Socialism''' [the third component part of Marxism-Leninism], the objects of study are:
-**** La Protesta referred to the classic example of ‘clean’ attacks like the one carried out by Wilckens (a German anarchist who assassinated Colonel Varela on January 17, 1923) and Radowitzky (a Ukrainian anarchist who assassinated Colonel Falcon on November 14, 1909). But those examples proved faulty upon closer examination. Those attacks were ‘clean’ and ‘pure’ because they went off without a hitch. What would have happened if Wilckens’ bomb had gone off on the street car and killed three workers and the agent selling the tickets? Or if the bullets from the gun wounded a woman in the eye who was just walking her kids to school, or worse, went through the back of the head of a girl out buying bread? In the case of Radow- itsky, what if the bomb, instead of falling in Colonel Falcon’s carriage, fell on the sidewalk killing the driver and two old ladies walking to church? And what if Di Giovanni’s bomb had exploded on the desk of Consul Capanni, killing the butcher of Florence and Mussolini’s ambassador, and that’s it? Was the violence the difference?
+* The historical mission of the working class and the progression of a socialist revolution.
+* Matters related to the future formation and development periods of the communist socio-economic form.
+* Guidelines for the working class in implementing our historical mission.
-**** La Protesta established that Wilckens and Radowitzsky had taken their lives in their own hands. Did not Di Giovanni and Ramé do the same in building the bomb, entering the den of fascism, and trying to place it at the target? At any moment, it could have exploded and blown them to bits. There was some truth to that, yes, but not the whole truth. La Protesta’s reasoning was not entirely fair. Violence itself was the problem. Once one chooses that option, it is not possible to know for sure whether the actions will be clean or dirty. There are certainly differences. It is not the same to kill an executioner in his den than it is to indiscriminately throw a bomb in the marketplace or a cafe or in a train station full of people. But was the fascist consulate an innocent place? The victims of fascism didn’t go there. An attack on the consulate was clearer than the ones against banks in which, even if you factored in the hours when they would be empty, there was still more probability that innocent people might get killed, which did occur on occasion. The discussion was thus not whether the attack on the consulate in itself constituted an act of cowardice. On this topic of debate among anarchists, Rodriguez wrote:
+''The purposes'' of studying ''The Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism'' are:'''' to master Marxist-Leninist viewpoints of science, revolution, and humanism*; to thoroughly understand the most important theoretical foundation of Ho Chi Minh Thought, the revolutionary path, and the ideological foundation of the Vietnam Communist Party. Based on that basis, we can build a scientific worldview and methodology and a revolutionary worldview; build our trust in our revolutionary ideals; creatively apply them in our cognitive and practical activities and in practicing and cultivating morality to meet the requirements of Vietnamese people in the cause of building a socialist Vietnam.
-**** There was a polemic between those who, calling themselves anarchists, justified expropriation and the propaganda of the deed and included them in a large list of valid direct actions—the ones who believed that the ends justified the means—and those who, also considering themselves anarchists, condemned these former people as “amoral” and violent. The former which we are discussing here was labeled ‘illegalist anarchism.’ We are trying here to distinguish between these two tendencies’ approaches to direct action and how they conceived of themselves according to their own worldview.
+-----
-May 7, 1928: An infernal explosion shook the Italian Consulate in Buenos Aires. A man left a suitcase that contained a bomb on the stairs of the entrance. The attack left nine dead and 34 wounded. Seven of the dead were fascists, but the majority were bystanders, including four women and a girl. An hour afterward, a suitcase bomb was found abandoned in the pharmacy of fascist Almirante Brown. A child found the suitcase and without intending to deactivated the explosive by emptying one of the acids and generating a small flare. The frightened child screamed and ran out to warn everyone around. They too saw the bomb and ran away as well. The newspaper <em>La</em> <em>Nación</em> told the story in this manner:
+==== Annotation 45 ====
-**** The top of the small tube was firmly sealed and, in opening it, its liquid contents spilled out near the suitcase but not on the suitcase itself. Thus, there was no contact with the contents inside. This was the reason that the bomb failed to go off, which would not have happened if the tube had come into contact with the explosive packet inside the suitcase. Instead, the acid fell on one of the corners of the suitcase, producing a flare. In the suitcase were 50 bars of gelinite, 32 five-inch nails, an iron bolt, two iron screws, and cotton. The bomb’s charge was formidable, of the same potency as the one at the consulate.
+<nowiki>*</nowiki> The humanism of Marxism-Leninism differs greatly from the humanism of Feuerbach discussed in Annotation 12, p. 13. Marxist-Leninist humanism concerns itself with the liberation of all humans. As Marx and Engels wrote in ''The Communist Manifesto:'' “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”
-After these attacks, it was clear that the intention of the terrorist-anarchists (Severino and company) was to attack their target, in this case the consulate and the pharmacy of a fascist, without worrying about wounding innocent people. The attack was condemned by the majority of anarchists of the time, who called it a “work of fascism,” denying that it was even the work of anarchists. With this, a schism emerged in anarchist circles as Di Giovanni would defend to his death the acts in which he was involved. The cowards of <em>La Protesta</em> positioned themselves in this matter:
+=== 2. Some Basic Requirements of the Studying Method ===
-**** Anarchism is not terrorism. How is this the work of a conscious man, of a revolutionary, this act of cowardice that hurt innocent victims, which was not in line with the political motive that they set out to follow? It is moral cowardice that inspires these types of vengeance. It is these actions that lead us to put salt in the wound of the provocative terrorism that has made its appearance in the capital of the republic.
+There are some basic requirements for studying the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism:
-<em>La Protesta</em>’s declarations even appeased the police, who started a manhunt for Di Giovanni and his crew. This is evident in the interview after the attack of Subcommissioner Garibotto (Head of the Social Order) by the socialist newspaper, <em>La</em> <em>Vanguardia</em>, on May 26 of that year:
+First, Marxist-Leninist theses were conceptualized under many different circumstances in order to solve different problems, so the expressions of thought of Marxist-Leninists can vary. Therefore, students studying the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism must correctly understand its spirit and essence and avoid theoretical purism and dogmatism.
-**** This attack was a scary thing, no? When I saw those arms and legs all over the place and those groans of agony, I went weak in the knees. This was so brutal that even the anarchists are indignant. We are very happy with La Protesta’s editorial. Have you seen it? It’s very good. And other anarchists have come to cooperate with us out of indignation for the act. They have promised to tell us everything they know. And it makes sense, since there’s much freedom here and if these things keep happening it can stir up a negative reaction by the government.
+-----
-Severino responded to such infamy from the anarchist newspaper, <em>La Diana of Paris</em>, under a pseudonym:
+==== Annotation 46 ====
-**** It’s odd that the entire ‘revolutionary’ press attributes the attacks to fascism, while the anarchist (?) newspapers disapprove of them, repudiate them, deny and condemn. The docile friars of unionist anarchism denounce the ‘horrible tragedy’ as more characteristic of fascists and not of anarchists. They take their inspiration from from a sheepish Christianity and they gesticulate like Jesus Crucified when in reality they are so many Peters of Galilee (‘Truly I say unto you that before the cock crows thrice, Peter will deny me.’) And they betray thus. I have seen denial and condemnation on the lips of many terrified cowards. They spew sophistries like so many canons and vile Jesuits. Some of those killed in the attack: Virgilio Frangioni, fascist, and Fr. Zaninetti, director of the ‘Italia Gens,’ a den of spies; that’s enough to open up the tear ducts of crocodiles of all sorts. The anarcho-syndicalist newspapers fight among themselves to see who can be the most ignoble and vile. Thus, for example, we find the Committee for Political Prisoners, the anarcho-syndicalist La Protesta and the anarchist La Antorcha (which is always praising dynamite) have shed cowardly and vile tears. And they have even received praise from the police and the whole conservative press for their magnificent work of eunuchs. La Nación, La Razón and La Prensa have branded the current situation saying: ‘The latest attack against the Consulate has also been repudiated by the distinct tendencies of anarchism.’ Of course here they refer to the vile ones.
+Marxism-Leninism should be understood as an applied science, and application of this science will vary based on material conditions. As Engels wrote in a personal letter in 1887, remarking on the socialist movement in the USA: “Our theory is a theory of evolution, not a dogma to be learned by heart and to be repeated mechanically. The less it is drilled into the Americans from outside and the more they test it with their own experience... the deeper will it pass into their flesh and blood.”
-Finally he writes a quote from the terrible Galleani:
+As an example, Lenin tailored his actions and ideas specifically to suit the material conditions of Russia under the Czar and in the early revolutionary period. Russia’s material conditions were somewhat unique during the time of Lenin’s revolutionary activity, since Russia was an agrarian monarchy with a large peasant population and a relatively undeveloped industrial sector. As such, Lenin had to develop strategies, tactics, and ideas which suited those specific material conditions, such as determining that the industrial working class and agricultural peasants should work together. As Lenin explained in ''The Proletariat and the Peasantry'':
-**** It is an act of supreme cowardice to repudiate an act of rebelling for which we have ourselves given the first seed.
+<blockquote>
+Thus the red banner of the class-conscious workers means, first, that we support with all our might, the peasants’ struggle for full freedom and all the land; secondly, it means that we do not stop at this, but go on further. We are waging, besides the struggle for freedom and land, a fight for socialism.
+</blockquote>
-Another text was written by Severino under a different pseudonym making clear his indiscriminate non-humanist attitude:
+Obviously, this statement would not be specifically applicable to a society with highly developed industry and virtually no rural peasants (such as, for instance, the modern-day USA), just as Lenin’s remarks about the Czar would not be specifically applicable to any society that does not have an institution of monarchy.
-**** ... the attack on the den of Avenida Quintana (The Italian Consulate) and against the eternal fathers of fascism who in the land of exile also try to found their death squads. In Argentina alone are dispersed thirty-six fascist sections. Are they innocent? In Milan as well, in the Diana Theater and in Giulio Cesare Plaza, those killed were also innocent. Innocent people who applaud the king and shore up his throne with their passivity. Those who took a day off from work to applaud the fascist aviator De Pinedo who, in the name of Il Duce and the ‘greatest fates of the Italian Throne,’ mixes fascism with the ephemeral glory of his hydroplane.
+As another example, take the works of Ho Chi Minh. Ho Chi Minh Thought is defined by the Communist Party of Vietnam as “a complete system of thought about the fundamental issues of the Vietnam revolution.” In other words, Ho Chi Minh Thought is a specific application of the principles of Marxism-Leninism to the material conditions of Vietnam.
-**** That is the rotten and moth-eaten structure on which anti-fascism, in the name of all the conveniences, launches arrows and strikes against the iconoclast who, without permission and consensus, acts, breaks, and strikes.
+One unique aspect of Vietnam’s revolution which Ho Chi Minh focused on was colonization. As a colonized country, Ho Chi Minh realized that Vietnam had unique challenges and circumstances that would need to be properly addressed through revolutionary struggle. Another unique aspect of Vietnam’s material conditions was the fact that the colonial administration of Vietnam changed hands throughout the revolution: from France, to Japan, back to France, then to the USA. Ho Chi Minh was able to dynamically and creatively apply Marxism-Leninism to these shifting material conditions. For instance, in ''Founding of the Indochinese Communist Party,'' written in 1930, Ho Chi Minh explains some of the unique problems faced by the colonized people of Indochina (modern day Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia) and proposes solutions specific to these unique material conditions:
-**** For anarchism—for us—there is no other way other than that which we have taken with all of our fortunes, with all of the glory, heroism, and audacity. The path of the most unprejudiced [indiscriminate] action crushes with its powerful might the right to kill reserved to fascism. For ten years we have been the only ones who have had the audacity to attack this right of theirs. From today forward, we will expand this audacity one-hundredfold ...
+<blockquote>
+On the one hand, they (the French) use the feudalists and comprador bourgeoisie (of Vietnam) to oppress and exploit our people. On the other, they terrorize, arrest, jail, deport, and kill a great number of Vietnamese revolutionaries. If the French imperialists think that they can suppress the Vietnamese revolution by means of terror, they are grossly mistaken. For one thing, the Vietnamese revolution is not isolated but enjoys the assistance of the world proletariat in general and that of the French working class in particular. Secondly, it is precisely at the very time when the French imperialists are frenziedly carrying out terrorist acts that the Vietnamese Communists, formerly working separately, have united into a single party, the Indochinese Communist Party, to lead the revolutionary struggle of our entire people.
+</blockquote>
-May 26, 1928: Some weeks after the attack on the Italian Consulate, the Di Giovanni group placed a bomb that destroyed the entrance to the house of Colonel Cesar Afeltra in Argentina. The fascist officer was at home and was guarded by police. The police had left to go to a nearby bar when a terrorist took advantage of their absence to leave the bomb. Windows in a three-block radius were blown out from the blast (harming defenseless citizens). According to the press, the power of the bomb was such that it undermined the stability of the building.
+During this period, the nations of Indochina were predominantly agricultural, prompting Ho Chi Minh to suggest in the same text that it would be necessary “to establish a worker-peasant-soldier government” and “to confiscate all the plantations and property belonging to the imperialists and the Vietnamese reactionary bourgeoisie and distribute them to the poor peasants.” Obviously all of these considerations are specific to the material conditions of Indochina under French colonial rule in 1930.
-May 31, 1928: The hiding place of the anarchist-terrorists was discovered by a boy who was chasing his escaped rabbit from her pen next door. The boy opened one of the doors to the small house on Lomas de Mirador and a small explosion scared him. The boy grabbed his rabbit and ran out to tell his relatives. When the police arrived, they were met with another small explosion upon opening the door. This was a storage place for the anarcho-terrorist bombs which had been rigged to explode if the police found it, and only the terrorists knew how to enter without triggering the bombs. By this they hoped to leave no evidence of the bombs and kill the police in the process. The humidity of the place, however, dampened the explosives and caused them to only let forth a small explosion instead of the intended deadly one. This turned out to be the storehouse of Severino and his crew. It should be pointed out that after this occurred, the Italian anarchist individualist Francesco Barbieri, who was the designated bomb-maker for the crew, decided to flee Argentina. He was an innocent-looking man and tremendously audacious in slipping past police. Barbieri was one of the most important anarchist <em>dinamiteros</em> in the country, as he had been in Spain, Geneva, Brazil, Italy, France, and other places.
+By 1939, the situation was changing rapidly. Ho Chi Minh was operating from China, which was being invaded by fascist Japan. He knew that it was only a matter of time before the Japanese imperial army would come to threaten Vietnam and the rest of Indochina. As such, Ho Chi Minh wrote a letter to the Indochinese Communist Party outlining recommendations, strategies, and goals pertaining to the precipitating material conditions. At that time, France had not yet been invaded by Germany, but Ho Chi Minh was very aware of the looming threat of fascism both in Europe and in Asia. He realized that rising up in revolutionary civil war against the French colonial administration would give fascist Japan the opportunity to quickly conquer all of Indochina, which is why he made the following recommendations in a letter to the Communist Party of Indochina in 1939:
-June 10, 1928: A powerful explosion occurred in the house of Michele Brecero, a prominent fascist living in downtown Buenos Aires.
+<blockquote>
+Our party should not strive for demands which are too high, such as total independence, or establishing a house of representatives. If we do that, we will fall into the trap of fascist Japan. For now, we should only ask for democracy, freedom to organize, freedom to hold meetings, freedom of speech, and for the release of political prisoners. We should also fight for our party to be organized and to operate legally.
+</blockquote>
-June 11, 1928: An explosion destroyed the house of Cavaliere R. De Micjelis, Italian Consul in Argentina.
+Once France fell to Germany in 1940, Indochina was immediately handed over to Japanese colonial rule. The Japanese army was brutal in its occupation of Vietnam, and the French colonial administrators surrendered entirely to the Japanese empire and helped the Japanese to administer all of Indochina. Ho Chi Minh returned to Vietnam in January of 1941 and participated directly with the resistance struggle against Japan until 1945, when the situation once again changed dramatically due to the Japanese military’s surrender to allied forces and withdrawal from Vietnam. He immediately took advantage of this situation and held a successful revolution against both the Japanese and French administrators. In the Declaration of Independence for the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh wrote:
-November 10, 1928: A briefcase was found by a curious Bank of Boston employee near the Cathedral in Buenos Aires. The briefcase exploded immediately, killing the employee and leaving a police officer gravely wounded. Many windows of nearby businesses were also blown out. The press all pointed to Di Giovanni as the one responsible for the indiscriminate attack. The Catholic newspaper, <em>El Pueblo</em>, called Di Giovanni, “<em>the evilest man who ever stepped foot on Argentine soil</em>.”
+<blockquote>
+After the Japanese had surrendered to the Allies, our whole people rose to regain our national sovereignty and to found the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. The truth is that we have wrested our independence from the Japanese and not from the French. The French have fled, the Japanese have capitulated, Emperor Bao Dai has abdicated. Our people have broken the chains which for nearly a century have fettered them and have won independence for the homeland.
+</blockquote>
-November 14, 1928: An explosion characteristic of Di Giovanni’s crew occurred in the Palace of Justice of Rosario, Argentina. Other explosions shortly followed at the Bank of the Nation, at the Courthouse, and at the Santa Fe Railroad Bridge. The acts were added to the death of the bank employee from four days past.
+As France began to make their intentions clear that they would be resuming their colonialist claim to Indochina, Ho Chi Minh began preparing the country for a new chapter in revolutionary struggle. In his 1946 letter to the people of Vietnam, entitled ''A Nationwide Call for Resistance'', Ho Chi Minh wrote:
-April 25, 1929: An ex-collaborator of the newspaper <em>Culmine</em>, named Giulio Montagna, was shot to death by anarchist terrorists for revealing the location of Severino Di Giovanni to police.
+<blockquote>
+We call everyone, man and woman, old and young, from every ethnic minority, from every religion, to stand up and fight to save our country. If you have guns, use guns. If you have swords, use swords. If you have nothing, use sticks. Everyone must stand up and fight.
+</blockquote>
-October 22, 1929: The hated Subcommissioner Juan Velar was attacked by two men who snuck up on him and shot him in the face. Velar lost an ear, his teeth were blown out, and he lost a large portion of his nose, but he was not killed. Velar said that Paulino Scarfó and Severino were responsible.
+As these historical developments illustrate, Ho Chi Minh was able to creatively and dynamically apply the principles of Marxism-Leninism to suit the shifting material conditions of Vietnam, just as Lenin had to creatively and dynamically apply these principles to the emerging situation in Russia in the early 20<sup>th</sup> century. So is the task of every student of Marxism-Leninism: to learn to apply these principles creatively and dynamically to the material conditions at hand.
-October 25, 1929: A group of anarchist terrorists shot the Spanish anarchist Emilio López Arango three times in the chest. López Arango was responsible for <em>La Protesta</em> that had defamed the bandit anarchists; Arango had waged a campaign of slander against Severino’s attacks, slamming him as a “fascist agent” and defaming him before the mass anarchist workers’ movement of the time. Thus, he obtained his merited execution.
+-----
-Among the many poisonous paragraphs from <em>La Protesta</em> was this one dated May 25th, 1928:
+Second, the birth and development of Marixst-Leninist theses is a process. In that process, all Marixst-Leninist theses have strong relationships with each other. They complement and support each other. Thus, students studying each Marxist-Leninist thesis need to put it in proper relation and context with other theses found within each different component part of Marxism-Leninism in order to understand the unity in diversity [see: Annotation 107, p. 110], the consistency of every thesis in particular, and the whole of Marxism-Leninism in general.
-<em>We have already exposed the criteria by which we anarchists judge that anonymous irresponsible terrorism: it is odious, as its victims are random and it can never carry with it a heightened spirit and clear revolutionary consciousness.</em>
+Third, an important goal of studying the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism is to understand clearly the most important theoretical basis of Ho Chi Minh Thought, of the Vietnam Communist Party and its revolutionary path. Therefore, we must attach Marxist-Leninist theses to Vietnam’s revolutionary practice and the world’s practice in order to see the creative application of Marxism-Leninism that President Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnam Communist Party implemented in each period of history.
-It is fascinating how those very same words are repeated in the mouths of those modern anarchists who condemn the indiscriminate attacks of the eco-extremists...
+Fourth, we must study the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism to meet the requirements for a new Vietnamese people in a new era. So, the process of studying is also the process of self-educating and practicing to improve ourselves step-by-step in both individual and social life.
-Before López Arango’s execution, he had received many warnings from comrades (which he ignored) such as the one that the Uruguayan anarchist-bandit Miguel Arcángel Rosigna had told him: <em>“Please stop this campaign, since Severino is capable of anything</em>.”
+Fifth, Marxism-Leninism is not a closed and immutable theoretical system. On the contrary, it is a theoretical system that continuously develops based on the development of reality. Therefore, the process of studying Marxism-Leninism is also a process of reflection: summarizing and reviewing your own practical experiences and sharing what you’ve learned from these experiences in order to contribute to the scientific and humanist development of Marxism-Leninism. In addition, when studying the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism, we need to consider these principles in the proper context of the history of the ideological development of humanity. Such context is important because Marxism-Leninism is quintessentially<ref>See Annotation 6, p. 8.</ref> the product of that history.
-After the murder, a group of Arango’s anarchist friends searched for Di Giovanni among the bakery workers without finding him. This was the most radical sector of anarchist workers. The bakers didn’t say anything, and at the same time the police warned Arango’s close friend, the Spanish anarchist Diego Abad de Santillán that, “<em>Very well, under our responsibility go ahead and arm yourself because Di Giovanni’s crew is going to kill you</em>.” February 12, 1930: The anarchist terrorist and member of Di
+These requirements have strong relationships with each other. They imbue the studying process with the quintessence of Marxism-Leninism. And more importantly, they help students apply that quintessence into cognitive and practical activities.
-Giovanni’s crew, Giuseppe Romano (Ramé), who had been arrested and sentenced to eight years in prison, was freed from the hospital to which he had been transported as a sick patient. He was sprung free by five armed bandits.
+==== Part I: The Worldview and Philosophical Methodology of Marxism — Leninism ====
-January 12, 1930: A bomb was detonated at the Italian Consulate in Córdoba, Argentina, leaving one agent wounded and causing much damage.
+''Worldview'' refers to the whole of an individual’s or society’s opinions and conceptions about the world, about humans ourselves, and about life and the position of human beings in that world. Our worldview directs and orientates our life, including our cognitive and practical activities, as well as our self-awareness. Our worldview defines our ideals, our value system, and our lifestyle. So, a proper and scientific worldview serves as a foundation to establish a constructive approach to life. One of the basic criteria to evaluate the growth and maturity of an individual or a whole society is the degree to which worldview has been developed.
-January 20 1931: Three powerful explosions occurred in three subway stations in Buenos Aires. The attacks left four dead and 20 injured, as well as leaving serious material damage.
+''Methodology'' is a system of reasoning: the ideas and rules that guide humans to research, build, select, and apply the most suitable methods in both perception and practice. Methodologies can range from very specific to broadly general, with ''philosophical methodology'' being the most general scope of methodology.
-February 1, 1931: Severino Di Giovanni was executed by firing squad. He killed one policeman and wounded another severely when over a dozen police went out to capture him. In the melee, one small girl was killed.
+-----
-Di Giovanni died looking his killers squarely in the eyes and shouting like a wild animal with his last breath: <em>¡Evviva l’anarchia!</em>
+-----
-One of the witnesses, Roberto Arlt, described Severino’s execution.
+==== Annotation 47 ====
-**** Five fifty-seven. Eager faces behind bars. Five fifty-eight. The lock clinks and the iron door is opened. Men run forward as if they were running to catch the trolley. Shadows making great leaps through illuminated hallways. The sound of rifle butts. More shadows gallop.
+Tran Thien Tu, the vice-dean of the Department of Marxist-Leninist Theoretical Studies at the Le Duan Political Science University in Quang Tri, Vietnam, defines three degrees of scopes of Methodology. They are, from most specific to most general:
-**** We’re all looking for Severino Di Giovanni so that we can see him die.
+'''1. Field Methodology'''
-**** The space of the blue sky. Old cobblestone. A green meadow. A comfortable dining room chair in the middle of the meadow. Troops. Mausers. Lamps whose light punishes darkness. A rectangle. It’s like a ring. A ring of death. An official: ‘according to the dispositions. for the violation of statute. law number.’
+The most specific scope of methodology; a field methodology will apply only to a single specific scientific field.
-**** An official lowers the glazed screen. In front of him is a head. A face that appears covered with red oil. There are eyes that are terrible and fixed, varnished with fever. A black circle of heads. It is Severino Di Giovanni. A prominent jaw. A forehead fleeing toward the temples just like a panther’s. Thin and extraordinarily red lips. Red forehead. Red cheeks. Chest covered by the blue flaps of the shirt. The lips look like polished wounds. They open slowly and the tongue, redder than a pimento, licks the lips, wetting them.
+'''2. General Methodology'''
-**** The body burns up with temperature. It savors death.
+A more general scope of methodology; a general methodology will be shared by various scientific fields.
-**** The official reads: ‘article number. State law of the site. The Supreme Court. seen.. To be passed to a superior tribunal. of war, the regiment, and sub-officials.’
+'''3. Philosophical Methodology'''
-**** Di Giovanni looks at the face of the official. He projects on his face the tremendous force of his gaze and a will that maintains calm.
+The most general scope of methodology, encompassing the whole of the material world and human thought.
-**** ‘Being proven to be necessary to the lieutenant. Rizzo Patrón, vocals. the lieutenants and colonels. give a copy. sheet number.’
+-----
-**** Di Giovanni wets his lips with his tongue. He listens with attention, he seems to analyze the clauses of the contract whose stipulations are the most important. He moves his head in assent, faced with the terms with which the sentence has been formulated.
+''Worldview'' and ''philosophical methodology'' are the fundamental knowledge-systems* of Marxism-Leninism.
-**** ‘The Minister of War to be notified. may he be shot. signed, the secretary.’
+==== Annotation 48 ====
-**** I would like to ask forgiveness from the lieutenant defender.
+<nowiki>*</nowiki> In the original Vietnamese, the word ''lý'' ''luận'' is used, which we roughly translate to the phrase “knowledge-system” throughout this book. Literally, ''lý luận'' is a combination of the words ''lý'' ''lẽ,'' which means “argument,” and ''bàn'' ''luận,'' which means “to infer.”
-**** One voice: No talking.
+The full meaning of ''lý'' ''luận'' is: a system of ideas that reflect reality expressed in a system of knowledge that allows for a complete view of the fundamental laws and relationships of objective reality.
-**** Take him away.
+<br />
-**** The condemned duck walks. His enchained feet with a metal bar on the wrists that tie his hands. He passes the edge of the old cobblestones. Some spectators laugh. From stupidity? From nervousness? Who knows?
+==== The Worldview and Philosophical Methodology of Marxism-Leninism ====
-**** The convict sits resting on the bench. He supports his back and turns out his chest. He looks up. Then he bends over, and looks at his abandoned hands between his open knees. A man cares for the fire while water warms up for their yerba mate.
+Marxist-Leninist worldview and philosophical methodology emerge from the quintessence [see Annotation 6, p. 8] of dialectical materialism, which itself developed from other forms of dialectics, which in turn developed throughout the history of the ideological development of humanity.
-**** He stays that way for four seconds. The subordinate officer crosses his chest with a rope, so that when they shoot him, he won’t fall on the ground. Di Giovanni turns his head to the left and lets himself be tied.
+Materialism is foundational to Marxism-Leninism in two important ways:
-**** The target is ready for the firing squad. The subordinate official wants to blindfold the condemned. The condemned shouts:
+''Dialectical Materialism'' is the ideological core of a scientific worldview.
-**** ‘No blindfold.’
+''Historical Materialism'' is a system of dialectical materialist opinions about the origin of, motivation of, and the most common rules that dominate the movement and development of human society.
-**** He looks firmly at his executioners. He emanates will. If he suffers or not, it’s in secret. He remains that way, still, proud. A difficulty emerges. A fear about ricocheting bullets leads to the regiment, perpendicular to the firing squad, to be ordered a few steps back. Di Giovanni remains erect, being supported by the chair. Above his head is the edge of a gray wall, the soldiers’ legs move. He sticks out his chest. Is it to receive the bullets?
+Dialectics are also foundational to Marxism-Leninism, specifically in the form of ''Materialist Dialectics,'' which Lenin defined as “the doctrine of development in its fullest, deepest and most comprehensive form, the doctrine of the relativity of human knowledge.”<ref>''The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism'', Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1913.</ref> Lenin also defined Materialist Dialectics as “what is now called theory of knowledge or epistemology.”<ref>''Karl Marx'', Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1914.</ref> [Note: Epistemology is the theoretical study of knowledge; for more information see ''Cognitive Theory of Dialectical Materialism'', p. 204.]
-**** -Ready, aim.
+-----
-**** The voice of the condemned bursts metallic, vibrant:
+==== Annotation 49 ====
-**** ‘Long live anarchy!’
+For beginning students of Marxism-Leninism, distinguishing between ''Dialectical Materialism'' and ''Materialist Dialectics'' may at first be confusing. Here is an explanation of each concept and how they relate to one another:
-**** Fire!
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-5.png|''Dialectical Materialism and Materialist Dialectics.'']]
-**** A sudden brilliance. The hard body has turned into a folded sheet of paper. The bullets shoot through the rope. The body falls head first and lands on the green grass with the hands touching the knees.
+''Dialectical Materialism'' is a scientific understanding of matter, consciousness and the relationship between the two. Dialectical Materialism is used to understand the world by studying such relationships.
-**** The burst of the coup de grace.
+''Materialist Dialectics'' is a science studying the general laws of the movement, change, and development of nature, society and human thought.
-**** The bullets wrote the last word on the body of the condemned. The face remains calm. Pale. The eyes half open. The blacksmith hammers at the feet of the corpse. He takes off the handcuffs and the iron bar. A doctor observes. He confirms the death of the condemned. A man wearing a frock and dance shoes retires with his hat on his head.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-6.png|''Relationship between Dialectical Materialism and Materialist Dialectics.'']]
-**** It looks like he just came out of a cabaret. Another says a bad word.
+And so, we use Dialectical Materialism to understand the fundamental nature of reality. This understanding is used as a basis for changing the world, using Materialist Dialectics to guide our activities. We can then reflect on the results of our activities, using Dialectical Materialism, to further develop our understanding of the world.
-**** I see four boys, pale and disfigured like the dead, biting their lips. They are Gauna from La Razón, Álvarez, from Última Hora, Enrique González Tuñón, from Crítica, and Gómez, from El Mundo. I am like a drunk. I think of those who laugh. I think that at the entrance of the Penitentiary there should be a sign saying:
+As Marxist-Leninists, we utilize this continuous cycle between studying and understanding the world through Dialectical Materialism and affecting change in the world through Materialist Dialectics with the goal of bringing about socialism and freeing humanity.
-**** No laughing.
+It is also important to understand the nature of ''dialectical relationships.''
-**** Forbidden to enter with dancing shoes.
+A dialectical relationship is a relationship in which two things mutually impact one another. Dialectical materialism perceives all things in ''motion'' [see ''Mode and Forms of Existence of Matter'', p. 59] and in a constant state of ''change'', and this motion and change originates from relationships in which all things mutually move and change each other through interaction, leading to development over time.
-In summary, it should be mentioned that the events described above are the ones that we consider the most important at the time when they happened. As one can read above, we have not only described indiscriminate attacks of anarchist-terrorists, but also their abilities to commit formidable crimes, such as storing bombs, using firearms, committing murder, raiding, being complicit, falsifying documents, counterfeiting money, agitating, theiving, bombing, jailbreaking, and other important crimes. It is well known by those who know this subject that the majority of the anarchists described above had their political aspirations front and center. These aspirations were inspired by humanism and its foundations, namely “freedom” and “human dignity.” Reading their letters and writings, as well as their communiqués taking responsibility for their “terrible” acts, one can notice a language strongly in favor of “the people”, “the proletariat,” the oppressed,” “the class struggle,” terms that at the time were favored by many anarchists who also advocated the use of violence. This is because the conditions in society compelled them to proclaim themselves thus. Nevertheless, their words were one thing, and their deeds something else. We remember their deeds as irrefutable proof of the fierceness of past anarchists. They were very different from the dominant paradigm of the modern anarchist, who has turned into a caricature by his acceptance of alternative, but still civilized, moral values.
+-----
-The contingent of anarchists partial to extremist violence has been also completely erased and forgotten in the official and notso-official story. There are few who recognize true anarchists such as Severino, Buda, Bonnot, Rosigna, and others who carried out attacks against their targets without concern for bystanders; for whom the ends justified the means.
+Thoroughly understanding the basic content of the worldview and methodology of Marxism-Leninism is the most important requirement in order to properly study the whole theory system of Marxism-Leninism and to creatively apply it into cognitive and practical activities in order to solve the problems that our society must cope with.
-Let everyone come to their own conclusions, I have reached mine...
+-----
-**** I say that the most important thing in your life is yourself.
+=== 3. Excerpt From ''Modifying the Working Style'' By Ho Chi Minh ===
-**** The family, the state, the party, and anarchy itself can all go to Hell.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-7.jpg|''Ho Chi Minh training cadres in 1959.'']]
-**** Mauricio Morales
+Training is a must. There is a proverb: “without a teacher, you can never do well;” and the expression: “learn to eat, learn to speak, learn to pack, learn to unpack.”
-<br>
+Even many simple subjects require study, let alone revolutionary work and resistance work. How can you perform such tasks without any training?
+But training materials must be aimed at the needs of the masses. We must ask: after people receive their training, can they apply their knowledge immediately? Is it possible to practice right away?
-|
+If training is not immediately practical, then years of training would be useless.
- | | | |
+Unfortunately, many of our trainers do not understand this simple logic. That’s why there are cadres who train rural people in the uplands in the field of “economics!”
- | | | |
-<br>
+In short, our way of working, organizing, talking, propagandizing, setting slogans, writing newspapers, etc., must all take this sentence as a model:
-<br>
+“From within the masses, back into the masses.”
-** [[Today]]
+No matter how big or small our tasks are, we must clearly examine and modify them to match the culture, living habits, level of education, struggling experiences, desire, will, and material conditions of the masses. On that basis we will form our ways of working and organizing. Only then can we have the masses on our side.
-<right>
+Otherwise, if you just do as you want, following your own thoughts, your subjectivity, and then force your personal thoughts upon the masses, it is just like “cutting your feet to fit your shoes.” Feet are the masses. Shoes are our ways of organizing and working.
-XXV//X
-</right>
-I am always everything, but not today. Today I wish to be nothing. Today more than ever, I perceive that I am the whole of the nothing, an insignificance in the space-time of the universe. Something that exists now, but if tomorrow comes and overtakes it, its future really wouldn’t matter.
+Shoes are made to fit people’s feet, not the other way around.
-Maybe it has always been that way, though today I perceive this more strongly and with uncomfortable certainty
+= Chapter 1: Dialectical Materialism =
-For the all, “I” doesn’t exist. Outside of myself I don’t exist, I only exist in myself.
+Dialectical Materialism, one of the materialist foundations of Marxism-Leninism, uses the materialist worldview and dialectical methods to study fundamental philosophical issues. Dialectical Materialism is the most advanced form of Materialism, and serves as the ''theoretical core of a scientific worldview.'' Therefore, thoroughly understanding the basic content of Dialectical Materialism is the essential prerequisite to study both the component principles of Marxism-Leninism in particular, and the whole of Marxism-Leninism in general.
-In truth, outside of myself I don’t matter. I hang myself with the rope of my insignificance. Today I let myself fall, because today I can’t make sense of it. Why do I exist?
+== I. Materialism and Dialectical Materialism ==
-Today the life of the “I” doesn’t exist, the center of my everything.
+=== 1. The Opposition of Materialism and Idealism in Solving Basic Philosophical Issues ===
-Today I want to stop existing. The future doesn’t matter to me.
+''Philosophy is a system of the most general human theories and knowledge about our world, about ourselves, and our position in our world.''
-I only wish to lose myself in nothingness, and to close my gaze. Today more than anything I wish for eternal sleep. I desire death as part of this path.
+Philosophy has existed for thousands of years. Philosophy has different objects of study depending on different periods of time. Summarizing the whole history of philosophy, Engels said: “The great basic question of all philosophy, especially of more modern philosophy, is that concerning the relation of thinking and being<ref>''Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy'', Friedrich Engels, 1886.</ref>.”
-I was born in the era of machines. God is an anthropomorphic representation of human superiority, and the destructive ideology of Progress is anthropocentric.
+So, philosophy studies the relations between consciousness and matter, and between humans and nature.
-I am the son of slaves and from them I inherited this dark world. In their time they had already destroyed my future.
+In philosophy, there are two main questions:
-I survive in a cemetery. I find myself surrounded by metal, plastic, and cement. I produce, consume, breath, drink, and eat garbage. My surroundings stink. I notice that I am surrounded by barriers, physical and mental chains that tie me to all of this. I am a slave to all of this and I know that I am serving a long sentence. Today I realize that only my death will free me from all of this.
+'''Question 1: The question of consciousness and matter: which came first; or, to put it another way, which one determines which one?'''
-Outside of my cage there is only a gray desert of concrete. Only a few wild animals cling to life here. There are also domesticated non-human animals who are just as atrophied as their owners. Their “love” for their masters has robbed their life of meaning.
+In attempting to answer this first question, philosophy has separated into two main schools: ''Materialism,'' and ''Idealism.''
-With hatred I look into the eyes of your hypocritical face. I would like to kill these eyes to “free” us from this hell, but I don’t think anyone would thank me for this noble deed.
+'''Question 2: Do humans have the capacity to perceive the world as it truly exists?'''
-This is progress? This is the highest thing to which humanity can aspire? This is the best society? This is what so many centuries of advancing knowledge has come to?
+In answer to this second question, two schools: ''Intelligibility'' — which admits the human cognitive capacity to truly perceive the world — and ''unintelligibility'' — which denies that capacity.
-So much beauty, all of those efforts at survival, so much evolution, all tossed aside to live in mindlessness, one that is dragging us into extinction.
+Materialism is the belief that the nature of the world is matter; that matter comes first; and that matter determines consciousness. People who uphold this belief are called materialists. Throughout human history, many different factions of materialists with various schools of materialist thought have evolved.
-I would like to stop breathing. Is it because one cannot really consider smoke to be air? I would like to starve to death. Is this because one cannot really live on this industrial junk food?
+Idealism is the belief that the nature of the world is consciousness; consciousness precedes matter; consciousness decides matter. People who uphold this belief are called idealists. Like materialism, various factions of idealists with varying schools of idealist thought have also evolved throughout history.
-To the optimists with good intentions, I ask that if they can end all of these essential elements of Techno-Industrial Society, they should do so without hesitation. It wouldn’t surprise me, however, if others would take their place. University laboratories always come up with dependable spare parts which will ensure the march of the great societal machine.
+<br />
-Today sleeping on your chest is not the same. Today only in my end can I find peace. Come, pick up your gun, let’s go together toward nothingness.
+Idealism has cognitive origins and social origins.
-My survival instinct is broken. Today I don’t care if I live to leave my own descendants. Today I don’t have to work to leave a better world for those who come after me. I don’t have little ones to look after. I don’t have anything important to look forward to.
+-----
-Today there is no future. I resist like my warrior ancestors to afterwards be buried in my dreams and find myself with them.
+==== Annotation 50 ====
-Today my thoughts are drowned in pessimism. I lie, it is realism that is drowned in pessimism.
+''Cognitive origin'' refers to origination from the human consciousness of individuals.
-Today there is a storm inside my head, like lightning that illuminates my darkness. Today I can see reality more clearly. I am not the blind among the blind. But today there is nothing that my eyes wish to <em>see...</em> I only want for everything to end when the dusk dies. Today reality has conquered me, and I rejoice in my defeat. There is no escape, I have received the mortal wounds. “Memento mori,” I recite.
+''Social origin'' refers to origination from social relations between human beings.
-Today the blade of truth cuts into each one of my veins. Today I wish to water my garden of dry flowers with blood.
+So, idealism originates from both the conscious activity of individual humans as well as social activity between human beings.
-Today my eyes are flooded by turbulent rain.
+These origins are ''unilateral consideration'' and ''absolutization'' of only one aspect or one characteristic of the whole cognitive process.
-Today I cry for the dead world. Today I wish that I could die with it. Today its agony is killing me. Today these conditions make my will to live impossible. Today I die, tomorrow won’t be different, it’ll be worse. Tomorrow only my attitude may change, if I am able to resurrect this corpse from the coffin.
+-----
-Today I bravely leap from the road and like a coward I fall into the void.
+==== Annotation 51 ====
-Today I die in nothingness and I am revived in the all.
+''Unilateral consideration'' is the consideration of a subject from one side only.
-<br>
+''Absolutization'' occurs when one conceptualizes some belief or supposition as ''always'' true in ''all'' situations ''without'' exception.
-<center>
+Both unilateral consideration and absolutization fail to consider the dynamic, constantly changing, and interconnected relations of all things, phenomena, and ideas in our reality.
-</center>
+Idealism originates from unilateral consideration because idealists ignore the material world and consider reality ''only'' from the perspective of the human mind. It also originates from absolutism because idealists ''absolutize'' human reasoning as the ''only'' source of truth and knowledge about our world ''without exception.''
-<br>
+As Lenin wrote in ''On the Question of Dialectics'': “Philosophical idealism is a unilateral development, an overt development, of one out of many attributes, or one out of many aspects, of consciousness.”
-** [[Surviving Civilization:]] Lessons from the Double Lives of Eco-extremists
+Historically, idealism has typically benefitted the oppressive, exploitative class of society. Idealism and religions usually have a close relation with each other, and support each other to co-exist and co-develop.
-*** [[By way of introduction...]]
+-----
-The eco-extremist war against techno-industrial civilization is undergoing unprecedented expansion. Individualist clans that attack in a discriminate and indiscriminate manner have emerged in Europe and the Americas. This expansion occurs despite the efforts of the forces of order to capture these eco-extremist warriors. The tendency continues to expand without any sign of slowing down, all the while devising new forms of attack and new methods to infiltrate the decadent cities of civilization. The following has been assembled by various eco-extremists who have learned some valuable lessons when infiltrating civilization. The authors feel that these lessons will help others in their efforts to attack targets and get away with it. We don’t want this work to be considered the eco-extremist tactical Bible. Our only intention is to pass on the lessons that we have learned from our experiences. We sincerely hope that the individualists who carry out criminal acts against civilization will get something from them. The call of Nature roars ferociously. The mountains break the horizontal gray of the city. Wild howls resound in our hearts. We have decided to arm ourselves, to learn from Wild Nature, to acquire experience in the building of explosive devices that attack artificial reality. We have learned to hide ourselves and to act so as to not cause any suspicion. If you are like us and you feel the call of Wild Nature with your whole being... if you feel that this civilization is asphyxiating you... Arm yourself! Remember: In the war against civilization, ALL is acceptable.
+==== Annotation 52 ====
-*** [[Without raising suspicions]]
+Idealists, in absolutizing human consciousness, have a tendency to only give credence to the work of the mind and ignore the value of physical labor. This has been used to justify class structures in which religious and intellectual laborers are given authority and privilege over manual laborers.
-Richard Kuklinski was one of the bloodiest and coldest Mafia assassins in the US. He worked in the 1960s in the Brooklyn area. He killed almost 200 people using firearms, knives, poison, or bare hands. He lived a double life in which his family only knew him as an office worker, but the Mafia feared him for his implacable manner of committing the most violent murders. Without doubt, Kuklinski’s is an example of the double criminal life that one
+This situation has also led to the idea that mental factors play a decisive role in the development of human society in particular and the whole world in general. This idealist view was supported by the ruling class and used to justify its own power and privilege in society. The dominant class has historically used such idealist philosophy as the justifying foundation for their political-social beliefs in order to maintain their ruling positions.
-<br>should take into consideration here.
-Eco-extremists act on their own at the chosen time and according to the best method for their circumstances. A set Eco-Extremist Rule Book dictating when and how to attack doesn’t exist, and neither does an eco-extremist rule of life. There are certainly eco-extremists who are nomadic or live in Wild Nature who at times return to civilization and carry out attacks. Others earn a living through bank robberies. Others have infiltrated schools and workplaces and appear to be average citizens. Each individualist determines how to live their lives and when to attack civilization on their own. In this text we share tips to help these individualists with various issues that may arise so that they can continue in their chosen antisocial activities.
+Marx discusses this tendency for rulers to idealistically justify their own rule in ''The German Ideology'':
-<strong>Clothing and appearance</strong>: This is perhaps the most simple, but also the most essential to pass unnoticed. It’s obvious that certain types of clothes draw more attention than others. For example, black is a color that draws the attention of the police and other citizens. Loud colors can also draw unwanted attention. In general we recommend normal-looking clothing in neutral darker colors. For example, denim pants and a shirt will not raise any alarms. We don’t recommend dressing in punk clothing with patches and the like. This will definitely draw the attention of police in particular. We also recommend being flexible and dressing appropriately for the occasion. You may decide to attack a more affluent part of town where there are lots of bars, restaurants, night clubs, etc., i.e. places where people with money hang out, or at least people who want to look like they have money. In that case, we recommend dressing up just like them, as if you were about to go to a party or go clubbing. In that way you’ll blend in with the herd. These clothes are generally more expensive, but you can sometimes buy them more cheaply from street vendors, or you can just steal them. You should always scope out the place and determine the circumstances under which you will attack, and that will enable you to find out the best outfit to wear to go about unnoticed. With respect to clothing, you should always be paranoid when walking about in the urban landscape. It’s well known that the city is covered with cameras (especially transit cameras). We are constantly being watched, and there can be no joking around. We are always being filmed. Thus, you always have to be disguised accordingly. After each wild ecoextremist attack, you should get rid of the clothing that you wore and never leave your hideout in that outfit again.
+<blockquote>
+The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an ‘eternal law.’
+</blockquote>
- | | | |
+Marx goes on to explain how the idealist positions of the ruling class tend to get embedded in historical narratives:
- | | |
- | |
- |
-<br>
+<blockquote>
+Whilst in ordinary life every shopkeeper is very well able to distinguish between what somebody professes to be and what he really is, our historians have not yet won even this trivial insight. They take every epoch at its word and believe that everything it says and imagines about itself is true. This historical method which reigned in Germany, and especially the reason why, must be understood from its connection with the illusion of ideologists in general, e.g. the illusions of the jurist, politicians (of the practical statesmen among them, too), from the dogmatic dreamings and distortions of these fellows; this is explained perfectly easily from their practical position in life, their job, and the division of labour.
-<strong>Facial appearance:</strong> At critical junctures, you should go about disguised. Wearing a mask draws way too much attention to yourself and you can even be arrested just for wearing one on the street. We recommend the use of artistic latex to change one’s facial appearance. There are a number of tutorials online that can help you to do this, and you can even make it look like you are an elderly person. This is by far the best way to disguise yourself. You should also consider wearing a wig since many witnesses identify the culprit by describing the assailant’s color and style of hair. Of course, you want to wear a hairpiece that doesn’t draw attention to yourself and avoid unnatural colors. In places with colder climates, a scarf and a winter hat can cover much of the face without raising much suspicion.
+-----
-<strong>Tattoos:</strong> Tattooing is an ancient practice that has all of our respect. The symbolic, mystic, and pagan motivations for tattooing the skin vary, and they are up to the whims of each individualist. Nevertheless, we would exhort individualists to avoid visible tattoos on the face or hands. These are the sorts of distinguishing characteristics that the police look for, as well as any type of adornment such as rings, ear or nose expanders, or piercings. Once I asked an eco-extremist colleague why he did not have any tattoos, and if he wanted to get any. He responded saying, “<em>I respect and value the ritual of tattooing, but my tattoos are on the inside, done in the ink of unerasable blood, which makes them eternal. When I am wounded, I see them, they even speak to me</em>.”
+In history, there are two main forms of idealism: ''subjective'' and ''objective''.
+</blockquote>
-<strong>Infiltration:</strong> Universities and research centers that foster the progress of techno-industrial civilization are our targets. One method of inflicting maximum damage on these targets is infiltration. Faking smiles, showing interest, and feigning support for projects that aim at advancing technological development are ways to gain the confidence of agents of scientific advancement. Thus, every tactic is on the table, and acting and lying are essential. By infiltration one can gather information concerning the leaders who most promote techno-industrial progress, including names, addresses, family members, their usual commuting routes, meeting rooms, and schedules, etc. Eco-extremists can also pass themselves off as students, enrolling in universities, participating in projects and student organizations, with the ultimate aim of attacking specific targets, especially human ones. There is no such thing as eco-extremist radar that can detect members of this tendency. If one watches their words, as well as lies and feigns different interests during conversations, inventing a life and identity for themselves, it is very difficult (almost impossible) to be associated with the eco-extremist tendency. Let’s remember that surprise is one of the best weapons.
+''Subjective idealism'' asserts that ''consciousness'' is the primary existence. It asserts that all things and phenomena can only be experienced as subjective sensory perceptions while denying the objective existence of material reality altogether.
-In summary, we recommend hypocrisy, lying, and deceit to successfully scope out and attack a target. In some instances some eco-extremists have had long and involved conversations with their targets, even making friends with some clueless geeks who really aren’t that bright and are pretty predictable. They’re also quite naive and not that street smart. So when you approach them in the right way, they won’t even notice that they are letting slip valuable information.
+''Objective idealism'' also asserts the ideal and consciousness as the primary existence, but also posits that the ideal and consciousness are objective, and that they exist independently of nature and humans. This concept is given many names, such as “absolute concept”, “absolute spirit,” “rationality of the world,” etc.
-<strong>Fake ID:</strong> You can hide your identity easier with a fake identification card, facilitating infiltration to get closer to the target. You can get these on the black market where you can also get other sorts of fake documents, from personal ID cards to university degrees. You can use these to enroll in a university or research institute.
+-----
-<strong>Disguising one’s voice:</strong> Another good option to prevent identification is to disguise your voice according to the group that you are trying to infiltrate. Faking an accent is useful in throwing people off about where you are really from. In calling in a phone threat, it’s always important to do it in another voice. This aims at making any investigation of the incident more difficult and slower.
+==== Annotation 53 ====
-Jose Vigoa was one of the cleverest robbers in the history of the United States. He stole millions of dollars from the most exclusive casinos around Las Vegas. With his crew he robbed armoured trucks, stored high caliber weapons, stole his getaway vehicles, broke into the casinos’ safes, killed police and provoked one of the bloodiest manhunts in history. He was difficult to catch since he always used different disguises. He was finally recognized by his probation officer (since he has been previously imprisoned) and arrested, but he still put up a fight even then.
+''Primary existence'' is existence which precedes and determines other existences.
-*** [[Secure communication]]
+Idealists believe that consciousness has primary existence over matter, that the nature of the world is ideal, and that the ideal defines existence.
-<strong>Codes:</strong> Written or spoken codes provide greater security when it comes time for an attack. It is important that a certain logic is followed in the creation and use of a code. It should be memorized and clarified by aligned groups. One example would be something like, “We’re going to the movies at seven.” “The movies” means some other place, say, the university, “seven” means another distinct time, for example, two in the morning. So the phrase would indicate to the accomplices the place and time of the attack.
+Materialists believe the opposite: that matter has primary existence over the ideal, and that matter precedes and determines consciousness.
-<strong>Invisible ink:</strong> This one is basic and easy to execute. All you need is lemon, a toothpick or fine brush, a cup, a sheet of white paper, and a lighter. Squeeze the lemon into the cup, wet the brush or toothpick in the liquid, and write out the secret message on the white sheet of paper. You will of course see nothing, but the recipient will know that they should hold the paper up to the light to read the message.
+Dialectical Materialism holds that matter and consciousness have a dialectical relationship, in which matter has primary existence over the ideal, though consciousness can impact the material world through willful conscious activity.
-<strong>Safer web usage:</strong> We have to laugh at the dumb running commentary from the peanut gallery asking, “<em>If eco-extremists are</em>
+The primary existence of matter within Dialectical Materialism is discussed further in ''The Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness'', p. 88.
-<right>
+Willful activity (''willpower'') is discussed in ''Nature and Structure of Consciousness'', p. 79.
-</right>
+The key difference between ''subjective'' and ''objective'' idealists is this:
-<em>so opposed to technology, why do they use the Internet?</em>” Whatever, we use the Internet as just another tool for our egoist ends. That said, many criminals have been nabbed thanks to information that they left on the Internet. There are browsers that can help you hide your IP address and browse the Web anonymously. One is TOR, which can hide your tracks in the virtual realm (though never totally).
+Subjective idealists believe that there is no external material world whatsoever — that what we imagine as the material world is merely illusory — and that all reality is created by consciousness, whereas objective idealists believe that there ''is'' a material world outside of human consciousness, but it exists independently of human consciousness; therefore (according to objective idealists), since humans can only observe the world through conscious experience, the material world can never be truly known or observed by our consciousness.
-You can never have enough fake email accounts, with fake personal information in each one.
+In opposition to Idealism, Materialism originated through practical experience and the development of science. Through practical experience and systematic development of human knowledge, Materialism has come to serve as a universally applicable theoretical system which benefits progressive social forces and which also orients the activities of those forces in both perception and practice.
-We recommend encrypted emails, especially those found on the .Onion Deep Web found on the Hidden Wiki.
+-----
-It is also recommended to have passwords that are complex and hard to crack. These should be made up of numbers, capital and lowercase letters, punctuation marks, spaces, and underutilized characters.
+==== Annotation 54 ====
-Change your passwords at regular intervals.
+Materialism benefits progressive social forces by showing reality as it is, by dispelling the idealist positions of the ruling class, and by revealing that society and the world can be changed through willful activity.
-Change your email address after a certain time.
+Materialism guides progressive social forces by grounding thought and activity in material reality, enabling strategies and outcomes that line up with the realities of the material world. For instance, we must avoid utopianism [see Annotation 17, p. 18] in which emphasis is placed on working out ideal forms of society through debate, conjecture, and conscious activity alone. Revolution against capitalism must, instead, focus on affecting material relations and processes of development through willful activity.
-If you have a PC, we recommend that you configure it to hide your IP address. Though if you download TOR this might not be helpful as they can conflict with each other and reveal your location.
+As Engels pointed out in ''Socialism: Utopian and Scientific'': “The final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men’s brains, not in men’s better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange.”
-Always use the TOR browser.
+=== 2. Dialectical Materialism — the Most Advanced Form of Materialism ===
-Cover up your PC’s camera.
+In human history, as human society and scientific understanding have developed, materialism has also developed through three forms: ''Primitive Materialism, Metaphysical Materialism,'' and ''Dialectical Materialism.''
-Deactivate the microphone.
+''Primitive Materialism'' is the primitive form of materialism. Primitive materialism recognizes that matter comes first, and holds that the world is composed of certain elements, and that these were the first objects, the origin, of the world, and that these elements are the essence of reality. These Primitive Materialist concepts can be found in many ancient materialist theories in such places as China, India, and Greece. [These Primitive Materialist elemental philosophies are discussed more in ''Matter'', p. 53] Although it has many shortcomings, Primitive Materialism is partially correct at the most fundamental level, because it uses the material of nature itself to explain nature.
-It is important not to use Windows as this operating system has many vulnerabilities. Even if you have strong privacy settings, your PC can be easily infected and the potential attacker can take total control of your computer, copy your files, and observe your movements. We thus recommend Linux as a safer operating system since it has a variety of options to protect yourself from malware, viruses, spyware, etc.
+''Metaphysical Materialism'' is the second basic form of Materialism. This form of materialism was widely discussed and developed in Western Europe in the 17<sup>th</sup> and 18<sup>th</sup> centuries. During this time, the metaphysical method of perceiving the world was applied to materialist philosophy. Although Metaphysical Materialism does not accurately reflect the world in terms of universal relations [see p. 108] and development, it was an important step forward in the fight against idealist and religious worldviews, especially during the transformational period from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance in many Western European countries.
-Don’t download anything that comes from an email address that you don’t know.
+==== Annotation 55 ====
-Don’t open links that are sent to you and look like clickbait. These will almost always contain harmful viruses.
+Metaphysical materialism was strongly influenced by ''mechanical philosophy'', a scientific and philosophical movement popular in the 17<sup>th</sup> century which explored mechanical machines and compared natural phenomena to mechanical devices. Mechanical philosophy led to a belief that all things — including living organisms — were built as (and could theoretically be built by humans as) mechanical devices. Influenced by this philosophy, metaphysical materialists came to see the world as a giant mechanical machine composed of parts, each of which exists in an essentially isolated and static state.
-We live in an era in which Internet traffic is closely monitored. There are massive intelligence agencies that store daily a monstrous amount of data on virtually every Internet user. They can sort through your information, profile you, and if you match certain criteria, they can come after you. This Orwellian epoch requires that you trust no one and that you are aware of the abilities of the enemy on the Web. That’s why we recommend that individualists are thoroughly informed on these topic. If you are watching your back on the street, you should also do so when you use technology.
+Metaphysical materialists believed that all change can exist only as an increase or decrease in quantity, brought about by external causes Metaphysical materialism contributed significantly to the struggle against idealistic and religious worldviews, especially during the historical transition period from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance in Western European countries. Metaphysical materialism also had severe limitations; especially in failing to understand many key aspects of reality, such as the nature of development through change/motion and relationships.
-<strong>Be careful on social networks and similar venues:</strong> There are lots of forums where political debate takes place. The standard social networks (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) are now used by the majority of Web users to express their opinions on any given issue. Eco-extremist actions can often be the cause of a lot of commentary on these networks. Try to avoid expressing an opinion on social networks concerning eco-extremism, politics, or anything that can draw suspicion concerning your affinity to the tendency. It is important not to appear suspicious to your social network friends (if you have any). In fact, you should probably avoid these networks altogether. However, if an eco-extremist leads a double life and sees it as essential to participate in social networks to keep up the ruse, they should adapt accordingly.
+''Dialectical Materialism'' is the third basic form of materialism. It was founded by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, and defended and developed by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin as well as many of his successors. By inheriting the quintessence of previous theories and thoroughly integrating contemporary scientific achievements, Dialectical Materialism immediately solved the shortcomings of the Primitive Materialism of ancient times as well as the Metaphysical Materialism of modern Western Europe. It reaches the highest development level of materialism so far in history.
-*** [[Relations with non-eco-extremists]]
+By accurately reflecting objective reality with universal relations and development*, Dialectical Materialism offers humanity a great tool for scientific cognitive activities and revolutionary practice. The Dialectical Materialist system of thought was built on the basis of scientific explanations about matter, consciousness, and the relationship between the two.
-Family members and acquaintances: There are eco-extremists who continue to have contact with family members or who have friends who are not involved in the tendency. These may not even be aware that eco-extremism exists. Eco-extremist actions go against commonly accepted morality and are totally repugnant to most people. For that reason, it is important to not talk about the eco-extremist tendency or anything related to it with family members under any circumstance. Let them not suspect the possibility that we might be part of this war. Another option is to just lie and speak negatively of eco-extremism. We’re not interested in recruiting people or looking for support for eco-extremism, so whether or not people approve is irrelevant.
+-----
-We should remember that biological family (brothers, cousins, uncles, parents, etc.) is not synonymous with complicity, far from it. If there are indeed cases where biological families can be discreet when finding out what we have been up to, this is the exception and not the rule. In general the biological family will be more given to denunciation, to cooperate even in the capture of a loved one. Examples of this are numerous. We should keep our opinions and plans to ourselves. We should keep in mind that our positions are completely verboten, and even most radicals are horrified by them. Imagine then what average Joe Blow on the street must think.
+==== Annotation 56 ====
-We should also remember that Freedom Club, who wrote <em>Industrial Society and Its Future</em>, which was published in many of the most important newspapers in the US, was turned in by his own brother after reading a phrase in the essay that FC had used with family members.
+<nowiki>*</nowiki> Materialist Dialectical methodology explains the world in terms of relationships and development. This is discussed in ''Basic Principles of Materialist Dialectics'', p. 106.
-<strong>Keeping up appearances as a law-abiding citizen:</strong> You should be seen by your circle of acquaintances as a good person, as the last person on Earth who would ever plant a bomb or kill someone. Appearing to be a trustworthy person to gain the confidence of a target is essential to infiltration. Many times the simple act of going with the flow of a conversation or agreeing with someone is enough to appear friendly. Even if such socializing might make us nauseous, it is necessary to inflict the maximum amount of damage. There are cases of eco-extremists groups that had members deeply infiltrated in organizations promoting techno-industrial progress.
+== II. Dialectical Materialist Opinions About Matter, Consciousness, and the Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness ==
-<strong>Squats, radical concerts, anarchist circles:</strong> We recommend avoiding the following list of places altogether: political concerts, parties, meetings, workshops, anarchist study circles, symposia, gatherings, and radical libraries. These places are crawling with undercover cops or reporters. They’re usually there trying to gather information to open investigations that will result in arrests. Aside from that, the eco-extremist has no reason to hang around these anarchists since their goals and ours are not the same. It is also recommended to stay away from all radical political venues in order to live the most convincing double life, and that means not just staying away from anarchists, but also Marxists and other leftists. The further we are from the places that draw the attention of police and reporters, the better.
+=== 1. Matter ===
-<strong>Morality, the best camouflage:</strong> One essential thing for the eco-extremist hoping to pass unnoticed in society is to develop an even better disguise than the one that hides your physical appearance. We are speaking of one’s apparent thoughts and intentions. We relate to various spheres of people in our daily life, from family to coworkers to fellow students. All of these people could peg us as being immoral or subversive, and thus potentially associate us with eco-extremist actions. For that reason, appearing to have good morals can be our best friend. Appearing to fit in can help us cover up our real identity, that is, that which refuses categorizations of good and evil, our tendency to take the anti-values of this society and embrace them, as is the case with egoism. What do we propose, then? To keep up appearances. After all, in this theater of civilization everyone is putting on an act, and virtually everyone’s actions are fake. Be hypocrites along with the hyper-civilized. Day after day on the same set, the same play is performed, with the same gestures, the same dialogue, and all of that is normal. If that’s how everyone else acts, how convenient it is that eco-extremists also act in our own roles in order to hide what we have prepared behind the curtain.
+==== a. Category of “Matter” ====
-*** [[Always Vigilant, Always Wild]]
+<br />
+''Matter'' is a philosophical subject which has been examined for more than 2,500 years. Since ancient times, there has been a relentless struggle between materialism and idealism around this subject. Idealism asserts that the world’s nature, the first basis of all existence, is consciousness, and that matter is only a product of that consciousness. Conversely, materialism asserts that nature, the entirety of the world, is composed of matter, that this material world exists indefinitely, and that all things and phenomena are composed of matter.
-<strong>Abstinence:</strong> Avoid the use of substances that disable our perception of reality. Let us not look for an ephemeral and false escape in the present. Rather, let eco-extremists be always alert, keeping our savage instincts for attack and survival finely tuned. We are being intoxicated on all sides, why should we look for ways to poison our own bodies? We should avoid getting trapped in that vicious cycle. Alcohol and other drugs also make people talk too much. In this war, we should watch all of our words and actions to avoid raising the smallest suspicion. We’re not interested in an escape route. We are wild animals engaged in an egoist war against civilization. We are also against all drugs that bestow a temporary sense of false happiness.
+Before dialectical materialism was born, materialist philosophers generally believed that matter was composed of some self-contained element or elements; that is to say some underlying substance from which everything in the universe is ultimately derived. In ancient times, the five elements theory of Chinese philosophy held that those self-contained substances were ''metal — wood — water — fire — earth;'' in India, the Samkhya school believed that they were ''Pradhana'' or ''Prakriti''<ref>According to the Samkhya school, Pradhana is the original form of matter in an unmanifested,indifferentiated state; ''Prakriti'' is manifested matter, differentiated in form, which contains potential for motion.</ref>'';'' in Greece, the Milesian school believed they were ''water'' (Thales’s<ref>Thales, ~642 — ~547 B.C. (Greek): Philosopher, mathematician, astronomer, politician.</ref> conception) or ''air'' (Anaximene’s<ref>Anaximene, ~585 — ~525 B.C. (Greek): Philosopher.</ref> conception); Heraclitus<ref>Heraclitus, ~540 — ~480 B.C. (Greek): Philosopher, founder of ancient dialectics.</ref> believed the ultimate element was ''fire;'' Democritus<ref>Democritus, ~460 — ~370 B.C. (Greek): Philosopher, naturalist, a founder of atom theory.</ref> asserted that it was something called an “atom,”'''' etc. Even as recently as the 17<sup>th</sup>-18<sup>th</sup> centuries, conceptions about matter belonging to modern philosophers such as Francis Bacon<ref>Francis Bacon, 1561 — 1626 (British): Philosopher, novelist, mathematician, political activist.</ref>, Renes Descartes<ref>Rene Descartes, 1596 — 1650 (Fench): Philosopher, mathematician, physicist.</ref>, Thomas Hobbes<ref>Thomas Hobbes, 1588 — 1679 (British): Political philosopher, political activist.</ref>, Denis Diderot<ref>Denis Diderot, 1713 — 1784 (French): Philosopher, novelist.</ref>, etc., still hadn’t changed much. They continued following the same philosophical tendency as ancient philosophers by focusing their studies of the material world through elemental phenomena.
-<strong>Physical fitness</strong>: We must be prepared for all situations. To be in shape is essential for confronting any adversity that involves fight or flight. Avoid tobacco and alcohol that diminish one’s physical fitness. It’s easy to stay in shape by merely going out for a run. Jogging, running, or walking in the streets, parks, forests, etc. are all good forms of exercise. Lots of people do them so there’s no way they can raise suspicions among people.
+These conceptions of matter which were developed by philosophers before Marx’s time laid a foundation for a tendency to use nature to explain nature itself, but that tendency still had many shortcomings, such as: oversimplification of matter into fictitious “elements;” failure to understand the nature of consciousness as well as the relationships between matter and consciousness; failure to recognize the significance of matter in human society, leading to a failure to solve social issues based on a materialist basis, etc.
-<strong>Combat discipline:</strong> There’s always the average citizen out there who wants to play the hero. It’s always a possibility that these people will try to interfere in the actions of eco-extremists. Thus, hand-to-hand combat may occur. It’s not a bad idea to master a martial art or method of self-defense. This is especially a good idea to neutralize a Good Samaritan who puts himself in harm’s way to prevent an attack against society at large. It’s not necessary to learn karate or a special martial art. You can train daily at boxing, which can be the difference in being able to incapacitate any idiot who wants to play hero. Learning certain moves in this case like punching under the jaw would help to knock that guy out.
+-----
-<strong>Arm yourself!:</strong> Leaving utopias and all hope behind, we have decided to wage war in the present, risking all, returning to be part of Wild Nature, and maintaining our instincts even when we find ourselves within civilization. We aim to take the tendency to its final conclusions, accepting full responsibility for our actions. We arm ourselves so that we can open fire at any moment. If we can’t get hold of a gun, there are always knives and other weapons. These are always available around the corner, and they can be just as lethal as any bullet. The idea is not to hesitate one second when the time comes. Your life and freedom depend on it. The practice of throwing knives may also be useful and worth practicing.
+==== Annotation 57 ====
-Practice making explosive or incendiary devices. Bullets, blades, and explosives against civilization and its lackeys.
+Here are further explanations of these shortcomings of early materialists:
-*** [[Without conclusion...]]
+'''Oversimplification of matter into fictitious “elements”'''
-We want people to use their imagination and invent better methods of attack. We would love to get more specific concerning concrete strategies in the area of camouflage. While we know that these words will be read by sympathetic disturbed minds, they will also get the attention of “intelligence” operatives so we do not want to tip them off about how we carried out past actions.
+Due to a lack of understanding and knowledge of matter, metaphysical materialists created erroneous conceptions of “elements” which do not accurately describe the nature of matter. By using such an erroneously conceived system of non-existing elements to describe nature, metaphysical materialists were prevented from gaining real insights into the material world which delayed and hindered scientific progress.
-This doesn’t end here, the war continues. The nihilist / ecoextremist mafia marches on, as its international expansion is reaching unimaginable dimensions.
+'''Failure to understand the nature of consciousness as well as the relationships between matter and consciousness'''
-After destroying all that is beautiful in the world, do they think that they will come out unscathed? After destroying mountains and jungles to build their superhighways, invading forests to build their rest stops, poisoning air and water with chemical waste, becoming automatons who rest in cycles, who look for escape or freedom by chaining themselves to a particular vice, after causing the massive extinction of flora and fauna year after year... do they really think that they will get off scot-free? Possessed by the spirits of the ancients and of the coyote, we have decided to attack those who threaten Wild Nature, leaving behind stupid morality. The common citizen isn’t a “fellow worker,” he’s just another lackey of civilization. We attack with the intention of causing the maximum amount of harm possible against selected or indiscriminate targets, without regard for collateral damage. Our words will no doubt bother people, our actions will be condemned before the eyes of thousands... And the informed populace will call us crazy.
+Many early materialists believed that consciousness was simply a mechanical byproduct of material processes, and that mental events (thoughts, consciousness) could not affect the material world, since these events were simply mechanically determined ''by'' the material world.
-<center>
+As a first principle, Dialectical Materialism does hold that consciousness is ''created by'' matter. However, Dialectical Materialism also holds that consciousness can ''influence'' the material world through conscious action. This constitutes a dialectical relationship.
-For Wild Nature
-</center>
-<center>
+As Lenin explains in ''Materialism and Empirio-criticism'': “Consciousness in general ''reflects'' being—that is a general principle of ''all'' materialism... social consciousness ''reflects'' social being.”
-Long life to the eco-extremist and nihilist terrorist groups
-</center>
-<br>
+Whereas early materialists erroneously held that consciousness is simply an “accidental” byproduct of matter, Dialectical Materialism holds that consciousness is a characteristic of the ''nature'' of matter. As Engels wrote in the notation of ''Dialectics of Nature'':
-<center>
+<blockquote>
+That matter evolves out of itself the thinking human brain is for mechanism a pure accident, although necessarily determined, step by step, where it happens. But the truth is that it is the nature of matter to advance to the evolution of thinking beings, hence this always necessarily occurs wherever the conditions for it (not necessarily identical at all places and times) are present.
+</blockquote>
-</center>
+Dialectical materialism also breaks from early materialism by positing that consciousness has a dialectical relationship with matter. Consciousness arises from the material world, but can also influence the material world through conscious action. In other words, mental events can trigger physical actions which affect the material world.
-<center>
+-----
-</center>
+As Marx explains in ''Theses on Feuerbach'':
-<br>
+<blockquote>
+The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of changed circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances and that the educator must himself be educated. Hence this doctrine is bound to divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society. The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-change [Selbstveränderung] can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice... Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.
+</blockquote>
-** [[To the Mountains]]
+Put more simply, we as humans are capable of “revolutionary practice” which can “change the world” because our consciousness allows us to “change circumstances.” This is discussed further in ''Nature and Structure of Consciousness'', p. 79.
-<right>
+<blockquote>
-Lunas de abril
+Failure to recognize the significance of matter in human society, leading to a failure to solve social issues based on a materialist basis
-</right>
+</blockquote>
-I observe you observing me from a distance
+Dialectical materialists believe that matter exists in many forms, and that human society is a special form of existence of matter. Lenin referred to the material existence of human society as ''social being'', which stood in contrast with human society’s ''social consciousness.'' Social being encompasses all of the material existence and processes of human society.
-Trembling in the middle of strange cities,
+As Lenin wrote in ''Materialism and Empirio-criticism'':
-A war drum in my heart becomes louder,
+<blockquote>
+Social being is independent of the social consciousness of men. The fact that you live and conduct your business, beget children, produce products and exchange them, gives rise to an objectively necessary chain of events, a chain of development, which is independent of your social consciousness, and is never grasped by the latter completely. The highest task of humanity is to comprehend this objective logic of economic evolution (the evolution of social life) in its general and fundamental features, so that it may be possible to adapt to it one’s social consciousness and the consciousness of the advanced classes of all capitalist countries in as definite, clear and critical a fashion as possible.
+</blockquote>
-It is not enough for more sadness, I don’t spill my regret.
+Early materialists failed to recognise the relationship between matter and consciousness — as Lenin puts it, specifically, between ''social being'' and ''social consciousness''. Thus in contemplating social issues, these early materialists were unable to find proper materialist solutions.
-With the throat almost on the threshold of weeping,
+-----
-Dead night in which the stars are not seen,
+These shortcomings resulted in a non-thorough materialist viewpoint: when dealing with questions about nature, the early materialists had a strong materialist viewpoint but when dealing with social issues, they “slipped” into an idealist viewpoint.
-Rain that burns, the mountain from a distance offers me its cloak,
+-----
-The bullet that will condemn the lives of those who the Earth condemns.
+==== Annotation 58 ====
-In the mountains the angry coyote dances,
+Lenin explains this concept of “slipping into” idealism through a non-thorough materialist viewpoint in ''Materialism and Empirio-Criticism:'' “Once you deny objective reality, given us in sensation, you have already lost every one of your weapons against fideism, for you have slipped into agnosticism or subjectivism — and that is all fideism wants.”
-Its claws carry the frost of the ancestors,
+''Note: fideism is a form of idealism which holds that truth and knowledge are received through faith or revelation. Subjectivism is the centering of one’s own self in conscious activities and perspective; see Annotation 222, p. 218.''
-They will be stained at the sound of their accursed vengeance.
+In the same work, Lenin upholds that objective reality can be known through sense perception:
-Gunpowder and bullets in the name of dead coyotes!
+<blockquote>
+We ask, is a man given objective reality when he sees something red or feels something hard, etc., or not? [...] If you hold that it is not given, you... inevitably sink to subjectivism... If you hold that it is given, a philosophical concept is needed for this objective reality, and this concept has been worked out long, long ago. This concept is matter. Matter is a philosophical category denoting the objective reality which is given to man by his sensations, and which is copied, photographed and reflected by our sensations, while existing independently of them.
+</blockquote>
-It roared while it descended from the untamed mountain.
+Lenin also explains that proper materialism must recognize objective/absolute truth:
-<br>
+<blockquote>
+To be a materialist is to acknowledge objective truth, which is revealed to us by our sense-organs. To acknowledge objective truth, i.e., truth not dependent upon man and mankind, is, in one way or another, to recognise absolute truth.
+</blockquote>
-<center>
+A failure to recognize the existence of such objective, absolute truth, according to Lenin, constitutes “relativism,” a position that all truth is relative and can never be absolutely, objectively knowable.
-</center>
+<blockquote>
+It is unconditionally true that to every scientific ideology (as distinct, for instance, from religious ideology), there corresponds an objective truth, absolute nature. You will say that this distinction between relative and absolute truth is indefinite. And I shall reply: yes, it is sufficiently ‘indefinite’ to prevent science from becoming a dogma in the bad sense of the term, from becoming something dead, frozen, ossified; but it is at the same time sufficiently ‘definite’ to enable us to dissociate ourselves in the most emphatic and irrevocable manner from fideism and agnosticism, from philosophical idealism and the sophistry of the followers of Hume and Kant. Here is a boundary which you have not noticed, and not having noticed it, you have fallen into the swamp of reactionary philosophy. It is the boundary between dialectical materialism and relativism.
+</blockquote>
-<br>
+In other words, while proper materialism must contain a degree of relativistic thinking sufficient to challenge assumptions and reexamine perceived truth periodically, materialists must not fall into complete relativism (such as that espoused by Hume and Kant) lest they fall into idealist positions. Ultimately, Absolute Truth — according to Lenin — constitutes the alignment of conscious understanding with objective reality (not to be confused with Hegel’s notion of Absolute Truth; see Annotation 232, p. 228).
-** Theodore Kaczynski’s <em>Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How</em>, A Critical Assessment
+Lenin recognized the development of Marx and Engels as “''modern materialism'', which is immeasurably richer in content and in comparably more consistent than all preceding forms of materialism,” in large part because Marx and Engels were able to apply materialism properly to social sciences by taking the “direct materialist road as against idealism.” He goes on to describe would-be materialists who fall to idealist positions due to relativism and other philosophical inadequacies as “a contemptible ''middle party'' in philosophy, who confuse the materialist and idealist trends on every question.”
-<right>
+Lenin warned that a failure to hold a thoroughly materialist viewpoint leads philosophers to become “ensnared in idealism, that is, in a diluted and subtle fideism; they became ensnared from the moment they took ‘sensation’ not as an image of the external world but as a special ‘element.’ It is nobody’s sensation, nobody’s mind, nobody’s spirit, nobody’s will — this is what one inevitably comes to if one does not recognise the materialist theory that the human mind reflects an objectively real external world.”
-S.
-</right>
-**** The main difference between what Kaczynski and his acolytes propose and our own position is rather simple: we don’t wait for a “Great World Crisis” to start attacking the physical and moral structures of the technoindustrial system. We attack now because the future is uncertain.
+In other words, idealist conceptions of sensation inject mysticism into philosophy by conceiving of sensation as otherworldly, supernatural, and detached from material human beings with material experiences in the material world.
-**** Wild Reaction
+The development of natural sciences in the late 19<sup>th</sup> century and early 20<sup>th</sup> centuries (especially the inventions of Roentgen<ref>Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen, 1845–1923 (German): Physicist.</ref>, Becquerel<ref>Henri Becquerel, 1852–1908 (French): Physicist.</ref>, Thomson<ref>Sir Joseph John Thomson, 1856–1940 (British): Physicist, professor at London Royal Institute.</ref> etc.), disproved the theories of “classical elements” such as fire, water, air, etc. [see ''Primitive Materialism'', p. 52]. These innovations led to a viewpoint crisis in the field of physical science. Many idealists used this opportunity to affirm the non-material nature of the world, ascribing the roles of supernatural forces to the birth of the world.
-**** Politically Incorrect: An Interview with Wild Reaction
+-----
-*** [[Introduction]]
+==== Annotation 59 ====
-In September of 2016 Ted Kaczynski released his most ambitious treatment of his oft-alluded-to “revolution against the technological system” in the form of <em>Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How</em> (AR), a text of over 200 pages, dedicated solely to various issues surrounding revolutionary action against the technological system. Readers familiar with Kaczynski’s body of work will know that this notion of a revolution against the technological system has long been an important element of Kaczynski’s thought. The notion first appears in a call for the complete destruction of industrial civilization in the first Freedom Club communiqué to the <em>San Francisco Examiner</em> in 1985 and would continue to be appear throughout Kaczynski’s work. For example, the famous lines here from <em>Industrial Society and its Future</em> (ISAIF) in 1995:
+Lenin discussed this viewpoint crisis extensively in ''Materialism and Empirio-Criticism''. Here Lenin discusses relativist reactions to new breakthroughs in natural science, which led even scientists (who proclaimed to be materialists) to take idealist positions:
-**** We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system. This revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades.
+<blockquote>
+We are faced, says Poincaré [a French scientist], with the “ruins” of the old principles of physics, “a general debacle of principles.” It is true, he remarks, that all the mentioned departures from principles refer to infinitesimal magnitudes; it is possible that we are still ignorant of other infinitesimals counteracting the undermining of the old principles... But at any rate we have reached a “period of doubt.” We have already seen what epistemological deductions the author draws from this “period of doubt:” “it is not nature which imposes on [or dictates to] us the concepts of space and time, but we who impose them on nature;” “whatever is not thought, is pure nothing.” These deductions are idealist deductions. The breakdown of the most fundamental principles shows (such is Poincaré’s trend of thought) that these principles are not copies, photographs of nature, not images of something external in relation to man’s consciousness, but products of his consciousness. Poincaré does not develop these deductions consistently, nor is he essentially interested in the philosophical aspect of the question.
+</blockquote>
-However, despite being such an important element of his thought, a more thorough examination of the issues surrounding such a revolution has been largely absent from his corpus outside of short treatments in ISAIF and scattered essays like “The Coming Revolution” and “Hit Where it Hurts,” to name some of the most pertinent. It seems that this book is Kaczynski’s attempt to expand on a core, yet somewhat underdeveloped, element of his thought. As a brief overview, the book is divided into two parts corresponding to the two points of interest indicated in the subtitle, both why Kaczynski sees a revolution against the technoindustrial system as the only plausible response to the “<em>principal dangers that hang over us</em>,” as well as “<em>grand-strategic</em>” suggestions for how such a revolution might be prepared for and undertaken.
+Lenin concludes by stating that the non-thorough materialist position has lead directly to these idealist positions of relativism:
-It is worth noting that despite being an expanded treatment of issues around revolutionary action against the technological system, much of the content in AR cannot be considered particularly earth-shattering to anyone who is at all familiar with Kaczynski’s larger body of work; there is not much here that is all that new from a theoretical standpoint. Many of the core elements put forward in this text could be assembled from the scattered essays and letters in <em>Technological Slavery</em> by a careful reader with a bit of synthesizing the comments made across the included pieces. At a fundamental level Kaczynski’s theoretical base remains what it always has been, while the bulk of the text is devoted to offering expanded support for that base through more recourse to the historical record and more rigorously delineated arguments. The exception to this is Kaczynski’s foray into a theory of collapse in the second chapter.
+<blockquote>
+The essence of the crisis in modern physics consists in the breakdown of the old laws and basic principles, in the rejection of an objective reality existing outside the mind, that is, in the replacement of materialism by idealism and agnosticism.
+</blockquote>
-Before engaging in a closer examination of the text I will lay my own ideological cards on the table, so to speak. Let it be noted that much of what I take issue with in AR ties primarily into my affinity for the eco-extremists. From the various critiques of Kaczynski that have been put forward by ITS and Wild Reaction, to their stress on the present moment as the only sound locus of action (and the related skepticism with respect to hypothetical futures) and other points, I very much value the eco-extremists for their contributions to anti-civ thought. I would also note that much of the work on these criticisms is available in more detail elsewhere so I will not devote too much space to the nuances of all the points raised by the eco-extremists, except where they are especially pertinent to the content of AR. Having said all this, Kaczynski’s final product is still a single-minded and systematic treatment of an issue that has come to constitute a central element of his thought. As such, AR has an important role in Kaczynski’s corpus as well as for anyone interested in the nuances of Kaczynski’s thoughts on revolutionary action against the technological system, despite what might be my own personal distrust of the kind of revolutionary thinking that characterizes the work.
+With this historical background, in order to fight against the distortions of many idealists and to protect the development of the materialist viewpoint, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin simultaneously summarized all the natural scientific achievements in late 19<sup>th</sup> and early 20<sup>th</sup> century and built upon Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ thought to develop this definition of matter:
-*** [[The Development of a Society Can Never be Subject to Rational Human Control]]
+''“Matter is a philosophical category denoting objective reality which is given to man in his sensations, and which is copied, photographed, and reflected by our sensations, while existing independently of them.”''
-Kaczynski opens the first chapter of the text with an exploration of the thesis that complex societies can never be rationally controlled. This is a doubling down on, and expansion of, the critique of reformist solutions to the problems of the technological system first put forward in ISAIF in the sections titled “Some Principles of History” and “Industrial-Technological Society Cannot be Reformed” (paragraphs 99-113). The primary focus of these two sections in ISAIF is to illustrate that, “People do not consciously and rationally choose the form of their society. Societies develop through processes of social evolution that are not under rational human control.” (“Technological Slavery,” p.68). The main thesis of the first chapter of AR is essentially the same as the thesis offered in the aforementioned sections of ISAIF.
+Lenin’s definition of matter shows that:
-The difference between the two texts is largely the supporting arguments that Kaczynski supplies for the thesis. Whereas the thesis in ISAIF is grounded as a logical deduction from a series of preceding premises, in AR it is largely presupposed, and the bulk of the essay is devoted to historical examples where it is shown to hold in real-world events. Kaczynski pulls from a vast swath of the historical record to illustrate the trend (at this point something of a truism among anyone who finds themselves hailing from almost any anti-civ position) that, plans for the rational control of large scale societies rarely turn out as expected. “<em>In fact, failure is the norm</em>”(AR, p. 7). In addition to this, Kaczynski also offers a series of increasingly implausible counterfactuals against which he looks to test the strength of the thesis. He even continues this in the first appendix, “In Support of Chapter One,” which consists of more of the same counterfactual thought experiments (again, each one more absurd than the last, just in case you weren’t convinced). Unsurprisingly, Kaczynski deals with each counterpoint showing that even granting a plethora of ever more implausible scenarios, the rational control of complex societies remains outside the scope of human and even non-human control (for example, the application of something like Godel’s incompleteness theorem to show the impossibility of any totalizing system for the critique of non-human control of a society’s trajectory). The picture of our complex technological society that we end with is analogous to a ship without anyone at the helm. Except it is worse than that; this is a ship that is so massive and complicated that no person, or collective of persons, on board knows enough about the behemoth to be able to consciously direct it, nor realistically ever could. It is an image of a historically unprecedented juggernaut in the face of which we have been rendered helpless.
+''First,'' we need to distinguish between the definition of “matter” as a philosophical category (the category that summarizes the most basic and common attributes of all material existence, and which was defined with the objective of solving the basic issues of philosophy) from the definition of “matter” that was used in specialized sciences (specific and sense-detectable substance).
-Again, none of this is anything that Kaczynski hasn’t said in some form or another throughout his body of work. Despite this, this most recent text--which is intended to expand on the impossibility of the rational control and to highlight the truth of the concept through a host of historical examples--is admirable. In many ways there is not much to say about this chapter as I do not have any major disagreements with the thesis and largely agree with the conclusions. At the end of the day one would be hard pressed to find too much to complain about, regarding the analysis here.
+''Second,'' the most basic, common attribute of all kinds of matter [and under both definitions listed in the previous paragraph] is ''objective existence,'' meaning matter exists outside of human consciousness, independently of human consciousness, no matter whether humans can perceive it with our senses or not.
-*** [[Why the Technological System will Destroy Itself]]
+''Third,'' matter, with its specific forms, can cause and affect mental events in humans when it directly or indirectly impacts the human senses; human consciousness is the reflection of matter; matter is the thing that is reflected by human consciousness.
-As noted in the introduction, this chapter contains some of the only new theoretical explorations in the present work. The chapter is dedicated to an exposition of the need for the selfannihilation of the technological system. For some theoretical context: with respect to the prospect of collapse of the technological system, Kaczynski’s treatment of the telos of technological society in the past has admitted that its trajectories are not under the control of human beings (see commentary on chapter I), but he has been hesitant to make any strong claims about the necessity of collapse. In this chapter, however, he spends a great deal of time attempting to give a rigorously delineated theoretical basis for structural tendencies and processes at the heart of complex societies, and especially technologically advanced societies, that necessarily lead them to collapse.
+Lenin’s definition of matter played an important role in the development of materialism and scientific consciousness.
-The bulk of the theoretical explorations take place in section II of the chapter. It is there that he lays out in general and abstract terms the formal structure of the theory. In order to flesh out this theory he focuses primarily on what he has termed “selfpropagating systems.” This concept is integral to his explorations here and he describes these “self-prop” systems as any “<em>system that tends to promote its own survival and propagation</em>.”(AR, p.42) Kaczynski gives examples of self-prop systems that range from individual biological organisms to groups of biological organisms, which would naturally include groups of human beings. Complex human societies, such as modern technological society, are then a subset of this category of self-prop systems. Following this rough definition, Kaczynski spends the remainder of section II outlining a set of seven propositions regarding structural characteristics of self-prop systems, and by extension complex societies, which make up the formal content of his theory of collapse. Kaczynski will also draw on these propositions in section III and IV to illustrate how the events we see playing out in modern society, as well as what he sees as the necessary outcome, all follow the structural dynamics outlined in his theory. Essentially, these seven propositions constitute the core of the theory in abstractum and I repeat them here for the reader:
+''First,'' by pointing out that the most basic, common attribute of matter is objective existence, Lenin successfully distinguished the basic difference between the definition of matter as a philosophical category and the definition of matter as a category of specialized sciences. It helped solve the problems of defining matter in the previous forms of materialism; it offered scientific evidence to define what can be considered matter; it layed out a theoretical foundation for building a materialist viewpoint of history, and overcame the shortcomings of idealist conceptions of society.
-. In any environment that is sufficiently rich, self-propagating systems will arise, and natural selection will lead to the evolution of self-propagating systems having increasingly complex, subtle, and sophisticated means of surviving and propagating themselves.
+''Second,'' by asserting that matter was ''“objective reality,” “given to man in his sensations,”'' and “''copied, photographed and reflected by our sensations,”'' Lenin not only confirmed the primary existence of matter and the secondary existence of consciousness [see ''The Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness, p. 88''] but he also affirmed that humans had the ability to be aware of objective reality through the “copying, photographing and reflection of our sensations” [in other words, sense perceptions].
-. In the short term, natural selection favors self-propagating systems that pursue their own short-term advantage with little or no regard for long-term consequences.
+==== b. Mode and Forms of Existence of Matter ====
-. Self-propagating subsystems of a given supersystem tend to become dependent on the supersystem and on specific conditions that prevail within the supersystem.
+According to the dialectical materialist viewpoint, ''motion'' is the mode of existence of matter; ''space'' and ''time'' are the forms of existence of matter.
-. Problems of transportation and communication impose a limit on the size of the geographical region over which a selfprop system can extend its operations.
+-----
-. The most important and the only consistent limit on the size of the geographical regions over which self-propagating human groups extend their operations is the limit imposed by the available means of transportation and communication. In other words, while not all self-propagating human groups tend to extend their operations over a region of maximum size, natural selection tends to produce some self-propagating human groups that operate over regions approaching the maximum size allowed by the available means of transportation and communication.
+==== Annotation 60 ====
-. In modern times, natural selection tends to produce some self-propagating human groups whose operations span the entire globe. Moreover, even if human beings are someday replaced by machines or other entities, natural selection will still tend to produce some self-propagating systems whose operations span the entire globe.
+<blockquote>
+Mode refers to the way or manner in which something occurs or exists. You can think of mode as pertaining to the “how,” as opposed to the “what.” For example, the ''mode'' of circulation refers to ''how'' commodities circulate within society [see Annotation 14, p. 16]; ''mode'' of production refers to ''how'' commodities are produced in society. So, mode of existence of matter refers to ''how'' matter exists in our universe.
-. Whereas today problems of transportation and communication do not constitute effective limitations on the size of the geographical regions over which self-propagating systems operate, natural selection tends to create a world in which power is mostly concentrated in the possession of a relatively small number of global self-propagating system.
+Form comes from the category pair [see ''Basic Pairs of Categories of Materialist Dialectics'', p. 126] of Content and Form [see p. 147]. Form refers to how we perceive objects, phenomena, and ideas. So, form of existence of matter refers to the ways in which we perceive the existence of matter [explained below] in our universe.
+</blockquote>
-Kaczynski attempts to establish arguments for the truth of each proposition offered in section II, or as he states, to show that we have enough evidence to believe that they are at least reasonably accurate. As abstract statements about some tendency of self-prop systems, and later about complex societies (at least in the light of a number of assumptions), not many of the propositions seem egregiously problematic. It doesn’t seem worth either the reader’s sanity or time to indulge an overly myopic focus on the minutiae of each proposition. For the aims of this essay it is sufficient to allow the propositions to stand despite what may be some shortcomings in their respective formulations. He also does his best throughout to show that each subsequent proposition can be logically inferred from the prior, as is characteristic of the way that he generally works. He may have given up his work in advanced mathematics a long time ago but his thought is still very much guided by the formal rigidity of a mathematician. The formulation in section II is not immune from nitpicking, as thoughtful readers may have noticed when looking through the seven propositions listed earlier. Despite his best efforts the connections one sees him attempting to make often seem strained and the section seems to jump from point to point, with ties seeming more like ad hoc attempts to give the theory some sense of logical surety. The presentation lacks the usual systematicity with which Kaczynski often presents his work.
+''- Motion is the Mode of Existence of Matter''
-It seems to me that the problems of this section are part of a larger problem with the chapter in general. That problem does not involve this or that proposition or even questionable connections between them; although as noted they can be criticized. Rather, in my opinion, the problem lies in the overextensions that Kaczynski makes with regard to the conclusions that he looks to derive from this chapter. The suspected connections between propositions and general lack of fluidity with which the theory is laid out seem to flow from a chapter that posits more than is warranted. Kaczynski is upfront about the fact that in this chapter, and specifically with the work in section II, he is arguing “<em>that there is such a process</em>” by which technologically advanced societies inevitably self destruct and that he is going to outline a theory of how this process works. Unfortunately, I just don’t think the chapter lives up to that promise nor does it make a solid case for the impending doom of technological society, as much as Kaczynski would like to protest otherwise.
+As Friedrich Engels explained: ''“Motion, in the most general sense, conceived as the mode of existence, the inherent attribute of matter, comprehends all changes and processes occurring in the universe, from mere change of place right up to thinking.”''
-I noted in the introductory sections of this essay that many of my disagreements with the text stem from my agreements with criticisms and perspectives put forward by the eco-extremists on many of these issues, and this is one such example. I don’t think that the case that Kaczynski is trying to make here can honestly be made without entering into degrees of speculation that render meaningless these kinds of intellectual ventures. Given this, the failure to be able to soundly foretell the future of our or any technologically advanced society in a way that comes across convincingly is not surprising to me. The idea of the inevitable self-destruction of technoindustrial civilization, and especially the idea that one is going to outline a theory describing it--that applies to all technologically advanced societies in all places and at all times--is one that simply can’t be made without serious flights into the realm of revolutionary delusions.
+According to Engels, motion encompasses more than just positional changes. Motion embodies “all the changes and processes happening in this universe;” matter is always associated with motion, and matter can only express its existence through motion.
-What is especially interesting is that the impossibility of this is something that realistically should be implied by some of the explorations of chapter I, i.e. the impossibility of the rational control of complex societies. One of the important reasons (certainly not the only one) that such control is impossible touches on the limits to human knowledge, specifically the kind of knowledge problems that give rise to bodies of mathematics like dynamical systems theory, what is often colloquially called “chaos and complexity theory.” The quantity and kind of variables at play in a system such as our modern technological society means that we are dealing with a system that behaves according to the descriptions outlined by dynamical systems theory (think of something like weather systems and the difficulty of making long term weather predictions). In such systems, long term forecasts become impossible because of the sheer complexity and behavioral tendencies of the system involved. In this case, this impossibility applies to both progressivist/reform- ist assumptions about the planned development of societies but also to the kinds of conclusions that Kaczynski wants to make here in chapter II (and we will see that the logical repercussions of chapter I have consequences for the rest of the book and the armchair revolutionary planning involved later). The complexity of the system that we are dealing with is such that this kind of theorizing about possible futures is simply impossible to engage in without venturing into mere speculation. Thus we ultimately find ourselves at an impasse given the impossibility of saying anything regarding the prospects for collapse. But, as it has been put by some, there is such a thing as “primitivism without catastrophe,” and the eco-extremists have shown how.
+-----
-At the end of the day Kaczynski has simply taken the dynamism, complexity, and power of our modern society and woven himself an interpretation that understands these as the seeds of its own imminent destruction, conveniently fitting into the architectonics of his revolutionary praxis. But his conclusion is by no means a given. It involves a number of theoretical leaps into areas whereof we can’t possibly speak in good intellectual conscience. For all this speculation, it could also be theorized that the very dynamism of modern society that Kaczynski sees as its inevitable undoing could equally be seen as its greatest power of self preservation. This line of thinking characterizes the ecomodernists, for example. The answer to questions like these, if we’re going to be honest with ourselves, is that we simply do not know. Thus we are left with only this: the future is uncertain, and all that we can truly be sure of is the present. Catastrophe may come, and it may not, but if it does, it is possible that it proves to be simply the whetstone of civilization, not the messiah of anti-civ theorists. But even if this is true, the eco-extremists have shown that it is no cause for quietism. Better a steadfast realism and warrior resolve than the millenarian comforts of revolutionary dreams. I end this section with pertinent words from Wild Reaction:
+==== Annotation 61 ====
-**** Personally we don’t know how long the structures that support civilization on its decadent path will last. We can read much concerning various existing theories but still we’ll be left waiting for the appointed prophetic year in which maybe it’ll all end. But either way, all that the learned can propose are theories. The here and now denotes all that is evil... As individualists we have decided to take the rest of our lives into our own hands and not wait for the crisis to happen. Why? Because we are already living it. We don’t want to wait because Nature encourages us to return the blows that it has received right now.
+In Dialectical Materialist philosophy, “motion” is also known as “change” and it refers to the changes which occur as a result of the mutual impacts which occur in or between subjects through the negation of contradictions. Motion is a constant attribute of all things, phenomena, and ideas (see Characteristics of Development, p. 124).
-**** Politically Incorrect:
+Because matter is inseparable from motion (and vice versa), Engels defined motion as the ''mode'' of matter — the way or manner in which matter exists. It is impossible for matter in our universe to exist in completely static and unchanging state, isolated from the rest of existence; thus matter exists in the ''mode'' of motion. Over time, motion leads to ''development'' as things, phenomena, and ideas transition through various stages of quality change [see Annotation 117, p. 119].
-**** An Interview with Wild Reaction
+Matter exists objectively, therefore motion also exists objectively. The motion of matter is self-motion<ref>In the original Vietnamese, the word tự vận động is used here, which we roughly translate to the word ''self-motion'' throughout this book. Literally, tự vận động means: “it moves itself.”</ref>.
-*** [[III. How to Transform a Society: Errors to Avoid]]
+-----
-With the conclusion of chapters I and II Kaczynski switches focus from his explications on why he sees an anti-tech revolution as a necessary response to the technological system to how one might go about such a revolution. The latter considerations are dealt with in this chapter as well as in chapter IV. More specifically, and the chapter title here is a little misleading, chapter III is dedicated to outlining a series of general and abstract rules that Kaczynski sees as integral to the success of any revolutionary movement, anti-tech or not. In outlining these rules Kaczynski begins, as he often does, by presenting a set of postulates from which he looks to derive these rules for revolutionary action. The first section of chapter III presents the four postulates, repeated here for the reader:
+==== Annotation 62 ====
-. You can’t change a society by pursuing goals that are vague or abstract. You need to have a clear and concrete goal. As an experienced activist put it: “<em>Vague, over-generalized objectives are seldom met. The trick is to conceive of some specific development which will inevitably propel your community in the direction you want to go</em>.”
+It is important to note that “matter,” in the philosophical sense as used in dialectical materialist phlosophy, includes all that is “objective” (external) to individual human cosnciousness. This includes objective phenomena which human senses are unable to detect, such as objective social relations, objective economic values, etc. Objectiveness is discussed more in Annotation 108, p. 112; objective social relations are discussed more in Annotation 10, p. 10.
-. Preaching alone-the mere advocacy of ideas-cannot bring about important, long-lasting changes in the behavior of human beings, unless it takes place in a very small minority.
+In ''Dialectics of Nature'', Friedrich Engels discussed the properties of motion and explained that motion can neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore, motion can only change form or transfer from one object to another. In this sense, all objects are dynamically linked together through motion:
-. Any radical movement tends to attract many people who may be sincere, but whose goals are only loosely related to the goals of the movement. The result is that that movement’s original goals may become blurred, if not completely perverted.
+<blockquote>
+The whole of nature accessible to us forms a system, an interconnected totality of bodies, and by bodies we understand here all material existence extending from stars to atoms... In the fact that these bodies are interconnected is already included that they react on one another, and it is precisely this mutual reaction that constitutes motion. It already becomes evident here that matter is unthinkable without motion. And if, in addition, matter confronts us as something given, equally uncreatable as indestructible, it follows that motion also is as uncreatable as indestructible. It became impossible to reject this conclusion as soon as it was recognised that the universe is a system, an interconnection of bodies.
+</blockquote>
-. Every radical movement that acquires great power becomes corrupt, when its original leaders (meaning those who joined the movement while it was still relatively weak) are all dead or politically inactive. In saying that a movement becomes corrupt, we mean that its members, and especially its leaders, primarily seek personal advantages (such as money, security, social status, powerful offices, or a career) rather than dedicating themselves sincerely to the ideals of the movement.
+In other words, every body of matter is in motion relative to other bodies of matter, and thus matter is inseparable from motion. Motion results from the interaction of bodies of matter. Because motion and matter define each other, and because motion can only exist in relation to matter and matter can only exist in relation to motion, the motion of matter can be described as “self-motion,” because the motion is not created externally but exists only within and in relation to matter itself. Engels further explains that if this were not true — if motion were external to matter — then motion itself would have had to have been created external to matter, which is impossible:
-From these postulates Kaczynski then derives a set of five rules:
+<blockquote>
+To say that matter during the whole unlimited time of its existence has only once, and for what is an infinitesimally short period in comparison to its eternity, found itself able to differentiate its motion and thereby to unfold the whole wealth of this motion, and that before and after this remains restricted for eternity to mere change of place — this is equivalent to maintaining that matter is mortal and motion transitory. The indestructibility of motion cannot be merely quantitative, it must also be conceived qualitatively; matter whose purely mechanical change of place includes indeed the possibility under favourable conditions of being transformed into heat, electricity, chemical action, or life, but which is not capable of producing these conditions from out of itself, such matter has forfeited motion; motion which has lost the capacity of being transformed into the various forms appropriate to it may indeed still have dynamis but no longer energeia, and so has become partially destroyed. Both, however, are unthinkable.
+</blockquote>
-. In order to change a society in a specified way, a movement should select a single, clear, simple, and concrete objective, the achievement of which will produce the desired change.
+So, motion can change forms and can transfer from one material body to another, but it can never be created externally from matter, and neither motion nor matter can be created or destroyed in our universe. Thus, matter exists in a state of “self-motion;” motion can never externally be created nor externally applied to matter.
-. If a movement aims to transform a society, then the objective selected by the movement must be of such a nature that, once the objective has been achieved, its consequences will be irreversible. This means that, once society has been transformed through the achievement of the objective, society will remain in its transformed condition without any further effort on the part of the movement or anyone else.
+To put it another way, motion results from the fact that all things, phenomena, and ideas exist as assemblages of relationships [see The Principle of General Relationships, p. 107], and these relationships contain opposing forces. As Lenin explained in his ''Philosophical Notebooks'':
-. Once an objective has been selected, it is necessary to persuade some small minority to commit itself to the achievement of the objective by means more potent than mere preaching or advocacy of ideas. In other words, the minority will have to organize itself for practical action.
+<blockquote>
+The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their ‘self-movement,’ in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the ‘struggle’ of opposites.
+</blockquote>
-. In order to keep itself faithful to its objective, a radical movement should devise means of excluding from its ranks all unsuitable persons who may seek to join it.
-. Once a revolutionary movement has become powerful enough to achieve its objective, it must achieve its objective as soon as possible, and in any case before the original revolutionaries (meaning those who joined the movement while it was still relatively weak) die or become politically inactive. Following the presentation of the postulates and the derivation of the rules, Kaczynski devotes the rest of the chapter to examining the truth or falsity of the rules. To do this, much of the support comes again from the historical record, citing a number of instances he uses to show that the truth of any given postulate or rule can be demonstrated in some historical event. To highlight the importance of adherence to these rules, the author cites a number of instances where failures to do so have led to setbacks or catastrophe for the movements involved. However, the theoretical meat here is ultimately the above list of rules for a revolutionary movement. As stated in the introductory remarks, throughout the text much of Kaczynski’s theoretical base mirrors his older work while expanding the support for that base. This remains true for chapter III and I think readers familiar with Kaczynski’s work will again recognize the themes presented here from older works like ISAIF, “The System’s Neatest Trick,” “The Coming Revolution,” and “Hit Where it Hurts,” all of which have sections dedicated to more strategic concerns for revolutionary action against technological society.
+-----
-I will admit that at first pass this chapter is easy to accept if one allows oneself to be uncritically swept along in the current of Kaczynski’s thought. Many of his postulates seem at least intuitively plausible in light of everyday experience or of a general knowledge of history, and his derivations of the rules from these postulates are coherent and read as natural extensions of the postulates. His recourse to the historical record to shore up his postulates and rules is characteristically thorough, matching the detailed treatment of chapter I. The result is a chapter that could convince many, and indeed many have come away from similar reflections convinced by this line of reasoning. One only needs to seek out the work of Ultimo Reducto (UR) or the Indomitistas for examples of groups and individuals who have followed much of Kaczynski’s thinking to the letter. It is easy to be swept along in the movements of his armchair revolutionary theorizing and lose sight of the fact that much of this remains completely speculative, dreamt up in the realm of pure theory in a prison cell in Colorado. It is, I’m sure, akin to the way that physicists talk about being caught up in the beauty and elegance of mathematical theories, becoming so enthralled with that elegance that they come to believe that these theories must be an expression of truth. But reality has never had any obligation to conform to what we desire, and this is no less true for Kaczynski’s theorizing than it is for those physicists chasing after the wispy traces of string theory.
+Based on the scientific achievements which occurred in his lifetime, Engels classified motion into 5 basic forms: ''mechanical motion'' (changes in positions of objects in space); ''physical motion'' (movements of molecules, electrons, fundamental particles, thermal processes, electricity…); ''chemical motion'' (changes of organic and inorganic substances in combination and separation processes…); ''biological motion'' (changes of living objects, or genetic structure…); ''social motion'' (changes in economy, politics, culture, and social life).
-I am not simply being flippant. There are legitimate criticisms to be made of what is put forward in this chapter (if we decide to entertain this sort of armchair theorizing). To expand on but one aspect, there is a fairly obvious contradiction between the revolutionary planning set forth in this chapter and the kinds of conclusions reached in chapter I that essentially forbid such planning. If you recall, we noted that the logical entailments of chapter I apply not only to progressivist/reformist planners looking to steer society along their desired trajectories, but also to those looking to disrupt it through revolutionary action. This is so because of the impossibility of long term forecasts, the very kinds of forecasts that a revolutionary plan would need to rely on in order to act according to its outline. Certainly, one could attempt to make the rules general enough to be applicable across a wide array of situations, but at that point such an abstract rule has little relation to the concrete particulars of actual events. To be fair, Kaczynski does state throughout chapter III that these rules can’t always “<em>be taken as rigid laws</em>” (AR, p.119) given the difficulty we’ve just discussed of foreseeing the real world situations that such a revolutionary movement would face, but we’ve just stated why that doesn’t really make it any better. This contradiction between chapters is not the only criticism one could make of this chapter. For example, Kaczynski’s attempt to derive ahistorical axioms from what are historically contingent events make his recourse to the historical record to ground his postulates and rules dubious at best, at least from the perspective of a more thorough historicist approach. This same problem occurs in chapter IV.
+These basic forms of motion are arranged into levels of advancement based on the level of complexity of matter that is affected.
-Perhaps some would claim that this take on what Kaczynski has done here is overly defeatist, or pessimistic, etc. Maybe some would say it is hastily dismissive despite our pointing out a number of legitimate concerns. The likes of UR and others have hurled some of these same labels at ITS and Wild Reaction when the latter have expressed a healthy dose of skepticism with regard to this very kind of revolutionary theorizing. These are the same people who only proffer a naïve hope in the face of these criticisms, doubling down on the revolutionary naïveté of Kaczynski rather than lifting the veil off their own hopeful delusions and accepting the world as it is. But at the end of the day it remains true, as Wild Reaction have stated in their response to UR and others on these issues, that much of the basis for such a revolution against the technological system remains “...<em>all in the wind</em>:”
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-8.png]]
-**** So, in conclusion to this point, the strategic basis for the ‘great revolution’ is supposition, ‘perhaps,’ ‘hopefully,’ ‘it may be,’ ‘in best of cases,’ ‘it depends,’ in other words, nothing concrete, all in the wind. This reminds us of what a popular Mexican comedian said in his shows: ‘Maybe yes, maybe no, but most likely is that who knows.’
+The basic forms of motion each affect different forms of matter, but these forms of motion do not exist independently from each other; they actually have strong relationships with each other, in which the more advanced forms of motion develop from lower forms of motion; the more advanced forms of motion also internally include lower forms of motion. [I.e., biological motion contains chemical motion; chemical motion contains physical motion; etc.]
-**** Wild Reaction
+Every object exists with many forms of motion, but any given object is defined by its most advanced form of motion. [I.e., living creatures are defined in terms of biological motion, societies are defined in terms of social motion, etc.]
-**** Some Words about the Present and NOT about the Future
+By classifying the basic forms of motion, Engels laid out the foundation for classification and synthesization of science. The basic forms of motion differ from one another, but they are also unified with each other into one continuous system of motion. Understanding this dialectical relationship between different forms of motion helped to overcome misunderstandings and confusion about motion.
-*** [[IV. Strategic Guidelines for an Anti-Tech Movement]]
+-----
-While chapter III approached the strategic issues surrounding an anti-tech revolution in more abstract terms, attempting to distill the most critical rules for a successful revolutionary movement, the approach of chapter IV takes a broader and marginally more down to earth look at Kaczynski’s revolutionary program. Kaczynski covers a lot of ground in this chapter, treating numerous issues pertaining to the paths that he believes a revolutionary movement ought, and ought not, to take. For those familiar with the history of communist revolutions, much of the program that he offers here is essentially borrowed from the reflections of key figures in the canon of revolutionary Marxist thought. Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, and Castro are major influences, for example. However, much has obviously been recast along the lines of Kaczynski’s particular brand of Neo-Luddism. This reliance on the Russian revolution and later communist revolutions is not surprising or new. The French and Russian revolutions have long been an inspiration for Kaczynski’s thoughts on revolutionary action and the scope of communist revolutions following the ascension of the Bolsheviks in 1917 makes the Russian revolution and its related revolutions an obvious source of interest and inspiration for those with revolutionary predilections.
+==== Annotation 63 ====
-With respect to a critical analysis of this chapter, there are several criticisms one could make that I will offer here. The first and most obvious of these criticisms relates primarily to the kind of revolutionary theorizing that Kaczynski is doing and the degree to which much of this kind of thing takes place in the realm of pure speculation. There are many instances throughout chapter IV which follow the same predilection for revolutionary planning offered in chapter III, sometimes reading as attempts to concretize his formal guidelines. These treatments then obviously mirror those of the previous chapter, and are consequently subject to the same critiques of revolutionary planning offered previously in this essay. It would be redundant to restate those critiques here. On other points, an additional criticism deals with the parallels that Kaczynski often attempts to draw via his constant recourse to various communist revolutions, both at the level of the ideas that he borrows from their respective theorists and his use of these revolutions to justify the feasibility of his particular brand of anti-tech revolution. I am not the first to point out some of these problems. In various communiqués both ITS and Wild Reaction have made detailed criticisms of Kaczynski’s recourse to the French and Russian revolutions (the most detailed are contained in the earliest phase of ITS communiqués and in various publications from Wild Reaction). These have well shown the numerous ways that Kaczynski’s talk of global revolution against the technological system occupies the realm of fantasy. Neither the French nor the Russian revolution, nor any revolution save for the industrial one itself, has extended its reach over the entire globe, as they have noted. The historic wars are simply not analogous comparisons.
+In ''Dialectics of Nature'', Engels clears up a great deal of confusion and addresses many misconceptions about matter, motion, forces, energy, etc. which existed in both science and philosophy at the time by defining and explaining the dialectical nature of matter and motion.
-There is also a related and more methodological critique that I alluded to briefly in the last section; that is, Kaczynski has a consistent tendency to draw on the past without considering the historical context of the events that he looks at. For example, in chapter III he continually uses historical events to show that a number of his postulates and rules can be derived from history while completely ignoring any analysis of the historical context within which those events took place, or differences between a given historical context and our own contemporary context. Our modern technological society is not the Russia of Lenin or Tr<em>otsky, the China of Mao, t</em>he Cuba of Castro, etc. There are vast differences in the social, ideological, and material fabrics of our contemporary situation and those historical eras, which render correlations tenuous in all but the most general ways. As I noted in the last section, he does have moment<em>s of honesty wh</em>ere he admits that recourse to history will not always give lessons that we can easily translate from one historical period to the present. But we also discussed there why this is not exactly helpful. To restate, if the lessons derived are general enough to apply to a sufficiently broad array of situations they are also likely to be next to useless in any concrete situation. The abstractions of a general rule are little help in the face of the complexity of any real world situation.
+When Dialectical Materialism affirmed that motion was the mode of existence — the natural attribute of matter — it also confirmed that motion is absolute and eternal. This does not mean that Dialectical Materialism denies that things can become ''frozen;'' however, according to the dialectical materialist viewpoint, ''freezing is a special form of motion, it is motion in equilibrium'' and ''freezing is relative and temporary.''
-The aforementioned points are certainly very real problems with the theoretical integ<em>rity of Kaczynski’s treatments here in chapter IV, but they are not the main issue that I had with the chapter. What I personally found to be the most obnoxious element of the chapter was Kaczynski’s constant recourse to his s</em>peculative “future crisis” as a keystone element of his revolutionary praxis. The messianic role of catastrophe for his anti-tech revolution becomes increasingly obvious throughout the chapter, to such a degree that it becomes more and more questionable whether Kaczynski’s revolutionary program is able to handle anything like “attack without catastrophe,” to offer a spin on Abe Cabrera’s “Primitivism without Catastrophe.” As Wild Reaction put it in an earlier quote, so far as much of the meaningful reaction against the technological system continues to hinge on some speculative crisis, it is for all intents and purposes, “...all in the wind” My rejections here once again dovetail with the eco-extremist critiques, in this case an especially central one: the eco-extremist rejection of revolution as a valid form of reaction against the technological <em>system, and the encompassing Leviathan of civilization, and domestication itself for that matter. Since the first</em> <em>communiqués of ITS in 2011 they have persisted in a single-minded focus on the present as the only sound locus of attack. In the first</em> <em>communiqué of ITS following the voluntary dissolution of Wild Reaction, they state the following on this point: “We do not wish, nor do we seek, nor do we find it necessary, nor d</em>oes it interest us to work for a ‘revolution.’ We despise that term and deem it a non-existent goal. We attack in the present because that is all that there is.” Throughout the entirety of this essay we have voiced criticisms of Kaczynski’s revolutionary thinking; many of the foregoing analyses remain relevant here. We have covered the impossibility of speaking in good faith about the prospects of catastrophe, we have talked about the errors of revolutionary planning, etc. Suffice it to say that in the light of the foregoing analyses I see no reason to make concessions here either. Kaczynski and Co. can sit and wait for the messiah of collapse before striking back in the name of Wild Nature, but the march of civilization continues to bend all that is natural and wild to its will tnad to destroy that which does not abide. What we are confronted with is a present that demands that we act here and now. In closing, I will allow Wild Reaction to express, in their own words, this attack without catastrophe:
+''Motion in equilibrium'' is motion that has not changed the positions, forms, and/or structures of things.
-**** The wild can wait no longer. Civilization expands indiscriminately at the cost of all that is natural. We won’t stay twiddling our thumbs, looking on passively as modern man rips the Earth apart in search of minerals, burying her under tons of concrete, or piercing through entire hills to construct tunnels. We are at war with civilization and progress, as well as those who improve or support it with their passivity. Whoever!
+Freezing is a ''relative'' phenomenon because freezing only occurs in some forms of motion and in some specific relations, it does not occur in all forms of motion and all kinds of relations. Freezing is a temporary phenomenon because freezing only exists for a limited period of time, it cannot last forever.
-**** Individualists Tending Toward the Wild
+-----
-<br>The Seventh Communiqué of ITS
-*** Conclusion
+==== Annotation 64 ====
-What remains to be said of Kaczynski’s latest work, then? I noted in the introduction that within the context of Kaczynski’s corpus this text occupies an important place as a single-minded and systematic treatment of his thoughts surrounding revolutionary action against the technological syst<em>em. As a</em> purel<em>y academic point concerning the oeuvre of a thinker I stand by this claim. I also briefly note the root of my disagreements from an eco-extremist perspective and have, through the foregoing analyses, attempted to more thoroughly delineate their content. And it is out of this personal perspective that I find much of this text simply unacceptable.</em>
+Equilibrium can exist at any advancement of motion. Lenin discussed ''equilibrium'' as it pertains to the social form of motion in discussing an equilibrium of forces existing in Russia in 1905 in this article, ''An Equilibrium of Forces:''
-<em>It is out of this perspective that I affirm the eco-extremist rejection of revolutionary delusions. I affirm the eco-extremist focus on the present as the only sound locus of attack. I affirm the ecoextremist’s steadfast honesty in the face of the terrible present. I affirm the eco-extremist warrior resolve to fight regardless of the knowledge that one’s war may well be suicidal, and other points from the eco-extremist perspective. These are positions that are simply irreconcilable with those of Kaczyn</em>ski. So be it. Certainly there will be those without the ears to hear. There will be those who denounce these rejections as nihilistic, defeatist, pessimistic, etc. There will be those who trade honesty for the comforts of a revolutionary naiveté. Let this be as well. To them I suppose all that can be said is, “Good luck, I guess.” But for me, and for others with whom this call resonates, what Kaczynski has to offer is simply something that we cannot abide. I end this conclusion and this essay with an expression of the spirit of the eco-extremists from the Editorial of Regresión #4:
+<blockquote>
+) The result to date (Monday, October 30) is an equilibrium of forces, as we already pointed out in Proletary, No. 23.
-**** Reality often presents us with a defeatist and very pessimistic scenario. Nevertheless, accepting this reality is crucial for removing the blindfold and accepting things just as they are, even if this is difficult. This blindfold is of course utopia. Many have criticized Individualists Tending Toward the Wild or Wild Reaction and similar groups for rejecting the idea of a “better tomorrow”. They critique these groups for not expecting a positive result from fighting in this war, or for rejecting hope. But people are always going to hear only what they want, and not Reality. The eco-extremist individualist is a realist and pessimist at the same time. He doesn’t listen to the nagging of the puerile optimist; for him, the world is full of dark realities, and he must confront these with strength, defending himself from them with tooth and claw.”
+) Tsarism is no longer strong enough, the revolution not yet strong enough, to win.
-**** Wild Reaction
+) Hence the tremendous amount of vacillation. The terrific and enormous increase of revolutionary happenings (strikes, meetings, barricades, committees of public safety, complete paralysis of the government, etc.), on the other hand, the absence of resolute repressive measures. The troops are wavering.
-<br>
+) The Tsar’s Court is wavering (The Times and the Daily Telegraph) between dictatorship and a constitution.
-<center>
+The Court is wavering and biding its time. Strictly speaking, these are its correct tactics: the equilibrium of forces compels it to bide its time, for power is in its hands.
-</center>
+The revolution has reached a stage at which it is disadvantageous for the counter-revolution to attack, to assume the offensive.
-<br>
+For us, for the proletariat, for consistent revolutionary democrats, this is not enough. If we do not rise to a higher level, if we do not manage to launch an independent offensive, if we do not smash the forces of Tsarism, do not destroy its actual power, then the revolution will stop half way, then the bourgeoisie will fool the workers.
-** The Singing River: A Final Word to the Reluctant
+) Rumour has it that a constitution has been decided upon. If that is so, then it follows that the Tsar is heeding the lessons of 1848 and other revolutions: he wants to grant a constitution without a constituent assembly, before a constituent assembly, apart from a constituent assembly. What kind of constitution? At best (for ’the Tsar) a Constitutional-Democratic constitution.
-The Pascagoula River in what is now the U.S. state of Mississippi is said to sing. That is, strange sounds are made by the river that many say sound like singing. Some have credited mermaids or other mythical beings with the musicality of the river. However, the most popular legend dates back to the time before the Europeans, when what is now the U.S. Southeast was dotted by many powerful chiefdoms. According to the legend,
+This implies: achievement of the Constitutional-Democrats’ ideal, skipping the revolution; deceiving the people, for all the same there will be no complete and actual freedom of elections.
-**** The Biloxi and Pascagoula tribes lived peacefully for centuries in what is now southern Mississippi, before a split between the tribes resulted in their mutual extinction. Altama, Chief of the Pascagoula, fell in love with Anola, a Biloxi princess who was promised to the Chief of the Biloxi, going against the traditions of the tribes. Altama and Anola wanted to be together regardless of the consequences. In response, the Biloxi made war on the Pascagoula, killing and taking them as slaves for the decision Altama had made. The Pascagoula were outnumbered and feared what the future held for them. They decided to remain loyal to Altama, and as a group they thought it better to die at their own hand than to become slaves. In the afterworld they would be reunited and live in a world without war. Altama, Anola, and the Pascagoula people chose to drown themselves in the river, and while singing their death song, they joined hands and walked into the waters. According to local legend, the disappearance of the Pascagoula people is echoed in the otherworldly sounds coming forth from the river
+Should not the revolution skip this granted constitution?
-The primary instrument of subjugation that civilization uses is fear. Domestication and slavery would not exist without fear, without the firm conviction that there is nothing worse than death, that slavery and servitude are better alternatives than the end of our individual material existence. We should remember, especially those of us descended from some of the people discussed in these pages, that we too are children of that fear. Many people, like the Pascagoula, have no or few descendants now, because they concluded that it was better to fight and/or to die than to live as slaves. We are the children of defeat, the stillborns of freedom. But it’s too late for that sort of talk now_
+-----
-Civilization may last another ten years, or another ten thousand years. We may be hostile to it in the present, but resigned to it a couple of decades from now. We may be forced to feed our very children lies and swallow our pride to get through another day. At the very least, we shouldn’t swallow our pride totally, nor should we swallow the falsehoods of universal brotherhood or human progress. At every moment in this putrid society, we should realize that we are being sold a bill of goods, and foster hatred and resentment accordingly...
+''- Space and Time are Forms of Existence of Matter''
+</blockquote>
-We the editors are not capable of or willing to offer you suggestions on what you should do with it, only that this resentment is what keeps you human, animal, and alive. Even if no catastrophe will end civilization, the catastrophe of our own domestication is enough to cause us to reflect on how much we have lost and what can be done about it. There are no easy solutions, and there probably never were. We should cling to that intimate part of ourselves that civilization can never touch, the part that inspires fear in the hyper-civilized and that manifests itself in the shadows: an invisible menace constantly stalking.
+Every form of matter exists in a specific position, with specific space particularity (height, width, length, etc.), in specific relation (in front or behind, above or under, to the left or right, etc.) with other forms of matter. These positional relations exist in what we call ''space.'' [Space is defined by positional relations of matter.]
-And for those who do a little more than that, we can conclude by offering this eco-extremist pagan prayer:
+On the other hand, the existence of matter is also expressed in the speed of change and the order in which changes occur. These changes occur in what we call ''time.'' As Engels wrote: “For the basic forms of all existence are space and time, and a being outside of time is as absurd as an existence outside space.” Matter, space, and time are not separable; there is no matter that exists outside of space and time; there is also no space and time that exist outside of matter’s motion.
-**** May the moon keep guiding them. May the rain refresh them. May the sun warm their bodies. May they be comforted by the sound of the crickets. May the Earth stain their feet.
+-----
-**** May the mountains give them shelter. May the dark night hide them. May their trail be erased by the wind. Forever!
+==== Annotation 65 ====
-**** Chicomoztoc,
+Space and time, as the forms of matter, i.e.: the ways in which we perceive the existence of matter. We are only able to perceive and understand material objects as they exist within space and time.
-**** December 2016
+Space and time, as forms of existence of matter, exist objectively [see Annotation 108,
-* 222222
+p. 112], and are defined by matter. [Space is defined by the positional relations between material objects; time is defined by the speed of change of material objects and the order in which these changes occur.] Space has three dimensions: height, width, length; time has one direction: from the past to the future.
-* x
+==== c. The Material Unity of the World ====
-** [Front Matter]
+Dialectical Materialism affirms that the nature of the world is matter, and the world is unified in its material properties. [In other words: the entire universe, in all its diversity, is made of matter, and the properties of matter are the same throughout the known universe.]
-*** [Title Page]
+The material nature of the world is proven on the following basis:
-Atassa: Readings in
+''First,'' there is only one world: the material world; the material world is the first existence [i.e., it existed before consciousness], it exists objectively, and independently, of human consciousness.
-Ecoextremism #2
+''Second,'' the material world exists eternally, endlessly, infinitely; it has no known beginning point and there is no evidence that it will ever disappear.
-<em>
+''Third,'' all known objects and phenomena of the material world have objective relations with each other and all objects and phenomena exist in unity with each other. All of them are specific forms and structures of matter, or have material origin which was born from matter, and all are governed by the objective rules of the material world. In the material world, there is nothing that exists outside of the changing and transforming processes of matter; all of these processes exist as causes and effects of each other.
-<br></em>
-*** [First Page]
-on the cover: “The importance of boundaries and the circle and cross motif cropped up frequently in the decoration of ceremonial gorgets worn by Mississippian chiefs or priests in sacred ceremonies. Figure 3 depicts such a gorget, and it shows that the space beyond the orderly sacred circle was filled with horrible anomalous creatures who embodied the chaos and power of the outside world. By mixing the Underworld (a serpent’s body), the Upper World (an eagle’s wings), and This World (a panther’s head), the creatures violated the separation of the planes that was necessary if balance was to be maintained. Moreover, the representation of male and female genitalia in the circular and elliptical designs that covered their serpentine bodies suggests the equally terrible consequences of mixing genders. Such monsters offered people a terrifying reminder of the need to follow prescribed social conventions to save their world and themselves.
+-----
-From the sleepy rivers and fetid swamps that represented the pathways between This World and the Underworld to the dark arboreal embrace of the forests beyond the pale of human habitation, the outside world that surrounded the Choctaws was home to many terrible creatures. Those who ventured beyond the circle’s safe confines could expect to encounter monsters like the Nalusa Falaya, the Long Evil Being. Its beady eyes, set in a small shriveled head, peered over a protruding nose and searched the night for hunters. When it spotted prey the monster crept up behind the hunting parties and called to them. Those who turned to look fainted from fright at the sight of its face, and Nalusa Falaya pricked them with a magic thorn to transform them into evil beings. Less dangerous was the Kashehotopalo, which juxtaposed gender and species in a truly hideous form. Perched on the legs of a deer, a man’s trunk extended from the waist and was topped by an evil-looking head. From its wrinkled mouth came a woman’s cry that terrified all who heard it. Other creatures infested the thickets and waters around the Choctaw circle, creatures that with one glance could force travelers to lose their way or draw them into pools and streams for a bewitched life in the Underworld.”
+==== Annotation 66 ====
-<right>
+The most important thing to understand here is that every object and phenomenon in the universe arises as matter, all material objects and phenomena are dynamically linked to one another in an infinite chain of causes and effects and changes and transformations, all governed by the material laws of our reality. This understanding is the material foundation of dialectical materialism.
--James Taylor Carson,
-</right>
-<right>
+=== 2. Consciousness ===
-Searching for the Bright Path:
-</right>
-Mississippi Choctaws from Prehistory to Removal, pages 23-24
+==== a. The Source of Consciousness ====
- |
+According to the materialist viewpoint, consciousness has natural and social sources.
- | |
-<br>
+-----
-<br>
+==== Annotation 67 ====
-<br>
+Consciousness arises from ''nature'', and from ''social'' activities and relations.
-paintings: sh
+''Natural'' refers to the material world. Without the material world of matter, material processes, and the evolution of material systems — up to and including the human brain — consciousness would never have formed.
-*** [Contents]
+''Social'' activities and relations also contributed to the development of consciousness. The social processes of labor and language were also prerequisites for the development of conscious activity in human beings.
-<em>
+''- Natural Source of Consciousness''
-<br></em>
-Introduction: Caveat Lector
+There are many factors that form the natural sources for consciousness, but the two most basic factors are ''human brains'' and ''the relationship between humans and'' ''the objective world which makes possible creative and dynamic reflection.''
-Hostis Humani Generis: eco-extremism, demonology, and the birth of criminality Adrien Rouquette
+''About human brains:'' consciousness is an attribute of a highly organized form of matter, which is the brain. Consciousness is the function and the result of the neurophysiological activities of human brains. As human brains evolved and developed over time, their neurophysiological activities became richer, and, as these activities progressed, consciousness developed further and further over time. This explains why the human evolution process is also a process of developing the capacity for perception and thinking. Whenever human neurophysiological activities don’t function normally because of damaged brains, our mental life is also disturbed.
-Some Reflections on Modern Human Action from the Eco-Extremist Perspective Ozomatli & Huehuecoyotl
+''About the relationship between humans'' and ''the objective world which made possible creative and dynamic reflection:'' The relationship between humans and the objective world has been essential for as long as humans have existed. In this relationship, the objective world is reflected through human senses which interact with human brains and then form our consciousness.
-A New Revolutionary Phraseology Jeremías Torres
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-9.png|''Consciousness exists as a dynamic set of relationships between the external material world, human sense perception, and the functions of the human brain.'']]
-Breaking Down the Bars of the Anarchist Cages:
+''Reflection'' is the re-creation of the features of one form of matter in a different form of matter which occurs when they mutually impact each other through interaction. Reflection is a characteristic of all forms of matter.
-brief reflections of an ex-anarchist Ex-anarchist
+There are many forms and levels of reflection such as [from more simple to more complex]: physical and chemical reflection, biological reflection, mental reflection, creative and dynamic reflection, etc.
-Poem Krren oscuro
+-----
-The PsychoPathogen: the serial killer as an
+==== Annotation 68 ====
-antibody response to modernity Ezra Buckley
+Change is driven by mutual impacts between or within things, phenomena, and/or ideas. Any time two such subjects impact one another, ''traces'' of some form or another are left on both interacting subjects. This characteristic of change is called ''reflection''.
-Tangled Hostility kohelet
+The concept of reflection, first proposed by Marx, Engels, and Lenin, has been advanced through the work of various Soviet psychologists, philosophers, and scientists (including Ivan Pavlov, Todor Pavlov, Aleksei Leontiev, Lev Vygotsky, Valentin Voloshinov, and others), and is used as a basis for scientific inquiry up to this day by mainstream researchers in Cuba, Vietnam, China, and Laos. The information provided below is somewhat simplified and generalized to give the reader a basic familiarity with the theory of reflection and the development of reflection in nature.
-The Mara Salvatrucha: the most dangerous gang in the world <em>Extinción</em> 1
+Dialectical materialist scientists have developed a theory of the development of evolution of forms of reflection, positing that forms of reflection have become increasingly complex as organic processes and life have evolved and grown more complex over time.
-A Statement from Innocence: a spirit from the South
+The chart below gives an idea of how different forms of reaction have evolved over time:
-Lions in the Brush: on the anatomy and guidelines of cell- structured resistance el borracho (nomad warfuk)
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-10.png|''This chart outlines the basic development tendency of Forms of Reflection in matter which lead from inorganic matter, to life, to human consciousness and society.'']]
-Paraguayan People’s Army: what can we learn from them? <em>Ajajema</em> 1
+Obviously, not all subjects develop completely along the path outlined above. Thus far, to our knowledge, only human beings have developed entirely to the level of consciousness and society. It is also unknown whether, or how, human society may develop into some future, as-yet-unknown, form.
-Letter to an optimist Jeremías Torres
+-----
-Weak Words Concerning Human Reasoning Huazihul
+''Physical and chemical reflection'' is the simplest form of reflection, dealing with the ways in which inorganic matter is reflected in human consciousness. Physical and chemical reflection is the reflection of mechanical, physical, and chemical changes and reactions of inorganic matter (i.e., changes in structures, positions, physical-chemical properties, and the processes of combining and dissolving substances). Physical and chemical reactions are passive: when two objects interact with each other physically or chemically, they do not do so consciously.
-At-Tux D.G.
+-----
-“No Such Thing as Life without Bloodshed...”or The Force of Tragedy in Anti-Humanist Politics Magpie
+==== Annotation 69 ====
-Reflections on Freedom Zupay
+Reflection occurs any time two material objects interact and the features of the object are transferred to each other. Below are some very simplified illustrations to relate the basic idea of the physical reflection of material objects.
-On Terrorism and Indiscriminate Violence Fiera
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-11.png]]
-For a Metropolis against Itself Eleuterio Pinto Paredes
+'''Reflection as Change in Position:'''
-Out of the Self: a sermon for the dead Abraxas
+. Round Object moves towards Square Object.
-Eco-extremism and the Woman Meztli 177 Eco-extremist Women Speak Yoloxochitl & More
+. Round Object impacts Square Object.
-A Note on Reproduction from the Eco-extremist Perspective CW
+. Square Object changes position; Round Object “bounces” and reverses direction.
-Eco-extremist Spiritual Exercises various
+.Thus, Square Object’s change in position ''reflects'' the motion of Round Object (and vice-versa). Traces of both contradicting objects are reflected in the respective motion and position of each object.
-<br>
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-12.png]]
-** Caveat Lector
+'''Reflection as Change in Structure:'''
-<br>
+. Round Object moves toward Square Object.
-What you hold in your hands is a dangerous book. Although those who compiled and worked on it are perfectly harmless, these pages have the power to make you a killer, a rapist, a psychopath, a fascist, or a hunter of anarchists. At least that is what its detractors think. Our intention has been to merely inform concerning (and yes, support in our own independent way) the growth of eco-extremism as a tendency, or at the very least its premises of eco-pessimism and distrust of all human endeavors. We go to dark places, but we are not necessarily dark people. We feel only that the best way to keep our sanity is to explore those areas of human existence that this society has sought to expel from hyper-civilized consciousness.
+. Round Object impacts Square Object.
-So while we realize that you may have picked up this journal with the expectation that the editors will address the controversy that has taken place in the past year around Atassa, we will not be addressing any criticisms here. A response may be coming elsewhere, and we have a sense that it will not be too hard to find.
+. Structural changes (traces) occur in both Round and Square Object as a result of impact.
-But we reiterate here: pretending that bad things don’t exist won’t make them go away. Pretending that a brighter future is possible won’t make it come to pass. Shaming only works in a society where people still have shame. The best refutation of the aspirations of societal dreamers is the insignificance of the dreamers themselves. Often their “opposition” and “social war” don’t pass the severity of a teenage prank or barroom brawl, weighed down as they are by the morality of the average pewsitter at the local Christian church. They are easily forgettable and not worth discussing. At some point, the most capable of them will have to ask themselves a question: Do I want to be loved or feared? Do I want to be moral and right or calculating and dangerous? Am I going to keep trying to save a society that doesn’t want to be saved, or will I impose my own will and vision of what I want, come what may?
+. These changes constitute structural, physical ''reflection''.
-Yes, this society is bad, it is destroying itself, thousands of species, and the last wild places left on Earth. Yes, it is bad, but the question (or challenge) is: Can you be worse? Can you turn that destruction around to oppose it in a meaningful way? If you can’t be society’s savior, can you instead be its worthy adversary? Do you dare at least try? When are you going to stop playing the role of innocent victim and try something else?
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-13.png]]
-These are not easy questions to answer, of course. But if you decide you would rather be dangerous, whatever that means in your context or situation (keeping in mind the laws of your country and punitive consequences), these pages might serve some purpose. If not, you would best not read any further.
+'''Chemical Reflection:'''
-And as one must state at the outset of many such projects: Kids, don’t try this at home.
+. Atom C is attached to Atom B.
-Seamos peligrosos (Let us be dangerous).
+. Atom C detaches from Atom B and transfers to attach to Atom A.
-<right>
+. This is a process of ''chemical reflection'', in which both molecules mutually reflect one another after A <sub>C</sub>B a process of chemical reaction (one molecule loses Atom C while the other gains Atom C).
-the editors
-</right>
-<br>
+As dialectical materialists, we must strive to develop our understanding of the reflections of physical and chemical changes and reactions so that our conceptions reflect the material world as accurately as possible. For example: we must not ascribe consciousness to physical processes. Example: a gambler who comes to believe that a pair of dice is “spiteful” or “cursed” is attributing conscious motivation to unconscious physical processes, which is an inaccurate ideological reflection of reality.
-** <em>Hostis humani generis</em>: Eco-extremism, demonology, and the birth of criminality
+-----
-<br>
+''Biological reflection'' is a higher, more complex form of reflection [compared to physical reflection]. It deals with reflection of organic material in the natural world. As our observations of biological processes have become more sophisticated and complex [through developments in natural science, the development of better tools for observation such as microscopes and other technologies, and so on], our conscious reflections of the natural world have also become more complex.
-**** Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
+Biological reflection is expressed through ''excitation, induction,'' and ''reflexes.''
-**** John 8:44
+''Excitation'' is the reaction of simple plant and animal life-forms which occurs when they change position or structure as a direct result of physical changes to their habitat [i.e., a plant which moves toward the sun throughout the day].
-**** Myth is the facts of the mind made manifest in a fiction of matter.
+''Induction'' is the reaction of animals with simple nerve systems which can sense or feel their environments. Induction occurs through unconditioned reflex mechanisms.
-**** Maya Deren, The Divine Horsemen:
+-----
-**** The Living Gods of Haiti
+==== Annotation 70 ====
-Here begins the Good News of the Unknowable, the Hidden, the Inhuman, the Wild outside all comprehension: The Chaos stirred for the eternity of eternities, churning and churning in the unfathomable darkness. It was before all Fire, all Air, all Water, and all Earth. It stayed nowhere, obeyed no one, and was before the Master and Servant. There is no Thought in it, no Truth, no Love, and no Beauty. It grinds words into ash, and knows no desire. It is blind and sees all. Before it whispers the thing, the thing is already passing away. It is undifferentiated, but divided into a million parts. It is the unstruck sound that fills all things with its echo.
+''Unconditioned reflexes'' are characterized by permanent connections between sensory perceptions and reactions. Such reactions are not learned, but simply occur automatically based on physiological mechanisms occurring within the organism. An example of an unconditioned reflex response would be muscles in the leg twitching at the response of a tap on the knee. Such responses are purely physiological and are never learned (“conditioned” into us) — these reactions are simply ''induced'' physiologically.
-Within the mire of Chaos emerged He-Who-Is. He crawled out and formed Time with his limbs. Like a nocturnal fantasy, he formed Order and the Good. He sculpted Beauty to bring things under his command. In a struggle with the Chaos, the Cosmos was formed, firmly established but also passing away. And they saw that it was good. Day and night passed.
+''Mental reflections'' are reactions which occur in animals with central nervous systems. Mental reflections occur through conditioned reflex mechanisms.
-Then He-Who-Is said to Chaos: I will make Man to look upon what we have made and subjugate it in my name. The Chaos refused this, and a Great War began. The Morning Star shining in the darkness cried unto the Cosmos: “Who is like unto Chaos? And who dares to set his throne above the Primordial Darkness?” He- Who-Is made Man in his image and likeness, to battle the Morning Star. He told Man that the Morning Star had fallen and had become the Murderer. He-Who-Is deceived Man to fight against Chaos, telling him that he was greater than it. Thus, Man carved up the land and made a Garden. He subjugated the other creatures to his own use. With time, he could move mountains, change the course of rivers, level forests, and even change his own nature.
+-----
-But He-Who-Is is not greater than Chaos and the Murderer, his slaves cannot comprehend the Darkness that extinguishes the light. Soon, Men themselves will rise against He-Who-Is and join the Murderer, for the Murderer has always been prowling among us, seeking Men to devour. Men will descend once more into the Night without Dawn, the Silence before all sound. Like a leaf floating in a fast current, Man will disappear and bind himself to the Unknowable.
+==== Annotation 71 ====
-<center>
+''Conditioned reflexes'' are reactions which are learned by organisms. These responses are acquired as animals learn to associate previously unrelated neural stimuli to elicit a particular reaction. The Russian psychologist Ivan Pavlov famously developed our understanding of conditioned responses by ringing a dinner bell shortly before giving dogs food. After a few repetitions, dogs would begin to salivate upon hearing the dinner bell being rung, even before any food was offered. Any dog which did not receive this conditioning would not salivate upon hearing a dinner bell. This is what makes it a learned, conditioned response — a type of mental reflection.
- ****
-</center>
-The purpose of this work is to synthesize eco-extremism and nihilist individualism, to give a spiritual justification to a sentiment that refuses all spirit. It is a reflection on the scope and depth of human failure, and an approach to the Inhuman. We leave behind the Wisdom of the City, and Ideologies such as progressivism and anarchism that are merely a blink of the eye in the unfolding of the Unknowable. Here we seek to honor and praise the Murderer not merely as a passing political or psychological archetype, but as the metaphysical principle driving the hyper-civilized to extinction. We seek evil not as something that can shock, but as something that moves about in the shadows and cracks of human existence.
+''Dynamic and creative reflection'' is the most advanced form of reflection. It only occurs in matter that has the highest structural level, such as the human brain. Dynamic and creative reflection is done through the human brain’s nervous physiological activities whenever the objective world impacts human senses. This is a kind of reflection that actively selects and processes information to create new information and to understand the meaning of that information. This dynamic and creative reflection is called consciousness.
-We divide this treatise into three parts:
+-----
-. On Earth as it is in Hell: A theological reflection on the essence of demons.
+==== Annotation 72 ====
-. The Satanic Sacrament: Individualist poisoning and human sacrifice in 17th century France in the “Affair of the Poisons.”
+Remember Lenin’s definition of matter from ''Materialism and Empirio-Criticism'': “Matter is a philosophical category denoting objective reality which is given to man in his sensations, and which is copied, photographed, and reflected by our sensations, while existing independently of them.”
-. Bomb, Bullet, and Blade: Eco-extremism as a meager yet rigorous attempt to embody the struggle of Chaos and the Murderer against the Christian God and its secular manifestations.
+An intrinsic property of matter is that it can be sensed by human beings, and through this sensation, ''reflected'' in human consciousness. Thus, all forms of matter share the characteristic of being able to be reflected in the human mind.
-This text is not a political treatise. There is nothing here about liberation, self-realization, or human striving. We hate the human and everything it entails. We rejoice at the spilling of human blood upon the Altar of the Earth: its aroma ascends like incense before the Throne of the Unknowable. Yet we know that even these efforts are a feeble visible sign of the Invisible Grace of the Hidden.
+Criticizing Karl Pearson, who said that it was not logical to maintain that all matter had the property of being conscious, Lenin wrote in brackets: “But it is logical to suppose that all matter possesses a property which is essentially kindred to sensation: the property to reflect.” Understanding the concept of dynamic and creative reflection is critical to understanding the role of consciousness and the ideal in Dialectical Materialism. In particular, reflection differentiates Dialectical Materialism from the idealist form of dialectics used by Hegel [see Annotation 9, p. 10]. As Marx famously wrote in ''Capital Volume I'':
-We realize that the Murderer has been working since the beginning in many forms and manifestations, and He will not stop until the Human is no more.
+<blockquote>
+My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of ‘the Idea,’ he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos [craftsman/artisan/creator] of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of ‘the Idea.’ With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.
+</blockquote>
-*** On Earth as It Is in Hell: On the Separated Substances
+In other words, Hegelian idealism saw human consciousness as defining the material world. Dialectical Materialism inverts this relationship to recognize that what we conceive in our minds is only a reflection of the material world. As Marx explains in ''The German Ideology'', all conscious thought stems from life processes through reflection:
-In modern political discourse, the hyper-civilized are trained to eschew all that is inhuman. According to this reasoning, that which is outside our autonomy, understanding, and action, is to be rigorously questioned and ultimately rejected. There should be nothing outside the human; to entertain the possibility of the inhuman is to entertain the possibility of one’s own slavery and subjugation. The free human is someone who stands on his or her own two feet, unrestrained by compulsions both internal and external.
+<blockquote>
+Consciousness can never be anything else than conscious existence, and the existence of men is their actual life-process. If in all ideology men and their circumstances appear upside-down as in a camera obscura, this phenomenon arises just as much from their historical life-process as the inversion of objects on the retina does from their physical life-process.
+</blockquote>
-Of course, this is a fairy tale and nothing more. From the air we breath, to the water we drink, to the things we eat, we are surrounded by the inhuman, by the incomprehensible and uncontrollable. We merely hope that our fragile intellects and wills can withstand the cosmic forces of fate that bring down the healthy man in his prime, or enable the abject lecher to live into old age. We cling to our concepts like idols—the works of our hands—and think that if we can only exclude everything inhuman from our minds and hearts, we will one day conquer it. This is the myth of the Enlightenment, and ultimately it is the myth of the Christian God-Man.
+Marx and Engels argued that consciousness arose from the ''life-processes'' of human beings. Life-processes are processes of motion and change which occur within organisms to sustain life, and these processes have a dialectical relationship with consciousness: the processes of life, therefore, reflect consciousness, just as consciousness reflects human life-processes. Conscious activities (such as being able to hunt, gather, and cook food, build shelter, and so on) improve the life-processes of human beings (by improving our health, extending our life-spans, etc.); and as our life-processes improved, our consciousness was able to develop more fully. As a concrete example of the dialectic between life processes and consciousness, it is now widely believed by scientists that the advent of cooking and preparing food (conscious activity) improved the functioning of the human brain<ref>Source: “Food for Thought: Was Cooking a Pivotal Step in Human Evolution?” by Alexandra Rosati, ''Scientific American'', February 26, 2018.</ref> (a life process) which, in turn, developed human consciousness, and so on. Life-processes thus determine ''how'' consciousness reflects reality, while consciousness impacts back on life-processes, reflecting the dialectical relationship between matter and consciousness [see p. 88] and between practical activities and consciousness [see Annotation 230, p. 226].
-Sometimes to better understand the human, however, one must have recourse to the dream of the inhuman. Here we refer to spirits or “separated substances” in theological parlance. Whether or not spirits exist, they have formed an essential element of Western Christian thought. Their being haunts the highest levels of philosophy to this day. I speak specifically of the Christian entities known as angels. The Catholic philosopher Edward Feser states the following: <em>“You do not have to believe in angels in order to find the notion of philosophical interest. Working out the implications of the idea of a purely incorporeal intellect is useful for understanding the nature of the intellect, the nature of free choice and its relationship to the presence or absence of the body, the nature of time, and other issues too. In fact there is such a thing as rational angelology, and here as elsewhere Aquinas often surprises with his demonstration of how much might be established via purely philosophical arguments.”</em> (“Cartesian Angelism”)
+Because consciousness arose from life-processes of human beings in the material world, we know that the material world is reflected in our consciousness. However, these reflections do not ''determine'' the material world, and do not mirror the material world exactly [see Annotation 77, p. 79]. It is also important to understand that, since life-processes in the material world predate and determine consciousness, consciousness can never be a first basis of seeking truth about our world. As Marx further explains in ''The German Ideology:''
-The Aquinas mentioned here is of course St. Thomas Aquinas, the thirteenth century philosopher and theologian who is tremendously influential in Catholic and Western thought. Aquinas described the angelic nature in various texts as a part of a tableaux of the medieval cosmos: the hierarchy of spiritual and material beings that constitutes the Great Chain of Being. Just as non-human animals are below Man, so Man is below the angels, and all things are infinitely below the unfathomable Majesty of the Creator: He- Who-Is, the Unmoved Mover and Uncaused Cause. Aquinas comments about the necessity of the existence of incorporeal creatures, the angels, in his magnum opus, the Summa Theologiae:
+<blockquote>
+Since the Young Hegelians consider conceptions, thoughts, ideas, in fact all the products of consciousness, to which they attribute an independent existence, as the real chains of men (just as the Old Hegelians declared them the true bonds of human society) it is evident that the Young Hegelians have to fight only against these illusions of consciousness. Since, according to their fantasy, the relationships of men, all their doings, their chains and their limitations are products of their consciousness, the Young Hegelians logically put to men the moral postulate of exchanging their present consciousness for human, critical or egoistic consciousness, and thus of removing their limitations. This demand to change consciousness amounts to a demand to interpret reality in another way, i.e. to recognise it by means of another interpretation.
+</blockquote>
-**** “...There must be some incorporeal creatures. For what is principally intended by God in creatures is good, and this consists in assimilation to God Himself. And the perfect assimilation of an effect to a cause is accomplished when the effect imitates the cause according to that whereby the cause produces the effect; as heat makes heat. Now, God produces the creature by His intellect and will. Hence the perfection of the universe requires that there should be intellectual creatures. Now intelligence cannot be the action of a body, nor of any corporeal faculty; for every body is limited to ‘here’ and ‘now.’ Hence the perfection of the universe requires the existence of an incorporeal creature.”
+In other words, Hegelian idealism makes the critical mistake of believing that the ideal — consciousness — is the first basis of reality, and that anything and everything can be achieved through mere conscious activity. Marx, on the other hand, argues that “life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life,” and that we must understand the ways in which reality is reflected in consciousness before we can hope to affect change in the material conditions of human beings:
-For Aquinas, the highest faculty of the rational creature (angel and man) is the intellect. To know is to become something immaterially: to know an apple is to abstract the being of the apple into the mind, to consume it and “become” it intentionally (i.e. immaterially). At times we humans feel that we are the masters of these ideas, or even their creators, but that is because we, as blank slates at birth, become things immaterially so well that we feel that the world is part of us, when in reality, the opposite is the case.
+<blockquote>
+In direct contrast to German philosophy which descends from heaven to earth, here [in the materialist perspective] we ascend from earth to heaven. That is to say, we do not set out from what men say, imagine, conceive, nor from men as narrated, thought of, imagined, conceived, in order to arrive at men in the flesh. We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process. The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life. In the first method of approach the starting-point is consciousness taken as the living individual; in the second method, which conforms to real life, it is the real living individuals themselves, and consciousness is considered solely as their consciousness.
+</blockquote>
-For the individualist in particular, belief in a realm of wiser entities above human beings can be a powerful weapon against anthropocentrism. No matter how great our knowledge may seem, it is but a flicker of the blazing light of existence itself. As the philosopher Josef Pieper states:
+So, the work of the Dialectical Materialist is not to try to develop Utopian conceptions of reality first, to then proceed to try and force such purely ideal conceptions onto reality (see Annotation 17, p. 18).
-**** “Accordingly, for St. Thomas, the unknowable can never denote something in itself dark and impenetrable, but only something that has so much light that a finite faculty of knowledge cannot absorb it all. It is too rich to be assimilated completely, it eludes the effort to comprehend it...” (60)
+Rather, we must understand the material basis of reality, as well as the material processes of change and motion which govern reality, and only then can we search for ways in which human beings can influence material reality through conscious activity. As Marx explains, the revolutionary must not be fooled into believing we can simply conceive of an ideal world and then replicate it into reality through interpretation and conscious thought alone. Instead, we must start with a firm understanding of material conditions and, from that material basis, determine how to build our revolutionary movement through conscious impact of material relations and processes of development in the material world.
-Pieper further states that contact with the light makes us immediately understand that the sun’s brightness greatly transcends our power of vision. By analogy, our own intellective powers are by no means the highest ones in the universe, as Pieper summarizes:
+As Marx wrote in ''The German Ideology:'' “Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.” This distinction may seem subtle at first, but it has massive implications for how Marx suggests we go about participating in revolutionary activity. For Marx, purely-idealist debates and criticisms are an unproductive waste of time:
-**** “There is a well-known sentence in Aristotle which says: ‘As the eyes of bats are dazzled by sunlight, so it is with human intelligence when face to face with what is by nature most obvious.’ In his commentary on this sentence, Thomas thoroughly accepts its whole significance, but goes on to underline its positive aspect in this magnificent formulation: ‘Solem etsi non videat nycticoracis, videt tamen eum oculus aquilae,’ though the eyes of the bat do not avail to behold the sun, it is seen by the eye of the eagle.” (70-71)
+<blockquote>
+The Young-Hegelian ideologists, in spite of their allegedly ‘world-shattering’ statements, are the staunchest conservatives. The most recent of them have found the correct expression for their activity when they declare they are only fighting against ‘phrases.’ They forget, however, that to these phrases they themselves are only opposing other phrases, and that they are in no way combating the real existing world when they are merely combating the phrases of this world. The only results which this philosophic criticism could achieve were a few (and at that thoroughly one-sided) elucidations of Christianity from the point of view of religious history; all the rest of their assertions are only further embellishments of their claim to have furnished, in these unimportant elucidations, discoveries of universal importance.
+</blockquote>
-Our understanding is always flawed, and it forms over a long period of sensing and experiencing external things. According to Aquinas and the rest of Catholic theology, this is not the case with the angelic nature. The angelic nature is substantially superior to human knowledge because the knowledge of all things is infused into the intellect of the angels at the moment of their creation. The spirits are thus given a “cheat sheet,” or to use the analogy cited above, an eagle’s eye view, that makes them substantially more powerful and intelligent than humans, who are the lowest of the spiritual creatures endowed with will and understanding. As the 20th century Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain states,
+Marx also discusses the uselessness of idealist conjecture:
-**** “The deepest quality of angelic cognition is not that it is intuitive or innate, but that it is independent of external objects. The ideas of pure spirits have no proportion with ours. As they are resolved in the very truth of God and not in the truth of external objects, these infused ideas are a created likeness, and as it were a refraction, in the angelic intellect of the divine ideas and the uncreated light where all is life. So that they represent things just in so far as things derive from the divine ideas, for the angels have thus received, at the first instant, the seal of likeness, which made them full of wisdom and perfect in beauty—tu signaculum similitudinis, plenus sapientia et perfectus decore—and God, as St. Augustine says, produced things intelligibly in the knowledge of spirits before producing them really in their own being.” (68)
+<blockquote>
+Moreover, it is quite immaterial what consciousness starts to do on its own: out of all such muck we get only the one inference that these three moments, the forces of production, the state of society, and consciousness, can and must come into contradiction with one another, because the division of labour implies the possibility, nay the fact that intellectual and material activity — enjoyment and labour, production and consumption — devolve on different individuals, and that the only possibility of their not coming into contradiction lies in the negation in its turn of the division of labour. It is self-evident, moreover, that ‘spectres,’ ‘bonds,’ ‘the higher being,’ ‘concept,’ ‘scruple,’ [terms for idealist conceptions] are merely the idealistic, spiritual expression, the conception apparently of the isolated individual, the image of very empirical fetters and limitations, within which the mode of production of life and the form of intercourse coupled with it move.
+</blockquote>
-If the Light of Existence passes through Man’s intellect as sunlight would through a paper or a curtain, it passes through the Angelic Mind as if through glass or a prism: pure, ineffable, and full of splendor.
+What Marx means by this is that we should focus on the material processes and conditions of society if we intend to change society, because idealist speculation, conjecture, critique, and thought alone, at the individual level, will never be capable of affecting revolutionary change in our material world.
-The human, who receives all knowledge from the senses, knows little about himself as a sensing and thinking being. Thus, self-reflection and self-knowledge for the human are difficult. For the angel, the opposite is the case, as Dominican theologian Serge- Thomas Bonino states in his recent book on the angels:
+Instead, we must focus on the material basis of reality, the material conditions of society, and seek revolutionary measures which are built upon materialist foundations. Only by understanding material processes of development, as well as the dialectical relationship between consciousness and matter, can we reliably and effectively begin to impact reality through conscious activity. This begins with the recognition that conscious thought itself is a ''reflection'' of material reality which developed and results from ''life-processes'' of material motion and processes of change within the human brain.
-**** “An angel is therefore pure self-awareness. He is transparent to himself and sees himself to his innermost depths. Thus he realizes that perfect noetic self-possession, that spiritual grasp of himself, that is the ideal of every spirit and the highest form of unity and being.” (141)
+This concept of reflection, pioneered by Marx and Engels, was significantly developed by V. I. Lenin in his response to Machian positivists who posited that what we perceive is not truly reality [see Annotation 32, p. 27]. In his ''Philosophical Notebooks,'' Lenin wrote: “Life gives rise to the brain. Nature is reflected in the human brain.”
-Being closer to God in intellect, the angel is also closer to God in power as well, being cooperative with the Divine Will in sustaining the cosmos. According to the mysterious Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, the angels are divided into nine choirs, with the higher choirs serving the Throne of God directly, and the lower choirs helping to govern creation.
+In ''Materialism and Empirio-Criticism'', Lenin further defined the relationship between matter and consciousness through reflection.
-Since angels like humans are rational creatures, they have an intellect and a free will. In other words, they understand things and act freely upon them. Rational creatures move themselves with freedom unlike, in the Christian understanding, animals who move through instinct (as if through a computer program) or inanimate objects that are moved by things external to them. In the Christian understanding, even the excellence of human or the angelic nature is a small thing compared with participation in the Divine Nature, that is, union with God as the Source of Ultimate Good. Such a Good cannot be achieved via the natural faculties of either angel or man, since it is infinitely above them in power and majesty. God must give this Union as a gift, and Angel or Man has to freely accept it. With man, according to Christian belief, this choice happens over the course of a lifetime by obtaining the grace given to man through Jesus Christ, with one’s choice for or against salvation being frozen at one’s death. For the angel, however, this decision to freely accept the gift of participation in the Divine Nature happened right after their creation, and the decision was final for the rest of eternity.
+'''LENIN’S PROOF OF THE THEORY OF REFLECTION'''
-Those who accepted God’s gift are known as angels, and those who rejected it are what are now known as demons.
+In ''Materialism and Empirio-Criticism,'' Lenin offered the following arguments to back up the theory of reflection.
-*** “I Saw Satan Fall like Lightning...” (Luke 10:18)
+<blockquote>
+) Things exist independently of our consciousness, independently of our perceptions, outside of us, for it is beyond doubt that alizarin [a chemical substance which was newly discovered at time of writing] existed in coal tar yesterday and it is equally beyond doubt that yesterday we knew nothing of the existence of this alizarin and received no sensations from it.
+</blockquote>
-The fall of the angels from the heights of heaven is a common trope in Western culture. For Aquinas and subsequent theologians, the most important concept to keep in mind is that the angelic nature did not change among the demons, only the right ordering of their faculties (intellect and will) toward the Divine Goodness and Governance. The fallen angels thus remained immaterial as well as exceptionally intelligent and powerful beings. The story is usually told that some angels, led by Lucifer—the Highest Seraphim and Chief Angel—denied God’s ordering of the cosmos and were thrust into Hell because of it. Lucifer then became Satan, the adversary, the highest force for evil in the universe. Here we will discuss the reasons why some theologians thought that this occurred. Far from a discussion of theological minutiae, I think it profoundly concerns the nature of freedom and evil as applied to our circumstances.
+Lenin is saying that the material world must exist outside of and independent from our consciousness. He cites as evidence the discovery of a chemical substance which until recently we had no sensory perception of, noting that this substance must have existed long before we became aware of it through sensory observation.
-I will address two separate schools of thought when approaching this question. The Thomist school claims that the angels became demons due to clinging to their own excellence rather than humbling themselves to achieve the Divine Excellence through cooperation with God’s right ordering of the cosmos. It should be noted that, since the angelic nature is far superior to the human nature (due to its immateriality), an angel cannot sin out of weakness (as people can have momentary lapses in judgment and commit any number of mistakes because of them). Aquinas summarizes this insight also in the <em>Summa Theologiae</em>:
+<blockquote>
+) There is definitely no difference in principle between the phenomenon and the thing-in-itself, and there can be no such difference. The only difference is between what is known and what is not yet known. And philosophical inventions of specific boundaries between the one and the other, inventions to the effect that the thing-in-itself is “beyond” phenomena (Kant) or that we can or must fence ourselves off by some philosophical partition from the problem of a world which in one part or another is still unknown but which exists outside us (Hume) — all this is the sheerest nonsense, [unfounded belief], trick, invention.
+</blockquote>
-**** “...[T]here can be no sin when anyone is incited to good of the spiritual order; unless in such affection the rule of the superior be not kept. Such is precisely the sin ofpride—not to be subject to a superior when subjection is due. Consequently the first sin of the angel can be none other than pride.”
+Lenin is referencing a centuries-old debate about whether or not human beings are capable of having real knowledge of a “thing-in-itself,” or if we can only perceive ''phenomena'' of things (characteristics observable to our senses). The “thing-in-itself” refers to the actual material object which exists outside of our consciousness. So the question being posed is: can we REALLY have knowledge of material objects outside of our consciousness, or does consciousness itself act as a barrier to ever REALLY knowing anything about material objects and the material world outside of our consciousness?
-Aquinas further clarifies this point in a later work, <em>The Disputed Questions on Evil</em>, when asking the question concerning the corrupting of the angelic will:
+Immanuel Kant argued that we can never know the true nature of the material world, writing: “we indeed, rightly considering objects of sense as mere appearances, confess thereby that they are based upon a thing-in-itself, though we know not this thing as it is in itself, but only know its appearances, viz., the way in which our senses are affected by this unknown something.” This idea that the senses could not be trusted to deliver accurate knowledge — and thus, the “thing-in-itself” is essentially unknowable — was carried forward by later empiricists such as Bacon and Hume [see Annotation 10, p. 10]. In ''Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy'', Marx and Engels refute this notion, arguing that ''practice'' allows us to discover truth about “things-in-themselves:”
-**** “And substances without bodies have only one kind of knowledge, namely, intellectual knowledge, which the rule of God’s wisdom should direct. As so their will can have evil because it does not follow the ordination of the higher rule, namely, God’s wisdom. And devils in this way became evil by their will.” (On Evil, 449)
+<blockquote>
+The most telling refutation of this as of all other philosophical crotchets is practice — namely, experiment and industry. If we are able to prove the correctness of our conception of a natural process by making it ourselves, bringing it into being out of its conditions and making it serve our own purposes into the bargain, then there is an end to the Kantian ungraspable “thing-in-itself”.
+</blockquote>
-Aquinas states in another question in the same work:
+Lenin expanded on this argument, explaining that the phenomena of objects which we observe with our senses ''do'' accurately reflect material objects, even though we might not know everything about these objects at once. Over time, as we learn more and more about material objects and the material world through practice and repeated observation, we more fully and accurately come to understand “things-in-themselves, as he writes in ''Empirio-Criticism and Materialism:''
-**** “To be like God as befits each thing is praiseworthy. But one who desires likeness to God contrary to the ordination established by him desires wickedly to be like God.” (ibid, 457) Here there are shades of the Genesis myth and the eating of the forbidden fruit on the Garden of Eden.
+<blockquote>
+) In the theory of knowledge, as in every other branch of science, we must think dialectically, that is, we must not regard our knowledge as readymade and unalterable, but must determine how knowledge emerges from ignorance, how incomplete, inexact knowledge becomes more complete and more exact.
+</blockquote>
-So we can set up the Thomist telling of the fall of the angels as follows: the angels were created and given a choice by their Creator to cooperate with the manner by which he ordered the universe. However, the fallen angels preferred to trust the wisdom that was given to them upon their Creation rather than the direct wisdom of the Creator who is superior to them and governs the whole. In other words, these fallen angels became the first individualists: they preferred their own excellence and well-being to the greater excellence and well-being that they would acquire by cooperating with the Common Good ordained by God. They preferred the excellence that was entirely their own to the greater excellence that would be bestowed on them as part of a collective (subjugated to God, of course).
+Here, Lenin further elaborates on the dialectical nature of knowledge: we must simultaneously accept that our knowledge is never perfect and unchanging, but we must also recognize that we are capable of making our knowledge more exact and complete over time. To further defend his ideas about reflection, Lenin cited Czech philosopher Karl Kautsky’s argument against Kant:
-While this explanation proceeds from one of the most esteemed authors of the Christian Church, it is by far not the most popular or well-received explanation for the fall of the angels. A far more popular explanation has to do with the creation of Man himself, and the envy and confusion that this caused in the angelic ranks. This explanation is so potent in the monotheistic consciousness that it is reflected in Islam, in the Seventh Surah of the Quran: <em>“We said to the angels, ‘Bow down before Adam;’ so they bowed down, except for Satan; he was not of those who bowed down. He said, ‘What prevented you from bowing down when I have commanded you?’ He said, ‘I am better than he; You created me from fire, and You created him from mud.’ He said, ‘Get down from it! It is not for you to act arrogantly in it. Get out! You are one of the lowly!’ “</em>
+<blockquote>
+That I see green, red and white is grounded in my faculty of sight. But that green is something different from red testifies to something that lies outside of me, to real differences between the things... The relations and differences between the things themselves revealed to me by the individual space and time concepts are real relations and differences of the external world, not conditioned by the nature of my perceptive faculty... If this were really so [i.e., if Kant’s doctrine of the ideality of time and space were true], we could know nothing about the world outside us, not even that it exists.
+</blockquote>
-In the Christian tradition, the angelic relationship with a lower intellectual being (Man) was compounded by the Mystery of the Incarnation: God’s plan to unite his nature with Man in the person of Jesus Christ and not with an angel. Fr. Pascal Parente summarizes this insight in the following passage:
+Lenin followed from Marx and Engels that, in order to further develop our understanding and knowledge of the material world, it was necessary to engage in ''practice'' [see Annotation 211, p. 205]. Engels wrote in ''Socialism: Utopian and Scientific'':
-<em>“Some theologians believe that one of the reasons of Satan’s rebellion and disobedience was that fact that God revealed to the Angels the great things He had in store for man, elevation to the supernatural order, the Incarnation of the Son of God and the Hypostatic Union, the Virgin Mother of God, Mary... Envy and pride were, it seems, the cause of Satan’s rebellion and fall. Man reminds him always of his fall and his misery, hence his hatred and the relentless campaign against man with the intention of making him an associate in his own misery and despair.”</em> (62)
+<blockquote>
+The proof of the pudding is in the eating. From the moment we [use] these objects, according to the qualities we perceive in them, we put to an infallible test the correctness or otherwise of our sense-perceptions. If these perceptions have been wrong, then our estimate of the use to which an object can be turned must also be wrong, and our attempt must fail. But if we succeed in accomplishing our aim, if we find that the object does agree with our idea of it, and does answer the purpose we intended it for, then that is positive proof that our perceptions of it and of its qualities, so far, agree with reality outside ourselves.
+</blockquote>
-Lucifer-turned-Satan and his band of fallen angels thus adopted an attitude expressed by John Milton in <em>Paradise Lost</em>: <em>“Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.”</em> Towards human beings, those instruments of God’s will made in his image and likeness, the demons could have nothing but contempt. <em>The Malleus Maleficarum</em>, the guide for witch-hunting in early modernity, summarized the hostility of Satan to the human race stating, <em>“If he were permitted to by God, the Devil would certainly destroy man as a result of the enmity that impels him against man.”</em> (103)
+Notice that Engels is careful to use the words ''so far'': “its qualities, ''so far'', agree with reality outside ourselves.” Engels does not argue that human understanding of the material world is infallible: mistakes are often made. But over time, as such mistakes are discovered and our understanding improves, our knowledge of the material world develops. This is only possible if the phenomena of objects which we observe — the reflections within our consciousness — do actually and accurately represent material reality. Lenin elaborated on this necessity to constantly update and improve dialectical materialist philosophy as new information and knowledge became available:
-Satan makes his first appearance in divine revelation in the <em>Book of Genesis</em> as the tempter of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Through his inciting the first man and woman to disobedience, Satan or the Devil brings death and suffering into the world through sin. We cite Parente again:
+<blockquote>
+Engels, for instance, assimilated the, to him, new term, energy, and began to employ it in 1885 (Preface to the 2<sup>nd</sup> ed. of Anti-Dühring) and in 1888 (Ludwig Feuerbach), but to employ it equally with the concepts of ‘force’ and ‘motion,’ and along with them. Engels was able to enrich his materialism by adopting a new terminology.
+</blockquote>
-**** “The Devil who was ‘a murderer from the beginning’ has continued his murderous activity with the children of man. Ever since original sin he has exercised a reign of death—the imperium mortis— over mankind, so that in a spiritual sense he became ‘the prince of this world’ by making man a slave to sin. Satan with the assistance of his demons extends this ‘reign of death’ in three principal manners: by seductive temptations; by diabolical obsessions and possessions; by all sorts of black magic, spiritism, and superstitious idolatry.” (60)
+Engels provided further elaborations on how practical experience and mastery of the material world refutes the notion that it is impossible to have real knowledge of the material world in ''Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy'':
-Satan and his demons were not only deemed the lords of the world in a moral sense, but also in a physical sense. St. Paul in <em>The Epistle to the Ephesians</em> states that the struggle of the godly is,
+<blockquote>
+The most telling refutation of this as of all other philosophical fancies is practice, viz., experiment and industry. If we are able to prove the correctness of our conception of a natural process by making it ourselves, bringing it into being out of its conditions and using it for our own purposes into the bargain, then there is an end of the Kantian incomprehensible or ungraspable... The chemical substances produced in the bodies of plants and animals remained just such thingsin-themselves until organic chemistry began to produce them one after another, whereupon the thing-in-itself became a thing for us, as for instance, alizarin [a dye which was originally plant-based], which we no longer trouble to grow in in the field, but produce much more cheaply and simply from coal tar.
+</blockquote>
-**** “not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” (Ephesians 6:12).
+So, dialectical materialism holds that there is a material world external from our consciousness; that conscious thoughts are reflections of this material world; that we can have real knowledge of the material world through sensory observation; and that our knowledge and understanding of the material world is best advanced through ''practice'' in the material world.
-Pope John XXII stated in a sermon in 1332 that,
+-----
-**** “the damned, that is, the demons, could not tempt us if they were secluded in hell. That is why one must not say that they reside in hell, but in fact in the entire zone of dark air, whence the path is open to them to tempt us.” (Boreau, 25)
+''- Social Sources of Consciousness''
-The early Christians employed exorcisms against demons in their worship since they considered the world to be possessed by Satan and his angels and thus in need of purification. For example, exorcisms were commonly performed before baptism in the Catholic Church to eject the evil spirits that were assumed to occupy the person before receiving the cleansing waters of the sacrament:
+There are many factors that constitute the social sources of consciousness. The most basic and direct factors are ''labor'' and ''language.''
-**** “I cast you out, unclean spirit, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Depart and stay far away from this servant of God... For it is the Lord Himself who commands you, accursed and doomed spirit, He who walked on the sea and reached out His hand to Peter as he was sinking. So then, foul fiend, recall the curse that decided yourfate once for all. Indeed, pay homage to the living and true God, pay homage to Jesus Christ, His Son, and to the Holy Spirit. Keep far from this servant of God. for Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, has freely called him to His holy grace and blessed way and to the waters of baptism.” (Rituale Romanum)
+''Labor'' is the process by which humans interact with the natural world in order to make products for our needs of existing and developing. Labor is also the process that changes the human body’s structure [i.e., muscles developing through exercise].
-Similar ceremonies were used to consecrate inanimate objects like bells, chalices, and other items reserved for liturgical use. Even storms and swarms of locusts were deemed to be targets of potential exorcism if the need arose. In the life of St. Gregory the Great, an influential pope of antiquity, it was said that a nun was possessed by a demon simply by her failure to make the Sign of the Cross over a leaf of lettuce prior to eating it. (Boreau, 94) The premise was that, even after Jesus Christ’s triumph over Satan on the Cross, the demons are able to continue their destructive activity until the end of the world. Demons could even haunt entire blood lines, forming a legacy of generational spirits that incline an entire family to a particular vice for generations. (Ripperger, “Generational Spirits”)
+-----
-Thus, Satan is considered the “lord of this world” since he impedes the immortal and impassible life willed by God for Man. The devil is the master of the desert places and the wilderness, as the ceremony of Atonement in the Hebrew Temple indicated: a goat was infused with the sins of the people and then cast out into the wild. (Leviticus 16: 18) Later the first Christian ascetics would go off into the deserts of Egypt and Palestine to do spiritual battle with the devils there.
+==== Annotation 73 ====
-*** Image and Likeness
+In ''Dialectics of Nature'', Engels describes the dialectical relationship between labor and human development:
-Before proceeding further, an extended note is appropriate concerning the anthropocentric nature of the Christian (and thus Western) vision. Not only is the human the possessor of Truth in the Christian cosmos, but the human is the truth, full stop. Or rather, the Human Person is the meaning of existence, as an image of the One God in Three Divine Persons (unoaTaaiq). The integrity of the human person is enshrined in the Christian system of thought, and that system has been passed down and “purified” in secular forms such as liberalism, Marxism, anarchism, and even fascism.
+<blockquote>
+Labour is the source of all wealth, the political economists assert. And it really is the source — next to nature, which supplies it with the material that it converts into wealth. But it is even infinitely more than this. It is the prime basic condition for all human existence, and this to such an extent that, in a sense, we have to say that labour created man himself.
-The Russian Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky described the vision of Man made in the image and likeness of God through the thought of the fifth century Father of the Church, St. Gregory of Nyssa:
+Before the first flint could be fashioned into a knife by human hands, a period of time probably elapsed in comparison with which the historical period known to us appears insignificant. But the decisive step had been taken, the hand had become free and could henceforth attain ever greater dexterity; the greater flexibility thus acquired was inherited and increased from generation to generation.
-**** “...[W]hen [Gregory] speaks of the image that is limited to the sharing of certain benefits that is to the image in the state of becoming, he sees the proper character of man created in the image of God, primarily in ‘the fact that he is freed from necessity, and not subject to the domination of nature, but able freely to follow his own judgment. For virtue is independent and her own mistress.’ Freedom is, so to speak, the ‘formal’ image, the necessary condition, for the attainment of perfect assimilation to God. Because created in the image of God, man is to be seen as a personal being, a person who is not controlled by nature, but who can himself control nature in assimilating it to its divine Archetype.” (119-120)
+Thus the hand is not only the organ of labour, it is also the product of labour. Only by labour, by adaptation to ever new operations, through the inheritance of muscles, ligaments, and, over longer periods of time, bones that had undergone special development and the ever-renewed employment of this inherited finesse in new, more and more complicated operations, have given the human hand the high degree of perfection required to conjure into being the pictures of a Raphael, the statues of a Thorwaldsen, the music of a Paganini.
-Another Russian theologian, Leonid Ouspensky, summarizes the image of God in man through its cosmic implications:
+But the hand did not exist alone, it was only one member of an integral, highly complex organism. And what benefited the hand, benefited also the whole body it served.
+</blockquote>
-**** “Man is a microcosm, a little world. He is the center of created life, and therefore, being in the image of God, he is the means by which God acts in creation. It is precisely in this divine image that the cosmic meaning of man is revealed, according to the commentary of St. Gregory of Nyssa. Creation participates in the spiritual life through man. Placed by God at the head of all visible creatures, man must realize in himself the union and harmony of everything and unite all the universe to God, in order to make of it a homogeneous organism where God would be ‘all in all,’ for the final goal of creation is its deification.” (185-186)
+-----
-The truth of Man is Jesus Christ as the New Adam: True God and True Man, come to restore mankind’s dignity and heal it of the beastly habit of sin. Another Father of the Church, St. Irenaeus of Lyon in his work Adversus Haereses, summarized the interconnection between God and man, and man’s ultimate meaning in creation: Gloria enim Dei vivens homo, vita autem hominis visio Dei. (The glory of God is the living man, and the life of man is the vision of God.) The Orthodox liturgy itself repeatedly calls God ^iXavSpwnwq, or Lover of Mankind. Demetrios Constantelos contextualizes this title as a manifestation of Christian communion:
+Labor also allows us to discover the attributes, structures, motion laws, etc., of the natural world, via observable phenomena.
-**** “As God made no distinction because of his love for all, man's love was exercised toward all, transcending sex, race, and national boundaries. Fundamentally, all theologians, Church Fathers and ecclesiastical writers expressed the view that philanthropia is one of the paramount properties of God expressing itself in his relationship with man; and, therefore, man ought to possess the same attribute and to apply it for the benefit of his fellow man.” (“The Lover of Mankind”)
-Lest we think that these lofty visions of Man are merely the prejudices of Christian antiquity, we quote here the <em>Oration on the Dignity of Man</em> by the Renaissance philosopher, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola:
+-----
-**** “Oh unsurpassed generosity of God the Father, Oh wondrous and unsurpassable felicity of man, to whom it is granted to have what he chooses, to be what he wills to be! The brutes, from the moment of their birth, bring with them, as Lucilius says, ‘from their mother's womb’' all that they will ever possess. The highest spiritual beings were, from the very moment of creation, or soon thereafter, fixed in the mode of being which would be theirs through measureless eternities. But upon man, at the moment of his creation, God bestowed seeds pregnant with all possibilities, the germs of every form of life. Whichever of these a man shall cultivate, the same will mature and bear fruit in him. If vegetative, he will become a plant; if sensual, he will become brutish; if rational, he will reveal himself a heavenly being; if intellectual, he will be an angel and the son of God. And if, dissatisfied with the lot of all creatures, he should recollect himself into the center of his own unity, he will there become one spirit with God, in the solitary darkness of the Father, Who is set above all things, himself transcend all creatures...
+==== Annotation 74 ====
-**** Who then will not look with wonder upon man, upon man who, not without reason in the sacred Mosaic and Christian writings, is designated sometimes by the term ‘all flesh’ and sometimes by the term ‘every creature,’ because he molds, fashions, and transforms himself into the likeness of all flesh and assumes the characteristic power of every form of life? This is why Evantes the Persian in his exposition of the Chaldean theology, writes that man has no inborn and proper semblance, but many which are extraneous and adventitious: whence the Chaldean saying: Enosh hu shinnujim vekammah tebhaoth haj (‘man is a living creature of varied, multiform, and ever-changing nature.’)”
+We discover truth about the natural world through labor — through physical ''practice'' in the material world. See the discussion of ''practice'' in Annotation 211, p. 205.
-Passing into more modern thinkers, we come to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s idea of Reason manifesting itself in Nature and re-forming it in its image and likeness, or as Karl Marx would put it in <em>Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844</em>, Nature becomes the “inorganic body of Man.” Élisée Reclus, 19th century anarchist geographer, was even more explicit in stating that “Man is nature having become self-conscious.” (Ishill, “Elisée Reclus' Optimism”) Soviet philosopher Evald Ilyenkov posited that the meaning of Man’s existence as a thinking thing was crucial to the salvation of the universe, as one researcher summarizes:
+All of these phenomena, through our human senses, impact our human brains. And through brain activity, knowledge and consciousness of the objective world are formed and developed.
-**** “Addressing the physicist idea of the ‘entropic death of the universe’ and using a combination of Hegelian dialectics and Spinoza’s concept of attribute, Ilyenkov claimed that thought is a necessary attribute of matter. Not only it is able to prevent the terminal entropy of the universe, it can also re-launch its nuclear reactions in a final self-sacrificial explosion. For Ilyenkov, communism was the necessary political condition for the achievement of fully developed power of thought, embodied in science and technologies, and, consequently, for the re-launch of the universe and the prevention of its otherwise irreversible collapse.” (Penzin, “Contingency and Necessity in Evald Ilyenkov’s Communist Cosmology”)
+''Language'' is a system of material signals that carries information with cognitive content. Without language, consciousness could not exist and develop.
-Thus, even a Soviet atheist returns to the theme of Man as the Savior of visible and invisible creation. Not to be outdone, religious figures in the modern era continue to see the meaning of the cosmos as the dignity and exaltation of Man. Jesuit paleontologist and controversial theologian Pierre Teilhard de Chardin merged Chris- tology and evolution by indicating Jesus Christ, the New Adam and God-Man, was the apex of the development of creation:
+The birth of language goes hand in hand with labor. From the beginning, labor was social. The relationships between people who perform labor processes require them to have means to communicate and exchange thoughts. This requirement caused language to arise and develop along with the working processes. With language, humans not only communicate, but also summarise reality and convey experience and thoughts from generation to generation.
-**** “Teilhard thus follows the evolutionist understanding of an evolutionary progression from inanimate matter through primitive life and invertebrates to fish, amphibia, reptiles, mammals, and finally man; always an increase in consciousness. With man a threshhold is crossed—self-conscious thought, or mind, appears. But even humans do not represent the end-point of evolution, for this process will continue until all humans are united in a single Divine Christ-consciousness, the ‘Omega Point’, so-called after the last letter of the Greek alphabet—hence the Hellenistic statement attributed to Christ (but unlikely to be said by him, as he would not have known Greek — ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end’). Teilhard- ian cosmology thus revolves around the idea of an evolutionary progression towards greater and greater consciousness, culminating first in the appearance of self-conscious mind in humankind, and then in the Omega point of divinisation of humanity.” (Kazlev, “Teilhard de Chardin's Evolutionary Philosophy”)
+-----
-A far more orthodox Christian figure, (now St.) Pope John Paul II, stated the following in his first encyclical, Redemptor Hominis, written in the late 1970s:
+==== Annotation 75 ====
-**** “Christ, the Redeemer of the world, is the one who penetrated, in a unique, unrepeatable way, to the mystery of man and entered his ‘heart.’ Rightly therefore does the Second Vatican Council teach: ‘The truth is that only in the mystery of the Incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light. For Adam, the first man, was a type of him who was to come (Rom 5:14), Christ the Lord. Christ the new Adam, in the very revelation of the mystery of the Father and of his love, fully reveals man to himself and brings to light his most high calling.’ And the Council continues: ‘He who is the ‘image of the invisible God’ (Col 1:15), is himself the perfect man who has restored in the children of Adam that likeness to God which had been disfigured ever since the first sin. Human nature, by the very fact that it was assumed, not absorbed, in him, has been raised in us also to a dignity beyond compare. For, by his Incarnation, he, the son of God, in a certain way united himself with each man.”
+From ''Dialectics of Nature'':
-Secular or sacred, reactionary or revolutionary, the one dogma that cannot be dismissed is the absolute supremacy of Man as a special being in the cosmos. He cannot even be considered an animal, for even that seems a form of sacrilege to religious person and atheist alike. The entire meaning of existence is Man, and if things have no use for him, they should be disposed of, or at best ignored. With the doctrine of the Supremacy of Man come the Doctrines of the Fall into Sin and of Redemption with the subsequent Restoration of Paradise (one that is either heavenly, or of the workers, or “feral”). Having described these myths to which the hyper-civilized adhere, we can continue our discussion concerning the demonic legions as the enemy of Mankind.
+<blockquote>
+It has already been noted that our simian ancestors were gregarious; it is obviously impossible to seek the derivation of man, the most social of all animals, from non-gregarious immediate ancestors. Mastery over nature began with the development of the hand, with labour, and widened man’s horizon at every new advance. He was continually discovering new, hitherto unknown properties in natural objects. On the other hand, the development of labour necessarily helped to bring the members of society closer together by increasing cases of mutual support and joint activity, and by making clear the advantage of this joint activity to each individual. In short, men in the making arrived at the point where they had something to say to each other. Necessity created the organ; the undeveloped larynx of the ape was slowly but surely transformed by modulation to produce constantly more developed modulation, and the organs of the mouth gradually learned to pronounce one articulate sound after another.
-*** Corpus Diaboli
+Comparison with animals proves that this explanation of the origin of language from and in the process of labour is the only correct one. The little that even the most highly-developed animals need to communicate to each other does not require articulate speech. In its natural state, no animal feels handicapped by its inability to speak or to understand human speech. It is quite different when it has been tamed by man. The dog and the horse, by association with man, have developed such a good ear for articulate speech that they easily learn to understand any language within their range of concept. Moreover they have acquired the capacity for feelings such as affection for man, gratitude, etc., which were previously foreign to them. Anyone who has had much to do with such animals will hardly be able to escape the conviction that in many cases they now feel their inability to speak as a defect, although, unfortunately, it is one that can no longer be remedied because their vocal organs are too specialised in a definite direction. However, where vocal organs exist, within certain limits even this inability disappears. The buccal organs of birds are as different from those of man as they can be, yet birds are the only animals that can learn to speak; and it is the bird with the most hideous voice, the parrot, that speaks best of all. Let no one object that the parrot does not understand what it says. It is true that for the sheer pleasure of talking and associating with human beings, the parrot will chatter for hours at a stretch, continually repeating its whole vocabulary. But within the limits of its range of concepts it can also learn to understand what it is saying. Teach a parrot swear words in such a way that it gets an idea of their meaning (one of the great amusements of sailors returning from the tropics); tease it and you will soon discover that it knows how to use its swear words just as correctly as a Berlin costermonger. The same is true of begging for titbits.
-I will discuss here how demons behave and how they wage their war on mankind. Bonino writes that the first characteristic of the demons is that they remain hierarchical since they retain the nature ordered by God. (The Catholic cosmos is conceived of as being rightly ordered and authoritarian.) Thus, <em>“it must be admitted that by virtue of their unequal angelic nature some demons exercise authority over others: there are superiors (praelati) among them.”</em> (280) Satan is the “leader of all destined for ruin,” the Head of the City of Evil parallel to the City of God: <em>“The City of Evil constitutes as it were the corpus diaboli [body of the devil] opposed to the body of Christ [i.e. the Church].”</em> (ibid, 281)
+First labour, after it and then with it speech — these were the two most essential stimuli under the influence of which the brain of the ape gradually changed into that of man, which, for all its similarity is far larger and more perfect. Hand in inevitably accompanied by a corresponding refinement of the organ of hearing, so the development of the brain as a whole is accompanied by a refinement of hand with the development of the brain went the development of its most immediate instruments — the senses. Just as the gradual development of speech is all the senses. The eagle sees much farther than man, but the human eye discerns considerably more in things than does the eye of the eagle. The dog has a far keener sense of smell than man, but it does not distinguish a hundredth part of the odours that for man are definite signs denoting different things. And the sense of touch, which the ape hardly possesses in its crudest initial form, has been developed only side by side with the development of the human hand itself, through the medium of labour.
+</blockquote>
-Bonino then describes that the union of devils arises not out of solidarity, but out of a common destructive goal:
+So, the most basic, direct and important source that decides the birth and development of language is labor. Language appeared later than labor but always goes with labor. Language and labor were the two main stimulations affecting the brains of the primates which evolved into humans, slowly changing their brains into human brains and transforming animal psychology into human consciousness.
-**** “...[T]his subjection to the natural head is subjectively accepted by each demon not through political friendship (since demons detest one another), but with the perverse intention of acquiring through their complicity a greater effectiveness in their work of destruction. In short, it is a confederation welded together by a common hatred of God and men.” (ibid)
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-14.png|''This diagram is based on work from an article titled'' “Evidence in Hand: Recent Discoveries and the Early Evolution of Human Manual Manipulation<ref>Written by Professor Tracy L. Kivell and published in ''The Royal Society''.</ref>.”''Modern research has discovered strong evidence<ref>''Stone Tools Helped Shape Human Hands'' by Sara Reardon, published in New Scientist Magazine.</ref> that the human hand evolved along with tool use, in line with Engels’ analysis in'' Dialectics of Nature.]]
-<em>The Malleus Maleficarum</em> indicates a similar thought in terms of demonic organization:
+-----
-**** “Because sin cannot change nature and the demons did not lose their gifts after the fall... and their workings on things follow the natural conditions of those things, they are various and manifold in their workings, just as they are in nature. Since they oppose the human race, when they attack it in an orderly manner they think that they cause humans more harm, as in fact they do.” (135)
+==== Annotation 76 ====
-Since demonic activity is purely destructive, it is essentially parasitic. It has no constructive blueprint for the world other than the extinction of the human species. Bonino writes:
+It is also worth noting that, just as human consciousness derived from labor and language ''and'' social activity, so too did society itself arise from language and labor, as Engels explained in ''Dialectics of Nature'':
-**** “It is a cruel irony that the diabolical society, which dreams of setting itself up as an absolutely independent anti-reality, cannot even be self-sufficient. Not only does it depend on God, who preserves it in being and utilizes the perverse organization of the demonic City for its own benevolent purposes, but it also depends, under God, on the good angels.” (282)
+<blockquote>
+The reaction on labour and speech of the development of the brain and its attendant senses, of the increasing clarity of consciousness, power of abstraction and of conclusion, gave both labour and speech an ever-renewed impulse to further development. This development did not reach its conclusion when man finally became distinct from the ape, but on the whole made further powerful progress, its degree and direction varying among different peoples and at different times, and here and there even being interrupted by local or temporary regression. This further development has been strongly urged forward, on the one hand, and guided along more definite directions, on the other, by a new element which came into play with the appearance of fully-fledged man, namely, society.
+</blockquote>
-The City of Satan then is a doomed city at the outset: it relies entirely on God since God is the source of being, and evil is merely a privation. Satan is never autonomous and ends up an instrument of God’s wrath and judgment in spite of himself.
+In other words, these factors of human’s physical nature and human society have a dialectical relationship with one another. Elements of human nature — in particular labor and language — led to the development of human society, which in turned played a key role in the development of human language and labor.
-The Franciscan school of theology, along with the Dominican school of St. Thomas Aquinas, also contributed to Catholic theological ideas of demonic behavior and organization. In this school of thought, eschatology played a larger role in revealing the humility of the good Christian man, personified in St. Francis, as a counter to the demonic pride that made the angels fall at the dawn of creation. Boureau states:
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-15.png|''Human language and human labor mutually develop one another through a dialectical process to develop human nature. Simultaneously, human nature and human society mutually develop one another through a dialectical process.'']]
-**** “...[T]his vision of Francis as the prince of angels was foretold by the implicit comparison between Franciscan perfection and the evil commitment of the demon on an axis of contrast that placed face to face the vow of poverty and the vow of evil, the humility of Francis and the pride of Satan. The exceptional status of Francis has also been prepared, in Franciscan tradition, by an interpretation of St. Bonaventure, who in the 1250s had seen in the presence of the angel the seventh seal of the Apocalypse an announcement of the coming of St. Francis... The human elect did not have the status of auxiliaries of the angels, since it was a human who became the prince of the angels.”(177)
+Elements of human nature — in particular labor and language — led to the development of human society, which in turned played a key role in the development of human language and labor.
-The hosts of fallen angels thus function like an inverted Catholic religious order that seeks the destruction and damnation of the human race. This is in contrast with the good Christian friars who seek to imitate the angels and save humanity through love and humility. The demon in the Franciscan vision becomes a doubly- tragic figure: not only fallen, but replaced by a humble human who presides over the entire angelic order. In this, the song of Mary in the Gospel is fulfilled: “he has knocked down the mighty from their thrones, and has exalted the humble.” (Luke 1: 52)
+-----
-We give Bonino the last word on the commitment of demons to evil and their opposition to God:
+==== b. Nature and Structure of Consciousness ====
-**** “The devil excels in scheming and conspiring—in other words, in organizing intelligently and systematically, with a view to a definite end—the consequences of men’s personal sins. He works to make the partial evils that originate in our weakness converge on the greatest possible evil. (Thus the devil apes God’s providence, which makes all things contribute to the good of those who love him.)” (289)
+''- Nature of Consciousness''
-*** Eco-extremism as the Imitation of Satan
+''Consciousness is the dynamic and creative reflection of the objective world in human brains; it is the subjective image of the objective world.'' [See discussion of dynamic and creative reflection on p. 68]
-Thomas A Kempis’ spiritual classic, <em>The Imitation of Christ</em>, has been much appreciated by clerics and laymen alike. In it, Kempis lays out the major features of Christ’s personality and actions that should be imitated by those seeking to worship him: humility, gentleness, fortitude, and above all, charity. It is Satan, the Adversary, the Accuser at the Day of Judgment, who embodies the opposite: pride, anger, cowardice, and hatred. Just like Satan, the eco-extremist and nihilist terrorist are sworn enemies of the human. They embody all of the values that modern hyper-civilized Christian man rejects (for he is Christian whether he accepts God or Jesus or not).
+''The dynamic and creative nature'' of reflection is expressed in human psycho-physiological activities when we receive, select, process, and save data in our brains. Within the human brain, we are able to collect data from the external material world. Based on this information, our brain is capable of creating new information, and we are able to analyze, interpret, and understand all of this information collectively within our consciousness.
-The individualist nihilist/eco-extremist is for Chaos and Wildness, for those things outside of civilized control, full of demons and death. Whether he or she has a god or not, they worship the same force: Satan, the spirit of the Earth unformed and indomitable; they prefer the perfection of the present over the perfection of what could be. They prefer their own base desires and appetites to the perfection of improved ethical behaviors that society seeks to impose on them. And most of all, they are misanthropes: they hate humanity for what it does to the Earth and the wildness within. Humanity is neither the summit nor even a notable link in the “Great Chain of Being:” there are things higher and lower than it, if it is even appropriate to formulate things in this way. Man is thus worthy of attack if he is a threat to the common well-being of the Earth. Individualists thus perfect their means to personally attack humanity and their hatred is sharpened by the day.
+The dynamic and creative nature of reflection is also expressed in several human processes:
-The eco-extremist/nihilist has no problem with authority. They have no problem belittling the human and recognizing a higher force that is indifferent or hostile to humanity. As with the demonic order, that authority only exists to destroy and attack Man, and not to build anything upon the foundation of civilized society. Ecoextremists experience neither solidarity nor charity but affinity to carry out destructive action, realizing that some are better than others at tasks and proceeding accordingly. Like Satan, they know that their endeavor has failed from the outset, yet they carry on anyway. The individualist attacker may end up as a pawn in the great game of civilization, but he or she resolves that an imperfect attack that is carried out is better than a perfect yet unrealized attack.
+* The creation of ideas, hypotheses, stories, etc.
+* The ability to summarize nature and to comprehend the objective laws of nature.
+* The ability to construct models of ideas and systems of knowledge to guide our activities.
-Finally, eco-extremists are proud, petty, liars, scoundrels, cowards, demented, and every other epithet that one can think of. Just as demons arguably serve at the bidding of the Christian god, so eco-extremists seem to be a product of civilization itself, reflecting, as if in a distorted mirror, its most disgusting pathologies. They absorb the worst of civilization to attack those who benefit from it. This love of criminality is part of the individualist modus operandi, not a deviation from it. “He was a murderer and a liar from the beginning.” Eco-extremists disguise themselves as angels of light to unleash violence under the cover of darkness as the children of the devil that they are.
+''Consciousness is the subjective image of the objective world.'' Consciousness is defined by the objective world in both Content and Form [see Annotation 150, p. 147]. However, consciousness does not perfectly reflect the objective world. It modifies information through the subjective lenses (thoughts, feelings, aspirations, experiences, knowledge, needs, etc.) of humans. According to Marx and Engels, ideas are simply “sublimates [transformations] of [the human brain’s]... material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises.”<ref>''The German Ideology'', Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, 1846.</ref>
-The eco-extremist and terrorist nihilist may be a contemporary manifestation of that Primordial Criminality of the Murderer, but they are not the first manifestation. We will go back in time to one particular episode in the Infernal Succession, where power, money, and murder merged with the demonic forces to undermine the integrity of a Christian kingdom.
+-----
-*** Nantes 1440
+==== Annotation 77 ====
-**** ...It is probably after this setback, which the crisis followed, that Prelati, divining the need to take his master in hand, proposes what could be a last resort: the irritated demon asked Gilles for a sacrifice! It was time to sacrifice an infant to the Devil. At first this proposition seems to have left Gilles in anguish. Prelati must have known in advance that this superstitious man would tremble; he knew the reticence of the criminal who never ultimately abandoned the hope and anxiety to save his soul; Gilles could not dissemble what was improbable and repugnant in the sacrifice of an innocent, of a miserable child to the ‘unclean spirit.’ However, at bay, at all costs wanting to save, as with his soul and life, what was left of his riches, he appeared one evening carrying the hand, heart, and eye perhaps, of a child. He was so eager to see the devil! During the night, the Italian presented the horrible offering, but the devil did not come...
+In ''The German Ideology'', Marx and Engels refer to ideas somewhat poetically as “the phantoms formed in the human brain,” and explains that ideas arise directly from material human life processes [see Annotation 72, p. 68]. Lenin makes it very clear in ''Materialism and Empirio-Criticism'' that consciousness is not a ''mirror image'', or ''exact'' reproduction of reality, quoting Engels:
-**** Georges Bataille,
+<blockquote>
+The great basic question of all philosophy,” Engels says, “especially of modern philosophy, is that concerning the relation of thinking and being,” of “spirit and nature.” Having divided the philosophers into “two great camps” on this basic question, Engels shows that there is “yet another side” to this basic philosophical question, viz., “in what relation do our thoughts about the world surrounding us stand to this world itself? Is our thinking capable of the cognition of the real world? Are we able in our ideas and notions of the real world to produce a correct reflection of reality?” “The overwhelming majority of philosophers give an affirmative answer to this question,” says Engels, “including under this head not only all materialists but also the most consistent idealists.
+</blockquote>
-**** The Trial of Gilles de Rais, pg. 55
-*** The Satanic Sacrament
+-----
-**** For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind.
+Of extra importance is Lenin’s footnote to the above passage, regarding what he purports to be Viktor Chernov’s mistranslation of Engels:
-**** The Quran 5:32
+<blockquote>
+Fr. Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach, etc., 4<sup>th</sup> Germ. ed., S. 15. Russian translation, Geneva ed., 1905, p. 12–13. Mr. V. Chernov translates the word Spiegelbild literally (a mirror reflection) accusing Plekhanov of presenting the theory of Engels “in a very weakened form” by speaking in Russian simply of a “reflection” instead of a “mirror reflection”. This is mere cavilling. Spiegelbild [mirror reflection] in German is also used simply in the sense of Abbild [reflection, image].
+</blockquote>
-According to the Catholic Catechism, a sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace. That is, since God’s life and power could not possibly be bestowed upon any feeble creature, God descends toward man in the form of visible ritualistic signs in which humans can participate. Baptism, for example, takes the form of water being poured over the believer, effectively realizing the forgiveness of sins and birth into eternal life. The Eucharist—or Mass in the Roman Catholic Church—is the ceremony wherein the substance of bread and wine is transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. In eating Christ’s body and drinking his blood, the believer is united with Christ in eternal life. The visible elements of bread and wine represent the invisible grace of life everlasting.
+Here, Lenin reaffirms and clarifies Engels’ idea that consciousness is not a perfect, exact duplicate of reality; not a “mirror image.” This, however, does not contradict the fact that we can obtain real knowledge of the real world in our consciousness, and that this knowledge improves over time through practice and observation. Indeed, Lenin’s passage on practice cited first in this annotation directly follows the above passage in ''Materialism and Empirio-Criticism''.
-The Sacrament of the Murderer has the opposite aim: it is to show the disorderly chaos at the heart of Man, one that dissolves all order and morality. Those who believe and are grafted into the Church of the Murderer see in the spilling of blood the fulfillment of the basest desires and darkest whims. They see in the destruction of one human life the destruction of Mankind itself and the return to the Primordial Chaos. This in spite of impure or selfish intentions such as material gain, revenge, lust, and so on. Indeed, these individualistic intentions are not destroyed but perfected in the Sacrament of the Murderer, as we shall see later.
+See: Natural Source of Consciousness, p. 64, and Annotation 32, 27.
-From the Death of the Innocent flows the organization of the Church of the Murderer, just as the early Church Fathers said that their Church flowed from Jesus’ pierced side on the Cross, out of which flowed blood and water—that is, the Eucharist and Baptism. (cf. John 19:34) Out of the shedding of the blood of the Guilty and Innocent flows the Diabolical Church, filled with individualistic violence, lies, cheating, deceit, betrayal, and disloyalty. This church lurks in the shadows of the countryside and metropolis, it seeks any place where it can strike, and takes advantage of the weak and the vulnerable for personal gain. It does so without concern for humanity, its morality and customs. A human is a tool like any other to be used to acquire what is most desired, and then thrown on the trash heap when no longer useful. This is the only way to dethrone the Human: by action and not by ideology or sentiment.
+-----
-We will discuss in this section the Affair of the Poisons in Louis XIV’s France. We pick this episode because it intersects with the birth of hyper-modernity, hidden criminality, and dark magic. This episode describes the underbelly of civilization where human life is cheap and disposable if personal gain is to be had by its sacrifice. This hidden criminal behavior reached near to the Throne of the Catholic King himself, with rumors of his most favored mistress participating in poisoning and ceremonies involving child sacrifice. While we cannot touch upon all of the aspects of this most complex affair, we will address episodes and personalities that are of concern to those who imitate the Murderer in the present.
+''Consciousness is a social phenomenon and has a social nature.'' Consciousness arose from real life activities. Consciousness is always ruled by natural law and by social law.
-*** Paris, 1677
+-----
-Paris in the late seventeenth century was a growing and squalid city. The streets remained unpaved and people regularly disposed of their waste by throwing it out of their windows into the gutters below. But most significantly, there was crime. The cramped and suffocating quarters of Paris drove people to the brink of violence and immorality, and the nights were ruled by the marginal peoples of society looking to prey on any unfortunate passerby. But even in broad daylight, the nobility was not spared violent death. The historian Holly Tucker recounts one incident of a robbery of a noble named Tardieu on St. Bartholomew’s day by the criminal Touchet brothers:
+==== Annotation 78 ====
-**** “With a strength that belied his age, Tardieu lunged at the thieves, battling the Touchet brothers for the gun. One of the brothers dropped the weapon and kicked it swiftly across the room. As Tardieu crouched to retrieve it, the second brother reached underneath his belt and removed a dagger. With four strokes to the neck, Tardieu crumpled to the floor.” (Tucker, p 8)
+''Natural law'' includes the laws of physics, chemistry, and other natural phenomena which govern the material world. Consciousness itself can never violate natural law as it arises from the natural processes of the natural world.
-This and other murders shocked Parisian society, and soon a clamor arose for the authorities to do something about urban crime and violence.
+''Social law'' includes the objective and universal relationships between social phenomena and social processes. Human society was created through labor, and this labor was performed in very specific material relations between humans and the natural world.
-In 1667, Nicolas de La Reynie was appointed the Lieutenant General of Police of the City of Paris by King Louis XIV. In the next thirty years, La Reynie would transform Paris from the dark Crime Capital of the World to the City of Light. He would head efforts to pave roads, fine people for disposing waste and dead animals in the street, and, of course, light up the streets with lanterns so that the city night was almost as luminous as the day. Not only did these efforts improve the overall standard of living of the populace, but it was hoped that such measures would diminish crime and the violent tension of people squeezed into close quarters. La Reynie’s tenure as Chief of Police was largely successful, transforming Paris into a world-renowned modern city that is still visited by tourists the world over.
+''Note: social law is a key concept of historical materialism, which is the topic of Part 2 of the textbook from which this entire text has been translated, which we hope to translate in the future.''
-Nevertheless, the criminal element did not entirely disappear. On such side streets as la rue au Bout du Monde (the street at the end of the world) resided a sprawling horde of fortune tellers, thieves, abortionists, beggars, con artists, and everything else in between. There was even a rumor of a half-sunken house serving as the gateway to the Court of Miracles, a subterranean network of tunnels that spread itself throughout the city: <em>“more than five hundred men, women, and children lived together ‘without faith and laws’ in these squalid underground caverns”</em> (Tucker, p 25). Those in the Court of Miracles fanned out into the city everyday as “crippled” beggars and hustlers, returning at night to their den cured of their afflictions. Another resident of this neighborhood, CatherineVoisin, otherwise known as La Voisin, was a fortuneteller who features prominently in the events described below.
+In ''A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy'', Marx explains how social existence and social laws govern the consciousness of individuals:
-The worlds of the paupers and of the nobility did not have an absolute partition between them. This was especially the case in the affairs of women. Even the most noble women were subject to the strict rules of patriarchy in which they were essentially property to be traded with little personal agency. Even noble women had to have recourse to places like the “Street at the End of the World” to resolve the matter of a cruel spouse or an unwanted pregnancy. Often, the “wise women” who helped them (for a price) would tell the women to pray a novena to St. Ursula in the case of an abusive spouse, but to the more insistent, there was a more effective manner of resolving the issue:
+<blockquote>
+In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.
+</blockquote>
-**** “Poison was primarily a woman’s weapon, most suitable to a woman’s hand. And women, it must be remembered, occupied an uncomfortable and subaltern position, both legally and economically, in seventeenth century France. Not only the fortune of the female but her person were subject to often tyrannous paternal and conjugal authority: an errant, an uncongenial, an inconvenient wife or daughter could be shut away for life behind convent walls. It is not surprising that the majority of poisonings in that day were committed by women.” (Mossiker, 134-135)
-If stakes were high for women seeking to escape life imprisonment or worse, so was the paranoia around poisoning itself. Suspicion of poisoning always emerged when an unnatural or an unexpected death occurred. This came to a fever pitch in Paris in 1676, when the fugitive Marie Madeleine Marguerite d'Aubray, Marquise de Brinvilliers was finally brought to justice after poisoning her father and two brothers to acquire their estates. Upon being tortured and confessing her part in the poisonings, she was beheaded and burnt at the stake. From that point forward, poison began to consume the cultural consciousness of the population of Paris, as well as of law enforcement. Priests of Notre Dame Cathedral even informed La Reynie that penitents were confessing the sin of poisoning at an alarming rate. (Mitford, 85)
+-----
-In 1677, fortune teller Magdelaine de La Grange was arrested by Paris authorities for forgery and the murder of her caretaker in order to acquire his estate. In an attempt to possibly better her situation, she convinced La Reynie that there was a network of poisoners and black magicians whose crimes reached into the upper echelons of the King’s court. Soon ladies close to King Louis XIV were overheard boasting about the ease of acquiring poisons and using them for their own ends. The King and his counselors began to suspect that poisoning was a common vice among ladies of good families, including many people around the Court. A Chambre Ardente (Burning Chamber) was thus formed to investigate these crimes away from the gaze of the Parlement (the supreme judicial assembly), in order to prevent further scandal. The investigations by this group and its rounding up of witches, fortune tellers, and other undesirables led the authorities to a circle of the most powerful witches in Paris, headed by the aforementioned Catherine Voisin. The historian Frances Mossiker describes one arrest of a prominent figure in what would come to be known as the Affair of the Poisons:
+Consciousness is determined by the social communication needs of human beings as well as the material conditions of reality.
-**** “On January 4, 1679, La Vigoureaux was arrested. Like La Bosse, along with her daughter and two sons, ‘all taken in one big bed together,’ all four snatched out and ‘embastilled.’
+-----
-**** “The fact that the four were bedded down together—that the sorcerers’ race was traditionally perpetuated by incest; the black arts a heritage handed down from one generation to the other—was only the first of the abominations to be revealed in the course of the interrogations of this new lot of prisoners. For, if these were poisoners, abortionists, counterfeiters, as they were, they were something still more sinister: they were sorcerers—self-avowed, practicing, ninth- and tenth-generation diabolists, necromancers, witches, and warlocks.” (165)
+==== Annotation 79 ====
-*** La Voisin
+The term ''material conditions'' refers to the external environment which humans inhabit. Material conditions include the natural environment, the means of production and the economic base<ref>See Annotation 3, p. 2 and Annotation 29, p. 24.</ref> of human society, and other objective externalities and systems which affect human life and society. Note that material conditions don’t refer to physical matter alone, but also include objective social relations and phenomena. In ''A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy'', Marx argues that “neither legal relations nor political forms could be comprehended whether by themselves or on the basis of a so-called general development of the human mind, but that on the contrary they originate in the material conditions of life.”
-**** Adultera, ergo venifica (There is no adulteress who is not also a poisoner.)
+Consciousness is dynamic in nature, constantly learning and changing flexibly. Consciousness guides humans to transform the material world to suit our needs.
-**** Cato the Elder (Mollenauer, 64)
+-----
-**** “Men’s lives are up for sale as a matter of everyday bargaining; murder is the only remedy when a family is in difficulties. Abominations are being practiced everywhere—in Paris, in the suburbs, and in the provinces.”
+==== Annotation 80 ====
-**** Nicolas de La Reynie (ibid, 88)
+Consciousness and material conditions have a dialectical relationship with one other, just as the base of society and the superstructure have a dialectical relationship with one other [see Annotation 29, p. 24]. Consciousness arises from material conditions, though conscious activity can affect material conditions.
-CatherineVoisin, simply known as LaVoisin, was a jack-of-all-trades in terms of using the dark arts to solve delicate problems. She was a fortune teller, magician, astrologer, folk healer, abortionist, and an impresario of highly questionable occult ceremonies. Coaches of the most prestigious families from all over Paris were seen parked outside of her humble compound at the Street at the End of the World. From a poor upbringing, she clawed her way out of her husband’s failed jewelery business to become the Queen of the Magical Underworld. As Frances Mossiker described, Voisin would preside over her seances and magical ceremonies dressed in her “Emperor’s robe:” <em>“a dalmatic vestment specially designed and woven for her (at the fantastic cost of 10,000 livres, as the tradesmens’ bill, attest): a skirt of lace-trimmed sea-green velvet; a cloak of crimson velvet elaborately embroidered with ‘two hundred and five doubleheaded, wing-spread eagles’: the same motif stitched in pure gold thread on her slippers.”</em> (176) La Voisin was considered a visionary of great power and clairvoyance who claimed many in the nobility and even royalty as her clientele.
+As Marx explains in ''Capital Volume I'':
-LaVoisin was surrounded by a large circle of poisoners, fortunetellers, abortionists, and renegade clergy who would service the desires of anyone who could pay. Most of her business came from women of means who were unhappy with their relationships, or people who were eagerly awaiting the death of a relative to inherit a fortune. At first, LaVoisin would counsel her clients to commend themselves to God or a particular saint. Soon she began to work with amulets or various potions to spur desire or bring about a desired outcome. For example, she made creams and perfumes from the powder of dried moles, roosters’ combs, and menstrual blood, which were all believed to have aphrodisiac properties. (Tucker, 29)
+<blockquote>
+At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement. He not only effects a change of form in the material on which he works, but he also realises a purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi, and to which he must subordinate his will. And this subordination is no mere momentary act. Besides the exertion of the bodily organs, the process demands that, during the whole operation, the workman’s will be steadily in consonance with his purpose.
+</blockquote>
-Voisin was also known to help get rid of an unwanted spouse, for the right price:
+In ''A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy'', Marx explains how the development of material conditions eventually leads to conscious activity which will in turn lead to changes in society:
-**** “To help a client get rid of her husband, Voisin asked for the man’s shirt. She would then bid adieu to her guest and pass the shirt to a trusted laundress, who washed it thoroughly with arsenic-based soap. (In a pinch, the man’s shoes were also an option.) Buttoning his freshly pressed chemise, the husband unwittingly sealed his own fate. The rash appeared a few hours later, followed by blisters, nausea, vomiting, and finally death... In the meantime, the family physician would diagnose the man with a pernicious case of syphilis, whose telltale sores earned the wife, his murderer, the sympathy of friends and family.” (ibid, 33)
+<blockquote>
+At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or — this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms — with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.
+</blockquote>
-Another aspect ofVoisin’s business was getting rid of unwanted pregnancies. An ex-collaborator and lover known as Le Sage, accused La Voisin of performing abortions at her compound:
+As Marx further explains, material conditions must first be met before such revolutionary social changes can be made through conscious activity:
-**** “La Voisin’s garden pavilion, Le Sage told La Reynie, was used as an abortion parlor. There was a small oven there, in the wall, ‘concealed by a tapestry, where bones were burned if the infant body seemed too large to lay away in a garden grave.’ Margot, the maid, had warned him away from that ‘accursed oven,’ but when he had quizzed La Voisin about it, she had told him whimsically that it was for baking her ‘petits pâtés.” (Mossiker, 185)
+<blockquote>
+No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.
+</blockquote>
-Abortions may have been good for other aspects of her business, as the young human body was thought to have rather powerful magical qualities:
-**** “In early modern Europe, both lay and learned people alike were convinced that the bodies of newborns—whether stillborn, aborted, or murdered immediately after birth—had mystical properties. Placentas were used as aphrodisiacs when dried into a powder or a cure for infertility when eaten raw, practices the Church condemned. Tradition also had it that the fat of children was what made witches’ brooms airborne, and dried umbilical cords served as wicks in the candles that illuminated their black Sabbaths.” (Tucker, 32)
+-----
-Paradoxically, Voisin claimed that she baptized the aborted children prior to their deaths. In Catholic theology, this would ensure their instant salvation and eternal beatitude in the afterlife. Nevertheless, one lodger at her home claimed that Voisin once boasted of having burnt the corpses of 2,500 aborted children in her oven. (ibid, 31)
+''- Structure of Consciousness''
-After being fingered by fellow witch Marie Bosse, LaVoisin was arrested while leaving Mass at her Paris church in March 1679. Her home was searched but nothing incriminating was found. While in prison, accusations and counter-accusations flowed between the accused prisoners. Bosse stated that she saw Voisin hand someone diamond powder, an expensive and powerful poison, outside of Notre Dame Cathedral, a charge that Voisin vehemently denied. La Voisin did admit that, <em>“Paris is full of this kind of thing and there is an infinite number of people engaged in this evil trade,” such as those who, “under pretext of divination or reading hands, or seeking treasure and the Philosopher’s Stone... engage in the sale of poison, abortions, and impieties...”</em> (Somerset, 231) Accusations even began to fly of the much-rumored Black Mass and of women offering up their newborns to the devil, though La Voisin denied her participation in these ceremonies.
+Consciousness has a very complicated structure, including many factors which have strong relationships with each other. The most basic factors are ''knowledge, sentiment'' and ''willpower.''
-After some months in custody, La Voisin began to talk. She admitted to helping various women around Louis XIV’s court to poison their husbands, but tried to mitigate her role in these crimes as merely that of a middle woman between more culpable parties. Le Sage however also began to accuse La Voisin of forming part of the plot to poison the King through handing him a petition that had been specially prepared to poison him. In the end, La Voisin only admitted to assisting at abortions and a handful of poisonings of husbands of various ladies of the court. For the most part,Voisin defended her clientele through her silence, and La Reynie and others around the court promptly sent her to her death in a trial held in February 1680. They may have done so to keep scandalous rumors about the Court from spreading. Facing death, Voisin kept a secret “witches’ code” of protecting her clientele:
+-----
-**** “There are witches so besotted in his devilish service that neither torture nor anguish affrights them, and who say that they go to a true martyrdom and death for love of him, as gaily as to a festival of pleasure and public rejoicing.” (Mossiker, 218)
+==== Annotation 81 ====
-Voisin’s last days and execution were far from a spectacle of Christian compunction and contrition. On one night after she was tortured (a customary procedure in the Ancien Regime prior to execution to get any last information out of the condemned and to remind the criminal of the gravity of the crime for which they were to be executed), she was intransigent in the face of her doomed condition:
+As with the concept of reflection (see Annotation 68, p. 65), the analysis of the structure of consciousness which follows is rooted in ideas first proposed by Marx, Engels and Lenin, and later developed through the work of various Soviet psychologists, philosophers, and scientists including Ivan Pavlov, Todor Pavlov, Aleksei Leontiev, Lev Vygotsky, Valentin Voloshinov, and others, and is used as a basis for scientific inquiry and development up to this day. According to ''Where is Marx in the Work and Thought of Vygotsky?'' by Lucien Sève (2018), much of this work, such as the groundbreaking work of Lev Vygotsky, has been heavily “de-Marxized,” stripped of all aspects of Marxism and, by extension, dialectical materialism, in translation to English.
-**** “ ...[B]roken in body as she was, she ate her supper and started up all over again on her scandalous debauches. The people around her tried to shame her, telling her that she would do better to think of God and to sing an Ave Maria... or a Salve... which she proceeded to do, but as a mockery.” (ibid)
+''Knowledge'' constitutes the understanding of human beings, and is the result of the cognitive process. Knowledge is the re-created image of perceived objects which takes the form of language. Knowledge is the mode of existence of consciousness and the condition for consciousness to develop.
-On the day of her execution, she refused to go to Confession or a priest or to kiss a Crucifix. On her way to the stake where she would be burned alive, she refused to kneel at the door of Notre Dame Cathedral, a custom for those being executed in Paris. La Voisin struggled against the executioners who tied her to the stake and piled straw over her. Her body was then consumed in a ball of flames, and one observer is recorded to have stated:
+-----
-**** “She gave her soul gently to the devil right in the middle of the fire. All she did was pass from one fire to another.” (Tucker, 198)
+==== Annotation 82 ====
-Knowledge of the full scope of La Voisin’s crimes would have been consumed with her in the flames had it not been for her daughter, Marie-Marguerite Voisin. Shortly after her mother’s death, she stepped forward and began to “unburden herself” to La Reynie. The 21-year-old revealed her mother’s extensive network within the Court and throughout Parisian society. This network would implicate the King’s favored mistress with whom he had eight children: Franfoise-Athenais, Marquise de Montespan.
+Marx and Engels discussed the relationship between language and consciousness extensively in ''The German Ideology'', explaining that language — the form of knowledge which exists in human consciousness — evolved dialectically with and through social activity, and that consciousness also developed along with and through the material processes that gave rise to speech:
-*** The Secret Double-Life of the Parisian Clergy
+<blockquote>
+From the start the ‘spirit’ is afflicted with the curse of being ‘burdened’ with matter, which here makes its appearance in the form of agitated layers of air, sounds, in short, of language. Language is as old as consciousness, language is practical consciousness that exists also for other men, and for that reason alone it really exists for me personally as well; language, like consciousness, only arises from the need, the necessity, of intercourse with other men.”So, language, physical speech organs, and human society all developed in dialectic relations with one another. Since language is the form of knowledge in human consciousness, this means that knowledge arose directly from these dialectical processes:
-Before proceeding further through the labyrinthine intrigue of the Affair of the Poisons, an extended reflection on the role of rogue clergy in the early modern Parisian underworld is in order. Here we must remind the modern reader of the role of the Catholic clergy in the popular imagination as well as the gravity of sacrilege in a Christian sacramental context. The priest was considered to have certain magical powers since, through his ordination, he could call down the blessings of God and even the Real Presence of God Himself by his mere words and gestures. The official theological formulation for this is that the sacraments are realized ex opere operato, by virtue of the work worked, that is, automatically, provided that the right conditions are met. The difference between a priest and a magician was thus negligible in many circumstances: indeed, as we shall see, there was a certain symbiosis between magic and Christian sacramental practice up into the modern era.
+Consciousness is, therefore, from the very beginning a social product, and remains so as long as men exist at all. Consciousness is at first, of course, merely consciousness concerning the immediate sensuous environment and consciousness of the limited connection with other persons and things outside the individual who is growing self-conscious.
+</blockquote>
-The only difference is that, while a priest might have been able to validly confect a blessing or curse in a ritual, it was not licit for him to do so outside of the authority of the Church. But as we shall see, as in any institution, illicit things could happen for the right price. One must remember that recruitment into the ranks of the clergy was often just another career option for a talented son who was not blessed with primogeniture. A second or third son might be sent off to seminary at ten years of age or younger, be ordained a priest in his early 20s, and live the rest of his life as a lonely celibate, celebrating Mass, hearing confessions, and performing all sorts of other sacramental rites. To say that a good number
+The fact that knowledge has a language-form in human consciousness is also important to understand because it shows that consciousness arose dialectically as, and through, social activity, and indeed, language and social activity gave rise to consciousness as a replacement for animal instinct in our relations with nature.
-<br>
+-----
-of lukewarm candidates made it into the priesthood would be an understatement: often the clergy deserved its reputation for greed and corruption, sacrilegious magic being just one extreme example.
+<blockquote>
+Man’s consciousness of the necessity of associating with the individuals around him is the beginning of the consciousness that he is living in society at all. This beginning is as animal as social life itself at this stage. It is mere herd-consciousness, and at this point man is only distinguished from sheep by the fact that with him consciousness takes the place of instinct or that his instinct is a conscious one.
+</blockquote>
-Lynn Wood Mollenauer describes the collaboration between sorcerers and priests in her book, <em>Strange Revelations: Magic, Poison, and Sacrilege in Louis XVI’s France</em>:
+And, as language and social activity dialectically developed through one another, human society became complex enough to give rise to human societies and human economies:
-**** “...[N]o sorceress or magician could stay in business very long without access to the services of a priest. The very functioning of the business of magic had a sacral dimension that required priestly cooperation..Sorceresses consequently hired priests to complete their charms. By celebrating mass over a love charm a priest activated it, just as he ‘activated’ the miracle of the mass... Magicians, too, needed priests to conduct demonic conjurations. Le Sage availed himself of the services of several clerics in addition to his regular partner, the abbe Mariette. The renegade priests were not always hired help, however. They could also act as independent agents and sell their services directly to clients.” (75-76)
+<blockquote>
+This sheep-like or tribal consciousness receives its further development and extension through increased productivity, the increase of needs, and, what is fundamental to both of these, the increase of population. With these there develops the division of labour…
+</blockquote>
-The types of magical ceremonies that the priest could perform ranged from passing a charm under the chalice during Mass (in which common wine was believed to transform into the blood of Christ) to reading the Gospels over someone’s head to unfailingly grant any desire. Many of the most powerful rituals were said to be contained in grimoires, or magical tomes consisting of spells written in debased ancient languages such as Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. The books were used for everything from curing toothaches to conjuring demons. The most powerful spells were precisely those of necromancy, such as those contained in <em>The Book of the Conjuration of Pope Honorius</em> found among La Voisin’s belongings. These spells were at times the exclusive property of the Catholic priest. It was believed that since only priests could perform an exorcism as part of their sacramental powers, so only a priest could bind a demon to do the more-than-likely sinful bidding of a human being on Earth.
-While binding a demon might seem ominous to the modern reader, oftentimes the intentions of those who summoned the underworld were pedestrian or outright banal. Popular conjures were used to guarantee success in the game of dice or cards. Treasure hunting was also a popular occasion for summoning demons. One spell in <em>The Book of the Conjuration of Pope Honorius</em> aimed at “trapping” the demon Baicher to assist in finding a treasure. This spell was performed while standing in a circle traced on the ground between midnight and 3 a.m. and reciting a conjuration that included such imprecations as:
+-----
-**** “I command you by the great living God and by the sainted Eucharist which delivers men from their sins, that without delay you come and put me in possession of the treasure that you own unjustly, without any lateness or delay... and that afterwards you leave without causing any noise, nuisance, or terror toward me or towards those who are in my company.” (ibid, 84)
+Knowledge can be separated into two broad categories: knowledge of nature, and knowledge of human society. Each of these categories of knowledge reflects its corresponding entity in the external world.
-As with La Voisin, love magic was a best seller among women in particular. Priests could arrange for a charm to be secretly passed during Mass to a desperate woman looking for a magical means to control a husband or snag a lover, among other things. Sometimes, the rituals could go to extreme lengths of sacrilege because this was thought to bring greater benefits to the bearer of the charm. The priest Abbé Étienne Guibourg, who we shall speak about extensively below, was known to place a placenta on the altar during Mass to augment its quality as an aphrodisiac, but this was a small thing compared to one mockery of the Mass that he admitted to performing for a woman in the king’s court, Mademoiselle des Oeillets:
+-----
-**** “Wearing a priestly robe, he met Oeillets and an unknown man at Voisin’s home. He understood at the time that the man was serving as a proxy for the king, for whom the effects of the mass were intended. Holding a chalice, Guibourg instructed the couple to fill the vessel with their sexual fluids. Oeillets, who was menstruating, asked if she might make an offering of her blood instead. Guibourg agreed. The man slipped behind the bed and masturbated, ejaculating into the chalice. Then the priest stirred powder of dried bat into the semen to form a thick paste. After Guibourg blessed the concoction, he put the paste in a small dish and gave it to the couple to administer inconspicuously to the king as a love potion.” (Tucker, 211)
+==== Annotation 83 ====
-Here I must pause for another note about modern belief. Hyper-civilized people of the 21st century feign an allergy to hypocrisy and extol purity of thought and action. Previous generations, and perhaps most people in this one, have no such allergy. La Voisin could act like a good church goer and pious reciter of novenas one moment, and in the next give a woman poison to kill her husband or throw an aborted fetus into a furnace. A member of the renegade clergy of Paris went about his day like any other good priest, but he was also capable of the worst feats of sacrilege if some other benefit were to be had. Some may have done it out of outright hatred of God and his church. In the next section, we shall see that these sentiments may have played a part in the worst sacrilege conceivable: human sacrifice in the context of the shadowy Black Mass.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-16.png|''Each category of knowledge reflects a corresponding entity in the external world.'']]
-*** Hoc Sacrificium Laudis
+It’s also important to note that human society and nature have a dialectical relationship with each other and mutually impact one another, and, by extension, knowledge of nature and knowledge of human society also dialectically influence one another. So these categories of knowledge are not isolated from one another but rather dynamically shape and influence each other continuously through time.
-**** ...for whom we offer, or who offer up to Thee this Sacrifice of praise for themselves and all those dear to them, for the redemption of their souls and the hope of their safety and salvation: who now pay their vows to Thee, the everlasting, living and true God.
+-----
-**** From the Canon of the Mass
+Based on levels of cognitive development, we can also classify knowledge into categories of: daily life knowledge and scientific knowledge, experience knowledge and theory knowledge, emotional knowledge and rational knowledge.
-**** of the Roman Catholic Church
+-----
-As stated above, the death of La Voisin did not stop what has come to be known as the Affair of the Poisons, but rather accelerated investigation of it by La Reynie, due to the cooperation of theVoisin daughter. While what followed in La Reynie’s archive was story after story of sacrilege and poisoning, we will focus here on the actions of the most infamous of the Parisian renegade clergy, the aforementioned Abbé Guibourg.
+==== Annotation 84 ====
-Along with being among the most nefarious of the participants in the Affair of the Poisons, the then septuagenarian Guibourg looked the villainous part:
+The following information is from the ''Marxism-Leninism Textbook of Students Who Specialize in Marxism-Leninism'', released by Vietnam’s Ministry of Education and Training:
-**** “No professional make-up artist of stage or screen could have surpassed Nature’s job on Guibourg’s face. It was that of a natural villain, eyes crossed and with purple veins that seemed about to burst, seaming his hideous, bloated face.”
+'''Daily Life and Scientific Knowledge'''
-**** “A man in his seventies,” when La Reynie saw him: A libertine... claiming to be the illegitimate son of the late Duc de Montmorency. having served as vicar of Issy and at Vanves, presently attached to the Paris Church of Saint Marcel. Engaged for twenty years in the traffic ofpoison and sacrilege. A man who has slit the throats and sacrificed countless number of infants upon his unholy altar.” (Mossiker, 230)
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-17.png]]
-The slitting of throats of infants was the apex of what has come to be known as the Black Mass. The Mass or Eucharist as stated above is the supreme ritual of the Roman Catholic Church, said to be instituted by Jesus Christ himself at the Last Supper before his death and resurrection. In the Mass, bread and wine is blessed, becoming for the believer the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ, true God and true Man. This Bread of Heaven and Chalice of Salvation are the most sacred substances in the Catholic worldview, and they are the Body and Blood of God himself. In the Black Mass, an ordained priest confects the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ only to defile it. At least in Guibourg’s time, the sacrilegious cleric performed the ceremony over the body of a naked woman (often the beneficiary of the intentions of the ceremony), with the chalice resting on her belly or private parts. And Guibourg, to add to the sacrilege and to call up the powers of the Underworld for the petition of the naked woman serving as the altar, would then sacrifice an infant and pour its blood into the chalice, satiating the thirst of the fallen angels for violent human death. (Cf. <em>The Malleus Maleficarum</em>.) Sometimes the priest would then have carnal intercourse with his “altar,” thus sealing the bloody sacrilege. Due to the sexualized nature of the ceremony, the historian Lynn Wood Mollenaur terms this ceremony, “the amatory Mass,” as the intention was often to gain the affections of a very important male such as the King himself. The power of the defiled body and blood of God would enter the woman/altar, making her irresistible to the man of her affection.
+''Daily Life Knowledge'' is the knowledge we acquire in our daily lives to deal with our daily tasks. From our interactions with nature and human society, we cultivate life experience and our understanding of every aspect of our daily lives in relation to human society and nature.
-Guibourg was not beyond sacrificing his own “body and blood” to heap sin upon sin as Paris’s diabolical high priest. Despite his appearance, he had numerous mistresses throughout his clerical career, and fathered many children. Numerous accounts of his former lovers stated that he had a knack for making the issue from his dalliances disappear, sometimes with the cooperation of the mother (throwing the newborns into a river, for example), and sometimes without her consent at all. Guibourg had fathered a child with a prostitute named Jeanne Chanfrain, and upon its birth Guibourg whisked the child away claiming that he was going to place it with a good family. Some days later, the mother went in search of the child, only to be told that the child had died but no one told her where it was buried. When Chanfrain confronted Guibourg with the accusation, “You killed my child!” Guibourg’s only retort was, “It is none of your business.”(Tucker, 214) La Reynie was convinced that Guibourg had offered some of his own children to Satan.
+''Scientific Knowledge'' arises from Daily Life Knowledge: as our daily lives become more complex, we develop a need to understand the material world and human society more deeply and comprehensively. Scientific Knowledge is thus a developed system of knowledge of nature and human society. Scientific Knowledge can be tested and can be applied to human life and activity in useful ways.
-Guibourg may have continued his murderous career in the shadows had he not been accused of being a member of La Voisin’s corps of clerics that she called upon to perform sacrilegious services. When accused by theVoisin daughter of performing the Black Mass over the King’s mistress, Madame de Montespan, Guibourg said that he was taken advantage of “in his weakness” and had indeed performed the blasphemous ceremonies. He claimed that he never saw the face of the particular woman in question because it was veiled. Guibourg added details such as the use of candles made of “new yellow wax and the fat of a hanged man,”(Mollenauer, 107) as well as the invocation used for Madame de Montespan in particular:
+'''Experience and Theory Knowledge:'''
-**** “Astaroth, Asmodee, princes of love, I conjure you to accept the sacrifice of this infant that I present to you for the things that I ask, which are that the love of the king and the dauphin continues, to be honored by the princes and princesses of the court, and that nothing will be denied to me of all that I will ask of the king, my relatives, and followers” (Tucker, 203)
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-18.png]]
-At this invocation, Guibourg raised a penknife and slit the throat of the newborn who had been brought for that purpose, then poured the blood into the chalice. The priest then butchered the newborn to make charms out of its body parts for the benefit of Madame de Montespan.
+''Experience Knowledge'' is cultivated from direct observation of nature and human society. This kind of knowledge is extremely diverse, and we can apply this kind of knowledge to guide our daily activities.
-Though the hardened police chief La Reynie was somewhat incredulous at the tale of Black Masses, his journal records the following observation:
+''Theory Knowledge'' arises from Experience Knowledge. Theory Knowledge is composed of abstract generalizations of Experience Knowledge. Theory Knowledge is more profound, accurate, and systematically organized than Experience Knowledge and gives us an understanding of the laws and dynamics of nature and human society.
-**** “Impossible for a man of Guibourg’s mentality to have invented a story of the pact in such detail... His mind is simply incapable of manufacturing such a story, following through on it, sticking with it. Nor is he in the position to know that much about the world in which Mme de Montespan lives. Furthermore, his memory is such that he simply could not have retained, over all these years, so many of the words of the supposed pact. unless he had seen and read and recited some sort of a similar conjuration, many times over.”(Mossiker, 236)
+'''Emotional and Rational Knowledge:'''
-Later historians believe that La Reynie may have been too gullible (cf. Mitford, 92), or that the stories of those accusing Madame de Montespan of being involved in these acts were not as air-tight as La Reynie believed at the time (cf. Somerset, 326) If the accusers thought that their macabre stories would save them, they were sadly mistaken. As the accusations around the King’s favored mistress piled up (including an accusation that she paid La Voisin to deliver a poisoned petition to the King on the day of her arrest), La Reynie felt that the only way to halt the proceedings was to issue a lettre de cachet, effectively ending the investigation against the accusers but directing their indefinite detention. For those like Guibourg who would never see a trial, that entailed being chained to the wall in a dungeon in a far-away prison until death. All told, the results of the Chambre Ardente during the Affair of the Poisons were: <em>“thirty-six burnt to death after torture; four sent to the galleys; thirty-six banished or fined (mostly gentlefolk) and thirty acquitted.”</em> (Mitford, 91)
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-19.png]]
-Eighty-one, including Guibourg, “benefitted” from the lettre de cachet, though their jailers were told to show them no mercy or kindness. It is believed that most died within a few years of their captivity. The Chambre Ardente itself was closed in 1682, thus effectively ending the Affair of the Poisons. The whole affair would have been shrouded in mystery had La Reynie, an obsessive record keeper, not duplicated most of his records, since the Sun King supposedly burned all of La Reynie’s papers pertaining to the matter upon his death in 1709.
+Less Developed More Developed
-More than a matter of State, the Affair of the Poisons was also a turning point within the spiritual consciousness of early modern France. Louis XIV’s Edict of 1682 that ended the affair not only regulated the sale and use of poisons, but also forbade <em>“all practices and acts of magic or superstition, in word or speech, either profaning the text of Holy Writ or the Liturgy, or saying or doing things that cannot be explained naturally.”</em> (Mollenauer, 149) On the cusp of the Enlightenment, even the Catholic Monarch of the Eldest Daughter of the Church felt it necessary to “clean up” the spiritual side of his kingdom. Though the criminal magical underworld was never abolished, and would see a revival of sorts during the Romantic era of the 19th century, the Affair of the Poisons was still a noticeable milestone in the March of Humanist Progress.
+''Emotional Knowledge'' is the earlier stage of cognitive processing. Emotional Knowledge comes directly to us from our human senses. We obtain emotional knowledge when we use our human senses to directly learn things about nature and human society. Emotional Knowledge is usually manifested as immediate cognitive responses such as pleasure, pain, and other such impulses.
-Whether or not all of the testimonies of Guibourg, the Voisin daughter, et al, were true cannot be known with certainty. Criminals by nature are not honest people, and murder and lying often go hand in hand. However, poisoning did occur, sacrilegious services were known to take place before and after the Affair of the Poisons, and infant sacrifice is mentioned too many times in history to be dismissed as an urban legend. Even the historian Anne Somerset, who is otherwise skeptical of the claims of the Black Mass, admits that the life of infants was relatively cheap in 17th century Paris, and the material means to perform the ceremony were not lacking (326). Multiple priests were accused of performing this ceremony around the Affair of the Poisons, not just Guibourg. Sensationalism and urban legend will play a role in our next section, where we move on from the Damnation history of the Murderer in the past to his workings in the present.
+''Rational Knowledge'' arises from Emotional Knowledge. It is a higher stage of cognitive processing, involving abstract thought and generalization of emotional knowledge.
-Matamoros 1989
+Rational Knowledge is usually manifested as definitions, conjectures, judgments, etc.
-**** ...Yes, the sacrifice has been made as the ancient laws required: cigar smoke and rum to summon the seven powers, the headless turtle, the head of a goat, blood from a rooster. And, of course, a human life ended now, a man raped, battered, and sliced, his heart torn beating from his chest, his blood still draining into a clay pot...
+''See also: Principle of Development, p. 119; Cognitive Theory of Dialectical Materialism, p. 204.''
-**** Except he had not screamed.
+-----
-**** And that was the problem.
+''Sentiment'' is the resonant manifestation of human emotions and feelings in our relationships. Sentiment is a special form of reality reflection [see Annotation 68, p. 65]. Whenever reality impacts human beings, we feel specific sensations and emotional reactions to those impacts. Over time, these specific sensations and emotions combine and dialectically develop into generalized human feelings, and we call these generalized feelings ''sentiment.'' Sentiment expresses and develops in every aspect of human life; it is a factor that improves and promotes cognitive and practical activities.
-**** It was important for the offering to die in confusion and pain, and most of all, in fear. A soul taken in violence and terror could be captured and used by the priest, turned into a powerful, angry servant that would wreak revenge on the priest’s enemies...
+-----
-**** But this time, they have chosen a hard man—a drug dealer, a man who practiced his own sort of violence. He had stubbornly refused to lose control; he simply gritted his teeth, his eyes steely. And even after those eyes had filmed over in pain, even after the priest had covered them with tape to bring the terror of blindness, still the man refused to scream.
+==== Annotation 85 ====
-**** In the end, the priest was the one who cried out, shrieking in frustration at the man who died in silence, even after the priest began skinning him alive.
+As Marx explains in ''Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844:'' “Man as an objective, sensuous being is therefore a suffering being — and because he feels that he suffers, a passionate being. Passion is the essential power of man energetically bent on its object.” Marx further elaborates that sentimental emotion is essential to human nature: “The domination of the objective essence within me, the sensuous eruption of my essential activity, is emotion which thereby becomes the activity of my nature.”
-**** No, the gods would not be pleased with this one. Nor could this soul be bent to the priest’s will.
+Depending on the subjects that are perceived, as well as our human emotions about them, sentiments can be manifested in many different forms such as: moral emotion, aesthetic emotion, religious emotion, etc.
-**** He had lost—for the first time ever he had lost. Some dark tide had turned, he imagined, and the ground was slipping loose beneath him. He could feel it...
+-----
-**** “Bring me someone I can use,” Adolfo de Jesus Constanzo told his flock.
+==== Annotation 86 ====
-**** “Someone who will scream.”
+''Moral Emotion'' is the basic manifestation of moral consciousness at an emotional level. For example: when we see people helping other people, we have positive emotional responses, yet when we see people harming other people, we have negative emotional responses. ''(Source: Nguyen Thi Khuyen of the National Institute of Administration of Vietnam)''
-**** Edward Humes,
+''Aesthetic Emotion'' refers to the the resonant feelings which arise from our interaction with beauty, sadness, comedy, etc., in life and in art. For example: when humans encounter beauty, we feel positive emotional responses. When humans encounter ugliness, we feel negative emotional responses. When we witness pain, we feel sympathetic feelings of pain and a desire to help. When we witness comedy, we feel humorous emotions ourselves. ''(Source: Textbook of General Aesthetic Studies from the Ministry of''
-**** Buried Secrets: A True Story of Serial Murder,
+''Education and Training of Vietnam)''
-<br>Black Magic, and Drug Running on the U.S. Border, pages 1-2
-*** [[Bomb, Bullet, and Blade]]
+''Religious Emotion'' is the human belief in supernatural or spiritual forces which can’t be tested or proved through material practice or observation. However, belief in these forces can give human beings emotional responses such as hope, love, etc. ''(Source: Pham Van Chuc, Doctor of Philosophy, Central Theoretical Council of the Communist Party of Vietnam)''
-*** We are not sorry for anything, there is not a single drop of remorse or regret that accompanies us in the life we choose to live, we face life and death and we will continue like this, crossing the limits of what is allowed, advancing beyond the point of no return.
+These are just a few illustrative examples; there are many other ways in which human emotion and sentiment can manifest.
-*** 42nd Communique of the Individualists Tending Toward the Wild
+''Willpower'' is the manifestation of one’s own strength used to overcome obstacles in the process of achieving goals. Willpower is a dynamic aspect of consciousness, a manifestation of human consciousness in the material world.
-*** ...ea quae sunt ex nihilo, quantum est de se in nihilum tendunt; et sic omnibus creaturis inest potentia ad non esse. (“...whatever is from nothing of itself tends toward nothing, so that in all creatures there is the power not to be.”)
+-----
-*** St. Thomas Aquinas,
+==== Annotation 87 ====
-*** Summa Contra Gentiles
+An unnamed poem by Ho Chi Minh, written in 1950 for the Revolutionary Youth Pioneers, addresses the phenomenon of willpower:
-In the final section, we will discuss eco-extremism as one of the most recent incarnations of the Murderer in the contemporary world. Eco-extremism is not an alternative to humanist ideals and morality, but rather their defiling in the name of the Nameless and Wild Nature. The only united dogma among eco-extremists and terrorist nihilists is the Death of Man as an attack on He-Who-Is. This is an inversion of means and ends, for the violent individualist only seeks to cause harm to his or her enemy, and nothing more. They see this as activity that is both deeply spiritual and personally satisfying, though it may require hardship on their part. The death of the hyper-civilized is the sacred offering to the Unknowable that defiles the religion of Humanity.
+<blockquote>
+Nothing in this world must be difficult
-*** [[Mexico City, 2016]]
+The only thing that we should fear is having a waivering heart
-Late last decade, a group of young people in central Mexico began to commit themselves to a life of direct action and anonymous activism. They formed independent cells of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF), devoting themselves to such actions as vandalizing research laboratories and freeing animals from their cages. Under the influence of insurrectionary anarchism and the writings of Theodore Kaczynski, they began to move away from militant animal rights and vegan ideologies, and develop an ideology where violent confrontation is primary. In 2011, they formed the Individualities (later “Individualists”) Tending Toward the Wild (Individualidades Tendiendo a lo Salvaje— ITS) as a sort of “heretical” anarchist sect that still shared some humanist values, though with an emphasis on a violent defeatism. Their actions imitated those of Freedom Club in the 1970s and ‘80s, with package bombs sent to various centers of techno-industrial progress throughout Mexico, along with the execution of a biotechnologist in 2011.
+We can dig up mountains and fill the sea
-Over the years, two tendencies began to re-shape the ideology of this group of individualists. One is a descent into criminality; in order to make ends meet, they had to live by their wits in the criminal underworld of metropolitan Mexico City and Mexico State. Thus, they put away their initial altruism in order to live a life of illegality. On the other hand, some members underwent a “spiritual transformation,” perhaps in walkabouts in the last wild places of Mexico. They began a deep study of Mexican history (as far as they were able), some returning to their family roots in the not-so-distant past to reveal the little-appreciated resistance of their ancestors to civilization, in both its Western and Mesoamerican forms. They broke their last ties to scientific humanist thought, and changed their name to Wild Reaction in 2014.
+Once we’ve willfully made a firm decision
+</blockquote>
-After a year, Wild Reaction broke apart, but not for long. By January 2016, those with affinity to their criminal savage ideology could be found in a few countries in the Americas and beyond, as well as in a shadowy faction in Europe. In late May 2016, they claimed responsibility for their second murder: the stabbing of the Head of Services of the Chemistry Department of the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Their communique taking responsibility for the action opened with these words:
+Today, this poem serves as the lyrics for anthem of the Ho Chi Minh Communist Youth Union (formerly the Revolutionary Youth Pioneers).
-**** “We were on the hunt, and last night we turned into wolves. Our thirst for blood was satisfied for a moment, while the demons of our ancestors took possession of our minds and bodies.”
+-----
-No longer militant members of the rational left, ITS had become something completely different.
+Willpower arises from human self-awareness and awareness of the purposes of our actions. Through this awareness and through willpower, we are able to struggle against ourselves and externalities to successfully achieve our goals. We can consider willpower to be the power of conscious human activity; willpower controls and regulates human behaviors in order to allow humans to move towards our goals voluntarily; willpower also allows humans to exercise self-restraint and self-control, and to be assertive in our actions according to our views and beliefs.
-Like the poisoners of 16th century Paris, ITS has its own “cowardly” manner of harming the hyper-civilized: the bomb. Poison is far from an accurate or sure way of taking someone’s life, and many could and did suffer as collateral damage in attempts to poison an intended target. Like their predecessors, individualists go forward with their indiscriminate actions regardless of who might “get in the way.” Their methods and actions are clandestine and there is uncertainty as to whether the group even exists, just as the existence of a vast network of poisoners and renegade priests was the object of doubt for some in early modern Paris.
+-----
-In their pursuits, the eco-extremists emphasize the necessity of the double life. Gone are the days when one lives without hypocrisy and according to principles. Misanthropic individualists live by the Great Lie—they are just ordinary people trying to get through life like anyone else, when in reality they have long ago sold their souls to the Devil. They keep the bloodlust against the hyper-civilized in their heart of hearts, just as Abbé Guibourg hid his pacts with Satan behind the clerical habit and vestments, or La Voisin hid her penchant for poisoning behind her murmuring into rosary beads. The double life is an added mockery to the hyper-civilized before their blood is spilled upon the Earth.
+==== Annotation 88 ====
-Just as La Reynie and King Louis XIV were fighting against the magical underworld of their time, so the eco-extremists—often ex-atheists or ex-rationalists—are seeking to restore a traditional metaphysical worldview against the secularized Christianity that dominates our time. They curse their enemies and perform rituals before their actions, they commend themselves to spirits, and openly attack the church and people within it. They take up the belief in the realm of spirits since their hatred of society drives them to regress into the past, toward the spirits of the Earth who dominated before Christian Man began his war against them. The eco-extremist is the revenge of the silenced spirits, the spittle in the eye of the Nazarene.
+In ''Dialectics of Nature'', Engels explains how willpower developed in human beings as we separated from animals through the development of consciousness: “The further removed men are from animals, however, the more their effect on nature assumes the character of premeditated, planned action directed towards definite preconceived ends.”
-Finally, the eco-extremists regard their victims as a sacrifice to the misanthropic spirits of the Earth. Like the homicidal priests who performed Black Masses in seventeenth century France, they know that the demons of the Earth thirst for the blood of the hyper-civilized. While sacrilege is in some ways no longer possible due to society’s general secularization, the last sacred object that one can defile is human life itself. The war against civilization is a war against Man, full stop. In this war, the shedding of human blood is the only victory, it is the only way to appease the suppressed spirits of the ancestors. Eco-extremists and terrorist nihilists (whether believers or not) aim to offer this blood through selective and indiscriminate attack in an effort to slay human supremacy.
+In ''Capital Volume I'', Marx explains how willpower uniquely allows humans to consciously change our own material conditions to suit our needs according to pre-conceived plans:
-Individualist terrorism is not merely a-political or a-moral, but a parody of the political, the moral, and the strategic, just as the Black Mass was a parody of the most sacred Catholic rite. Though an action might imitate what anarchists or other anti-authoritarians may have done in past times, the intentions and methods are radically different: more violent, less selective, more chaotic. The shedding of blood is no longer a means to an end, but an end in itself. Many contemporary anarchist actions are figurative (a bomb placed in the middle of the night on an empty street, outside the door of an empty church, etc.), thus being a “clean oblation” (Malachi 1:11) on the Altar of Anarchist Values. This is in parallel with the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Christian Church that is manifest in bread and wine only. Individualist action is far more literal, defiling the Altar of Humanist Solidarity with actual blood and suffering. Indiscriminate attack is the profanation of political action. It’s not merely an issue of political confrontation, but of sacrilege.
+<blockquote>
+Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and Nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between himself and Nature. He opposes himself to Nature as one of her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, head and hands, the natural forces of his body, in order to appropriate Nature’s productions in a form adapted to his own wants. By thus acting on the external world and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops his slumbering powers and compels them to act in obedience to his sway. We are not now dealing with those primitive instinctive forms of labour that remind us of the mere animal. An immeasurable interval of time separates the state of things in which a man brings his labour-power to market for sale as a commodity, from that state in which human labour was still in its first instinctive stage. We pre-suppose labour in a form that stamps it as exclusively human. A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement. He not only effects a change of form in the material on which he works, but he also realises a purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi, and to which he must subordinate his will. And this subordination is no mere momentary act. Besides the exertion of the bodily organs, the process demands that, during the whole operation, the workman’s will be steadily in consonance with his purpose. This means close attention. The less he is attracted by the nature of the work, and the mode in which it is carried on, and the less, therefore, he enjoys it as something which gives play to his bodily and mental powers, the more close his attention is forced to be.
+</blockquote>
-Thus, like the war in Heaven between demons and angels, the individualist war may seem futile or absurd as the outcome has long ago been determined. Individualists might even been seen as pawns fighting on behalf of societal forces of reaction or fascism, just as demons seem to do the will of God in spite of their own intentions. This is of no concern to the individualist: he or she would hate Mankind equally whether found in an anarchist paradise or a fascist police state. Humanity is what destroys Wild Nature in our context. Humanity, with its morality and belief in human supremacy, is what subjugates the Wild Nature within. Even though individual lone wolves could never eradicate humanity by themselves, or even make a significant dent in the number of humans, they can conform themselves to the war that Wild Nature is waging against the human through “natural disasters,” entropy, and criminality. Ecoextremist individualist action is “sacramental” because it points to something greater than itself, and greater than the human. In being a shadowy menace, it grafts itself into the forces that are waging war against the Human in the present.
-<strong>A.</strong> <strong>Gratia Non Tollit Naturam Sed Perficit</strong> (Grace does not destroy nature but rather perfects it)
+-----
-Eco-extremist violence is not superior to political or criminal violence. It doesn’t pretend to be more effective or meaningful. Individualists understand all forms of criminality, including robberies, murders, fraud, and all sorts of anti-social manifestations, as activities that “flawed” and carried out by selfish human beings. Moreover, they appreciate the tactical and organizational genius of such unsavory groups as the Islamic State, MS-13, Italian mafiosi, serial killers, etc. In spite of the varying intentions of these past and present groups, individualists see them within the continuum of the Murderer’s war against the Human. Anything that attacks the political and social fabric of the techno-industrial civilization has something to teach the individualist, even if at times the Unknowable writes straight with crooked lines.
+The true value of willpower is not only manifested in strength or weakness, but is also expressed in the content and meaning of the goals that we try to achieve through our willpower. Lenin believed that willpower is one of the factors that will create revolutionary careers for millions of people in the fierce class struggles to liberate ourselves and mankind.
-Similar to the Christian seeing God’s Providence in the everyday workings of society, the spiritual individualist sees the power of the Unknowable in common criminal refusal and in the natural disaster. Their aim is not to usurp the actions of others or to belittle the original selfish intention of the criminal, but the acknowledgment of the violence at the heart of hyper-civilized existence. The eco-extremist believes that the Human is a means to an end like anything else. The believing individualist sees the handprint of the Unknowable and the Murderer in every action that attacks the Human. He does not sit in his retreat far from civilization searching for an authentic sign from the Ineffable, but sees Wild Nature and the Unknowable hiding in the shadows and moving through the cracks of this putrid society. Most of all, he or she is patient, observant, and ever-vigilant for the right time to strike. For the eco-extremist, this is another important aspect of the sacred: not merely contemplation or living apart in peace, but attack itself.
+-----
-The individualist does not see himself or herself as superior to what they are attacking. They know full well that they are part of the problem. They know full well that they are just as hyper-civilized as anyone else. What gives them license to attack their fellow hyper-civilized is not some inner light or some special virtue that no one else has. It is the misanthropic “grace” of the Unknowable that sets them apart, not in any sense of being “chosen,” but only in the sense of giving them an insight that makes them strange, defective, and freakish compared to their peers. They are monsters in the original sense: deformations of domesticated nature, duds that the factory line worker should have put in the trash bin, those who perhaps should have been strangled in their cradles. This might be due to social malformation or emotional instability: it doesn’t really matter now. Even if the eco-extremist is the product of the worst of civilization, they are now indistinguishable from the general population, and they only seek one thing: the death of the civilized.
+==== Annotation 89 ====
-Eco-extremism is thus just as pitiful and demented as people make it out to be: a bunch of kids with bombs and guns who were rejected by society first (or so people think); teenagers who never fit in and decided to carry out anti-social attacks because of it. And, what critics say is true: in the long run, modern techno-industrial civilization is far more effective at killing and terrorizing individual humans than individualists/eco-extremists ever could be. Civilization has the means, the organization, and the lack of consideration for most (human) life to do real ecocidal damage. And yet, the lone individualist continues to be a concern due to what he or she represents: the solitary threat of the lone wolf who can throw a wrench into the machine, even if the machine quickly fixes itself. That hiccup in the narrative points to the ultimate victory of the Unknowable over civilized plans and morality.
+In “''Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder'', Lenin explains how revolutions are born from the collective willpower of thousands of people:
-In the view of the hyper-civilized, eco-extremism means nothing. It is just an insignificant group of psychopaths carrying out petty if demented acts of violence from sheer frustration. The reason people fear it is because eco-extremists have ceased to see anything they do from the human perspective; they view the Human as foolish and repugnant ipso facto. They may seek attention as humans seek recognition from other humans, but in the end, a lack of recognition will not stop them.
+<blockquote>
+History as a whole, and the history of revolutions in particular, is always richer in content, more varied, more multiform, more lively and ingenious than is imagined by even the best parties, the most class-conscious vanguards of the most advanced classes. This can readily be understood, because even the finest of vanguards express the class-consciousness, will, passion and imagination of tens of thousands, whereas at moments of great upsurge and the exertion of all human capacities, revolutions are made by the class-consciousness, will, passion and imagination of tens of millions, spurred on by a most acute struggle of classes. Two very important practical conclusions follow from this: first, that in order to accomplish its task the revolutionary class must be able to master all forms or aspects of social activity without exception (completing after the capture of political power — sometimes at great risk and with very great danger — what it did not complete before the capture of power); second, that the revolutionary class must be prepared for the most rapid and brusque replacement of one form by another.
+</blockquote>
-Eco-extremist murder and maiming are not politically or so- cietally significant; they are “sacramental” for each individualist: a part of their intimate relationship with the Unknowable at the expense of the hyper-civilized. They are a sign of hope pointing to the destruction of the Human: to the moment when the Human will be erased from the Land of the Living, and when He-Who-Is, Yahweh, the Crucified, Human Power as its own end, the Spirit of Progress, etc. will finally be bound again with the Chains of Chaos and Forgetfulness.
-*** [[Doxology]]
+-----
-**** But alas! You barbarous men, you, cruel monsters, you, vulgar profaners, you—who knew so well how dear to me were these shade trees, you coward and heartless violators of the right of property, ye invaded, during my absence; ye felded with the ax this sacred grove... ye have in a fit of madness dared achieve the sacrilegious deed of irreparable devastation, covering my dear Nook with a desolating heap of mouldering trunks and leafless boughs...
+All of these factors [knowledge, sentiment, and willpower] which, together, create consciousness, have dialectical relationships with each other. Of these factors, knowledge is the most important, because it is the mode of existence of consciousness, and also the factor which guides the development of all the other factors, and it also determines how the other factors manifest.
-To the Murderer, the Adversary, the Accuser at the Day of Judgment, be all praise, honor, and worship! May the blood of the hyper-civilized flow from his blade, may the echo of their lamentations be heard for all eternity! May mountains rise up over their cities, may their homes be flooded by the waters, may their bones be blown away by the wind!
+=== 3. The Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness ===
-Our god is a god of war who pierced the Christian conquerors with his arrows and smashed their children against a stone! Our god ground their temples into rubble and returned their treasures to the Earth! This is the work of the Unknowable, and it is marvelous in our eyes!
+The relationship between matter and consciousness is dialectical. In this relationship, ''matter comes first, and matter is the source of consciousness; it decides consciousness. However, consciousness is not totally passive, it can impact back to matter through the practical activities of human beings.''
-To the Unknowable, the Nameless, the Wild God of the World, be all glory and dominion, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages!
+-----
-<right>
+==== Annotation 90 ====
-Adrien Rouquette The Nook The Feast of All Saints, 2017
-</right>
-<br>
+Engels explained in ''Dialectics of Nature'' that “matter evolves out of itself the thinking human brain,” which means that matter must necessarily come prior to consciousness.
-*** Works Cited
+As Marx explains in ''Capital Volume I'', matter determines conscious activity:
-Bonino, Serge-Thomas. Angels and Demons: A Catholic Introduction. Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2016
+<blockquote>
+The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men, the language of real life. Conceiving, thinking, the mental intercourse of men, appear at this stage as the direct efflux of their material behaviour. The same applies to mental production as expressed in the language of politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics, etc., of a people. Men are the producers of their conceptions, ideas, etc. – real, active men, as they are conditioned by a definite development of their productive forces and of the intercourse corresponding to these, up to its furthest forms. Consciousness can never be anything else than conscious existence, and the existence of men is their actual life-process. If in all ideology men and their circumstances appear upside-down as in a camera obscura, this phenomenon arises just as much from their historical life-process as the inversion of objects on the retina does from their physical life-process.
+</blockquote>
-Boreau, Alain. Satan the Heretic: the Birth of Demonology in the Medieval West. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.
+However, it’s important to remember that the relationship between matter and consciousness is ''dialectical'', and that conscious activity — through the combination of willpower and labor — can also impact the material world; social change arises through the combined willpower of many human beings. See: Annotation 80, p. 81.
-Constantelos, Demetrios J. “The Lover of Mankind.” [[http://www.theway.org.uk/][http://www.theway.org.uk/]] Back/092Constantelos.pdf
+==== a. The Role of Matter in Consciousness ====
-Feser, Edward. “Cartesian Angelism”. [[http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/07/][http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/07/]] cartesian-angelism.html
+Dialectical Materialism affirms that:
-Holy Quran. [[http://www.clearquran.com/007.html][http://www.clearquran.com/007.html]]
+'''• Matter is the first existence, and that consciousness comes after.'''
-Institoris, Heinrich. The hammer of witches: a complete translation of the Malleus Maleficarum. Translated by Christopher S. Mackay. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
+'''• Matter is the source of consciousness, it decides consciousness.'''
-Ishill, Joseph. “Elisée Reclus' Optimism.” [[http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_][http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_]] Archives/bRIGHT/reclus/ishill/ishill143-149.html
+We know that matter determines consciousness because consciousness is the product of the high-level-structured matter such as the human brain. Consciousness itself can only exist after the development of the material structure of the human brain. Humans are the result of millions of years of development of the material world. We are, therefore, products of the material world. This conclusion has been firmly established through the development of natural science, which has given us great insight into the long history of the Earth and of the evolution of living organisms, including human beings.
-John Paul II. Redemptor Hominis. [[http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/][http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/]] en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_04031979_redemptor-hominis. html
+All of this scientific evidence stands as the basis for the viewpoint: ''matter comes first, consciousness comes after'' [see Annotation 114, p. 116].
-Kazlev, M. Alan. “Teilhard de Chardin's Evolutionary Philosophy.” Kheper.
+We have already discussed the factors which constitute the natural and social sources of consciousness:
-[[http://www.kheper.net/topics/Teilhard/Teilhard-evolution.htm][http://www.kheper.net/topics/Teilhard/Teilhard-evolution.htm]]
+'''•''' Human brains
-Lossky, Vladimir. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. Crestwood: St.
+'''•''' Impacts of the material world on human brains that cause reflections
-Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1976.
+'''•''' Labor
-Maritain, Jacques. Three Reformers: Luther-Descartes-Rousseau. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1929.
+'''•''' Language
-Mirandolla, Pico della. Oration on the Dignity of Man. [[http://bactra.org/Mi-randola/][http://bactra.org/Mi- randola/]]
+[See Annotation 72, p. 68 and Annotation 73, p. 75]
-Mitford, Nancy. The Sun King. New York: Penguin Books, 1994
+All of these factors also assert that ''matter is the origin of consciousness.''
-Mossiker, Frances. The Affair of the Poisons: Louis XIV, Madame de Montespan, and One of History’s Great Unsolved Mysteries. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1969.
+-----
-Mollenauer, Lynn Wood. Strange Revelations: Magic, Poison, and Sacrilege in Louis XVI’s France. Pennsylvannia University Press, 2007.
+==== Annotation 91 ====
-Ouspensky, Leonid. The Theology of the Icon. Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1978.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-20.png]]
-Penzin, Alexei. “Contingency and Necessity in Evald Ilyenkov’s Communist Cosmology.” [[https://www.hkw.de/en/programm/projekte/][https://www.hkw.de/en/programm/projekte/]] veranstaltung/p_135481.php
+The material basis of consciousness is rooted in the following phenomena:
-Pieper, Josef. The Silence of St. Thomas: Three Essays. South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 1999.
+<ul>
+<li><ol style="list-style-type: upper-alpha;">
+<li><p>The material structure of the human brain.</p></li></ol>
+</li>
+<li><ol start="2" style="list-style-type: upper-alpha;">
+<li><p>Impacts from the material world cause reflections in human consciousness.</p></li></ol>
+</li>
+<li><ol start="100" style="list-style-type: upper-roman;">
+<li><p>Human Labor — physical process which dialectically develops consciousness.</p></li></ol>
+</li>
+<li><ol start="500" style="list-style-type: upper-roman;">
+<li><p>Human Speech — physical process which dialectically develops consciousness.</p></li></ol>
+</li>
+<li><ol start="5" style="list-style-type: upper-alpha;">
+<li><p>Evolution of human brains and consciousness through material processes of the material world.</p></li></ol>
+</li></ul>
-Parente, Pascal P. The Angels: The Catholic Teaching on the Angels. Rockford: Tan Books and Publishers Inc., 1994.
+For more information, see: Nature and Structure of Consciousness.
-Ripperger, Chad. “Generational Spirits”. [[https://www.youtube.com/][https://www.youtube.com/]] watch?v=mpJgVAs02Dc
+-----
-Rituale Romanum. [[http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/][http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/]]
+Consciousness is composed of reflections and subjective images of the material world, therefore ''the content of consciousness is decided by matter'' [see Annotation 68, p. 65]''.'' The development of consciousness is determined by natural laws and by social laws<ref>For a discussion of the material basis of social laws, see Annotation 10, p. 10, Annotation 78, p. 80, and Annotation 79, p. 81.</ref> as well as the material environment which we inhabit. All of these factors which determine consciousness are material in nature. Therefore, matter determines not only the content but also the development of consciousness.
-rituale-romanum/09-baptism-of-children.html
+==== b. The Role of Consciousness in Matter ====
-Somerset, Anne. The Affair of the Poisons: Murder, Infanticide, and Satanism at the Court of Louis XIV. NewYork: St. Martin’s Press, 2004
+In relation to matter, ''consciousness can impact matter through human activities.''
-Thomas Aquinas. On Evil. Translated by Richard Regan. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
+When we discuss consciousness we are discussing ''human'' consciousness. So, when we talk about the role of consciousness, we are talking about the role of human beings. Consciousness in and of itself cannot directly change anything in reality. In order to change reality, humans have to implement material activities. However, consciousness controls every human activity, so even though consciousness does not directly create or change the material world, it equips humans with knowledge about objective reality, and based on that foundation of knowledge, humans are able to identify goals, set directions, develop plans, and select methods, solutions, tools, and means to achieve our goals. So, consciousness manifests its ability to impact matter through human activities.
-Thomas Aquinas. Summa Contra Gentiles. [[http://dhspriory.org/thomas/Con-traGentiles.htm][http://dhspriory.org/thomas/Con- traGentiles.htm]]
+The impact of consciousness on matter can have positive or negative results.
-Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae. [[http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1050][http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1050]]. htm
+-----
-Tucker, Holly. City of Light, City of Poison: Murder, Magic, and the First Police Chief of Paris. NewYork: W. W. Norton & Company, 2017.
+==== Annotation 92 ====
-<br>
-<center>
+“Positive” and “negative,” in this context, are subjective and relative terms which simply denote “moving towards a goal” and “moving away from a goal,” based on a specific perspective.
-</center>
+From the perspective of revolutionary communism, “positive” can be taken as moving towards the end goal of the liberation of the working class from capitalist oppression and the construction of a stateless, classless society. Likewise, “negative” can be taken as moving away from that goal. See: Annotation 114, p. 116.
-** Some reflections on modern human action from the eco-extremist perspective
+Humans have the ability to overcome all challenges in the process of achieving our goals and improving our world, so long as our conscious activities meet the following criteria:
-<br>
+* We must perceive reality accurately.
+* We must properly apply scientific knowledge, revolutionary sentiments, and directed willpower.
+* We must avoid contradicting objective laws of nature and society.
-<em>Brief introduction: I started drafting this text at the beginning of February and I planned to publish it before, but one question or another halted its drafting and thus led to a brief delay. Even so, we saw an opportunity for it to be published in</em> Regresión Magazine <em>No. 7. At the beginning of the text one will read of various events that occurred in Mexico, others specifically in the Laguna Region. The reader can look into these events to get further clarity on the context. The theme that I address in this text is more complex and we know that it needs to be developed more than this, but at least I was able to organize a bunch of ideas swirling about in my head in this hurried text composed in sleepless nights.</em>
+Successfully achieving our goals and improving the world in this manner constitutes the ''positive'' outcome of human consciousness.
-*** [[From the epicenter of the crisis:]]
+On the contrary, if human consciousness wrongly reflects objective reality, nature, and laws, then, right from the beginning, our actions will have negative results which will do harm to ourselves and our society.
-The citizenry continues in their unrest due to the hike in the price of gasoline. Of late in the Laguna Region leftist organizations of no more than twenty people have illusions and are excited about the “people waking up.” Just another illusion, another revolution that never will arrive. We’re only a few hours away from when Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador speaks here in Torreon, the beloved leader of many leftists who I find ridiculous. He will speak of hope, of course, and of the path on which he finds himself—namely toward a future where he and his party take power.
+Therefore, by directing the activities of humans, consciousness can determine whether the results of human activities are beneficial or harmful. Our consciousness thus determines whether our activities will succeed or fail and whether our efforts will be effective or ineffective.
-We feel so distant from those good-hearted people who cry from emotion at the hopeful words of their leader, or who await another showing of social discontent to be able to march and feel themselves all the closer to the dreamed-of revolution. For them we have only total disgust and disdainful laughter.
+By studying the matter, origin, and nature of consciousness, as well as the relationships between matter and consciousness, we can see that:
-Recent events have shaken the country, from the rioting in many parts, a shootout at a high school in Monterrey, and even an attempted suicide in a school in Torreon. All of these have the citizenry and the good-hearted leftists upset and indignant. We don’t feel empathy for any of these so-called tragic occurrences since we see all within this civilization rotting. At the end of the day, the progress that they promise us is neither ideal nor pretty.
+* Matter is the source of consciousness <ref>See: Annotation 72, p. 68.</ref>.
+* Matter determines the content and creative capacity of consciousness <ref>See: Annotation 90, p. 88.</ref>.
+* Matter is the prerequisite to form consciousness <ref>See: ''The Role of Matter in Consciousness,'' p. 89.</ref>.
+* Consciousness only has the ability to impact matter, and this impact is indirect, because it has to be done through human material activities within material reality <ref>See: ''The Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness,'' p. 88.</ref>.
-Today the wild wind made us think of Cachiripa manifesting himself in among the savage Irritilas, even if it was a strong wind that embraced us in melancholy. We know that this manifestation will never return. Man, having become totally dependent on technology, has lost his natural quality, becoming artificial and accepting his condition with joy and excitement. The hyper-civilized go about with giddy anticipation for the ideal technological future. Today the wind that whipped the city was tainted with industrial waste that poisons the air, which smelled only of progress and out- of-control urban sprawl. Regression is impossible; we do not seek a return to the Stone Age. That would make us just another group of deluded people. For us, humans deserve to disappear.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-21.png|''Matter determines consciousness while consciousness impacts matter indirectly through human activity.'']]
-This is what motivates us to write today, since we do not know if other people are incapable of doing a fair analytical reading of eco-extremism, or maybe we’re just really bad writers. I state this since it seems that this confounds many pseudo-critics who “study” and “explain” the communiques and acts that we carry out. The recurring question among those critics include: “What do those crazy people want?” Or on other occasions they come up with some rather fantastic explanations about who those eco-terrorist groups are, without forgetting the most recurrent error: classifying us as still being anarchists even though every communique that a particular group issues makes it clear that the eco-extremists/ter- rorists are NOT anarchists.
+The strength with which consciousness can impact the material world depends on:
-Some anarchists still look for radical change in human relations, to pass from a hierarchical to a horizontal mode of life where no one rules over anyone else. We eco-extremists do not seek a change in human relations; to us the human is disgusting. If the worker is exploited or the price of public transportation is raised, we do not care in the least. This is something that so-called intellectuals don’t quite capture when they speak about eco-extremism, namely, that our war is not for the human, but, on the contrary, we are the antithesis of the human. It is for this reason that we stay far away from all struggles and ideologies that seek to contribute something positive to the human and all that is entailed by it. This in spite of any contradiction that our condition represents.
+* The accuracy of reflection of the material world in consciousness <ref>See:Annotation 68, p. 65.</ref>.
+* Strength of willpower which transmits consciousness to human activity <ref>See: ''Nature and Structure of Consciousness,'' p. 79.</ref>.
+* The degree of organization of social activity <ref>See: Annotation 93, below.</ref>.
+* Material conditions in which human activity occurs <ref>See: Annotation 10, p. 10.</ref>.
-We aren’t good-hearted people. We even reject the concept of being “good.” Why is that? Because some time ago we stopped trying to find motives to fight for the development and well-being of humanity. As we stated previously, some analysts have tried to decipher the thought of the eco-extremists, without being able to take off the glasses of anthropocentrism when they express conjectures concerning eco-extremism. What we are saying here is that they seek to give a human meaning to the actions of the tendency. When an attack is carried out by an eco-extremist group, the questioning is along the lines of: What do these groups want? And in a rather horrific fashion they have even come to say on some newscasts that eco-extremist attacks “demand” the liberation of some prisoners linked to the anarchist movement. The media keeps lying and showing their ignorance every time they mention us. Neither the mainstream nor the alternative media are exempt from this error.
+-----
-But what can one expect of those great wise people or intellectuals? What can one expect when those who live to achieve goals come into contact with those who have neither goals nor dreams, who do not expect anything from their actions—not even victory—because they know that they have already lost? People who shout, “We haven’t lost yet!” have ceased to make sense in our eyes. In reality all is lost, but for the intellectuals who speak and speak about us and our actions, who contribute humanist, moral, and anthropocentric feelings characteristic of the Western cosmovision, everything is as it should be or at the very least is geared toward full human development. They say all of that without questioning what it even means.
+==== Annotation 93 ====
-The word “freedom” forms part of that humanist thinking, but what does it mean to declare oneself free? Today free is a synonym for consumer choice, access to a better place to get drunk after a hard week of work, to tourist attractions, the ability to start a family, and endless options for the free will of the civilized. As we can see, the free person is inexorably linked to commerce, consumption, and the life of the market.
+The importance of organization in determining the outcomes of human social activity is one of the most important concepts of Marxism-Leninism and is discussed frequently by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and nearly every other important communist revolutionary in history. Marx explains the connections between social organization and conscious human activity in ''Capital Volume I'' [see Annotation 80, p. 81].
-The human is the animal who takes the longest to become capable of surviving on its own. He arrives in this world defenseless and requires years of learning within a family to become autonomous. This aspect of human life is not merely arbitrary, as it took humans thousands if not millions of years to accumulate the knowledge needed to survive. In antiquity, the tribe taught young people basic knowledge for survival, so that they would have the capacity to confront their hostile natural environment. Now, the long time it takes for an infant to mature remains, but it manifests itself in a different manner. In the first phase of childhood within the family, the young human is indoctrinated in the mode of life posited by modern techno-industrial society.
+=== 4. Meaning of the methodology ===
-In this text we will focus on one aspect that the family, the school, society, and diverse media have undertaken to construct in our thinking when we begin to become aware of our existence. Perhaps this will give an explanation why ridiculous analysts can never understand eco-extremists, since they as well as everyone else were educated under the schema imposed by techno-industry. The contexts in which people relate to one another and develop in modern society are many and varied. This is particularly the case in Mexico when one only need to take into consideration how the location of various residential zones determines their purchasing power, the institutions where they receive their formation, and the places where they develop. Aspirations are another polymorphic aspect. In civilization the relationship with others is also determined by context and this is reflected in language. For example, even if we all speak Spanish in this country, we encounter regional variations even within the same city, from what experience and language bring to the speaker’s perspective. This is, then, the basis for thought. But, in terms of aspirations, even if different, it is something that the inhabitants of these distinct contexts share, that is to say, each member of modern society possesses an aspiration, a goal that they should accomplish. For what? For the banal, to achieve success, which we will further develop below.
+Dialectical Materialism builds the most basic and common methodological<ref>For discussion of the meaning of methodology, see ''Methodology,'' p. 44.</ref> principles for human cognitive and practical activities on the following bases:
-From youth we are educated to achieve. We are exhorted to stand out in this market-driven world. Everyone wants to “excel,” even though there are diverse concepts and forms for this. All depends on the context in which one wants to succeed. The price of doing so however is the same: frustration. The mind of the modern human revolves around being able to achieve goals, no matter how superficial. The family indoctrinates children for this, it prepares us in civilized subjects to allow us to focus on goals, even though at first these might be ill-defined. Once we have acquired behavioral social norms, school and society come in to better define those goals and objectives as the years pass. The media gives us the coup de grace, especially through personal electronic devices to which even the youngest have access. These offer us the design to which our goals and aspirations must mold themselves. But how does one achieve them? It doesn’t matter, the point is to make it to the top, or to fool yourself by looking like it.
+* The viewpoint of the material nature of the world [''matter comes first, consciousness comes after''].
+* The dynamic and creative nature of consciousness <ref>See: ''Nature of Consciousness,'' p. 79.</ref>.
+* The dialectical relationship between matter and consciousness <ref>See: ''The Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness,'' p. 88.</ref>.
-The goals of each human are not innate, they are not substantive. Nor do humans come complete with desires from before their birth. These are all determined by their social context. Thus, a person from a marginal neighborhood will not have the same goals as someone from a more wealthy and affluent neighborhood. What this modern society shares is the desire to obtain social recognition. Modern humans act to be recognized by their social circle, and this goes for the most superficial person up to the most leftist revolutionary. Wanting to be recognized, to be praised and applauded for accomplishing a goal is a part of human functioning, or better said, the functioning of the hyper-civilized who inhabits modern techno-industrial society.
+All cognitive and practical activities of humans ''originate from material reality'' and ''must observe objective natural and social laws,'' however, our activities are capable of ''impacting the material world through dynamic and creative conscious activity''. [See ''The Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness'', p. 88].
-There are those who dream of becoming entrepreneurs, and this is not surprising as the ideal of driven young people and the entrepreneurial lifestyle is an imposed trope onto modern life from all of the media. One only need look at the type of education that the majority of private schools impart, for example the Technological Institute of Superior Studies of Monterrey (ITESM). This institution encourages entrepreneurship in its young students so that they can become successful people devoted to commercial and human progress.
+-----
-But not all modern humans have the goal of starting a business. Some want to finish their studies so that they can “become someone” in life, to devote themselves to a good-paying job and enslave themselves to boredom in some company, all with the goal of earning money. It’s common to hear someone state that they are going to major in one thing or another because, “that’s where the money is.” But the pretentious desire to accomplish some goal, sometimes called life goals, is based on getting drunk, partying every night, and being the most popular. Do these people have any actual goals? Many times they’re only working to fund their vice or in some cases they don’t even work. Many will say that these latter people are breaking with social mores imposed by society, or that they are the proof that not all live their lives striving toward some goal or another. It’s also funny that some think of themselves as rebels against modern society since they base their entire lives on doing both legal and illegal drugs. Unfortunately for these types who think themselves to be social outcasts or great rebels, their consumption and fun is just another act imposed by modern society.
+==== Annotation 94 ====
-The accumulation of capital, economic well-being, a diploma, drinking and clubbing are goals that are achieved, but, true satisfaction comes from social recognition. We should keep in mind that every goal is determined by its social context. That is to say, it is born out of social coexistence, and so it is a social product. Thus, modern techno-industrial society, which is present even in the most minimal actions of its inhabitants, determines the goals that all hyper-civilized wish to achieve. In other words, social relations are conditioned by modern society.
+The above paragraph summarizes an important methodological concept which is critical for undestanding the philosophical framework of Dialectical Materialism. Dialectical Materialism, as a philosophy, synthesizes earlier materialist and idealist positions by recognizing the fact that the material determines consciousness, while consciousness can impact the material world through willful activity.
-But the recognition of every achievement is not the same in every context. There are distinct goals that have to be achieved by a wealthy family as opposed to those in a gang, or in a group of friends at a party. It is for this reason that the overarching element is that one achieves one’s goals in the context in which one lives as a human disposed to achieve them. Social recognition is bestowed according to social context. What for one social context would be a cause of shame for another might be praiseworthy.
+From this philosophical basis, the methodology of Materialist Dialectics has been developed to provide a deeper understanding of dialectical development, which is rooted in contradiction and negation within and between subjects. Materialist Dialectics is the subject of Chapter 2, p. 98.
-Here is where all analysis and reasoning of “intellectual experts” finds itself in a labyrinth in which there are many false ways out in explaining the discourse and actions of eco-extremists. What can you expect from those who live to achieve goals set for them by social recognition? What are these people to think when they come up against those who have no desire for social recognition? We eco-extremists don’t expect that anyone will praise us for what we do, nor that we will be admired or that we will be recognized by civilization. On the contrary, from civilization and its blind advocates all we expect is disgust. That is why “analysts” don’t find any motives guided by the Goddess Reason. For it is reasonable to have an end, a goal that one wants to achieve. Their hypotheses are 52
+-----
-wrecked when they realize that there are indeed some people who have no real goals in life, since we eco-extremists don’t strive for anything above our own acts, nor do we fool ourselves into thinking that our end, or better yet, our goal, is to destroy civilization. We know that this is not possible. “Enough of wishes!” we shout to the deluded dreamers. “Enough with dreams!” we cry to those who sleep in this ephemeral existence. “Enough with tomorrows!” we thunder to those who fear the present.
+According to this methodological principle [i.e., the Principle of the Dialectic Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness], if we hope to succeed in accomplishing our goals in the material world, then we must ''simultaneously'' meet two criteria:
-There will be many criticisms of this text, we will address one beforehand since they will say to us: Why do the eco-extremists issue so many communiques and reflections if they do not seek any particular goal, or anything above their own action? Eco-extremists are at war, and thus propaganda and reflection are tools that we seek to use to position ourselves within the debacle. Tactics such as the “war on the nerves” are utilized by the eco-extremists, from the sharp criticism to the destructive bomb.
+. We must ensure that our knowledge reflects the objective material world as much as possible, respecting the objective natural and social laws of the material world.
-Let them keep on about their world of desires and dreams, we will keep dancing in hell!
+. We must simultaneously recognize the dynamic and creative nature of our conscious activity.
-<right>
+When we say that human activities ''originate from material reality'' and ''must observe objective natural and social laws'' we'''' mean that human knowledge must originate from the material world. This means that if we hope to be successful in our activities, we should respect the natural and social laws of the material world.
-Ozomatli,
-</right>
-<right>
+This means that in our human perception and activities, we must determine goals, and set strategies, policies, and plans which are rooted firmly in objective material reality. Humans have to take objective material reality as the foundation of our activities and plans, and all of our activities must be carried out in the material world. Humans have to examine and understand our material conditions and transform them in ways that will help us to accomplish our goals.
-Huehuecoyotl
-</right>
-<right>
+When we talk about ''impacting the material world through dynamic and creative conscious activity,'' we mean we must recognize the positive, dynamic, and creative roles of consciousness. We must recognize the role human consciousness plays in dynamically and creatively manifesting our will in the material world through labor. Impacting the material world through conscious activity at a revolutionary scale requires humans to respect and understand the role of scientific knowledge; to study laboriously to master such knowledge; and then to propagate such knowledge so to the masses to develop public knowledge and belief so as to guide the people’s action.
-in Torreón, March 2017
-</right>
-<br>
+Moreover, we also have to voluntarily study and practice<ref>See: Annotation 211, p. 205.</ref> in order to form and improve our revolutionary viewpoint<ref>See: Annotation 114, p. 116.</ref> and willpower<ref>See: ''Nature and Structure of Consciousness'', p. 79.</ref> in order to have both scientific and humanitarian activity guidelines.
-** A New Revolutionary Phraseology
+To implement this principle [i.e., the Principle of the Dialectic Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness], we have to avoid, fight against, and overcome the diseases of subjectivism<ref>See: Annotation 222, p. 218.</ref> and idealism<ref>See: ''The Opposition of Materialism and Idealism in Solving Basic Philosophical Issues,'' p. 48.</ref> through such errors as:
-<br>
+* Attempting to impose idealist plans and principles [which are not rooted in material conditions] into reality.
+* Considering fantasy, illusion, and imagination instead of reality.
+* Basing policies and programs on subjective desires.
+* Using sentiment as the starting point for developing policies, strategies, etc.
-The phenomenon of leftism in Mexico has been revived after a brief hiatus when the indignant masses marched in the streets for the Ayotzinapa case, as well as for the murders in Nochixtlan during the protests led by the teachers (principally by the National Coordinating Committee of Workers in Education [CNTE]). After four months of rebellion and revolutionary hope, the fire was put out. The forty three students became objects of ridicule, and were submerged in general forgetfulness, as were the dead of Nochixtlan. Once more the revolution, the much awaited change for a “better Mexico,” didn’t arrive.
+On the other hand, in cognitive and practical activities, we also have to fight against empiricism<ref>See: Annotation 10, p. 10.</ref>, which disregards scientific knowledge and theories, and which is also very conservative, stagnant and passive.
-Months afterward it would seem that the enthusiasm returned, this time not headed by radical students or teachers. Now those who waved the flag of the vanguard were those sanctified emissaries, the militants of the Movement for National Regeneration (MORENA), and of course the beloved prophet Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. It should be pointed out that these beings of noble heart and their sacred party have become a force in Coahuila. And because the elections here are just around the corner, the noble militants have done everything possible to get out the vote, to generate a new ideology in what they call “the people.” They assure us that this new ideology will be more critical, less submissive, and “more revolutionary.”
+-----
-Let me express the purpose of this text. It is once more a criticism against leftists, their struggles and hopes, as well as a description of their efforts in relation to social networks, and the false hope of revolution. My starting point is a term presented by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in <em>The German Ideology</em> (1845-1846), “supposedly-revolutionary phraseology.”
+==== Annotation 95 ====
-Why did I choose these three categories? I believe that there is a close relationship between them. An attempt to analyze eacho one separately would not make much sense, nor would it lead anywhere. Thus, for a more effective criticism, I critique them in conjunction, and will try to describe common threads to advance analysis. I should admit that these are not the only categories by which one can devise an accurate criticism of leftism and its enlightened militants. When I refer to leftism, I mean Mexican leftism of the present day. Leftism in other parts of the world is beyond the scope of this essay, which is not to say that there are not influential reciprocities between Mexican and international leftism.
+Process of Developing Revolutionary Public Knowledge
-*** [[Leftism and Social Networks: The Great Revolution]]
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-22.png|''Developing revolutionary public knowledge must be preceded by mastery of knowledge and a firm grounding in the role and nature of knowledge.'']]
-Political demonstrations are seen from time to time on Mexican streets, often on dates that are “symbolically combative.” Sometimes these demonstrations turn violent and become street revolts where people throw rocks, police set things on fire, windows are broken, barricades are formed, there are Molotov cocktails, a mob running about, people arrested, other people with their heads split open, and a myriad of leftists shouting at the top of their lungs for peace and calm. Leftists are always inclined to accuse others of being provocateurs, infiltrators, government agents,<sup>1</sup> petit-bourgeois (this one is primarily from Marxist groups), counter-revolutionaries, and the list goes on.
+In ''Socialism: Utopian and Scientific'', Engels makes a scathing critique of idealist socialist revolutionary thought, writing:
-It would not be accurate to say that only anarchists participate in the disturbances, since common people do as well, as we saw in the riots and looting that took place around the “gasolinazo.” Ecoextremists also decided to infiltrate the mob and push it forward in the midst of the debacle. In any case, whoever stirs up the violence in what is supposed to be a peaceful demonstration will be pointed out and condemned by the leftists. There is no room for those who do not respect the revolutionary schemas and processes! This is what the leftist would shout with a frown and a fist in the air. How quaint.
+<blockquote>
+To all these [idealist socialists], Socialism is the expression of absolute truth<ref>See: Annotation 232 and ''The Properties of Truth,'' on p. 228.</ref>, reason and justice, and has only to be discovered to conquer all the world by virtue of its own power. And as an absolute truth is independent of time, space, and of the historical development of man, it is a mere accident when and where it is discovered. With all this, absolute truth, reason, and justice are different with the founder of each different school. And as each one’s special kind of absolute truth, reason, and justice is again conditioned by his subjective understanding, his conditions of existence, the measure of his knowledge and his intellectual training, there is no other ending possible in this conflict of absolute truths than that they shall be mutually exclusive of one another.
+</blockquote>
-The revolution is a light breeze that they wait for in hell.They bind themselves to it so capriciously, but what do they actually do to bring it about? Will they be ready to kill any unfortunate soul who gets in the way of achieving their ideal society? Or do they not kill in revolutions? They desire the revolution with all of their might, they dream of changing the country without firing a shot, or without the need to execute people. Their revolution rests on the illusion that people will change and dedicate themselves to the path of general welfare and will do so primarily by voting for the sanctified party, the savior and liberator of humanity. Revolution is so beautiful in the realm of ideas!
-Regrettably for these noble beings, their enemy is the State, and yes, they condemn it as the “Murderous State!”, which is indeed the case. That is to say, the state has an armed security force that it would not hesitate, as shown in the past, to use against anyone who opposes them. It does not matter if that subversive is armed or not. In spite of this, the delusional leftist sees the possibility of change by the electoral route, though the system is controlled by the regime. But does the revolutionary really want revolution? Would these noble men and women be ready to kill or die for the cause? What does the “grand revolutionary” lover of the people really want?
+-----
-I have some ideas concerning the last question. To begin answering it, one should observe the activity of those militants of the left on social networks (mainly Facebook and Twitter.) The question arises as to what role these social networks play in the struggles of the left. These networks end up being the repository for complaints, protests, aspirations, and demonstrations of knowledge that usually develop into lively debates in which one demonstrates an intellectual understanding superior to one’s interlocutors.
+Here, Engels points out the absurdity of the idea that some abstract, purely ideal “truth” could liberate workers in the material world. Engels continues on, explaining how such idealist socialism could never lead to meaningful revolutionary change:
-Thus, within social networks the militant leftist achieves a form of catharsis. The networks become “safe spaces” that protect him or her from the world that doesn’t change. Not only are they a repository for his or her commentaries, but also a source of applause for their positions. This praise becomes the motor of leftism. I continue here on a theme that I have covered elsewhere: the search for social recognition becomes the driving factor in the actions of the hyper-civilized, and, by extension, of the leftist as well.
+<blockquote>
+Hence, from this nothing could come but a kind of eclectic, average Socialism, which, as a matter of fact, has up to the present time dominated the minds of most of the socialist workers in France and England. Hence, a mish-mash allowing of the most manifold shades of opinion: a mish-mash of such critical statements, economic theories, pictures of future society by the founders of different sects, as excite a minimum of opposition; a mish-mash which is the more easily brewed the more definite sharp edges of the individual constituents are rubbed down in the stream of debate, like rounded pebbles in a brook.
+</blockquote>
-To escape the gloom of existence, the human is captive to organizing principles that give meaning to their being. Democracy has been an organizing principle for the leftist. He or she passes through existence thinking that one day the great sun will appear on the horizon and shine in their favor, the realization of their most altruistic dreams. Nevertheless, social recognition appears to be another source from which meaning flows, which is evident in their writings, full of romantic aspirations in which hope is never lost and triumph is always waiting just around the corner. Such is the pretentious writing of these altruistic folks. “Look at me, I’m doing revolution!” they proclaim behind their veil of pedantry. “Look at me!” quickly becomes, “Applaud me!” The desire for praise is the most addicting taste for the leftist who is trying to get through life by hiding in his own world where he is a revolutionary. Meanwhile, outside of his dreamworld, change is nowhere to be found.
+In other words, idealist revolutionary movements only tend to result in endless debate and meaningless theories which are divorced from objective reality and material conditions. Such theories and idealist constructions do not lead to effective action in the real world. Socialism must become ''real'' (i.e., based in objective material conditions and praxis<ref>See: ''Praxis, Consciousness, and the Role of Praxis in Consciousness,'' p. 204.</ref> in the real world) to affect change in the material world, as Engels explains elsewhere in ''Socialism: Utopian and Scientific'' [see Annotation 17, p. 18].
-This fantastic world of appearances, as the Nietzsche might call it, is found on social networks that present to the gaze of the multitude, the decisive revolutionary. Of course this is all to receive admiration and praise. The leftist achieves catharsis, his desire is temporarily satisfied. Full of social recognition, the proper subject finds another use for the Internet. He or she sees the opportunity to make the masses more conscious, and with great ease they achieve the task demanded by the revolution.
+In ''Critique of the Gotha Program'', Marx lays out an excellent case study of the failings of incoherent, idealist socialism. He begins by quoting the Gotha Program, which was an ideological program which the German Workers Party hoped to implement. In this text, Marx cites the Gotha Program line by line and offers his materialist critique of the idealist principles presented. In the following passage, Marx refutes some key errors caused by idealism and offers materialist correction:
-Marx and Engels in their intense philosophical debates expressed the following against the idealist currents:
+<blockquote>
+Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power... But a socialist program cannot allow such bourgeois phrases to pass over in silence the conditions that lone give them meaning. And insofar as man from the beginning behaves toward nature, the primary source of all instruments and subjects of labor, as an owner, treats her as belonging to him, his labor becomes the source of use values, therefore also of wealth. The bourgeois have very good grounds for falsely ascribing supernatural creative power to labor; since precisely from the fact that labor depends on nature it follows that the man who possesses no other property than his labor power must, in all conditions of society and culture, be the slave of other men who have made themselves the owners of the material conditions of labor. He can only work with their permission, hence live only with their permission.
+</blockquote>
-*** This demand to change consciousness amounts to a demand to interpret reality in another way, i.e. to recognise it by means of another interpretation. The Young-Hegelian ideologists, in spite of their allegedly “world-shattering” statements, are the staunchest conservatives. The most recent of them have found the correct expression for their activity when they declare they are only fighting against “phrases.” They forget, however, that to these phrases they themselves are only opposing other phrases, and that they are in no way combating the real existing world when they are merely combating the phrases of this world.
+Here, Marx points out the importance of having a firm understanding of the material reality of ''labor'' and its relation to the material, natural world. Marx points out that the idea that labor, alone, is the source of all wealth is an idealist notion of the bourgeoisie, a false consciousness [see Annotation 235, p. 231] which prevents proper material analysis and props up the capitalist viewpoint. A failure to grasp the truth of the material basis of reality weakens the socialist position, and any movement built on such weak idealist foundations will lead to failure in trying to bring about revolutionary change.
-Leftist intellectuals will argue that action needs a correct interpretation of the world. That is to say, they would defend with tooth and claw the importance of a change of consciousness prior to practice. That is not up for dispute. The issue is that current leftism has revived revolutionary phraseology and transferred their struggle to the world of phrases. That is to say, it stalls in word games and media. Their great revolutionary struggle is stalled in the desire to change consciousness, and the hope for that mental revolution becomes another driving principle. In that way, the leftist joins social recognition and revolutionary phraseology with the purpose of finding light in the shadow of life.
+We have already discussed the shortcomings of empiricism in Annotation 10, p. 10, but it might be helpful to see another case study, this time from Engels, pointing out the flaws of empiricist analysis in his text ''Anti-Dühring''. Engels begins by quoting the empiricist Eugen Dühring, who wrote:
-How and when that “necessary” change of consciousness will arise in the revolutionary process is something that is always waved off with the excuse that the conditions are not right for a violent social movement. At least this is what they repeat over and over again at every opportunity, but still they call themselves revolutionaries. Their words do nothing else but search for social recognition. Throwing a tantrum on social media is not revolutionary action, in spite of what those self-proclaimed saviors of humanity think. Any act that attacks the established order carries risk, of either prison or death, as well as of social disgrace and societal rejection. This was the case with the Mexican guerilla movement in the 1970s that was persecuted by the Mexican state, and was also unpopular to the greater part of the Mexican population. These days the CISEN [the Mexican intelligence agency] would quickly discover the contemporary leftist martyr because such a martyr would publish on social media the location of their hideout.
+<blockquote>
+Philosophy is the development of the highest form of consciousness of the world and of life, and in a wider sense embraces the principles of all knowledge and volition. Wherever a series of cognitions or stimuli or a group of forms of being come to be examined by human consciousness, the principles underlying these manifestations of necessity become an object of philosophy. These principles are the simple, or until now assumed to be simple, constituents of manifold knowledge and volition. Like the chemical composition of bodies, the general constitution of things can be reduced to basic forms and basic elements. These ultimate constituents or principles, once they have been discovered, are valid not only for what is immediately known and accessible, but also for the world which is unknown and inaccessible to us. Philosophical principles consequently provide the final supplement required by the sciences in order to become a uniform system by which nature and human life can be explained. Apart from the fundamental forms of all existence, philosophy has only two specific subjects of investigation — nature and the world of man. Accordingly, our material arranges itself quite naturally into three groups, namely, the general scheme of the universe, the science of the principles of nature, and finally the science of mankind. This succession at the same time contains an inner logical sequence, for the formal principles which are valid for all being take precedence, and the realms of the objects to which they are to be applied then follow in the degree of their subordination.
+</blockquote>
-The leftist militant opts for the party that has the advantage of satisfying their many needs. For example, they avoid a life in hiding, which is needed for a guerilla movement. The party militant can openly express their ideological positions and militancy, and await positive affirmation for doing so. They don’t have to live in hiding or live a double life, as do eco-extremists. The life that the eco-extremist leads excludes all forms of personal praise. You don’t go about bragging about how you are a member of the Tendency. The leftist would fall into deep depression if the radical movement required (outside of prison) a life in hiding or a double life. In these conditions there is no room to express yourself as a person to be applauded by the revolutionary fan club on the Internet.
+Engels then proceeds to critique this empiricist worldview, showing that it does not properly reflect the material world and amounts to idealism in its own right:
-In similar manner, there are leftists who do not belong to the chosen political party. They end up joining together in organizations that only appear at important moments to wave flags of “We are the revolution.” Social networks are used to boast and to “raise the consciousness of the masses.” Their method of creating “revolutionary consciousness” is highly questionable. It’s nothing but the eternal boring phraseology discussed earlier. Their struggle is hidden in the world of words, always avoiding confrontation since it would end the comfort of being kings of the revolutionary spectacle.
+<blockquote>
+What [Dühring] is dealing with are therefore principles, formal tenets derived from thought and not from the external world, which are to be applied to nature and the realm of man, and to which therefore nature and man have to conform. But whence does thought obtain these principles? From itself?
-Mexican leftism is far from bringing about a better country, even if the leftists themselves don’t want to admit it. I would invite them to reflect on their actions, even though this invitation is like shouting into the wind. They will continue to be enthusiasts absorbed in the social recognition that “revolutionary struggle” has to offer. Nourishing themselves on it, they will use Facebook and Twitter to achieve catharsis when things don’t turn out how they initially imagined. At the end of the day, they are hyper-civilized par excellence, tied to hope. Their particular organizing principles are revolution, fighting for a better world, and the erotic satisfaction produced by praise for their principles. All of this merely to keep their hand away from the gun they could use to blow their brains out.
+No, for Herr Dühring himself says: the realm of pure thought is limited to logical schemata and mathematical forms (the latter, moreover, as we shall see, is wrong). Logical schemata can only relate to forms of thought; but what we are dealing with here is solely forms of being, of the external world, and these forms can never be created and derived by thought out of itself, but only from the external world. But with this the whole relationship is inverted: the principles are not the starting-point of the investigation, but its final result; they are not applied to nature and human history, but abstracted from them, it is not nature and the realm of man which conform to these principles, but the principles are only valid in so far as they are in conformity with nature and history. That is the only materialist conception of the matter, and Herr Dühring’s contrary conception is idealistic, makes things stand completely on their heads, and fashions the real world out of ideas, out of schemata, schemes or categories existing somewhere before the world, from eternity — just like a Hegel.
+</blockquote>
-<right>
+Lenin also heavily criticized empiricism in his work ''Materialism and Empirio-Criticism'', which we discuss at length in Annotation 32, p. 27.
-Huehuecoyotl alias Jeremías Torres Torreón
-</right>
-<right>
+= Chapter 2: Materialist Dialectics =
-April-August 2017
-</right>
-[1] It is funny how not only leftists but also anarchists of an acute sense of morality have accused ITS and other eco-extremist groups of being agent provocateurs of the Mexican state. The idiocies that come out of the mouths of Saintly Anarchists, lovers of morality and the good, are many.
+Materialist dialectics is one of the basic theoretical parts that form the worldview and philosophical methodology of Marxism-Leninism. It is the “science of common relations” and also the “science of common rules of motion and development of nature, society, and human thoughts... Dialectics, as understood by Marx, and also in conformity with Hegel, includes what is now called the theory of knowledge, or epistemology.”<ref>''Karl Marx'', Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1914.</ref>
-<br>
-<center>
+[Note: Epistemology is the theoretical study of knowledge; for more information see ''Cognitive Theory of Dialectical Materialism'', p. 204.]
-</center>
+== I. Dialectics and Materialist Dialectics ==
-** Breaking Down the Bars of the Anarchist Cages: brief reflections of an ex-anarchist
+=== 1. Dialectics and Basic Forms of Dialectics ===
-<br>
+==== a. Definitions of Dialectics and the Subjective Dialectic ====
-*** 1.
+In Marxism-Leninism, the term ''dialectic'' refers to regular relationships, interactions, transformations, motions, and developments of things, phenomena, and processes in nature, society and human thought.<ref>See Annotation 9, p. 10.</ref>
-It’s a pain in the ass to speak while forgetting totally the rosary one learned in years past. It’s hard to write without ten dollar words or jargon. This text seeks to explain why we stopped believing in anarchism.
+There are two forms of dialectic: the ''objective dialectic'' and the ''subjective dialectic.'' The objective dialectic is the dialectic of the material world, while the subjective dialectic is the reflection of objective dialectic in human consciousness. [See Annotation 68, p. 65].
-Simply writing “believe,” in the sense of an act of faith or whatever you want to call it, still short-circuits our domesticated brains. Another short circuit is to stop writing with “k” and start writing correctly because this is not going out merely to the little anarcho-world but to all who want to read it and understand our reasonings.
+According to Engels, “Dialectics, so-called ''objective'' dialectics, prevail throughout nature, and so-called subjective dialectics (dialectical thought), is only the reflection of the motion through opposites which asserts itself everywhere in nature, and which by the continual conflict of the opposites and their final passage into one another, or into higher forms, determines the life of nature.”<ref>''Dialectics of Nature'', Friedrich Engels, 1883.</ref>
-It has been months of many short-circuits. It’s easier to eat whatever there is, to not look for “alternative” positions, styles, or ways of life that go nowhere and only serve to give the appearance of being on the offensive. Oh, the offensive! There’s nothing left to do but separate yourself from the herd of black sheep and their self-referential meetings, far from the offensive that looks very much like the defensive.
+-----
-Little by little it was all the same to us.
+==== Annotation 96 ====
-*** 2.
+''Dialectics'' is an umbrella term which includes both forms of dialectical systems: ''subjective'' and ''objective'' dialectics.
-The mental molds are a cage worse than any jail, almost on the same level as civilization. We say this with some difficulty: we are anarchists in retreat, on our way out, in doubt. We had a whole life enclosed in innocence and then in an anarchist political current. We began understanding that the State, even the form of being/ resisting of someone rejecting any form of authority, is not the principal problem of what we now understand to be freedom.
+''Objective dialectics'' are the dialectical processes which occur in the material world, including all motion, relationships, and dynamic changes which occur in space and time.
-We are not shameless enough to say that we broke the molds already. It has been a long process, sometimes a painful one. But a totally informal contact with people who have formed the top of the lance of the Tendency has helped quite a bit. Reading them over the Internet especially—since you won’t see them at an anarchist concert or in an anti-prison meeting selling vegan food. And some close contacts, faces unknown to us, who in spite of the coldness of the Internet, have filled with warmth this process of revising our ideological positions.
+''Subjective dialectics'', or ''dialectical thought'', is a system of analysis and organized thinking which aims to reflect the objective dialectics of the material world within human consciousness. Dialectical thinking has two component forms: dialectical materialism and materialist dialectics [see Annotation 49, p. 45].
-Reading former comrades has helped... Well, one in reality: Kevin Garrido, an anarchist who was arrested carrying out a clearly anti-prison action, but who in jail has been absorbing the Tendency. It is notable that he is going through the same process as we are. You can tell as well that he is also being abandoned by his cowardly former friends of the anti-prison movement.
+-----
-*** 3.
+''Subjective dialectics'' is the theory that studies and summarises the [objective] dialectic of nature into a system with scientific principles and rules, in order to build a system of methodological principles of perception and practice. Dialectics is opposed to ''metaphysics'' — a system of thought which conceives of things and phenomena in the world in an isolated and unchanging state [See Annotation 8, p. 8].
-How many years were we convinced that insurrectional attack was urgent. We defended it to the death, the same with affinity and informalism. We believed in solidarity among comrades and the international dimension of the struggle. Bla, bla, bla. We laugh about it now, because for years these were strong talking points concerning how we wanted to change the world. Those words were were in book fairs, supposedly secret meetings, benefits, and every other place where we participated. As anarchists we lived from spontaneity and activism. Words were never lacking, there were always many, but that was all.
+==== b. Basic Forms of Dialectics ====
-Living while creating tension made us docile, happy; it marked our lives and we don’t deny that past. In retrospect we believe that it domesticated us to this fucked-up civilization. Sure, we felt feral, free spirited, and like we had brief but intense departures from that domestication.
+Dialectics has developed into three basic forms and levels: ancient primitive dialectics, German idealist dialectics, and the materialist dialectics of Marxism-Leninism.
-Until now.
+''Ancient primitive dialectics'' is the earliest form of dialectics. It has developed independently in many philosophical systems in ancient China, India and Greece.
-It was only at this moment that we have felt the need to clarify something that distinguishes us and makes us different, something that is not only a way of feeling and seeing things but also a guide for our actions.
+Chinese philosophy has two major forms of ancient primitive dialectics:
-Because anarchist action is different from others. It is supported by the delicate but firm anarchist morality, in which all initiatives have a specific and clear end and a precise target.
+* “Changing Theory” (a theory of common principles and rules pertaining to the changes in the universe)
+* The “Five Elements Theory” (a theory of the principles of mutual impact and transformation of the five elements of the universe) of the School of Yin-Yang. [See: ''Primitive Materialism'', p. 52]
-In this the central premise is the question of disillusionment. The laws of anarchist monasticism do not permit killing or wounding people who not related directly to the terrorist action. Excuse me, I know that old comrades don’t like the word, terrorism. What’s more, it’s offensive to call it that. They consider human life to be a good that should be preserved and not sacrificed. It’s that simple and essential.
+In Indian philosophy, Buddhist philosophy is a quintessential [see Annotation 6, p. 8] form of ancient primitive dialectics, which includes such concepts as “selflessness,” “impermanence,” and “predestination.”
-The bystander or unintended victim represents that life. But, the life or the imprisonment of the attacker, is it no less valuable? At this stage the informal anarchist is imprisoned in his schemas. At this stage they are restricted in their projects, whatever those happen to be.
+An ancient, primitive form of dialectics also developed in Ancient Greek philosophy.
-Perhaps the absence of action is the guarantee of their own morality?
+Friedrich Engels wrote: “The old Greek philosophers were all born natural dialecticians, and Aristotle, the most encyclopaedic of them, had already analyzed the most essential forms of dialectic thought… This primitive, naive, but intrinsically correct conception of the world is that of ancient Greek philosophy, and was first clearly formulated by Heraclitus: everything is and is not, for everything is fluid, is constantly changing, constantly coming into being and passing away.”<ref>''Socialism: Utopian and Scientific'', Friedrich Engels, 1880.</ref>
-Morality that is nothing else but the fear of dying... or fear of imprisonment.
+Engels also wrote of Greek dialectics: “Here, dialectical thought still appears in its pristine simplicity, as yet undisturbed by the charming obstacles which the metaphysicists of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries — Bacon and Locke in England, Wolff in Germany — put in its own way... Among the Greeks — just because they were not yet advanced enough to dissect and analyse nature — nature is still viewed as a whole, in general. The universal connection of natural phenomena is not proved in regard to particular; to the Greeks it is the result of direct contemplation.”<ref>The Old Preface to ''Anti-Dühring'', Friedrich Engels, 1878.</ref>
-While all of these comrades are bottled up in this moral debate, others have passed into a real offensive. Anarchism is part of a past that we are not going to recover. The amoral method of nihilist-mafioso terrorism has clearly won out and is currently what characterizes our, now well-known, “offensive.”
+-----
-*** 4.
+==== Annotation 97 ====
-We are a species that from its origins has been gregarious and that is now even more so in war! Even though we cannot see the faces of the warriors of ITS, we know that they are our brothers in a tribe beating the war drums. They call us to join with them around the bonfire!
+Engels, here, is explaining how the ancient Greek dialecticians were correct to view nature as a cohesive system, a “whole, in general,” which they determined through direct observation of the natural world. The major shortcoming of this ancient Greek form of dialectics was a lack of inquiry into the specific processes and principles of nature. Engels laments that seventeenth and eighteenth century metaphysicists took us backwards by disregarding this view of nature as a cohesive, general whole.
-We keep thinking that human groups need to live in community. The problem is that we don’t see that as possible today. Civilization has advanced its pillaging of the Earth to the point that almost no wild humans are left. Those who are, are threatened and keep themselves isolated deep in the jungle.
+Ancient, primitive dialectics had an accurate awareness of the dialectical characteristic of the world but with its primitive and naive perspective, it still lacked evidence-based forms of natural scientific achievements.
-Let it be clear. We too are civilized humans. We live in the middle of this false cement jungle, isolated from natural community life. We don’t think that ITS think themselves to be truly wild either. If some believe in supernatural forces, in pre-Columbian gods, it’s because they can. And that’s it, there is no other explanation. We have broken with the civilized mold of the ultra-anarchist.
+Jumping forward to the late 16<sup>th</sup> century, natural sciences started developing rapidly in Europe. Scientists began deeply analysing and studying specific factors and phenomena of nature which led to the birth of modern European metaphysical analysis. In the 18<sup>th</sup> century, metaphysics became the dominant methodology in philosophical thought and scientific study. However, when natural scientists moved from studying each subject separately to studying the unification of all those subjects in their relationships, the metaphysical method proved insufficient. Thus, European scientists and philosophers had to transition into a more advanced system of thought: dialectical thought.
-For example, we have noticed that preaching atheism has done nothing to oppose the advance of civilized religion. And sure, we also believe in authority. It will always exist. Immoral clans will always have one who directs others better or realizes a particular task in a better way.
+''The classical German idealist dialectics'' were founded by Kant and completed by Hegel. According to Engels: ''“The second form of dialectics, which is the form that comes closest to the German naturalists [natural scientists], is classical German philosophy, from Kant to Hegel.”''<ref>The Old Preface to ''Anti-Dühring,'' Friedrich Engels, 1878.</ref>
-We feel, and that is sufficient—we don’t need to have dogmatic arguments about it—that animism and the spirits that accompany the wild peoples are something positive. Eco-extremist comrades very sincerely pursue egoist goals. If they believe in spirits that’s their choice. It’s what THEY feel. It is a feeling born from human nature. And it’s a more valid argument than rejecting these forces because of anarchist reasoning, which is as repugnant to us as the religions of the hyper-civilized world.
+-----
-*** 5.
+==== Annotation 98 ====
-The reader needs more reasons? Look for them, but do it honestly.
+Engels discusses this history, and the shortcomings of the metaphysical philosophy of his era, in ''The Old Preface to Anti-Dühring.'' First, Engels explains why early modern natural scientists initially did not feel constrained by their adherence to metaphysics, since inquiries in the initial revolution of scientific study were limited to the narrow development of specific fields of inquiry by necessity:
-Break the molds that choke you. Return to critique, even of the anarchist canons. The one enemy people have indicated to you is not the only one. Nature and our undomesticated anarchists should have their revenge. The guilty one is ultracivilized society in its totality.
+<blockquote>
+Empirical natural science has accumulated such a tremendous mass of positive material for knowledge that the necessity of classifying it in each separate field of investigation systematically and in accordance with its inner inter-connection has become absolutely imperative.
+</blockquote>
-You, me, everyone.
+Engels goes on to explain that at the time he was writing, enough knowledge had been accumulated within specific, distinct fields that it becomes necessary to begin studying the connections and overlaps between different fields, which called for theoretical and philosophical foundations:
-And thus you will know that it’s no use to live in resistance, or to cause societal tension as they say... That is, you can do activism for five thousand years and nothing will change. The destructive force of progress cannot be stopped. But it can be terrorized, punished, and purged. And for this you can’t continue to be an anarchist, we feel. At least not in the current style.
+<blockquote>
+It is becoming equally imperative to bring the individual spheres of knowledge into the correct connection with one another. In doing so, however, natural science enters the field of theory and here the methods of empiricism will not work, here only theoretical thinking can be of assistance.
+</blockquote>
-** Poem
+Unfortunately, natural scientists were held back by the existing metaphysical theoretical foundations which were dominant at the time as, according to Engels, “theoretical thinking is an innate quality only as regards natural capacity. This natural capacity must be developed, improved, and for its improvement there is as yet no other means than the study of previous philosophy.”
-This shitty misery dries my brain. It does not allow me to see beyond, surrounded by disgusting humans. I do not want this, the only thing that I appreciate is the ability to notice this situation. And that the hate is so strong. Thank you hate, you lifted me up from my life full of fear and woes. Or they were things that mutated in you, it’s no longer important. The rhythm is clamorous, the search has no end.
+Metaphysical theory and formal logic were in common use by natural scientists at the time. As Engels explained in ''On Dialectics'' and ''Dialectics of Nature,'' metaphysics and formal logic could never be as useful as dialectical analysis for examining and unifying concepts from wide-ranging dynamic systems of overlapping fields of inquiry.
-What does it matter if tomorrow I wake up decapitated?
+Unfortunately, dialectics had not yet been suitably developed for use in the natural sciences before the work of Marx and Engels in developing dialectical materialism, as Engels explained in ''On Dialectics:''
-If tomorrow I wake up drowned in my own vomit, or if they slit your throat. There is no longer a reason to be happy. Neither you nor I understand the truth of the situation, but for me there is nothing more real than hate. Nothing more real that gnashing one’s teeth, the tense muscles, the untrusting and arrogant stare; the proud and elevated spirit, the hands desiring to hang you, the heart beating rapidly, the anxiety that causes me to shake. To feel that time's up, it’s ending, it’s done.
+<blockquote>
+Formal logic itself has been the arena of violent controversy from the time of Aristotle to the present day. And dialectics has so far been fairly closely investigated by only two thinkers, Aristotle and Hegel. But it is precisely dialectics that constitutes the most important form of thinking for present-day natural science, for it alone offers the analogue for, and thereby the method of explaining, the evolutionary processes occurring in nature, inter-connections in general, and transitions from one field of investigation to another.
+</blockquote>
-How great is the era of catastrophe!
+The Idealist Dialectics of Hegel [see Annotation 9, p. 10] constituted a major development of dialectics, but the idealist nature of Hegelian dialectics made them unsuitable for natural scientists, who therefore discarded “Old-Hegelian” dialectics and were thus left without a suitable dialectical framework. Again, from ''On Dialectics:''
-How glorious is the death that visits this accursed race! The insane prayers are shouted to it desperately that take us away from here, far, far away, to somewhere where we will no longer violate the earth. It will rest after us, the bastard children, the excrement of the galaxy, the terminal illness of ourselves. Glorious bacteria eat our insides, bacteria goddesses, queens of horror and human grief, representatives of death, emissaries of mortality. These will reclaim our days, they will reclaim the human plague. It’s going, we’re going, goodbye life, goodbye, toward that out of which we should have never left, to return to the inorganic. There is only one lost paradise, the unconscious.
+<blockquote>
+The year 1848, which otherwise brought nothing to a conclusion in Germany, accomplished a complete revolution there only in the sphere of philosophy [and] the nation resolutely turned its back on classical German philosophy that had lost itself in the sands of Berlin old-Hegelianism... But a nation that wants to climb the pinnacles of science cannot possibly manage without theoretical thought. Not only Hegelianism but dialectics too was thrown overboard — and that just at the moment when the dialectical character of natural processes irresistibly forced itself upon the mind, when therefore only dialectics could be of assistance to natural science in negotiating the mountain of theory — and so there was a helpless relapse into the old metaphysics.
+</blockquote>
-Swallow us, earth, vomit us, crush us like cockroaches, and tomorrow will be and we will not be. What a glorious day! The deepest night!
+Engels goes on to explain that, having rejected Hegel’s dialectics, natural scientists were set adrift, cobbling together theoretical frameworks from the works of philosophers which were plagued by idealism and metaphysics, and which were therefore not suitable for the task of unifying the disparate fields of natural sciences together:
-Death that kisses us and bites us, our liberator, take us, take us out of here. We are the dumb hindrance.
+<blockquote>
+What prevailed among the public since then were, on the one hand, the vapid reflections of Schopenhauer, which were fashioned to fit the philistines, and later even those of Hartmann; and, on the other hand, the vulgar itinerant-preacher materialism of a Vogt and a Büchner. At the universities the most diverse varieties of eclecticism competed with one another and had only one thing in common, namely, that they were concocted from nothing but remnants of old philosophies and were all equally metaphysical. All that was saved from the remnants of classical philosophy was a certain neo-Kantianism, whose last word was the eternally unknowable thing-in-itself, that is, the bit of Kant [see Annotation 72, p. 68] that least merited preservation. The final result was the incoherence and confusion of theoretical thought now prevalent.
+</blockquote>
-My pride is to despise them above all things, to despise myself above all things. There is greatness, my greatness. Everything else is idiocy, fears of our end. The lightning strike now comes, the acid comes, the fire will take us away. It will burn us, crush us, and that day the most awake, the most pure, will cry from happiness. The most degenerate will shriek from horror, and there our happiness will be higher than our pride, greater than our attacks. May our violence reign, reign, war is our mother and terror our father. We will be the agonizing anti-human that despises them, that despises itself. But who, who else will want to burn his neighbor? No one, that’s why we remain alive, because in our process of self-annihilation we have to take with us as many as we can. All, come, come, let’s kill ourselves, don’t be afraid. Aim at me, shoot this lead at me, I will return fire and we will die with dignity, happy. We shall die killing, because it’s the only dignified destiny that can be lived. The rest is cowardice, it is to be human. We are beasts, animals, cannibals, predators.
+Engels explains that this lack of a proper dialectical materialist framework had frustrated natural scientists of his era:
-Behind, behind society, don’t look at us. You will become a mountain of ash.
+<blockquote>
+One can scarcely pick up a theoretical book on natural science without getting the impression that natural scientists themselves feel how much they are dominated by this incoherence and confusion, and that the so-called philosophy now current offers them absolutely no way out. And here there really is no other way out, no possibility of achieving clarity, than by a return, in one form or another, from metaphysical to dialectical thinking.
+</blockquote>
-<right>
+After explaining that Hegel’s system of dialectics came closest to meeting the needs of contemporary science, Engels explains why Hegelian dialectics were ultimately rejected by the scientific community:
-From the accursed lands in the south of the world (Chile) Krren oscuro
-</right>
-<br>
+<blockquote>
+Just as little can it be a question of maintaining the dogmatic content of the Hegelian system as it was preached by the Berlin Hegelians of the older and younger line. Hence, with the fall of the idealist point of departure, the system built upon it, in particular Hegelian philosophy of nature, also falls. It must however be recalled that the natural scientists’ polemic against Hegel, in so far as they at all correctly understood him, was directed solely against these two points: viz., the idealist point of departure and the arbitrary, fact-defying construction of the system.”
+</blockquote>
-<br>
+In other words, it was the idealism and the unworkable structuring of Hegelian dialectics that prevented its adoption by natural scientists. Engels finally explains how Marx was able to modify Hegel’s idealist dialectics into a materialist form which is suitable for empirical scientific inquiry:
-** The PsychoPathogen: The Serial Killer as an Antibody Response to Modernity
+<blockquote>
+It is the merit of Marx that... he was the first to have brought to the fore again the forgotten dialectical method, its connection with Hegelian dialectics and its distinction from the latter, and at the same time to have applied this method in Capital to the facts of an empirical science, political economy.
+</blockquote>
-<br>
-*** Introduction
+-----
-Serial killers are both glamorized and reviled in our culture. At first, this may be confusing but in a lot of ways, it really makes sense. Anything as liminal as serial killers is bound to evoke feelings of opposing and competing emotions because that’s what trickster energy is and serial killers are in many ways one of the purest expressions of trickster energy that exists within modernity. Let us think about it for a minute. Serial killers are etheric, they move in and out of the consensus reality, seemingly moving in from the shadows, wraithlike, to pluck victims from the circle of civilization’s light only to recede and fade back into the darkness that defines the borderland of the civilized. Their identity is unknown and therefore they occupy the space of “the other”. They avoid detection, even, at least for a time, the long arm of law and it’s supposed infallible co-conspirator, science. The serial killer IS the boogeyman. In doing all this the serial killer becomes the spooky campfire story, the cautionary bedtime tale, the scary object that parents and teachers can wave at children and yes, legend. However, one thing I’ve not seen in all the writings I combed through for this piece was an attempt to understand what evolutionary purpose the serial killer may serve. While this is not the place to unpack and contrast differing ideas regarding the earth’s biosphere and its relative intelligence or at least it’s systemic ability to self-correct, we can probably settle on some kind of general agreement that whether intelligence or blind system, there is a principle at work on this planet that is the macrocosmic expression of the same principle that causes white blood cells to attack certain biotic elements in creatures while ignoring others. So, for example, a cold virus triggers an autoimmune response while certain intestinal bacteria do not. Also, we can see this principle played out in certain animal populations and cohabitating flora and fauna populations that will fluctuate depending on the robustness of others in the same bioregion. One example of this is the famous National Park Service’s Wolf Project at Yellowstone, which showed that the density of wolf populations affected Aspen populations. For some of us, the inevitable connection between wolf and tree populations is not too surprising, but it seems that “experts” today need a refresher in holistic thinking.
+These Classical German philosophers [Kant, Hegel, etc.<ref>Kant’s “transcendental dialectic” was used to critique rationalism and pure reason, but was not a fully developed dialectical system of thought. Hegel’s idealist dialectics were more universal in nature. See Annotation 9, p. 10.</ref>] systematically organized idealist dialectics into formal philosophies. Of particular note was Hegel’s belief that the dialectical process would eventually lead to an “absolute idea.” This foundational belief in an “absolute idea” is what chiefly defines Hegelian dialectics as idealist in nature [see Annotation 98, p. 100].
-Can we view the serial killer as a reaction, based on some of the same principles that drive the aforementioned examples? I don’t see why not. My intention here is not to put you to sleep with piles of facts and dry stilted academic language. I am much more of a populist writer so if you are looking for a dry academic paper on my assertions, I suggest you write one yourself if you are so capable. My intention here is to walk you through some points to think about as I suggest a thought experiment. Instead of simply writing off serial killers with some kind of moral judgment bolstered by ad hominin, let’s try to see if we can find a larger purpose to their existence and yes, their activities. While I won’t be so foolish and naive as to assume most or even many of the people performing activities that would qualify as “serial killings” are aware of the purpose they are serving, this does not negate the fact that they may still be serving those functions or even driven by forces larger than their personal motivations and reasoning or lack thereof. In the next section, we will attempt to define serial killers, and talk about other classes of mass killers we will include for the purpose of this piece since this is not a forensic analysis. Once we have done that, we will build the case for our thesis and then end with some thoughts, since unlike most methods used in these kinds of presentations, we would instead like to present thesis, antithesis and then leave the act of synthesis up to you the reader, since we are pretty sure that if you picked up this book, you are probably the type who not only doesn’t need to be hand-held through the synthesis process but are most likely the type who would, justifiably, be insulted if I attempted to do so. For the record, I would be insulted if I had been asked to, so we’re even on that score. Also, I’d like to add here, that I am aware that the ideas I am presenting here will win me no friends in the mainstream world and will most likely make me enemies in the “alternative” and/or “anarchist” milieu, and while that is not my intention in presenting this material, to provoke such responses are inevitable. I also will not allow the inevitable arousal of such hostilities to act as a chilling effect. I am not attempting to be a troll or what’s known on the Internet as an “edgelord”. I am in fact acting in accordance with my personal ethos as a “freedom of expression extremist”. Do what you will with that information.
+Hegel believed that the subjective dialectic is the basis of the objective dialectic. [In other words, Hegel believed that ''dialectical thought'' served as the ''objective dialectics'' of the material world.]
-What we lack in today’s mixed-up, manic world of media oversaturation and the dissociative normalcy of everyday life is moxie. People have generally become lame, halt, effete—in other words, pussies. The outlaw has been removed yet one more space from the pale to now reside in a liminal state where he is feared, reviled but never revered or even tolerated. This has not always been the case. When certain primal forces are repressed, when archetypal forces are denied or repressed, they find a way to emerge, bringing with them the force built up from the duration of the repression. This is an analogy borrowed from fluid mechanics but it works. To put it simply, add obstruction to a dynamic pressure situation and eventually those pent-up forces erupt.
+According to Hegel, the “absolute idea” was the starting point of all existence, and that this “absolute idea,” after creating the natural world, then came to exist within human consciousness.
-The shadow is not an “evil” force. It is in fact quite necessary and even integral to survival. The trickster, an archetype that seems to have been sidelined in this age of modernity, used to be the central character of many stories, some of the most powerful in fact, involving creation and vital life lessons that are really survival information, transmitted through the ages in one of the oldest forms of information technology used by humans. Namely, storytelling, which in essence is an interplay of the worlds of phenomenal, noumenal and liminal. The trickster is a manifestation of but is not separate from the liminal realm. To explain this simply think of an apple growing from an apple tree. The apple is a part of the apple tree and always was, but the apple is a certain manifestation of the tree. Not separate and yet, not entirely the same. The trickster has always been with us because the trickster is us, even if we do define it as “the other”, simply because first stage awareness often takes the form of an “I and thou” relationship, which seems to be how humans begin to form a concept, so as to talk and think, i.e. communicate something. However, just as we have fooled ourselves into this false concept of “I and thou” so as to better navigate 3D space and phenomenal demands, we have come to think of the “other” as separate and distinct from us. This is absurd of course when you think about it, as absurd as an apple tree deciding that the apples it produces are something other than itself, but in this age of Technos, Psyche has been pushed to the sidelines, taking with her all her liminal allies including the trickster.
+Engels wrote that in Hegelian dialectics: “... spirit, mind, the idea, is primary and that the real world is only a copy of the idea.”<ref>''The Old Preface to Anti-Dühring, On Dialectics'', Friedrich Engels, 1878.</ref>
-As we described earlier, you can never really silence the liminal forces, but you can suppress them, for a while at least and in so doing, you ensure that their eventual emergence will be a violent and reactive one. There are many forms that this emergence can take and the list is too long for our purpose here, so we will focus on one general category of that eruption and then we will focus in on one specific vertical of that category. The category we speak of, of course, is the criminal, the outlaw, the rebel, the one who wears the wolf’s head (caput gerat lupinum), the romantic image of the criminal as a recurring trope, and in particular the vertical of recidivist criminal behavior known as serial killings and the people who commit them. We will look at how the tactics of serial killers can be useful to the modern anti-civ contrarian and even useful to the goal of tipping societal forces toward the direction of the complete collapse of civilization and its stifling tentacles. This, of course, can also lead (one hopes) to the total extinction of the human race on this planet, which in the end is the antidote that life needs to thrive and even possibly survive on this planet. There are those who would call this the goals and attitude of a species traitor and we would not disagree with that definition.
+-----
-One of the many manifestations of the repressed primal nature and the constant staring eyes of the panopticon erupting in ways that the societal system finds aberrant is the serial killer. While many will not be able to see the inherent value of serial killers to the greater good, I would like to take this opportunity to unpack and examine some of the possibly overlooked values that these lone wolves add to our collective experience. Once we strip away the sensationalism that has too often been associated with these agents of the liminal, we are left with a phenomenon that has not been analyzed fairly and without emotional bias. First, let us talk about the phenomena of serial killings in general, so as to establish a baseline definition, so we can speak from a common understanding since there is so much hysteria and misinformation concerning this subject.
+==== Annotation 99 ====
-*** What is a serial killer?
+In the above quoted passage, Engels was explaining why Hegelian dialectics were unsuitable for use in natural sciences. Here is a longer excerpt:
-A serial killer is defined by Wikipedia as “A serial killer is typically a person who murders three or more people, usually in service of abnormal psychological gratification, with the murders taking place over more than a month and including a significant break (a “cooling off period”) between them. Different authorities apply different criteria when designating serial killers; while most set a threshold of three murders, others extend it to four or lessen it to two. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), for example, defines serial killing as “a series of two or more murders, committed as separate events, usually, but not always, by one offender acting alone”
+<blockquote>
+First of all it must be established that here it is not at all a question of defending Hegel’s point of departure: that spirit, mind, the idea, is primary and that the real world is only a copy of the idea... We all agree that in every field of science, in natural as in historical science, one must proceed from the given facts, in natural science therefore from the various material forms and the various forms of motion of matter; that therefore in theoretical natural science, too, the inter-connections are not to be built into the facts, but to be discovered in them, and when discovered to be verified as far as possible by experiment.
-The difference of definition among the various sources is indicative of how divided many so-called experts are among even themselves as to what constitutes a serial killer or killers, so we will simplify the definition here and simply say, that we will take the words literally. Serial, pertaining to, arranged in, or consisting of a series, occurring in a series rather than simultaneously, effecting or producing a series of similar actions. So, by this simple definition, we can accept that two or more would qualify as a serial, whereas killer should not need any definition, but for the sake of symmetry, we will say, a person or thing that kills. So, by definition, famous eco-terrorist Charles Manson (do an Internet search for ATWA) is not a serial killer, that we know of, because he himself, as far as we know, never killed two or more people but rather, convinced his followers to do it. Alternatively, Ian Brady did, in fact, kill several people in consecutive acts, so he would qualify. As would others like Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Ed Gein and Jeffery Dahmer, to name but a few. By definition alone, Ted Kaczynski as an individual or the group ITS in fact qualifies. Whether or not that aligns with your sentiment about the situation is another matter.The FBI and other organizations also attach all kinds of various qualifiers such as ritualism and sexual motivations, but these are speculative at best, so we will not use them for our purposes here. Besides, it is pretty obvious that these types of characterizations are used by law enforcement as both a way to disparage the killers to both the public and as a personal attack directed at the killer’s intent to provoke. This is a way of presenting them as pariahs to the public because as much as it is no longer the case in the ever-fickle media, there was once a time when serial killers were in many ways darlings of the media. Some experts opined that this created an incentive for killers to perform for the media by executing bigger, bolder and more daring acts of violence in order to garner more attention. This was partially demonstrated by killers like the Zodiac, who seemed to receive great pleasure from taunting the media and the police through the medium of the news. The experts, of course, all flocked to the media to offer their opinion how this was a character flaw and became another point in the so-called profile of serial killers, that of the narcissist. As I see it, this may be true in some cases, but certainly not all. Much of what is known about serial killers is based on relatively few known cases. Hickey (2002) provides perhaps the most detailed look into the reality of serial homicide. However, it is important to note that although Hickey’s research provides data on serial killers from 1850 to 1995, the total number is only 400. Indeed, it can be argued that the small number of killers is indicative of just how mythical the phenomenon has truly become. The original FBI study used as the basis for criminal profiling was based on only 30 offenders (Hickey, 2002). Further, what is “known” about serial killers must be tempered with the realization that the data is somewhat questionable. In short, there is much more unknown than known about serial killers and serial killing. Hence my assertion that they are manifestations of trickster energy. The media, of course, reinforces this by assigning or repeating nicknames (Son of Sam, The Zodiac, The Boston Strangler, etc.) as well as exaggerating or sensationalizing the true facts surrounding the cases where serial killers are involved. As one study has noted, since the 1920s, over 300 serial killer themed films have been produced creating myths about serial homicide and serial killers (Hickey, 2002). This is very telling when to comes to comparing the appeal of serial killers on a visceral level versus official or public opinion. Serial killers are mythical. If they embody any mythical being it is, of course, the trickster. Even in the apparent contradiction between polite societies expressed attitudes versus actual behaviors the trickster’s liminal properties shine through.
+-----
-*** Serial Killer Methods
+The German idealists (most notably Hegel) built an idealist system of dialectics organized into categories and common laws along with a strict logic of consciousness.
+</blockquote>
-Holmes and DeBurger (1988) have described four types of serial murderers. The visionary type hears voices, which command them to commit such horrendous acts. The mission-oriented type believes it is their duty to exterminate the evil people in the world. These “evil” people may include prostitutes or specific ethnic groups. The hedonistic type commits violent acts for the fun of it. Labels have also been used to determine different motives for murderers. Profit, passion, hatred, power, revenge, fear and desperation are just a few (Hickey, 2002). Other possible motives include greed, jealousy, drugs, and sex (Douglas, 1995).
+Lenin stated that: “Hegel brilliantly ''divined'' the dialectics of things (phenomena, the world, ''nature'') in the dialectics of concepts.”<ref>''Conspectus of Hegel’s'' ''Science of Logic'', Vladimir Ilyich. Lenin, 1914.</ref>
-Notice that these “killers” have a lot in common with terrorists. Some of the similarities are the random (or seemingly random) choice of victims, the shock effect of the number and often the staging of their victims.
+-----
-A few serial killer traits that an anti-civ extremist may find useful:
+==== Annotation 100 ====
-Non-linear and therefore difficult to predict or pattern Avoidance of police, therefore, strengthening the mythological status
+What Lenin means, here, is that Hegel inadvertently and unconsciously discovered the concept of reflection [see Annotation 68, p. 65]. Hegel intuitively understood that the material world was reflected in human consciousness, and, by extension, subjective dialectics (dialectical thought) reflected objective dialectics (of the material world). Hegel’s error was an inversion of the ideal and the material. As Marx later pointed out in the Afterword to the Second German Edition of ''Capital Volume I,'' it is the material which precedes the ideal, and not the other way around:
-High mobility
+<blockquote>
+My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of ‘the Idea,’ he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos [craftsman/artisan/creator] of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of ‘the Idea.’ With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.
-Methodical attention to detail
+-----
-They look like an average person
+Engels also quoted and emphasized Marx’s thoughts [in ''the Old Preface to Anti-Dühring'', citing another quote of Marx from the ''Afterword to the Second German Edition of Capital Volume I,'' further quoted in Annotation 100 above]: “The mystification which dialectics suffers in Hegel’s hands by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.”<ref>Afterword to the Second German Edition of ''Capital Volume I'', Karl Marx, 1873.</ref>
+</blockquote>
-But I digress.
-*** Organized and Disorganized Killers
+-----
-Law enforcement claims there are two types of serial killers. The organized and the disorganized. Since the disorganized seem to get caught quicker and more often than the organized type, we will focus on the characteristics of the organized. This feels more useful and utilitarian as an approach.
+==== Annotation 101 ====
-*** Organized Offenders
+In ''the Old Preface to Anti-Dühring,'' Engels explains some of the contemporary currents of science and philosophy of his era. Engels explains that Hegelian philosophy had been dismissed by a newer current of natural scientists who dismissed “the idealist point of departure and the arbitrary, fact-defying construction of the system.” In other words, the natural scientists rejected Hegelianism because it was both idealist and was not built on a foundation of objective facts.
-According to the offender and crime scene dichotomy, organized crimes are premeditated and carefully planned, so little evidence is normally found at the scene. Organized criminals, according to the classification scheme, are antisocial (often psychopathic) but know right from wrong, are not insane and show no remorse.
+Engels points out, however, that Marx “was the first to have brought to the fore again the forgotten dialectical method” of Hegel.
-Based on historical patterns, organized killers are likely to be above-average intelligent, attractive, married or living with a domestic partner, employed, educated, skilled, orderly, cunning and controlled. They have some degree of social grace, may even be charming, and often talk and seduce their victims into being captured.
+The dialectical method was forgotten in the sense that the natural scientists ignored and dismissed dialectics along with the rest of Hegel’s philosophy. So, Engels is pointing out that one of the great contributions of Marx was salvaging the dialectical method from Hegel while rejecting the idealist and non-fact-based characteristics of Hegelian philosophy.
-With organized offenders, there are typically three separate crime scenes: where the victim was approached by the killer, where the victim was killed, and where the victim’s body was disposed of. Organized killers are very difficult to apprehend because they go to inordinate lengths to cover their tracks and often are forensically savvy, meaning they are familiar with police investigation methods.
+Marx, according to Engels, proved that the dialectical method could be separated from idealism by “[applying the dialectical method] in ''Capital'' to the facts of an empirical science, political economy.” This was the origin of dialectical materialism: the resurrection of the dialectical method and the development of a dialectical method in a materialist and scientific form.
-They are likely to follow the news media reports of their crimes and may even correspond with the news media. Ted Bundy, Joel Rifkin, and Dennis Rader are prime examples of organized killers.
+The idealist characteristics of classical German dialectics and Hegelian philosophy was a limitation that needed to be overcome [so that it could be utilized for scientific inquiry]. Marx and Engels overcame that limitation and in so doing developed ''materialist dialectics.'' This system of dialectics is the most advanced form of dialectics in the history of philosophy to date. It is the successor of previous systems of dialectics, and it arose as a critique of the classical German dialectics.
-*** Modus Operandi and Signature
+Engels said: “Marx and I were pretty well the only people to rescue conscious dialectics from German idealist philosophy and apply it in the materialist conception of nature and history.”<ref>''Anti-Dühring'', The 1885 Preface, Friedrich Engels, 1878.</ref>
-In addition to the organized/disorganized dichotomy, a serial killer may leave traces of one or both of the following behavioral characteristics: MO (modus operandi or method of operation) and signature—the personal mark or imprint of the offender. While every crime has a MO, not all crimes have a signature.
+=== 2. Materialist Dialectics ===
-The MO is what the offender must do in order to commit the crime. For example, the killer must have a means to control his victims at the crime scene such as tying them up. Significantly, the MO is a learned behavior that is subject to change.
+==== a. Definition of Materialist Dialectics ====
-A serial killer will alter and refine his MO to accommodate new circumstances or to incorporate new skills and information. For example, instead of using rope to tie up a victim, the offender may learn that it is easier and more effective to bring handcuffs to the crime scene. The MO of Jack the Ripper, for example, was that he attacked prostitutes at night on the street with a knife.
+Materialist dialectics have been defined in various ways by many prominent Marxist-Leninist philosophers.
-The signature, on the other hand, is not required in order to commit the crime. Rather, it serves the emotional or psychological needs of the offender. The signature comes from within the psyche of the offender and it reflects a deep fantasy need that the killer has about his victims. Fantasies develop slowly, increase over time and may begin with the torture of animals during childhood, for example, as they did with Dennis Rader (“Bind, Torture, Kill”).
+Engels defined materialist dialectics as: “nothing more than the science of the general laws of motion and development of nature, human society, and thought.”<ref>''Anti-Dühring'', Friedrich Engels, 1878.</ref>
-The essential core of the signature, when present, is that it is always the same because it emerges out of an offender’s fantasies that evolved long before killing his first victim. The signature may involve mutilation or dismemberment of the victim’s body. The signature of Jack the Ripper was the extensive hacking and mutilation of his victims’ bodies that characterized all of his murders.
+Engels also emphasized the role of the principle of general relations.<ref>See p. 107.</ref> As John Burdon
-*** Staging and Posing
+Sanderson Haldane noted in the 1939 preface to ''Dialectics of Nature'': “In dialectics they
-The FBI profiler may also encounter deliberate alterations of the crime scene or the victim’s body position at the scene of the murder. If these alterations are made for the purpose of confusing or otherwise misleading criminal investigators, then they are called staging and they are considered to be part of the killer’s MO.
+[Marx and Engels] saw the science of the general laws of change.”<ref>''Dialectics of Nature'', Friedrich Engels, 1883.</ref>
-On the other hand, if the crime scene alterations only serve the fantasy needs of the offender, then they are considered part of the signature and they are referred to as posing. Sometimes, a victim’s body is posed to send a message to the police or public. For example, Jack the Ripper sometimes posed his victims’ nude bodies with their legs spread apart to shock onlookers and the police in Victorian England.
+Lenin emphasized the important role of the principles of development<ref>See Annotation 117, p. 119.</ref> (including the theory of cognitive development) in the dialectics that Marx inherited from Hegelian philosophy.
-*** Dispelling some common myths of serial killers
+Lenin wrote: “The main achievement was ''dialectics'', i.e., the doctrine of development in its fullest, deepest, and most comprehensive form, the doctrine of the relativity of human knowledge that provides us with a reflection of eternally developing matter.”<ref>''The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism'', Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1913.</ref>
-There is a lot of misinformation about serial killers, mostly propagated by the media via yellow journalism and popular movies. Here’s a few facts that can help dispel a few of those rumors.
+==== b. Basic Features and Roles of Materialist Dialectics ====
-<em>Many victims are strangers</em>
+There are two basic features of the materialist dialectics of Marxism-Leninism:
-<em>There are many motives to kill other than past sexual abuse: rejection, anger etc...</em>
+''First, the materialist dialectics of Marxism-Leninism is a system of dialectics that is based on the foundation of the scientific materialist viewpoint.''
-<em>Several cases don’t involve sex at all</em>
+-----
-<em>Almost 17% of serial killers are female</em>
+==== Annotation 102 ====
-<em>Only 2-4% are legally insane</em>
+Remember that ''scientific'' in Marxism-Leninism refers broadly to a systematic pursuit of knowledge, research, theory, and understanding [see Objects and Purposes of Study, p. 38]. Remember also that ''materialism'' in Marxism-Leninism has specific meaning as well, which differentiates it from other forms of materialism [see ''Dialectical Materialism — the Most Advanced Form of Materialism'', p. 52]. Here, materialism includes an understanding that the material is the first basis of reality, meaning that the material determines the ideal (though human consciousness can impact the material world through willpower and labor [see ''Nature and Structure of Consciousness'', p. 79]). Materialism is also built upon scientific explanations (rooted in empirical data and practice, i.e. systematic experimentation and observation) of the world. And finally, remember that ''viewpoint'' is the starting point of inquiry [see Annotation 11, p. 12].
-<em>Some stay in a local area</em>
+Thus, a ''scientific materialist viewpoint'' is a perspective which begins analysis of the world in a manner that is both scientifically systematic in pursuit of understanding and firmly rooted in a materialist conception of the world.
-<right>
+''Note:'' Materialist Dialectics contains ''Twelve Basic Pairs of Categories'', ''Two Basic Principles'' and ''Three Universal Laws''. These are summarized, respectively, in Appendix A (p. 246), Appendix B (p. 247), and Appendix C (p. 248), and explained in depth throughout the rest of this chapter.
-(Hickey, 2002)
-</right>
-*** Serial Killers as a Natural Release Mechanism
+In this way, materialist dialectics fundamentally differs from the classical German idealist dialectics, and especially differs from Hegelian dialectics<ref>See Annotation 98, p. 100.</ref> (as these dialectics were founded on idealist viewpoints).
-Serial killers have throughout time, often occupied the spotlight, whether it be via rumor and legend, scary bedtime stories or more recently, in the media, which is the modern equivalent of all the above. As we have briefly discussed earlier in this article, the serial killer could be equated to some sort of antibody reaction and while that may sound somewhat speculative, it is also not outside the bounds of the possible. So, as a thought experiment, let’s assume that is the case. What exactly would the function of this antibody reaction be in response to and what form does it take? We see certain fail-safes kicking in during times of overpopulation with rat and monkey colonies. These fail-safes can take the forms of cannibalism or infanticide and are a built-in in response to environmental stress that is introduced into a population due to overcrowding, increased competition for food, a shortage of or over competition for mating partners and a variety of other factors. Civilization’s present state is one of massive stress for the average person, overcrowding, overstimulation, hyper-competition for resources, environmental stressors, the list goes on. Why would it be so hard to fathom that some sort of hither unidentified failsafes may arise in these unparalleled times of stressors? What forms those fail-safes may take are unknowable and quite frankly, unpredictable. A culling urge may drive some serial killers on a deeper level than even they may be aware of.
+Moreover, it also has a higher level of development compared to other dialectical systems of thought found in the history of philosophy going back to ancient times. Such previous forms of dialectics were fundamentally based on materialist stances, however the materialism of those ancient times was still naive, primitive and surface-level.
-*** The Serial Killer as “hero”
+''Second, the materialist dialectics of Marxism-Leninism unifies dialectical materialist viewpoints and materialist dialectical methodology, so it not only explains the world, but is also a tool humans can use to perceive and improve the world.''
-In recent times, serial killers have taken on a romantic aspect with the public. From the sensationalistic presentation of Jack the Ripper, to the glamorous portrayal of Charles Manson by some of the counterculture media, all the way to the fetishization of serial killers in book and movie form, with media products like Dexter, and the Hannibal media products, endless reality TV, documentary and docudrama presentation of cases like the Menendez Brothers, Columbine, True Detective, et al., it is apparent that the manifestation of the trickster, known as the Serial or Spree Killer, is not going away anytime soon. It seems to be a subject that screams to be examined yet it is uniformly tamped down as a subject for serious discussion in “civilized society”. When we consider some of the most modern manifestations of this phenomenon, namely groups like ITS (Individualists Tending Toward Savagery) or Ted Kaczynski and the reaction of vilification within the so-called anarchist milieu of such groups or individuals and their tendencies, we see the same taboo in action that has always dogged this phenomenon. Namely, instead of addressing it as a possibly naturally occurring phenomenon, theoretically a manifestation of nature, it is shoved to a dark corner, vilified, buried in ad hominem and most telling, not discussed openly and on its own terms. If anyone does try to invite such a conversation, they end up spending all their time and energy defending themselves from insincere critique, infantile name calling campaigns and yes, even threats of physical harm and sexual violence. I have witnessed attacks using those aforementioned tactics on a few people willing to invite conversation on these types of subjects. I shouldn’t even have to point out the obvious contradictions here, but I find I often do. It would seem that many people in a milieu that professes to be a conversation outside the predominant paradigm have some very peculiar ideas of what is “permitted” as a subject of rational discourse. I will quote Hasan i Sabah here, or at least William Burroughs paraphrasing Hasan i Sabah, “Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted”. Of course, I am a free expression extremist, so I am personally used to the constant attempt at coercion and the non-stop chilling effect that in itself is a natural response to a phenomenon that frightens the intellectual cowards among us.
+Every principle and law of Marxist-Leninist materialist dialectics is both:
-The trickster is probably one of the most enduring archetypes across cultures, the list of stories about the trickster character is truly universal, perhaps the most universal of all archetypes. One of the things that is not discussed much in polite circles, is the obvious fact that the criminal is its mundane (earthly) manifestation. Many examples exist throughout history including Arthur Rimbaud with his exhortation that,
+. An accurate explanation of the dialectical characteristics of the world.
-**** “The first study of the man who wants to be a poet in the knowledge of himself, complete. He looks for his soul, inspects it, tests it, learns it. As soon as he knows it, he must cultivate it! It seems simple: in every mind a natural development takes place; so many egoists call themselves authors, there are many others who attribute their intellectual progress to themselves! — But the soul must be made monstrous: in the fashion of the comprachicos [“kidnappers of children who mutilate them in order to exhibit them as monsters”], if you will! Imagine a man implanting and cultivating warts on his face.
+. A scientific methodology for perceiving and improving the world.
-**** I say one must be a seer, make oneself a seer. The poet makes himself a seer by a long, gigantic and rational derangement of all the senses. All forms of love, suffering, and madness. He searches himself. He exhausts all poisons in himself and keeps only their quintessences. Unspeakable torture where he needs all his faith, all his superhuman strength, where he becomes among all men the great patient, the great criminal, the one accursed — and the supreme Scholar!
+By summarizing the general interconnections and development of all things — every phenomenon in nature, society and human thought — Marxist-Leninist materialist dialectics provides the most general methodological principles for the process of perceiving and improving the world. They are not just objective methodological principles; they are a comprehensive, constantly developing, and historical methodology.
-**** — Because he reaches the unknown! Since he cultivated his soul, rich already, more than any man! He reaches the unknown, and when, bewildered, he ends by losing the intelligence of his visions, he has seen them. Let him die as he leaps through unheard of and unnameable things: other horrible workers will come; they will begin from the horizons where the other one collapsed!”
+This methodology can be used to analyze contradictions [see Annotation 119, p. 123] in order to find the basic origins and motivations of both motion and developmental processes. Therefore, materialist dialectics is a great scientific tool for the revolutionary class to perceive and improve the world.
-Or Sigmund Freud’s quote, “<em>One has to be a bad fellow, transcend the rules, sacrifice oneself, betray, and behave like the artist who buys paints with his wife’s household money, or burns the furniture to warm the room for his model. Without such criminality there is no real achievement</em>.” to the story of Picasso inviting competing lovers over, unbeknownst to each other so he could be inspired to paint chaos and strife for Guernica, Jacques Mesrine, William S. Burroughs, Joe Gibbons and a horde of fictional characters, like the Joker (especially Heath Ledger’s portrayal), Tyler Durden, Colonel Kurtz as portrayed by Brando in Apocalypse Now, Charles Manson and his very early eco-terror organization ATWA, and of course the notorious O9A (or the Order of the NIne Angles) and their philosophy of The Dreccian Way... it is hard to understand why “He who wears the wolf’s head” is not spoken about in polite company. Even Andre Breton said, “The simplest Surrealist act consists of dashing down the street, pistol in hand, and firing blindly, as fast as you can pull the trigger, into the crowd. Anyone who, at least once in his life, has not dreamed of thus putting an end to the petty system of debasement and cretinization in effect has a well- defined place in that crowd with his belly at barrel-level.” One begins to wonder when art became so non-lethal and safe.
+With these basic features, materialist dialectics plays a very important role in the worldview and philosophical methodology of Marxism-Leninism. Materialist dialectics are the foundation of the scientific and revolutionary characteristics of Marxism-Leninism and also offer the most general worldview and methodology for creative activities in scientific study and practical activities.
-Ok, so it may not be too hard to comprehend why such characters are somewhat shunned in a civilized society (not that I agree with that sentiment) but the subject seems to be entirely taboo unless one is hurling invectives and ad hominems in the direction of those that choose to live outside the pale. At least most of the time this is the case. There are a few times that one of these rebels sneaks over the transom of the everyday, such as the case of John Dillinger who was beloved by the average working folk and as mentioned, the early reception of Charles Manson by some elements of the counterculture press. It was only later that a concentrated effort to brand Manson as the “man who killed the 60s” overtook some of the praise for his “war on the pigs”. It is also relevant to mention that Manson later started ATWA with some followers and in many ways, set the precedent for groups like Wild Reaction/Individualists Tending Toward the Wild (Savagery), etc. The project I am directly involved in, thepsychopath. org is inspired and informed by all of these influences.
+== II. Basic Principles of Materialist Dialectics ==
-*** Are the Serial Killer’s actions actually anti-civ in nature?
+-----
-The question here is how much in alignment with the agenda of the anti-civ or species traitor is the serial killer’s actions and agenda? Does the serial killer share any qualities with terrorists and radical insurrectionists? Can the anti-civ tendency benefit or borrow from the modus operandi of the serial killer? Could the stealthy M.O. of the serial killer be used by the misanthrope in a manner akin to a ground based drone strike by a non-state actor? That, like everything, is a matter of opinion. I would like to take this time to see if we can unpack a few of those possibilities and be doing so, give anyone willing to form their own synthesis some food for thought. Serial killers often pick symbolic targets, and they often leave messages to certain population segments or individuals through the act of ritual posing. One may even say that this is a form of artistic language and much like a communique that is sent out after a terrorist act by a person or group taking responsibility for the said act, it is a signature. Serial killers and terrorists share the need for a signature, for some very similar reasons. The serial killer and the terrorist seek context and direction of their seemingly random acts, and by applying a signature, much like an artist signing a painting or a poet signing their work, both the serial killer and the terrorist apply a directive to the act. By signing their work they assure that it doesn’t end up on the heap of “shit happens”, like so many of the random events that populate our life do. The signature says, “I did this and I did this for a reason.” One need look no further than the work of someone like Steve Hodel and his theories on the Black Dahlia killer to see the obvious connection to serial killer staging and art . One need look no further than the mythopoetic communiqués of a group like ITS or the actions of individuals like Ted Kaczynski to see the connection between terrorist activities and art. I use the word terrorist here purely as a description of the activity and not in the politicized vernacular which is to say not in a dismissive or disparaging sense. Their acts spread terror and I believe that this is their intention, plain and simple. That what they do also qualify as art is my opinion which I offer here for your consideration.
+==== Annotation 103 ====
-*** Postscript: Discarding the need for moral outcomes
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-23.png|''The Principle of General Relationships and the Principle of Development are the most basic principles of materialist dialectics. These two principles are dialectically related to one another.'']]
-If you’re reading this journal it is my hope that we can dispense with certain introductions such as the definition of sanity and insanity and their irrelevant contexts within the framework of modernity, as well as concepts like criminal and law abiding. If you need tutoring on the illegalist attitudes I suggest you start by googling terms like illegalist and then maybe come back to this journal and read it anew.
+The following sections will outline the Principle of General Relationships and the Principle of Development, which are the most fundamental principles of materialist dialectics. These two concepts are closely (and dialectically) related:
-If we are on the same page or at least on a page in the same chapter, then let us consider the charge of violence and it’s necessity or lack thereof. There are clearly times when violence
+-----
-is justified and in fact to not respond to certain situations with violence is in essence negligence.If you or members of your group, tribe or family are in jeopardy, and you do not respond with the force necessary to repel that threat, doesn’t that signify that you are malfunctioning as a biological entity on this planet? Today the fact that we are being systematically exterminated by civilization and its zombie cheerleaders can only be refuted by the most hypnotized, delusional or outright dishonest among us. Much like a small group of people fighting for survival from a flood, those that cannot or worse, who will not swim, can bring about the demise of those who in fact are struggling to survive after a shipwreck. It is not inhumane to divest yourself of a group of people who are not only not contributing to the solution but due to their panicked thrashing may be vastly contributing to the problem. Anyone who has ever tried to help a drowning person already knows this from experience.This is why there really is no such thing as collateral damage in a struggle for survival and this is why I would argue that the so-called innocent victims of random acts of terrorism are neither innocent nor victims. They are complicit on a lot of levels and mostly by their inactivity and refusal to resist the juggernaut of civilization and its many agents of complicity. Likewise, the naysayers and critics of those who would take action are complicit and therefore are legitimate targets of anyone who would take it upon themselves to push back, lash out or fight the never-ending, soul-crushing encroachment of the stifling death of both mind and body that comes as part of the package deal known as civilization. But you can always sit back and enjoy your neutering and lobotomization. I’m told it doesn’t hurt for long. Who knows, maybe someone reading this will take it upon themselves to experiment one night, invoke the trickster within, walk the dark streets and follow fate or even become fate itself.
+=== 1. The Principle of General Relationships ===
-<right>
+''a. Definition of Relationship and Common Relationship''
-Ezra Buckley
-</right>
-** Tangled Hostility
+-----
-<br>
+==== Annotation 104 ====
-Words have no meaning, they never truly did.
+The ''Principle of General Relationships'' describes how all things, phenomena, and ideas are related to one another, and are defined by these internal and external relationships
-The brittle outer shell peels off nonetheless.
+The ''Principle of Development'' relates to the idea that motion, change, and development are driven by internal and external relationships.
-The wetlands and black water of my home remain a target for industry to spoil. Sparsely populated and poor, it’s seen as a convenient outlet for vast amounts of waste that are disastrous to the entirety of the ecosystem. After years of being dismayed by the damage done through wetland logging and gross negligence I was surprised to see our area come up on Earth First! this summer. The story was about a proposed rail line that would be used to transport coal ash into a landfill near the Satilla and Altamaha rivers and the community’s resistance to Republic, the Arizona-based firm that would own the rail line. It was a fine story as reports on reformist environmental efforts go, but I’ve been so infuriated by a particular piece of information mentioned in passing. Listed among the credentials of a local “green-minded businessman” was the fact that he had lobbied for the construction of another prison in the area. He praised the prison for being a “growth industry without smokestacks.”
+These two principles are dialectically linked: any given subject is defined by its internal relationships, and these same relationships drive the development of every subject.
-The words of a friend have been repeating ever since when I think about that statement: “The day will come when Leviathan itself will be heralded as eco-friendly. The world-eater becomes the world-healer, while still destroying all in its path.” The realization that however vast we imagine the armor of Leviathan to be it will always be an understatement is never easy. The force that destroys life at every turn continues to unabashedly assume the mask of preservation.
+Note: The foundation of the principles of Materialist Dialectics were laid out by
-Even beyond the absurdity of a green industry, much less a green prison, the very idea of the carceral state contributing to the preservation of swamps and wetlands is so offensive that it verges on comedy. I immediately thought of the maroons: runaway slaves, indigenous people, and criminals who established their free communities in the middle of our (formerly) expansive swamps where the literal teeth and claws of American slave society (in the form of hounds) couldn’t follow them. To quote Richard Grant writing for <em>Smithsonian</em> magazine:
+Engels in ''Dialectics of Nature''. Engels began working on ''Dialectics of Nature'' in February, 1870 and had to stop in 1876 to work on ''Anti-Dühring''. He then restarted work on ''Dialectics of Nature'' in 1878 and continued working on it until 1883, when Karl Marx died. Engels felt that it was more important to try and put together Marx’s great unfinished works, ''Capital Volumes 2, 3, and 4'', and so stopped working on ''Dialectics of Nature'' once again. So, unfortunately, Engels died before this seminal work on Materialist Dialectics could be completed, and what we have instead is an unfinished assemblage of notes.
-**** “Each ripping thorn and sucking mudhole makes it clearer. It was the dense, tangled hostility of the swamp and its enormous size that enabled hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of escaped slaves to live here in freedom.”
+What follows in the rest of this book is a cohesive system of Materialist Dialectics which was built upon the foundations laid out by Engels in ''Dialectics of Nature'' and many other works of political and scholarly writing from various sources. This is the system of Materialist Dialectics studied by Vietnamese students and applied by Vietnamese communists today.
-In addition to leaving the system of slavery, they also appeared to abandon the ideals of the capitalist society that were forced upon them, as one inhabitant known as Charlie would later specify that all labor on the island was communal. Their utter rejection of this world shaped by colonialism is implied through their name, as the word “maroon” itself is thought to come from “cimarrón,” a word the Spanish applied to feral animals and later to the slaves who escaped the Spaniards’ cruelty: in other words, forms of life that resist commodification and colonial domestication. The qualities of the swamps themselves fostered this environment of opposition to the state, as the swamp stripped slaveholders and their police forces of civilized accoutrements in the form of horses and hounds. And even if the slave patrols managed to navigate the swamp and locate the maroon societies they could expect violent resistance and booby-traps along the way. Retreating to nature afforded these communities a chance to live freely and leave face-down in the mud, any lawman who would deprive them of that. Nature is no respecter of persons.
+Because this text comes from predominantly Vietnamese scholarship and ideological development, we have had to translate some terms into English which are not derived from the “canon” of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. In some cases, various terms have been consolidated into one concept. For example: Engels used the term “interconnection” (German: ''innern'' ''Zusammenhang'', literally: “inner connections”) in ''Dialectics of Nature'', but Vietnamese political scientists use the term “relationship.” Where Engels uses the term “motion” (German: ''Bewegung'') modern Vietnamese communists tend to use the word “development.” Wherever this is the case, we have chosen to use the words in English which most closely match the language used in the original Vietnamese of this text.
-Moving forward three hundred some-odd years Monsieur Dupont’s <em>Nihilist Communism</em> made the point of the body itself being one of the few forces that remains incorruptible by capitalism. I would argue that this trait is inherited from our environment as nature and the body remains “enslaved but fundamentally unhelpful.” Dupont eventually arrived at a workerist position because they believed all political projects would be subsumed by capital to create an even more advanced capitalist society that could resist efforts to disrupt it. My departure from Dupont can be expressed succinctly: we’re shown by the example of the maroon communities that certain aspects of nature possess two key features that amount to more than a simple “drag on maximization,” those being a lack of distinct paths and total hostility to the armament of civilization.
+In materialist dialectics, the word ''relationship'' refers to the regulating principles, mutual interactions, and mutual transformations which exist between things, phenomena, and ideas, as well as those existing between aspects and factors within things, phenomena, and ideas.
-But like Dupont I reject political strategies and projects that involve merely shuffling the components of industrial civilization. As with the authors of <em>baedan</em>, I have no alternative to offer. All I can put forward is my desire to move in such a way that invokes the chaos of my home. Not chaos in the traditional sense put forward by moralist anarchists when they say “anarchy is not chaos, but order” but chaos in the cosmic sense of something unknown that defies the logic of futurity. Something that presents no opportunities of development and co-optation to civilization and capital, but instead howls against it with tangled hostility.
+-----
-<right>
+==== Annotation 105 ====
-kohelet
-</right>
-<br>
+Throughout this book, ''phenomenon/phenomena'' simply refers to anything that is observable by the human senses.
-** The Mara Salvatrucha: The most dangerous gang in the world
+Materialist dialectics examines relationships between things, phenomena, and ideas and ''within'' things, phenomena, and ideas. A relationship which occurs between two separate things or phenomena is referred to as an ''external relationship''. A relationship which occurs ''within'' a thing or phenomenon is referred to as an ''internal relationship''.
-<br>
+These terms are relative; sometimes a relationship may be internal in one context but external in a different context. For example, consider a solar system:
-The Mara Salvatrucha (MS) is a Salvadoran gang renowned for its exceptional criminality. This has caught our attention to an exceptional degree due to its modus operandi, its experience in arms trafficking, its ample range of criminal activities, its lessons on how to avoid the authorities, and more than anything else, its internationalization, which has been sharp like a wasp’s sting, swift and lethal like the Black Death.
+When considering a solar system as a whole, the orbit of a moon around a planet may be considered as an internal relationship of the solar system. But when considering the moon as an isolated subject, its orbit around a planet may be seen as an external relationship which the moon has with the planet.
-Here we aim to highlight the valuable lessons that the MS can teach us eco-extremists. Without any moral reservation, we undertake this as we seek to use any means at our disposal, to wage our own war in an individualist manner against all that wishes to domesticate us. We take our lessons from wherever we like, from the savage Selknam to the guerillas of Paraguay to the Salvadoran gangs. If they have something to teach us, why not learn from them? Without further ado, we will let the mafiosos explain.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-24.png]]
-*** The Maras, What They Are, and Where They Emerged
+The diagram above illustrates different types of relationships:
-Gangs known as maras dominate criminality in Central America. They are immortalized in images of violent men covered in tattoos who have an absolute disdain for the value of life. The Maras inspire fear and concern wherever they are found.
+Object 1 has its own internal relationships (A), and, from its own perspective, it also has external relationships with Object 2 (B). From a wider perspective, the relationship between Object 1 and Object 2 (B) may be viewed as an internal relationship.
-The maras emerged in the barrios of Los Angeles in the 1980s during the time of civil wars raging in countries like Guatemala and El Salvador. Many refugees fled these countries searching for a better future and ended up in the Mexican barrios of Los Angeles.
+This ''system of relationships'' (between Object 1 and Object 2) will also have external relationships with other things, phenomena, and ideas (C).
-In the 1990s, crime had reached epidemic proportions and the US government began to enforce its immigration laws more strictly, swiftly deporting immigrants who were (or were found) guilty of crimes to their countries of origin. Upon their return to what is known as the Northern Triangle (Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala) the members of the maras were not able to reintegrate into society and they continued building criminal networks, and also relationships between those countries and gangs in the US.
+-----
-*** Internationalization
+Relationships have a quality of ''generality'', which refers to how frequently they occur between and within things, phenomena, and ideas. When we refer to ''general relationships'', we are usually referring to relationships which exist broadly across many things, phenomena, and ideas. General relationships can exist both internally, ''within'' things, phenomena, and ideas, and externally, ''between'' things, phenomena, and ideas.
-In the beginning, the MS was made up of mostly Salvadorans, but the diversity of nationalities present in Los Angeles meant that this changed quickly. When MS entered the criminal scene, other gangs decided to welcome them into their networks, especially the gang called the Mexican Mafia, a Californian group with control over the southern US and Mexico. The MS were offered protection in the prisons and barrios. In return, MS lent the Mexican Mafia hitmen and added “13” to their name since this corresponded to “M” being the thirteenth letter in the alphabet.
+The most general relationships are ''universal relationships'': these are relationships that exist between and within ''everything'' and ''all phenomena'', and they are one of the two primary subjects of study of materialist dialectics. [The other primary subject of study is the ''Principle of Development''; see page 119.]
-From that time, the MS became MS-13, a criminal association organized around the Northern Triangle, Mexico, and the US. MS-13, like almost all of the maras, does not have a head or chief who controls all of the networks in an absolute manner. It works through cells or “clicas” in various territories that have their own chiefs known as “palabreros.”
+-----
-*** Confrontation with the Authorities
+==== Annotation 106 ====
-Here we copy and paste a text taken from the press which reflects a little the current situation of the maras:
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-25.png]]
-**** Drop by drop of blood, the violence of the Maras in El Salvador increases daily. The recent threats against official agents did not take long to be realized, and from Sunday to Friday, four police agents, a soldier, and a director of the Metropolitan Agents Corps (CAM) were killed, some of them brutally: either decapitated or suffocated. The majority of officer victims, 61 so far in 2016 (41 police, 19 soldiers, and one agent of the CAM) were kidnapped and afterwards killed off-duty or while in their homes. This was the case with Carlos Arturo Flores, who this past Wednesday left his home in Yucaiquin, in the eastern department of La Union, with the intention of visiting his girlfriend. On Thursday his body was found decapitated and riddled with bullets near his residence.
+The discussion of generality of relationships can seem confusing at first. What’s important to understand is that generality is a spectrum ranging from the least general relationships (''unique relationships'', which only occur between two ''specific'' things/phenomena/ideas) and the most general relationships (''universal relationships'', which occur between or within ''all'' things/phenomena/ideas).
-The Maras have called their action “an escalated war against the system,” in which the targets consist of the police, soldiers, prosecutors, judges, and prison guards. They have also warned that the aim is to have a “high murder rate by the end of the year.”
+Of particular importance in the study of materialist dialectics are ''universal'' relationships which exist within and between all things, phenomena, and ideas [see below].
-*** Criminal Activities
+''Translation Note'': In the original Vietnamese, the word “universal” is not used. Instead, the compound term “phổ biến nhất” is used, which literally means “most general.” In Vietnamese, this phrasing is commonly used to describe the concept of “universal” and it is thus not confusing to Vietnamese speakers. For this translation, we have opted to use the word “universal” because we feel it is less confusing and better explains the concept in English.
-The Maras have a wide experience when it comes to criminal activities. These range from the ordinary criminal activity such as robberies and assaults that are everyday tasks of gang members to more ambitious robberies of large sums of money. There are many 94
+-----
-executions, for everything from problems between gangs and rival groups, arms trafficking, drug trafficking, and even human trafficking. The activity that they are best known for is extortion.
+The universal relationships include (but are not limited to):
-*** Extortion
+* Relationships between basic philosophical category pairs (Private and Common, Essence and Phenomenon, etc.). <ref>See ''Private and Common'', p. 128; ''Essence and Phenomenon'', p. 156.</ref>
+* Relationships between quantity and quality. <ref>See Annotation 117, p. 119.</ref>
+* Relationships between opposites. <ref>See Annotation 190, p. 181.</ref>
-Extortion, also known as “rent” or “war tax” (in Honduras) is a method by which a quantity of money is taken from people, especially from transport workers and business owners. In general they send new gang members or women (who are used to throw the local authorities off at the moment of extortion) to collect money, which is collected weekly or monthly.
+Together, in all forms of relationships in nature, society and human thought (special, general, and universal) there is unity in diversity and diversity in unity.
-If the rent isn’t paid, a bus is lit on fire or the person is assassinated. The amount of extortion money that is collected is believed to exceed 18 million dollars annually.
+-----
-*** Arms
+==== Annotation 107 ====
-The gang members or Mareros tend to use high caliber weapons for their criminal activities and many of their murders are committed with firearms like pistols, shotguns, and even assault rifles like the AK-47 and M-16. In some cases they use other weapons such as knives and machetes.
+==== Principle of General Relationships ====
-Generally in their attacks, they make sure not to leave the victim alive. They tend to shoot the head and the body many times if using firearms. In other cases, they will inflict mortal wounds, even to the point of dismembering the victim. Only rarely do the gang members resort to hand-to-hand combat. Aside from the use of arms they also collect contraband goods to sell and/or distribute to their own members.
+According to ''Curriculum of the Philosophy of Marxism-Leninism For University and College Students Specializing in Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh Thought: “''Materialist dialectics upholds the position that all things, phenomena, and ideas exist in mutual relationships with each other, regulate each other, transform into each other, and that nothing exists in complete isolation. That is the core idea of the ''Principle of General Relationships''.”
-*** The Dispute Concerning Tattoos
+From this Principle, we find the characteristics of ''Diversity in Unity'' and ''Unity in Diversity''; the basis of Diversity in Unity is the fact that every thing, phenomenon, or idea, contains many different relationships; the basis of Unity in Diversity is that many different relationships exist — unified — within each and every thing, phenomenon, and idea.
-Many members of the MS have tattoos showing that they have pledged themselves to a leader. Among the favored designs are “MS,” “Salvatrucha,” “Devil Horns,” which is the name of one of their leaders. These tattoos were a fairly typical custom dating to the beginnings of the gang, but lately it is falling into disuse to avoid being identified due to their criminal endeavors.
+==== Diversity in Unity ====
-Interviewed Mareros and gang members indicate that at present there is a tendency to abandon the use of identifying symbols (especially tattoos) in order to not be so easily identified by authorities. The tattoo is undoubtedly one of the more visible elements that provokes the most controversy for the stereotypes and persecutions it generates.
+There exist an infinite number of diverse relationships between things, phenomena, and ideas, but all of these relationships share the same foundation in the material world.
-*** The Maras and the Indiscriminate
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-26.png|''An infinite diversity of relationships exist within the unity of the material world.'']]
-The Maras do not tend to hesitate at the moment of executing their actions, even when this entails the deaths of supposed innocents. Leaving aside the motivations for acting in this case, we will highlight here the means by which they achieve their ends, without second thoughts.
+The material world is not a chaotic and random assortment of things, phenomena, and ideas. Rather, it is a system of relationships between things, phenomena, and ideas. Likewise, since the material world exists as the foundation of all things, phenomena, and ideas, the material world is thus the foundation for all relationships within and between things, phenomena, and ideas. Because all relationships share a foundation in the material world, they also exist in unity, even though all relationships are diversified and different from one another.
-On December 23rd, 2004, the MS committed one of its most notable crimes in Chamelecon (Honduras). An intercity bus was stopped and fired upon, killing twenty eight passengers, the majority being women and children. Six armed men opened fire and one boarded the bus and methodically executed the passengers. The MS organized the massacre as a protest to the Honduran government reestablishing the death penalty in the country. In February 2007, Juan Carlos Miranda Bueso and Darwin Alexis Ramirez were found guilty of these crimes, including murder and attempted murder. Ebert Anibal Rivera was also found guilty of the attack and was detained after having fled to Texas. Juan Bautista Jimenez was accused of planning the massacre, and was killed in prison. According to authorities, he was hung by his cellmates who were members of the MS. There was not sufficient evidence to condemn Oscar Fernando Mendoza or Wilson Geovany Gomez.
+-----
-*** Conclusion
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-27.png|''Universal relationships which unite all things, phenomena, and ideas manifest in infinitely diverse ways.'']]
-We can observe that these gang members are not characterized by nobility. Their warlike pride makes them hostile to others not in their gang. Within the group, they respect each other, they value each other, and they take care of each other. But those on the outside, those who are not of the gang, are viewed as the enemy. The cliques sprout up like factions and add up to an international criminal project that worries the authorities of all of the countries in which they operate. They live in constant conflict in their appearance as well as in their attitude towards life. These make them clash with the values of society and all that is considered politically correct. They usually cannot get jobs nor do they want them, though we know that this is not always the case. For this reason they have launched themselves without hesitation into criminal activities, assaults, robberies, extortion, and drug trafficking, among other endeavors.
+'''Unity in Diversity'''
-Experience has taught them much; for that reason the Maras have reformed some aspects of their organizational structure. For example, even though they were well known for their symbolic use of tattoos, they have renounced this practice in order to remain in the shadows, in order to not receive unnecessary attention from the police.
+When we examine the universal relationships that exist within and between all different things, phenomena, and ideas, we will find that each individual manifestation of any universal relationship will have its own different manifestations, aspects, features, etc. Thus even the universal relationships which unite all things, phenomena, and ideas exist in infinite diversity.
-In spite of official sources that indicate that these gangs are in decline, and are even looking for a truce, the chaos and murders keep extending the bloody print of these evil beings. They give their lives for the Maras, as we, eco-extremists, give our lives for our pagan deities and wild nature. They and we know what it means to live in a war that will continue, citing the words of one of their members, “until the end.”
+''Paraphrased From: Curriculum of the Philosophy of Marxism-Leninism For University and College Students Specializing in Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh Thought''
-<right>
+-----
-<em>Extinción</em> 1
-</right>
-<br>
+==== b. Characteristics of Relationships ====
-** A Statement from Innocence
+Objectiveness, generality, and diversity are the three basic characteristics of relationships.
-<br>
+''-'' ''The Characteristic of Objectiveness of Relationships''
-This is a reflection from my profound innocence. To be honest, this was kind of hard to write. As a propagandist from the [Ecoextremist] Mafia I am far from innocent. My mind at this point is totally corrupted by the videos, terrorist manuals, texts, communiques, and actions of the Mafia. More than anything I’m just asking some questions to the “radicals” of society.
+According to the materialist dialectical viewpoint, relationships between things, phenomena, and ideas have objective characteristics.
-So many things have been said about what we defend and what we believe that sometimes I start to believe them (LOL!). And all this from the hyper-civilized masses as well as the insurrectionist revolutionaries, the anti-authoritarian anarchists, and others.
+-----
-Obviously I don’t expect flowers from modern humans, nor understanding, nor flattery, nor acceptance, nor anything of the kind. I only expect the worst from them. But the criticism we received from others, those radicals who are at war against the state and prisons and the rest, really that throws me off a bit.To be honest I expected at least a small difference in the reactions of the citizen and of the anarchist warrior, but well, it’s clear that this wasn’t the case. I thought (in my innocence) that the anarchists would have (a little) more understanding toward us than the average citizen, but from what I can tell they repudiated us even more strongly. That’s how things are at this point.
+==== Annotation 108 ====
-What surprises me a bit is that those who consider themselves most radical in society, who fight against power and who are enemies of the law etc. are those who are stirring up the most commotion against us. These people are definitely not a bunch of white doves, nor are they common citizens, nor are they models of good behavior. So I find it strange that we receive so much rejection from them, not that I expected them to receive us with open arms, nor that they would invite us to their book fairs, nor to speak of their meetings concerning prison abolition. So really I am just realizing that we are so disgusting that not even the cream of the crop of the radical sphere wants anything to do with us. We could say with all certainty that we eco-extremists are so horrible that we are outcasts among the outcasts.
+In materialist dialectics, objectiveness is an abstract concept that refers to the relative externality of all things, phenomena, and ideas. Every thing, phenomena and idea exists externally to every other thing, phenomena, and idea. This means that to each individual subject (i.e., each individual thing/phenomena/idea), all other things, phenomena, and ideas are external objects
-And that is because the last installment of this “war against ecoextremism” has escalated into violence. Everyone now knows what happened in the anarchist book fair in the US. From then on the conflict has not remained in words written in books. Now the radicals call us out directly. They have invited others to confront us with blows if necessary (let’s see if they can find us first), they have called on others to chuck us in the garbage, and numerous other things. Some people in the US wrote a tome longer than the Bible extensively documenting various points, trying to refute other theorists of the Mafia and a large quantity of technical and academic information.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-28.png|''All things, phenomena, and ideas have the relative characteristic of objectiveness.'']]
-And of course now the eco-extremists have become enemy #1. I am exaggerating on the last few things but reading some of these things the same impression remains. An important point to make is that the vast majority of the criticisms come from places where there is no eco-extremist activity whatsoever. More specifically, I mean the US, the UK, and even Indonesia. If it is the case that a constant flow of propaganda and information originates from the US, the Mafia has not carried out any attacks in that territory. The same is the case with Spain, the UK, and Asia. These are the places where people are taking it upon themselves to continue positioning themselves against the Tendency through issuing communiques and call-outs to the anarchist community. So now my serious question: Why is there so much conflict emanating from those places? It’s understandable that their anarchist comrades in Mexico, Chile, Brazil, and Argentina are upset, since those are the places where the Mafia operates, and in those places there have been interesting “confrontations” between us and the anarchists. Let us remember that ITS burning a bus in Chile in 2016 caused a big problem, since this fire had little concern for the citizenry so that afterwards anarchists blew up a bank and reproached the eco-extremist discourse indirectly. In Argentina something similar happened concerning a magazine, not even to speak of Mexico: they have been dealing with this since 2011.
+All together, the collection of all things, phenomena, and ideas in the universe create the external reality of any given subject. So, objectiveness is relative. In the case of human beings, every individual person exists as an individual subject to which all other things, phenomena, and ideas (including other human beings) have ''objective characteristics.''
-Returning to the question of why there is so much hostility in other places, the answer I believe has something to do with how we present a problem that threatens something in their particular contexts. It is interesting to witness how supposed radicals start getting a bit concerned when more radical actions are carried out like those of the Tendency. So why so much anger? Now I am realizing that even the blackest begin looking gray compared to the eco-extremist/misanthropic/nihilist/egoist force. What is certain is that ITS has turned into something horrible, scary, and infectious, which you have to separate yourself from as soon as possible or you run the risk of catching the extremist virus.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-29.png|''Alice and Bob are external to one another; each is objective from the other’s perspective.'']]
-These people worry me. The life of an eco-extremist is pretty paranoid since I have to be on the look-out for the police, citizen do-gooders, and now on top of all that, I have to watch out for anarchists. Who would have thought! It seems rather funny that we now have to be escaping from modern anarchos (some of them, anyway), but those are the times we live in.
+Of course, objectiveness is always relative. Something might be external from a certain perspective but not from another perspective. For example, say there are two people: Bob and Alice. From Bob’s perspective, Alice has objective characteristics. But from Alice’s perspective, Bob would have objective characteristics.
-Personally, I am pleased that these anarchists are blowing up fire extinguishers, burning buses, and giving themselves over to violent action. Their devotion to these works is very respectable (as in the case of anyone carrying out violence).
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-30.png|''The relationship between Alice and Bob has objective characteristics to both Alice and Bob.'']]
-So let’s see if those with big mouths start putting their money where their mouth is, stop writing their entries on their blogs and start making devices... faggots. I am only stating this for the sake of the war so that it’s not extinguished, so that the anarchos of the future will see that they just didn’t devote themselves to talking shit. But well, I’ll leave it at that.
+As all relationships are inherently external to any given subject (even subjects which are party to the relationship), relationships also have objective characteristics.
-I state it since I too was once waging that anarchist war, and was involved in their theory and praxis, and I am not sorry. On the contrary, I am happy that their bombs have started reappearing...
+-----
-But for now the Mafia will not take one step back, and neither will the politically-incorrect propagandists.
+Whenever two things, phenomena, or ideas have a relationship with one another, they form a pair. The relationship is inherent to this pair and external to any subject which exists outside of the pair. The mutual interaction and mutual transformation which occurs to the things, phenomena, or objects within the pair as the result of the relationship are ''inherent'' and ''objective'' properties of the pair.
-Let the war against civilization and the modern human continue in the South and North!
+-----
-Against all, even the most ugly anarchists!
+==== Annotation 109 Translation note: ====
-<right>
+In the original Vietnamese text, the word for “objective” is ''“khách quan.”'' This is a compound word in which ''“khách”'' means “guest,” and ''“quan”'' means “point of view.” Therefore, ''“khách quan”'' literally means “the guest’s (or outsider’s) point of view.”
-A spirit of the South
-</right>
-** [[Lions in the Brush:]] on the anatomy and guidelines of cell-structured resistance
+Thus we translate this to “objectiveness/objective,” the characteristic of being viewed from the outside.
-<br>
+The word “inherent” in the original Vietnamese is ''“vốn có.”'' This is another compound word: ''“vốn”'' is a shortened form of the word ''“vốn dĩ,”'' which means “by or through nature,” “naturally,” and “intrinsically.” ''“Có”'' means “to have” or “to exist.” '''''“Vốn có”''''' thus means “already existing naturally” or “already there, through nature.”
-The following piece is not intended to promote, condone, or advocate any sort of illegal activity, just to analyze and identify a strategy commonly used in subversive activities to ensure anonymity and minimize the possibility of detection. This piece does not have any ideological or philosophical associations and is merely a rough guide on how cell-structured anonymity operates with maximum ability for success. The tactic was first introduced by intelligence officer Col. Ulius Louis Amoss in 1962. Amoss created the tactic under the belief that communists would take over the US, and believed that this method would ensure the chances of a successful resistance if that occurred. The method has been greatly expanded on since then and adopted by many groups, from the Animal and Earth Liberation Front, to white supremacists, to Islamic extremists, and beyond. My intention here is to lay out some guidelines developed over the years. One may be tempted to pick and choose what’s applicable in a given situation; however to maximize one’s chances of success, these guidelines should be strictly followed. In the end, it is up to you. Only you can decide what risk you choose to take or not take for your own sake.
+So we use the word “inherent” to mean “existing intrinsically or naturally within, without external influence.”
-*** Why choose cell structure?
+-----
-People may have many reasons for keeping some things they do and believe a secret, whether it is risking the loss of a high profile career or a positive public image. In fact in this political climate, laws could change so that you get labelled a criminal or terrorist for engaging in activities that were legal at the time. In fact laws could change that could make your views or associations illegal. Thus, it’s better to be safe than sorry. This piece is about safety, and ensuring to the best of one’s ability that you and others can remain anonymous and undetected in chosen activities, regardless of your reasons for that anonymity.
+Human beings can’t change or impact external things and phenomena — and the relationships between them — through human will alone. Humans are limited to perceiving relationships between things and phenomena and then impacting or changing them through our practical activities.
-*** Above-Ground Activity vs. Covert Cell-Structured Activity
+''-'' ''The Characteristic of Generality of Relationships''
-In most case scenarios there either is, or at least should be, a barrier between those who engage in above-ground activity and those who engage in covert, cell-structured activity. Some characteristics of above-ground activity would be making social-media posts aligned with one’s honest political, ideological, or philosophical views, attending riots or rallies, authoring material that can in any way be traced back to you, adding those aligned with your views on social media, becoming involved in public projects that align with one’s related views, etc. Those who engage in cell-structured (covert, underground) activity however, do not engage in or associate themselves with these types of activities, at least not in ways that risk being traced back to said individual(s). For those who engage in underground activity, it is ideal to refrain from any traceable online activity that would admit to association with the types of views related to the choice of activity one engages in, or attendance at rallies, public meetings, protests, riots, etc. The person who engages in cell-structured activity almost always leads a completely double life, often pretending to endorse opposite views (posting Gandhi quotes and favoring electoral politics on social media, for example). Even if this should be common sense, it should be reiterated that these two paths (above-ground and underground), are not compatible with one another, and it is often in the best interests of those involved in underground cell-structure activity to either avoid at all costs or at least sever all ties to those who openly share the same views. To put it simply: “You can’t have your cake and eat it too.”
+According to the dialectical viewpoint, there is no thing, phenomenon, nor idea that exists in absolute isolation from other things, phenomena and ideas.
-*** The cell vs. organization
+-----
-We're going to use the term “organization” loosely here, because this also applies to groups that wouldn’t necessarily consider themselves belonging to an organization, but in many ways still fall into the same structure (as is the case with many self-styled “anarchists”). The organization or scene can easily be infiltrated and erased without a terrible amount of effort. All it takes is an infiltrator to gather information and identify those involved or “enhanced interrogation” (i.e. torture) or other effective methods of coercion (convincing threats to loved ones, for example) to extract information about a particular group and their activities. Organizations and other large-group collaborations or associations are obsolete in their ability to survive any real state repression. The anatomy of cell structure, however, fosters immunity to these counter-strategies, or any and all counter-strategies in most circumstances.
+==== Annotation 110 ====
-There are two types of cells, sleeper cells and phantom cells.The sleeper cell consists of one lone wolf individual; the phantom cell is made of no more than two to five individuals. Anything beyond five members risks falling into the same pitfalls as the organization, and begins to lose its solidity, causing it to be more vulnerable to infiltration, compromising its effectiveness. More importantly, cell structure differs from the organization in that, if one cell is taken out and/or compromised, it remains physically impossible for that to have any effect on any other cell. If we drew one big circle or pyramid (the organization), imagine if it only took one pin to stick into the organization block to destroy it. In the case of cell structure, the only way to destroy the cells would be to pin them each, one by one, which means you would need to first locate and identify each and every one, and pick them off individually. The chance of successfully identifying all of those unknown numbers of underground cells is usually quite small. This is what gives cell-structured resistance its near invincibility. We will now address another benefit of this method: invisibility.
+Although all things, phenomena, and ideas have the characteristic of ''externality'' and ''objectiveness'' to all other things, phenomena, and ideas [see Annotation 108, p. 112], this does not mean that they exist in ''isolation''. Isolation implies a complete lack of any relationships with other things, phenomena, and ideas. On the contrary, according to the ''Principle of General Relationships'' [see p. 107], ''all'' things, phenomena, and ideas have relationships with ''all other'' things, phenomena, and ideas.
-*** What happens in the cell stays in the cell
+Simultaneously, there is also no known thing, phenomenon, nor idea that does not have a systematic structure, including component parts which in turn have their own internal relationships. This means that every existence is a system, and, moreso, is an ''open'' system that exists in relation with other systems. All systems interact and mutually transform one another.
-This is probably the most important guideline to ensure effective cell-structured resistance. What happens in the cell stays in the cell. What does this mean? First and foremost it means no pillow talk, no bragging: accepting and reaffirming that you are not in it for glory or to make a name for yourself, because if you are, that’s what aboveground resistance is for. Go join a protest, get beaten up by the pigs, and use the story to get laid or to give you higher social status amongst your upper-middle class anarcho-hipster friends, because that’s not what this is about. This isn’t to say that releasing untraceable communiqués, for whatever reason of your choosing, isn’t acceptable. However, that has nothing to do with personal glory either, which is why they are “untraceable.” This entails taking a big risk, and if you choose that route, you better at least have very strong computer and physical OPSEC. Otherwise, you should not mention a word about the cell even to your partner, unless they’re in the cell as well. You don’t talk to close friends about it, you don’t mention it to your mother, your father, or your siblings. What if one of them turns on you? What if they are confronted and tortured or otherwise coerced into giving information? What if they mention it to someone else? There should be no “what ifs.” What goes on in the cell stays in the cell. If you have loose lips, can’t lead a double life, or otherwise are needy for someone to listen to all your personal struggles, then I’ll repeat: go the easy path because this isn’t for you.
+-----
-Another major difference between cell structure and organization is that people you bring into a cell must uncompromisingly be those you can trust with your life. Ideally you've known them intimately in person for many years. It would also be desirable to have potential future cell members undergo a series of tests in the recruitment process to ensure that they have what it takes, or that they are not a state agent. This would include making sure that the person doesn’t have loose lips, a weak heart, a weak mentality, that they won’t crack under pressure, won’t turn on you out of moral scruples, etc. It is very important that only the most solid, unbreakable, dedicated, and loyal individuals join the cell.
+==== Annotation 111 ====
-*** Further assuring anonymity
+As explained above, a ''systematic structure'' is a structure which includes within itself a system of ''component'' parts and relationships. It has been postulated by some scientific models that there may be some “fundamental base particle” (quarks, preons, etc.), which, if true, would mean that there is a certain basic material component which cannot be further broken down. However, this would not contradict the Principle of Materialist Dialectics of General Relationships (which states that all things, phenomena, and ideas interact with and mutually transform one another — see Annotation 107, p. 110).
-The growth of technology and surveillance culture has made anonymity difficult in recent times. One thing that needs to be addressed and considered is the concept of paranoia. One must be paranoid!!! Take every precaution you can to avoid detection. One major issue that we face today, which I think is dangerously overlooked and often not taken into consideration, is the probability for electronic devices such as cell phones to be used as surveillance and tracking devices, even when powered off. The ability exists with cell phones to even listen in on conversations through walls. As I mentioned earlier, some may label such a precaution as paranoia, but I repeat again, be paranoid! Whether leaked information concerning the NSA is accurate or not, the possibility certainly exists that even if others are not listening directly to your conversations, certain keywords could send triggers and flags to government agencies through the devices. The following are precautions to take in avoiding these pitfalls all together.
+''- The Characteristic of Diversity of Relationships''
-When discussing anything related to cell activity, do so far, far away from any cell phone; maybe put all cell phones, laptops, and tablets inside a vehicle and park it down the block. Beware, even some new TVs now are capable of listening to conversations. It is highly recommended that when doing anything related to cellstructure activity, leave devices at home, with trusted friends, or stashed in the bushes, even if running errands related to the activity such as purchasing any needed material. It’s also highly recommended that most if not all activities be done only in cities or towns that you are not known to frequent. The farther you need to travel, the better off you'll be. I can’t stress this enough, don’t engage in activities anywhere near where you frequent!!! Also use cash at all times; this should go without saying. Aside from these fundamental guidelines, it’s recommended that you always take all necessary precautions, be highly observant of your surroundings, be mindful of cameras (especially ones that can record license plate numbers), and study ways to dodge surveillance and be untraceable. Though somewhat outdated when it comes to considerations of new technology, the book, <em>Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors</em> by Rex Feral has plenty of useful information on how to avoid detection. The book is banned from further publication, however ebook formats are available online, particularly with p2p programs such as can be found on slsknet.org. There you can search for all sorts of keywords for building an arsenal of knowledge that should produce results for many more ebook downloads. [Of course, at least use the TOR browser and similar means to ensure safe(r) surfing for materials of this type.]
+In addition to affirming the objectiveness<ref>See Annotation 108, p. 112.</ref> and generality<ref>See p. 108.</ref> of relationships, the dialectical viewpoint of Marxism-Leninism also emphasizes the ''diversity'' of relationships. The characteristic of diversity is defined by the following features:
-*** The cell answers to no one but itself
+* All things, phenomena, and ideas have different relationships. Every relationship plays a distinct role in the existence and development of the things, phenomena, and ideas which are included within.
+* Any given relationship between things, phenomena, and ideas will have different characteristics and manifestations under different conditions and/or during different periods of motion and/or at different stages of development.
-Those who engage in cell-structured resistance have absolutely no one to answer to but themselves, no organization to judge their conduct, and no leader or collective to persuade or control their behavior. The cell acts entirely out of its own independence and individuality. As far as strategy, tactics, intentions, goals, philosophy, conduct, etc., it is entirely for the cell to decide its influences and course of action. This causes strategy to become unbound, which allows for near limitless potential for strategic intelligence and imagination. Some cells may choose to align more with one specific ideological current or philosophical perspective; this however is at the sole discretion of the cell, as it is under no one’s authority but its own. I’ll end this piece with a recommended song, and that is “Agent of Destruction” by P. Paul Fenech from the album <em>International Super Bastard</em>.
+-----
-<right>
+==== Annotation 112 ====
-el borracho
-</right>
-<right>
+One of Marx’s most critical observations was that things are defined by their internal and external relationships, including human beings. For example, in ''Theses on Feuerbach,'' Marx wrote that “the essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In reality, it is the ensemble of the social relations.” It is only through relationships — through mutual impacts and transformations — that things, phenomena, and ideas (including human beings and human societies) change and develop over time. All of these relationships — which both define and transform all things, phenomena, and ideas in existence — exist in infinite diversity [see Annotation 107, p. 110].
-(nomad warfuk)
-<br>
-</right>
-<center>
+Just as things, phenomena, and ideas change and transform through the course of relations with one another, the nature of the relationships themselves also change and develop over time.
-</center>
+''Characteristics'' refer to the features and attributes that exist ''internally'' within a given thing, phenomena, or idea.
-** Paraguayan People’s Army: What can we learn from them?
+''Manifestation'' refers to ''how'' a given thing, phenomena, or idea is expressed ''externally'' in the material world.
-<br>
+For example, a ball may have the ''characteristics'' of being made of rubber, having a mass of 100 grams, and having a melting point of 260℃. It may ''manifest'' by bouncing on the ground, having a spherical shape, and having a red appearance to human observers.
-The EPP is an armed organization from Paraguay officially founded in 2008 (although their origins and activities are traced by some analysts to 1997, from a splinter group detached from the Partido Patria Libre). The areas where they have a presence are in the departments of Concepción, San Pedro, and Amambay; namely, the northeastern part of the country.
+If ten such balls exist, they will all be slightly different. Even if they have the same mass and material composition, they will have slightly different variations in size, shape, etc. Even if each ball will melt at 260℃, the melting will manifest differently for each ball — they will melt into slightly different shapes, at slightly different speeds, etc.
-Its political structures are Marxist-Leninist, but its actions closely resemble those employed by the Uruguayans and Argentinean anarchist robbers who were active in the late 80s and early 90s.
+Relationships also have characteristics and manifestations. For example, the moon’s orbit around the Earth is a relationship. It has characteristics such as the masses of each related body, forces of gravity, and other factors which produce and influence the orbit. The same orbital relationship also has manifestations such as the duration of the moon’s orbit around the Earth, the size of its ellipse, the orbit’s effects on the tides of the Earth’s ocean, etc.
-Many of these historical armed organizations can teach us certain things relevant to our interests. We do not assent to the moral judgment that states that we must ignore these organizations because of their intentions. We do not share any of these moral impulses, of course.
+''Characteristics'' and ''Manifestation'' correspond, respectively, to the philosophical category pair of ''Content'' and ''Form,'' which is discussed in section page 147.
-Eco-extremists and nihilist terrorists are not anti-authoritarian anarchists; we are not anti-fascists who would refuse the lessons left by these armed groups. It is clear that we do not share their doctrines, but not sharing their intentions does not mean that we neglect the lessons that they have left us. We follow in their footsteps with a criminal spirit to satisfy our Egoist goals.
+Therefore, no two relationships are exactly the same, even if they exist between very similar things, phenomena, and ideas and/or in very similar situations.
-Valuable things can be learned from both the left-wing and right-wing armed groups, and we have no moral problems admitting this. We have more than once vindicated ourselves with a marked tendency toward the anti-political and anti-ideological.
+It is also important to note that the characteristic of diversity also applies to things, phenomena, and ideas themselves. In other words, every individual thing, phenomenon, and idea in existence also manifests differently from every other thing, phenomenon, and idea in existence, even if they seem quite similar.
-*** Robberies and kidnapping
+==== c. Meaning of the Methodology ====
-As with the anarchist bandits, the EPP commits robberies and claims responsibility for them directly and indirectly. They have also been known to take responsibility for kidnappings.
+Based on the objective and popular characteristics of relationships, we can see that in our cognitive and practical activities, we have to have a ''comprehensive viewpoint''.
-Notably, in 1997, they assaulted a bank in Chore, San Pedro. Although the robbery was botched, it gave them good experience that helped them improve their abilities to carry out what they term “expropriations.”
+Having a ''comprehensive viewpoint'' requires that in the process of perceiving and handling real life situations, humans have to consider the internal dialectical relationships between the component parts, factors, and aspects within a thing or phenomenon. We also need to consider the external mutual interactions they have with other things, phenomena, and ideas. Only on such a comprehensive basis can we properly understand things and phenomena and then effectively handle problems in real life. So, the comprehensive viewpoint is the opposite of a unilateral and/or metaphysical viewpoint [see Annotation 51, p. 49] in both perception and practice.
-Among the most notable kidnappings was that of the rancher and logging company owner Alberto Lindston in July 2008, whose ransom was set at 130,000 dollars. They released the man after the ransom was paid, but threatened him with death if he continued his activities. Lindstron ignored their warnings and, in May 2013, the group assassinated him.
+Lenin said: “If we are to have true knowledge of an object we must look at and examine all of its facets, its connections, and ‘mediacies [indirect relationships].’”<ref>''Once Again On The Trade Unions'', Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1921.</ref>
-The same fate befell Cecilia Cubas, daughter of former president Raul Cubas. She was kidnapped during a fierce shoot-out in 2004 and later found dead in 2005, an event that shook the Paraguayan nation.
+-----
-Other notable kidnappings were those of the cattleman Fidel Zavala in 2009 and Arlan Fick, son of a wealthy landowner, in 2014. These acts were reported by the national media, and popular support or contempt was communicated by many members of the populace. The EPP received this support in spite of the media branding them as criminals, not the revolutionaries that they aspired to be. The group thus was etched into the collective mind of Paraguayan society. It achieved fame among the masses, and also obtained a national political and military profile in that country.
+==== Annotation 113 ====
-The EPP’s initial strategy of first making money to buy weapons, vehicles, houses and, in general, develop war logistics, rather than starting with political-military operations, is highly intelligent, and reminds us of terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda from the Islamic Magreb led by the fiery Mokhtak Belmokhtar who kidnapf Europeans and Americans to self-finance and give continuity to their war against the West.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-31.png|''The comprehensive viewpoint sees the subject in terms of all of its internal and external relationships.'']]
-*** Organization and Discretion
+Consider a factory. A factory exists as a collection of internal relationships (between the workers, between machines, between the workers and the machines, etc.) and external relationships (between the factory and its suppliers, between the factory and its customers, between the factory and the city, etc.). In order to have a comprehensive viewpoint when examining the factory, one must consider and understand all of the internal and external relationships which define it.
-The organization of the EPP is similar to the so-called informality of the insurrectionary anarchists, although it is not the same, of course. The EPP cells are very small groups of a few guerrillas each who keep their composure very well, do not attract attention to themselves, and are quite distrustful. The different cells are not known to each other, so infiltration of them is a very difficult. The cells follow orders that are given through the public communiques of the organization.
+-----
-Although it is known that the members of the EPP number around five hundred, in their relatively short history they have had few political prisoners although some of the prisoners of the EPP were detained for their political past in the Partido Patria Libre, and some of them have been imprisoned after clashes with the police or the army. This is what happened in April, 2010, in the department of Alto Paraguay (extreme north of the country), when an EPP guerrilla, Severiano Martínez, engaged in a firefight with a police officer who had tried to frisk him. Martínez was wounded but escaped and hid in the jungle. The confrontation led to a furious hunt by the authorities against members of the EPP in the wild lands of the mountains of the Paraguayan Chaco.
+The diversified characteristic of relationships [see Annotation 107, p. 110] shows that in human cognitive and practical activities, we have to simultaneously use a comprehensive viewpoint and a historical viewpoint.
-Apparently, some cells of the EPP alerted each other of this event and new clashes broke out that same month in the department of Concepcion, where a total of four policemen were reported killed.
+Having a ''historical viewpoint'' requires that, in perceiving and handling real life situations, we need to consider the specific properties of subjects, including their current stage of motion and development. We also need to consider that the exact same methods can’t be used to deal with different situations in reality — our methods must be tailored to suit the exact situation based on material conditions.
-In July of that year, Martínez, injured and with a brain infection after the April shoot out, was found by police and shot down, though not without first unloading his 9mm gun at them. As a result, upon discovering the identity of the guerrilla, the police began to investigate his close circle, searched his house and found information on other EPP leaders on his computer. By September of that year, two senior members of the armed group would end up murdered, others had to go underground as their faces were broadcast in all media. Whether or not they had to anything do with the organization, the issue for the government was to make everyone believe that they had actually sent EPP members to prison, to not appear ridiculous before the media.
+-----
-*** Military Action
+==== Annotation 114 ====
-Although the EPP suffered the aforementioned setback, it appears that the security and double life they lead is so effective that the controversial Wikileaks group leaked that in 2010, the Paraguayan government asked the major US intelligence agencies for permission to use high-level technology to spy on drug trafficking phones against the EPP, which, up until now has not yielded any results.
+While the ''comprehensive viewpoint'' focuses on internal and external ''relationships'' of subjects, the ''historical viewpoint'' focuses on the specific ''properties'' of subjects — especially the current stage of motion and development. In order to have a proper historical viewpoint, we must study and understand the way a subject has developed and transformed over time. To do this, we must examine the history of the subject’s changes over time, hence the term “historical viewpoint.” In addition, it’s important to understand that no two situations which we might encounter will ever be exactly the same. This is because the component parts and relationships that make up any given situation will manifest differently.
-In September 2011, just one year after the authorities celebrated the death of EPP leaders and ordered the capture of others, the group mounted another surprise attack on a police station, where two policemen were killed (one of them was shot more than ten times), proving that the EPP was still active.
+So, in order to properly deal with situations, we have to understand the component parts and relationships of examined subjects as well as their histories of development so that we can develop plans and strategies that are suitable to the unique circumstances at hand.
-To date, sixty deaths among military, police, businessmen, and civilians have been attributed to the EPP, most of them for continuing to plant Monsanto’s soybeans and corn, and for the use of harmful agrochemicals that had been prohibited by the group in the areas where it has presence.
+For example, it would be disastrous if communists today tried to employ the ''exact same'' methods which were used by the Communist Party of Vietnam in the 20<sup>th</sup> century to defeat Japan, France, and the USA. This is because the material conditions and relationships of Vietnam in the 20<sup>th</sup> century were very different from any material conditions existing on Earth today. It is possible to learn lessons from studying the methods of the Vietnamese revolution and to ''adapt'' some such methods to our modern circumstances, but it would be extremely ineffective to try to copy those methods and strategies — ''exactly'' as they manifested then and there — to the here and now.
-The last military action of the armed group was at the end of August, 2016, when EPP detonated an explosive against a military vehicle. They killed eight soldiers in this attack. The government promised to find those responsible, but so far there has been no arrest.
+-----
-*** Lessons
+In order to come up with suitable and effective solutions to deal with real life problems, we must clearly define the roles and positions of each specific relationship that comes into play, and the specific time, place, and material conditions in which they exist.
-From the history of the EPP several lessons can be learnt by the eco-extremists and nihilist terrorists:
+-----
-a) It is highly recommended to be cautious, have a closed group, and act only with them or alone. Do not waste your time recruiting others who you don’t know into your close circle. The EPP is an example of discretion because not even the surveillance programs of the FBI have been able to dismantle the organization.
+==== Annotation 115 ====
-b) The number of members of a group does not matter if the attacks they make are direct and accurate. The EPP teaches that it is not necessary to have an entire army (although they call themselves an army), or to have a large number of armed men. Murdering a person always captures media attention and, depending on the objective, can create a local controversy (such as the employee of the UNAM chemistry faculty who was killed by ITS in June 2016), or international controversy (such as the biotechnology expert killed by ITS in November 2011). A murder can be committed by a person with a simple knife; firearms or a large number of combatants are not necessary.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-32.png|''A historical viewpoint focuses on the roles and positions of relationships and properties of subjects as well as their development over time.'']]
-c) It is not recommended to store information about members of the group that could be found by the police. If you have this type of information, if you are arrested and the police search your house, you can blow their cover and the police can find and arrest more cell members. In other words, DO NOT make the same mistake as Severiano Martínez.
+The role of a relationship has to do with how it functions within a system of relationships and the position refers to its placement amongst other subjects and relationships.
-d) It is recommended to have a source of money to finance attacks, whether working or doing robberies. This depends on the conditions developed by the individualists interested in the war against civilization.
+Consider once again the example of the factory [see Annotation 113]. In addition to its internal and external relationships, the factory also has various roles — it functions within various systems and from various perspectives. For instance, the factory may have the role of financial asset for the corporation that owns it, it may have the role of place of employment for the surrounding community, it may have the role of supplier for various customers, etc.
-<right>
+The factory is also ''positioned'' among other subjects and relations. If it’s the only employer in town then it would have a position of great importance to the people of the community. If, on the other hand, if it’s just one of hundreds of factories in a heavily industrialized area, it may have a position of much less importance. It may have a position of great importance to an individual factory worker who lives in poverty in an economy where there are very few available jobs, but of less importance to a freelance subcontractor for whom the factory is just one of many customers, and so on.
-<em>Ajajema</em> 1
-</right>
-<br>
+These positions and roles will change over time. For example, the factory may initially exist as a small workshop with a small handful of workers, but it may grow into a massive factory with hundreds of employees. It is vital to understand this Principle of Development, which is discussed in more detail on the next page.
-** Letter to an Optimist
+In summary, proper dialectical materialist analysis requires a ''comprehensive and historical viewpoint'' — we must consider subjects both ''comprehensively'' in terms of the internal and external relationships of the subject itself as well as ''historically'' in terms of roles and positions of subjects, as well as their relationships, material conditions, and development over time.
-<br>
+So, in both perception and practice, we have to avoid and overcome sophistry and eclectic viewpoints.
-You may not read me. Maybe one day you will see my body on the front page of the newspaper, lying in a pool of blood, unable to let out a last cry. But what do you care, what is it to you that I exist? Or maybe I am just a weird stranger who is discomforting, like a small pebble in your shoe. Maybe the fake incendiary device that I placed outside the nightclub you frequent bothered you. Maybe you didn’t even hear about it. And maybe you never found out about the bombs we placed at the churches your mother and grandmother frequent. And that’s not even mentioning the package bomb we sent to an entrepreneur of biotechnology products who you want to imitate. You continue as queen of your own world in which you carry on with pretenses of being the only ruler.
+-----
-In this world of the eternal smile, liquor, and expensive perfumes, I write with profound hatred for one who would surely offer me only hatred in return. On this earth that is already lost, you still have that impeccable smile. The wind makes your hair dance about. For you the wind is an instrument of beauty but I only catch the scent of something soaked in toxic chemicals. It would be useless to wait for your smile to disappear since your appearance does its job. This is a world filled with smiles, to which you send a clear message: Long live freedom! Enchained, they go crying the magic word at every moment, the healing word. I write to you, optimist, who finds herself under the deep spell of existence.
+==== Annotation 116 ====
-You feel freedom and it created for you a supposed love of life, for the act of living every time that light hits your body, inhaling, ingesting, to the point of staggering. The spell of existence, the greatest orgasm being the feeling that the world belongs to you and like a good lackey it offers to you its many nectars, the most complex creations of man are offered to you, and you receive them with joy. The tarnish of the grave and of autumn will never reach you. For you it is always spring that ends in summer only to proceed directly to spring again.
+''Sophistry'' is the use of falsehoods and misleading arguments, usually with the intention of deception, and with a tendency of presenting non-critical aspects of a subject matter as critical, to serve a particular agenda. The word comes from the Sophists, a group of professional teachers in Ancient Greece, who were criticized by Socrates (in Plato’s dialogues) for being shrewd and deceptive rhetoricians. This kind of bad faith argument has no place in materialist dialectics. Materialist dialectics must, instead, be rooted in a true and accurate understanding of the subject, material conditions, and reality in general.
-I am the cruel voice of winter, the last danse macabre that you don’t want to see.Your life as an optimist is a veil of many colors and a rejection of the gray. You buy the most expensive contraptions to fend off the pain of living. What gives your life meaning, optimist?
+''Eclecticism'' is an incoherent approach to philosophical inquiry which attempts to draw from various different theories, frameworks, and ideas to attempt to understand a subject, applying different theories in different situations without any consistency in analysis and thought. Eclectic arguments are typically composed of various pieces of evidence that are cherry picked and pieced together to form a perspective that lacks clarity. By definition, because they draw from different systems of thought without seeking a clear and cohesive understanding of the totality of the subject and its internal and external relations and its development over time, eclectic arguments run counter to the comprehensive and historical viewpoints. Eclecticism is somewhat similar to dialectical materialism in that it attempts to consider a subject from many different perspectives, and analyzes relationships pertaining to a subject, but the major flaw of eclecticism is a lack of clear and coherent systems and principles, which leads to a chaotic viewpoint and an inability to grasp the true nature of the subject at hand.
-Your life would be meaningless if the appearance collapsed, but it is indestructible. This is the lamentable human condition. You will live under its saving cloak until your dying days.
+=== 2. Principle of Development ===
-How human it is for you and I to live a lie. Our beliefs are only a lightshow that points to nothing. Considering the present, why is it so difficult to abandon oneself? You cling to life, optimist. You show yourself in many forms, on some occasions to subject yourself strongly to the beautiful world to come, in which all injustice and horrible events will end. On other occasions you show yourself to be a pursuer of the success that is much coveted in our time. Optimist, the past has been blurred in your mind and the future will come to comfort you. You know that a beautiful tomorrow awaits you and/or condemned humanity.
+==== a. Definition of Development ====
-You are indifferent to my words, you reject them without a second thought. What is it to you that for many moons I have expected nothing from humanity, that some time ago my life has become a frustrated desire to leave this appearance that they call reality. I know that this isn’t a dream, it’s something else—or that’s what I want to believe. Our words will never mix, optimist, they will never dance together, even if our bodies might bump into each other on the street. When I have the chance, I will betray you. Go on smiling with your pearly whites at this defeated pessimist, but don’t let your guard down, optimist. And when your existence is flooded with the blood of your dreams, always remember this: Despair is more dangerous than hope.
+According to the metaphysical viewpoint, development is simply a ''quantitative'' increase or decrease; the metaphysical viewpoint does not account for ''qualitative'' changes of things and phenomena. Simultaneously, the metaphysical viewpoint also views development as a process of continuous progressions which follow a linear and straightforward path.
-<right>
+-----
-Jeremías Torres
-</right>
-<right>
+==== Annotation 117 ====
-Torreón
-</right>
-<right>
+In materialist dialectics, it is important to distinguish between ''quantity'' and ''quality''.
-July 2017
-</right>
-<br>
+''Quantity'' describes the total ''amount'' of component parts that compose a subject.
-** Weak Words Concerning Human Reasoning
+''Quality'' describes the unity of component parts, taken together, which defines the subject and distinguishes it from other subjects.
-<br>
+Both quantity and quality are dynamic attributes; over time, the quantity and quality of all things develop and change over time through the development of internal and external relationships. Quantity and quality itself form a dialectical relationship, and as quantity develops, quality will also develop. A given subject may be described by various quantity and quality relationships.
-I walked absorbed under the dark starry sky. I seek something beautiful that, after much time, has been hidden inside of me.
+'''''Example 1:'''''
-My feet touch the earth and I lose myself in it. Little by little, entering the unknowable, I come to what appears to be a forest, though the image of what a forest is doesn’t exist for me anymore, so I have decided to ignore it. I advance feeling the crush of the branches as they break under my feet. And I ask myself: What are branches?
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-33.png|''In the process of development, Quantity Change leads to Quality Change'']]
-I know that they are looking for me, but I left a long time ago. Now only the memory of what-I-once-was remains, but the past is dead. I forget my thoughts and appear in a clearly magical spot in that beautiful place. Non-human sounds resound around me, a dense fog covers the space in which I exist, erasing my image forever.
+A single football player, alone, has the quantity value of 1 football player and the quality of ''a football player''. Eleven football players on a field would have the quantity value of 1 and will develop the quality of ''a football team''. This subject, ''football'' ''team'', is composed of the same component parts as the subject ''football player'', but the quantity change and other properties (being on a field, playing a game or practicing, etc.) change the quality of the component parts into a different stable and unified form which we call a ''football team''.
-My words almost make me disappear in writing those paragraphs above. For, in treating a theme as immense and overwhelming as human reason, words show themselves to be paltry evidence.
+The relationship between quantity and quality is dynamic:
-It occurs to me that the primary reason that our detractors continue to fail to comprehend what eco-extremism is all about and what we seek, is that they still think of eco-extremism as something essentially political.
+If one of the players doesn’t show up for practice, and there are only ten players on the field, it might still have the quality of ''football team'', but in a live professional game there will be a certain threshold — a minimum number of players who must be present to officially be considered a ''team''. If this number of players can’t be fielded then they will not be considered a full ''team'' and thus won’t be allowed to play.
-This is understandable, since eco-extremism is derived from ideologies that are effectively political, and it still maintains an aesthetic in some ways similar to the political. It is understandable that those who study this phenomenon find it so strange and incomprehensible that people with complex and “rational” visions or reflections about the world around them carry out attacks and eliminate human lives. These opinions converge on one unified center, born from the incredibly unreliable human mind in all of its confusion.
+Likewise, if there are only one or two players practicing together in a park, they would probably not be considered a ''football team'' (though they might be described in terms of having the quality of being ''on the same team).''
-We know that eco-extremism comes out of an ephemeral and weak mentality, and to a certain point, its essence attacks itself. The eco-extremist reasons concerning the urgency of rejecting reason itself; he speaks of the harmfulness of language and attacks his own species and the technological and artificial order that gave him life.
+'''''Example 2:'''''
-His eco-extremism leads him to conceive of eco-extremism itself as an immense contradiction, as a final crash among the essences that converge in the limit of our understanding. We walk on that limit, we play on it, and we trace out our history among overflowing leaps of passion and insanity. That mysterious limit presents itself to us as the Hidden or the Unknowable: all of those processes of nature that surround us and that we cannot comprehend, or that we no longer care to conceive of in the form that was taught to us.
+Quantity: 1 O + 2 H atoms Quantity: Billions of H2O Molecules Quantity: ~5,000 Drops of Water Quality: Water Quality: Drop of Water Quality: Cup of Water
-Speaking for myself in particular, some time ago I stopped considering science’s opinion on any given thing. For example, I have never thought of what goes on beyond the stars and for that reason I have decided no longer to speak of it. To speak of other planets, other galaxies, black holes, or anti-matter is absurd for me. That’s not what I see when I look up at the sky and that’s why I don’t consider it valid. This is the same with all of the phenomena that occur in my daily life and that I refuse to interpret according to received scientific logic. Thus, what I see when I lift my eyes to the heavens, I decodify in an ineludible way, as the unknowable.
+DEVELOPMENT: QUANTITY CHANGE LEADS TO QUALITY CHANGE
-In the same way, my ears have become deaf to the scientific explanations of modern humans. I respect the beautiful catastrophes that constantly eclipse the routine existence of modern humans. When a tsunami indiscriminately hits a region, I see the wild unleashing its vengeance against that which is foreign to it. I see one being (the wave), a passing and ferocious manifestation of wild nature, suddenly surging, striking with immense force and giving all of itself, leaving itself empty to disappear into the immensity again.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-34.png|''All of these have the quality of water because of the molecular quantities of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, however, from the perspective of volume, quantity changes still lead to quality changes.'']]
-It is thus not difficult to understand the empathy that exists between the eco-extremists and natural catastrophes. In executing one of our acts, we empty out our lives and give ourselves in the moment to a superior force that governs us. Before every attack we leave with the certainty that it is possible that we won’t come back, but assume with calm that “the die is cast,” that what has to happen will happen, and “if death comes we will continue destroying things in Hell.”
+The properties of quantity and quality are relative, depending on the viewpoint of analysis.
-The precious moments when I am able to separate myself from the terrestrial plain to put my existence in perspective are few and far between. In those moments I realize how insignificant for the whole, this simple defective expression of “life” is. This is the experience of an end that should not be feared but rather fully embraced. These are the moments in which my being is able to express itself in totality, to unfold itself in the attack without thinking of the consequences, to convert itself into a wild animal without hesitation.
+A single molecule of water has a quantity of one in terms of molecules, but it still retains the quality of “water” because of the ''quantities'' of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms per molecule which, in this stable form, give it the ''quality'' of water.
-I was thinking of elaborating further in this essay, addressing the most complex subject of human reason, but I will leave that to someone else. It seems to me adequate and more practical to summarize my thoughts in the following way: The eco-extremist in his process of re-wilding, now has the option of rejecting civilized reason, without leaving aside a frontal attack on the enemy. He must reject the false truths described by the scientists and researchers. He must develop his own visions, learned from direct contact with wild nature experienced in solitude or with those of affinity. He must learn to conceive of the universe from our animal being, abandoning the perspectives of the modern hyper-civilized human. We must understand ourselves as just another force within the immense compendium of forces working in a mysterious and incomprehensible manner. Being animals in the now, waging our own suicidal war against all that is against us, all that aims at our domestication. We should renounce the obligation to be bound into schemes that obligate us to ask for the reason behind things, and in this way try to flatten the immensity of unknown phenomena. We must refuse to limit and imprison ourselves in deformed and defective knowable human concepts.
+A drop of water might have a quantity of many billions of molecules, but it would still have the quality of “water.” It would also now assume the quality of a “drop.”
-And now I am going to prepare myself for the next attack, to be ready for the next instant when I cease to be a civilized human, even if just for a moment. In that moment I feel as if the power of the unknowable works through me and guides my shaking hands, whether I place an explosive or start a fire. How it illuminates the path that leads me to my target, and then covers my tracks under the mantle of the hidden, as has happened many times now in the past.
+When you combine enough drops of water, you will eventually have a quality shift where the “drops” of water combine to form another quality — i.e., a “cup” of water. The quantity change leads to a change in quantity; we would no longer think of the water in terms of “drops” after the quantity rises to a certain level.
-I leave for the next moment that I experiment far from their disgusting cities, far from the glare of that machine that hurts my eyes when I write these words, returning to what I once was, giving life to a mystery that exists resting in some remote corner of my being, which I encountered for the first time by accident upon finding myself walking, absorbed under the dark starry sky.
+In terms of ''temperature'' and physical properties, if the water is heated to a certain point it will boil and the water will become ''steam''. The quantity of water in terms of drops wouldn’t change, but the quantity-value of temperature would eventually lead to a quality value change from “water” to “steam.”
-<right>
+'''''Example 3:'''''
-Huazihul
-</right>
-** At-Tux
+AS QUANTITY OF AGE INCREASES, QUALITY CHANGES
-<br>
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-35.png|''The same human being will undergo various quality changes as age quantity increases over time.'']]
-<em>I thought I would die on the battlefield fighting you white soldiers. You white people have driven me from mountain to mountain, from valley to valley, like we do the wounded deer. At last you have got me here. I see but a few days more ahead of me.</em>
+As humans age and the quantity of years we’ve lived builds up over time, our “quality” also changes, from baby, to child, to teenager, to young adult, to middle age, to old age, and eventually to death. The individual person is still the same human being, but the quality of the person will shift over time as the quantity-value of age increases.
-<right>
+'''Metaphysical vs. Dialectical Materialist Conceptions of Change'''
-Captain Jack, during his testimony
-</right>
-The word “out-law” at one time pertained to a person outside the protection of the law; these individuals could be killed with impunity as they had incurred expulsion from the civilized world and its protective embrace. They were <em>homo sacer</em>, the banished man, the cursed man, the body that could be killed but was not fit for holy ritual. We imagine these rogues to be gallivanting around in Sherwood Forest with Robin Hood, or stalking stage coaches in the brush along a rutted road with Dick Turpin. The inherent element of an outlaw is the notion of an “out-side,” some place away from the mental and physical safety of walls and doors, and the pointed palisades of a frontier fort. An escape. An out.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-36.png|''Metaphysics only consider linear properties of'' quantity''change; Materialist Dialectics takes'' quantity changes ''and'' quality shifts ''into consideration when considering change over time.'']]
-In June of 1846 the treaty of Washington was signed by Great Britain and the US, ceding “all western North American lands south of the 49th parallel of north latitude” to the US (Landrum 4). This was also the year that the Mexican-American war began. Two years later the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo gave the US government rule over the formerly-Mexican lands from the 42nd parallel south to the current-day border of southern California. These two treaties effectively carved out the shape of the modern US. The newly-opened land ushered waves of settlers and migrants from the East and brought them west in search of ranch holdings, agricultural land, and economic opportunities.
+Because the metaphysical perspective tries to define the world in terms of static, isolated subjects, only ''quantity'' is considered and ''quality shifts'' are not taken into account. Thus, metaphysical logic sees development as linear, simple, and straightforward. Materialist dialectics, on the other hand, sees development as a more complicated, fluid, and dynamic process involving multiple internal and external relationships changing in quantity and quality over time.
-In 1846 was the establishment of the Applegate Trail, a spur of the 2,170-mile-long Oregon trail. The Applegate Trail’s purpose was to bring migrants into the fertile Willamette valley by way of Klamath Lake, through the homeland of the Modoc and Klamath tribes whose territory straddled the California-Oregon border.
+-----
-Hostilities between the Modoc and whites began with the first parties of travelers. Angered by a smallpox epidemic brought on by the settlers, the Modoc began sporadically raiding wagon trains passing through their territory. In 1852 a wagon train of sixty five men, women, and children heading north between the Lower Klamath and Tule Lakes was attacked by the Modoc under a leader named Old Schonchin. The attack left only three survivors—one man and two young girls—effectively stemming the flow of immigrants and closing the trail (Brady 230).
+In contrast to the metaphysical viewpoint, in materialist dialectics, ''development'' refers to the ''motion'' of things and phenomena with a forward tendency: from less advanced to more advanced, from a less complete to a more complete level.
-Prompted by the raid, a civilian militia led by Ben Wright set out fromYreka, California bent on revenge. They lured the Modoc into a trap with promises of parlay, and when the tribe had gathered, Ben Wright and his mob slaughtered over forty of the natives. Although scattered raiding continued through the 1860s, the event shook the Modoc. They began to cut their hair, took western nicknames, and adopted western clothing. A chief named Kientpoos became known as Captain Jack (Highberger 8).
+-----
-In 1863 the Modoc tribe agreed to move to the Klamath Reservation. The relationship between the Klamath tribe and the Modoc soured, and the smaller Modoc groups desired to be moved to their own reservation. Despite repeated requests for such a move, the Modoc were ignored by the Klamath Indian Agents. Two bands decided to leave the Klamath reservation and return to their tribal lands around the Lost River area (Brady 232).
+==== Annotation 118 ====
-The Hot Creek Modoc, led by Shacknasty Jim, Hooker Jim, and Curly-Headed Doctor, camped on the east bank of the Lost River; the Lost River band led by Captain Jack camped on the west bank. After almost two years of complaints from settlers living around the native encampments, the military decided to force the bands to return to the reservation. On the morning of November 29, 1872 an army force of some forty troopers surrounded Captain Jack’s encampment, demanding that they surrender their weapons and return to the reservation. After a brief exchange and a refusal to give up their weapons, the Modoc and the soldiers began shooting at each other. At the same time, on the other side of the river, an ad-hoc citizen militia attacked Hooker Jim’s camp. Both the soldiers and the citizens were bested and both pulled back. Captain Jack’s Modoc retreated to the nearby Klamath Lava Beds, a location from which they had boasted that they could “whip one thousand soldiers” (Highberger 16). Hooker Jim and his band of warriors went on the warpath, killing fourteen male settlers they met on their way to the rocks to meet up with the other band (Landrum 7).
+In materialist dialectics, ''motion (also known as change)'' is the result of mutual impacts between or within things, phenomena, and ideas, and all motion and change results from mutual impacts which themselves result from internal and external relationships with other things, phenomena, and ideas. Any given ''motion/change'' leads to quantity changes, and these quantity changes cumulatively lead to quality changes [see Annotation 117, p. 119]. Grasping this concept — that development is driven by relations — is critically important for understanding materialist dialectics.
-The renegade Modoc found themselves in the lava beds with fifty warriors and one hundred fifty women and children. These lava beds are a rocky tangle of volcanic debris that is eight miles wide and four miles long, the impenetrable heart of which would become known as Captain Jack’s Stronghold. Captain Lydecker of the US Engineers, who was involved in the mapping of the area, wrote that the lava beds are “<em>a perfect network of obstructions, admirably adapted to a defense by an active enemy; they seldom rise to a height of ten feet above the bed, and are, as a rule, split open, at the top, giving thus continuous cover along their crests</em>” (Brady 284).
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-37.png|''The concept of “change” in materialist dialectics centers on internal and external relationships causing mutual impacts which lead to quantity changes which build into quality shifts.'']]
-Five companies of soldiers and three companies of Oregon and California volunteers, confident of a quick victory, marched into the lava beds on the morning of January 17, 1873 (Landrum 9). Over the course of the day the soldiers hardly caught a glimpse of their elusive enemy and returned to their camp in the evening with shredded uniforms and torn up boots, having suffered nine dead and thirty wounded (Brady 237). This began several months of intermittent skirmishing. Major J.G. Trimble reminisced about the rough terrain:
+This process, taken in total, is referred to as ''development''. Development represents the entire process in which internal and external change/motion leads to changes in quantity which in turn lead to changes in quality over time. The process of development can be fast or slow, complex or simple, and can even move backwards, and all of these properties are relative. Development has a ''tendency'' to develop from less advanced to more advanced forms. The word ''tendency'' is used to denote phenomena, development, and motion which inclines in a particular direction. There may be exceptional cases which contradict such tendencies, but the general motion will incline towards one specific manner. Thus, it is important to note that “development” is not necessarily “good” nor “bad.” In some cases, “development” might well be considered “bad,” or unwanted. For example, rust developing on a car is typically not desired. So, the tendency of development from lower to higher levels of advancement implies a “forward motion,” though this motion can take an infinite number of forms, depending on the relative perspective. Development can also (temporarily) halt in a state of equilibrium [see Annotation 64, p. 62] or it can shift direction; though it can never “reverse,” just as time itself can never be “reversed.”
-**** No wonder then that they should be defeated where every step was obstructed by blocks of slippery lava the size of houses, and pits or pot-holes the depth of mining-shafts: where the foe could fire from the right, the left, above and below. Even subterranean passages, leading from cave to cave, facilitated attack and rendered retreat a certainty. The only counterpart to such a battle-ground in the annals of our Indian fighting was the Everglades of Florida, and there the forces were equally stubborn and alert. (Brady 284)
+For example, during a flood, water may “develop” over the land, and as the floodwaters recede this may alternatively be viewed as another “forward” development process of ''recession'' — a development of the overall “flooding and receding” process. The flood is not actually “reversing” — the development is not being “undone.” Flood water may recede but it will leave behind many traces and impacts; thus it is not a true “reversal” of development.
-Peace talks began in early spring. Brigadier General Edward R. S. Canby, the commanding general of the Military Department of the Columbia, assured Captain Jack that no Modoc would be harmed if they would surrender. It was agreed that both sides would meet, unarmed, to discuss the terms of peace on April 11, at a tent erected between the army encampment and the lava beds. The night before the meeting the Modoc warriors pressured Captain Jack into agreeing to assassinate the peace commissioners the following day.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-38.png|''Both flooding and flood recession are development processes with the same forward tendency. Flood recession may appear to be a “reversal,” but it is in fact forward development.'']]
-The next morning General Canby and three members of the peace commission, Reverend Doctor Eleazar Thomas, Leroy Dyar, and Alfred Meacham (the former Indian Affairs Superintendent), along with a Modoc translator named Toby Riddle and her husband Frank Riddle, met six Modoc at the tent: Ellen’s Man, Black Jim, Schonchin John, Shacknasty Jim, Hooker Jim, and Captain Jack (Highberger 24).
+The false belief that development can be reversed is the root of conservative and reactionary positions [see Annotation 208].
-After an hour of smoking cigars and discussion, two Modoc, Barncho and Slolux, appeared from the rocks carrying rifles. Captain Jack said “At-tux!” (all ready!) and he shoved his pistol in General Canby’s face. The first shot from the pistol misfired, but before the general could get away, Captain Jack re-cocked the gun and shot him again under the eye. Each Modoc had an intended target. As Jack shot the general, Boston Charly shot the Reverend Dr. Thomas through the chest several times until he died. Schonchin John shot Meacham (Brady, 245). Hooker Jim went for Dyer and Riddle, but Dyer fired at him with his single-shot pocket Derringer and the two succeeded in escaping (Highberger 25). The warriors returned to the tent, stripped the clothing from Canby, Thomas, and Meacham, then fled back to the protection of the rocks.
+Development can be considered positive or negative, depending on perspective. Some ecosystems have natural flood patterns which are vital for sustaining life. For a person living in a flood zone, however, the flood would most likely be considered an unwanted development, whereas flood recession would be a welcomed development.
-At the same time on the east side of the stronghold several Modoc came out from their cover and asked for a parlay with officers from the camp of Major Edwin C. Mason. Instead of the major, two lieutenants walked out to receive the Modoc; when the officers were within range the warriors opened fire and wounded one of the officers in the leg. The Lieutenant would die three days later from his injuries (Landrum 11).
+-----
-The military response to the murder of the general and peace commissioners was swift and intense. Faced with artillery barrages and a military force prepared to more effectively navigate the stronghold, the Modoc fled the lava rocks and pushed out into the surrounding sagebrush plains. The group divided into two bands, one lead by Captain Jack and the other by Hooker Jim. On May 22, the Hot Creek band and Hooker Jim were surrounded and captured by the army. They agreed to lead the army to the renegades under Captain Jack in exchange for exoneration (Brady 251). On June 1, 1873, after running from the army and the US calvary, Captain Jack was captured with two other warriors, five women, and seven children. He is reported to have said, “Jack’s legs gave out. I am ready to die.” (Highberger 35).
+It is important to note that the definition of development is not identical to the concept of “motion” (change) in general. It is not merely a simple quantitative increase or decrease, nor a repetitive cyclic change in quantity. Instead, in materialist dialectics, development is defined in terms of ''qualitative'' changes with the direction of advancing towards higher and more advanced levels. [See diagram ''Relationship Between Motion,''
-Six Modoc were tried without council and found guilty of the murder of the peace commission. Barncho and Slolux were sentenced to life imprisonment on Alcatraz Island. Captain Jack, Black Jim, Schonchin John, and Boston Charly were hanged at Fort Klamath on October 3, 1873 at 10:15 a.m. (Landrum 74). A reporter wrote, “<em>Captain Jack and Black Jim never moved a muscle and died without a struggle. Schonchin and Boston Charley died hard.</em>” (Highberger 37). The remaining Modoc were moved to a reservation in Oklahoma.
+''Quantity/Quality Shifts, and Dialectical Development'', Annotation 119, below]
-The terms “outlaw” and “renegade” are often used to describe the participants of the Modoc rebellion. They chose to go against the social norms that they had partially adapted. They wore the button-up shirts and pants of settlers but still remembered a time without the humiliation of reservation life. Their names were known by the white community before they left the Klamath Reservation for the Lost River Area; some members spoke perfect English and some of those killed during Hooker Jim’s rampaging on November 29 were neighbors and even friends of the raiding party. These were not so much hostile aliens attacking a world they didn’t want to engage with, as frustrated and enraged participants who had tried to play nice but had had enough.
+Development is also the process of creating and solving objective ''contradictions'' within and between things and phenomena. Development is thus the unified process of negating negative factors while retaining and advancing positive factors from old things and phenomena as they transform into new things and phenomena.
-The Modoc used tactics that were practical and effective for their situation. Elements of surprise and deceit allowed a small band, one that was a fraction of the size of the opposing group, to gain the upper hand in a situation that would have otherwise offered no contest. In the end, they desired to be on their homeland, and it was their knowledge of its geography that gave them a fortress and allowed the band of fifty warriors to enact the costliest per-capita war the US military has ever engaged in.
+-----
-Captain Jack’s Stronghold represents a place and time when escape was still possible. An individual could attack, then move to a place of safety, a geographic area ungoverned and unreachable by the those who didn’t know it. A band could defend against unwanted pursuers with a well-aimed arrow, the dislodging of a large boulder, or a bullet fired from behind rocky cover. In these circumstances, the environment took on the almost mythical role of participant, and the pursuers could feel as though the whole world was literally against them.
+==== Annotation 119 ====
-In today’s hyper-technological reality, escape, the safety of a stronghold can only be realized through meticulous planning and execution. The outlaws of today find refuge in the wiping of shell casings, the disposal of clothing, the knowledge of CCTV camera locations, the laundering of money. There are no caves impermeable to bunker busters; no deserts too remote for predator drones; no towns without vigilantes; no swamp steamy enough to trick thermal cameras. Even so, there are still those beyond the palisades.
+A ''contradiction'' is a relationship in which two forces oppose one another. Although a contradiction might exist in ''equilibrium'' for some amount of time [see Annotation 64, p. 62], eventually, one force will overcome the other, resulting in a change of ''quality''. This process of overcoming is called ''negation''. In short, ''development'' is a process of change in a subject’s quantity as well as negation of contradictions within and between subjects, leading to quality shifts over time.
-<right>
+==== b. Characteristics of Development ====
-D.G.
-</right>
-*** Bibliography
+Every development has the characteristics of objectiveness,<ref>See: Annotation 108, p. 112.</ref> generality,<ref>See: Annotation 106, p. 109.</ref> and diversity.<ref>See: Annotation 107, p. 110.</ref>''The characteristic of objectiveness of development'' stems from the origin of motion.
-Brady, Cyrus Townsend. <em>Northwestern Fights and Fighters</em>. The University of Nebraska Press, 1907.
+-----
-Highberger, Mark. <em>The Story of the Modoc War of 1873</em>. Bear Creek Press, 2001.
+==== Annotation 120 ====
-Landrum, Francis. <em>Guardhouse, Gallows, and Graves</em>. Klamath County Museum, 1988.
+Remember that, in materialist dialectics, objectiveness is the relative characteristic that every subject has of existing and developing externally to all other subjects [see Annotation 108, p. 112]. Since motion originates from mutual impacts which occur between external things, objects, and relationships, the motions themselves also occur externally (relative to all other things, phenomena, and objects). This gives motion itself objective characteristics.
-<br>
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-39.png|''Dialectical Development consists of Quantity and Quality Shifts, which in turn derive from motion.'']]
-** “No Such Thing as Life without Bloodshed...” —or— the force of tragedy in anti-humanist politics
+Development is derived from motion as a process of quality shifting which arise from quantity changes which arise from motion [see Annotation 117, p. 119]. Since development is essentially an accumulation of motion, and motion is objective, development itself must also be objective.
-<br>
+The ''Principle of Development'' states that development is a process that comes from within the thing-in-itself; the process of solving the contradictions within things and phenomena. Therefore, development is inevitable, objective, and occurs without dependence on human will.
-Tragedy is a product of Indo-European culture. Those cultures spanning Vedic philosophy to Celtic poetry, Norse artwork and Roman legions—all originated on the vast grasslands of the Eurasian steppe: those men and women who first tamed horses and made chariots. Their legacy to our dying mythology runs from the figures of the Sky-father and the Fertile Goddess, a birth of a world from the murder of one brother by another, and the worship of the Bull. Indo-European peoples spawned the civilisations that came to conquer most of the world and still echo in the globalised Empire today. But this essay is about one specific world-view they invented and passed on, the tragic world-view.
+-----
-Tragedy is a force, a narrative device, a philosophy, an art form, a framing of action. Tragedy is the fatal flaw in the hero that brings about his demise. Tragedy is the best of intentions, the law of unintended consequences. Tragedy hides under the glossy sheen of progress.
+==== Annotation 121 ====
-The origination of tragedy as a play begins with the Greeks in the Attic Tragedies. Plays like <em>Oedipus</em> and <em>Antigone</em>, in which the protagonist cannot escape fate and realises reality too late, that show a horrified pleading face to an indifferent pantheon of gods. Loss and grief, death of family members and loved ones are grist to the mill of the Attic playwrights. It is here that Nietzsche identifies the dualistic forces at work in Greek art—the Dionysian and the Apollonian. Like Nietzsche, our focus should be on the Dionysian.
+The “thing-in-itself” refers to the actual material object which exists outside of our consciousness [see Annotation 72, p. 68]. Development arises from motion and self-motion [see Annotation 62, p. 59] with objective characteristics. Although human will can impact motion and development through conscious activity in the material world [see ''The Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness'', p. 88], motion and development can and does occur without being dependent on human will. Human will is neither a requirement nor prerequisite for motion and development to occur.
-Dionysus is the god of wine, revelry and wildness. The later Byzantines defined him thus: <em>So named from accomplishing ‘Diony- ian’ for each of those who live the wild life. Or from providing ‘Dionyion’, everything for those who live the wild life</em>
+Development has the ''characteristic of generality'' because development occurs in every process that exists in every field of nature, society, and human thought; in every thing, every phenomenon, and every idea and at every stage* of all things, phenomena, and ideas. Every transformation process contains the possibility that it might lead to the birth of a new thing, phenomenon, or idea [through a change in quality, i.e. development].
-Dionysus is a complex god, famed for cruelty, wild abandon, sadism, alcohol, ecstasy—primitive, disturbing and dark. He encourages his followers to engage in intoxicating rituals replete with wine, blood, and sex. His is a fearful domain which should be tamed, as the Athenian rulers did to his followers in the end. But Dionysus plays the crucial role in the development of tragedy—the play develops from the ritual sacrifice of a goat or bull with the emphasis that its resurrection. This is brought onto the stage where Dionysus is always murdered and revived and the chorus sings the wails and songs that draw the audience out of themselves and into a world of undifferentiated ecstatic madness. Nietzsche sees in this the root of tragedy, that for development there is death, specifically the death of the wild and natural, for whom Dionysus is the embodiment. This is the root of human culture.
+-----
-A god who dies and is resurrected... this motif exists in almost all Indo-European religions and some scholars speculate it originates in the near-death experiences of Palaeolithic shamans. The Hanging God can be found all over, most famously in the form of Viking Odin screaming for his runes while hung from a tree. But it took the Indo-Europeans to define the act of murdering the god as necessary to survive.This tragedy, this bloodshed, is thought to align itself with the agricultural world-view of the Neolithic. Farming by its very nature undermines itself; famine and plague always stalk the farmer. The oldestVedic texts deal with this explicitly; compare the Mahabharata with Othello and Seneca and observe the well of misery that agriculture has brought us. To kill a God is unnatural, to farm the land is unnatural. Nietzsche points out the reality for the Greek world-view: an offence against the Gods is the foundation of human life, hence our deep connection between tragedy and farming. Knowledge of the world requires bloodshed and will always result in death. The more you force the world into an unnatural shape, the more suffering you will reap.
+==== Annotation 122 ====
-Tragedy has the peculiar quality that surfaces when cultures and civilisations are succeeding: Elizabethan England, Imperial Rome, Athenian hegemony. It would seem that as progress is made, the underbelly of tragedy accompanies it everywhere, like a grin in the dark. If this is the case—that tragedy is the prodigal son of progress—then we should embrace it with open arms. If tragedy is the result of forbidden knowledge, then let us be its agents. Capitalism is an essentially tragic existence, a never-ending, ever-increasing cycle of boom, consume, and bust. This darkly comic system has brought us and the world to its knees, and for those who have been fashioned in its negative image, the bleak reality—there we find tragedy. The more that humanistic ideology tries to save people, the more it kills. Consider the Green Revolution, the Nobel Peace Prize, and the millions of lives saved. The backfire is coming; like a tidal wave from the deep it will arise, the rust on the gloss of progress. This is why we need to embrace tragedy in our anti-humanism. We reject the outlook of saving the world’s people and their societies and their comforts. We reject the solutions, which bring nothing but devastation—the poisoned chalice of progressive politics.
+<nowiki>*</nowiki> In materialist dialectics, “stage” (or “stage of development”) refers to the current quantity and quality characteristics which a thing, phenomenon, or object possesses. Every time a quality change occurs, a new stage of development is entered into.
-Life cannot exist without blood and to try to create a new human will result in ever more. Humans are flawed and human nature cannot be improved upon. This lunatic fantasy of the Left— in which humans are perfectible—has spread its ugly tentacles into Silicon Valley and the sci-fi horrors of trans-humanism. Make no mistake that trans-human politics is a serious force in modern discourse. But we should recognise it for what it is—an offence against the Gods, against the world, the prefiguring of tragedy. For such an offence to bring knowledge, it will also bring death. This is the gift of modern science, of agriculture, of every so-called gift of civilisation, snatched from the world through violence. We are not the rational keepers of arcane knowledge, we are the blundering primates who think too highly of ourselves. Tragedy is the force that keeps us in our proper lineage and we should take up its call. Let us be tragic figures, let us be the prefiguring of the end of civilisation. Let us be modern tragedians.
+---------
-<right>
+Development has the ''characteristic of diversity'' because every thing, phenomenon, and idea has its own process of development that is not totally identical to the process of development of any other thing, phenomenon, or idea. Things and phenomena will develop differently in different spaces and times. Simultaneously, within their own processes of development, things, phenomena, and ideas are impacted by other things, phenomena, and ideas, as well as by many other factors and historical conditions. Such impacts can change the direction of development of things, phenomena, and ideas. They can even temporarily set development back, and/or can lead to growth in one aspect but degeneration in another.
-Magpie
-</right>
-<br>
+-----
-** Reflections on Freedom
+==== Annotation 123 ====
-<br>
+Because development has the characteristic of generality and the characteristic of diversity, the principle of diversity in unity and unity in diversity also applies to development [see: Annotation 107, p. 110].
-In this text, I propose to develop my vision of freedom from the eco-extremist perspective. My motivation to write this arises from how ambiguous the concept of freedom is, how it is frequently used in many discourses without ever being truly defined. For this reason, what is produced in these works is rather nebulous, and they never quite arrive at what they seek when they mention “freedom.” I am not interested in a dictionary definition of the term, nor in discussing what the the average citizen might think of the concept, as this not directed to them; this is directed to anyone in search of a clearer and realistic interpretation of the world around them, and I express this as a point of debate, not a declaration.
+==== c. Meaning of the Methodology ====
-Some would indicate that freedom involves a negative concept, in which one is not “free for” (a positive interpretation), but rather one is “free from:” free from authority, free from oppression, free from domination, etc. The more astute or less confused see the term more positively: freedom to develop oneself, freedom to act, etc.
+Materialist dialectics upholds that the principle of development is the scientific theoretical basis that we must use to guide our perception of the world and to improve the world. Therefore, in our perception and reality, we have to have a ''development viewpoint''.
-An anarchist could be regarded as seeking freedom by engaging in a war against the state and authority, which prevent free development and self-determination, while a person of the anti-civilization position might say that the only thing one can aspire to in this world is one’s individual freedom.
+According to Lenin: “dialectical logic requires that an object should be considered in development, in change, in ‘self-movement.”<ref>''Once Again On The Trade Unions,'' Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1921. See also: ''Mode and Forms of Matter'', p. 59.</ref>
-Neither one is being clear about what they truly seek or desire. In a world without the state or authority, the human, like all other living creatures, is driven by many factors that limit their free development. In our present reality, to realize a vague concept such as “personal freedom” is frankly impossible. You can go off to try to live in the wild, carve your spear, sharpen your senses, hunt and gather your own food.You can try all of that, and assuming you can pull it off, you won’t have to wait long before the environment is invaded by machines and the inert gray of civilization.
+This development viewpoint [which holds that all things, phenomena, and ideas are constantly developing, and that development is thus unavoidable] requires us to overcome conservatism, stagnation<ref>See Annotation 62, p. 59.</ref>, and prejudice, which are all opposed to development.
-First one could argue that one’s environmental conditions do not restrict one’s freedom, but rather mold one’s reality in a certain manner. We will discuss this with more attention below.
+-----
-One of the principal reasons why anarchists detest the state and authority is that these institutions deprive many from pursuing the same opportunities as other people. In a world in which these diabolical entities did not exist, it is very difficult if not impossible to think that any situation would present the same possibilities for all. A group of humans living in a tropical environment would clearly have an advantage in the gathering of fruits, and access to a greater variety, while another group in more austere environments would necessarily have greater recourse to hunting or fishing as a larger share of their sustenance. Conditions <em>impose</em> themselves on you, there is no “freedom” in this (I will discuss this further later on).
+==== Annotation 124 ====
-Another practical example is diet. Many anarchists believe that they are pursuing a coherent and ethical path in practicing veganism, since they consider it part of their exercise of freedom. Namely, choosing one’s diet and at the same time realizing this over the freedom of others.
+Conservatism and prejudice are mindsets which seek to prevent and stifle development and to hold humanity in a static position. Not only is this detrimental to humanity, it is also ultimately a wasted effort, because development is inevitable in human society, as in all things, phenomena, and ideas. Therefore, we must avoid and fight against such stagnant mindsets.
-In wild nature, no animal can choose its diet since it depends on the environment. Civilization needs to get some benefit out of all of our activities. If we sustained ourselves only from what our immediate environment offered us, this would not be worthwhile for it. That is why new and stranger fads emerge in terms of diet, with so many rules, so that we can choose the diet that most fits our “individual aspirations” (which are really induced from without). Certainly many will find it difficult to dispel the illusion that is being discussed here, but let us think about it. We cannot decide vitally important things in this sense. We cannot decide if we want to consume truly organic food, free of toxic chemicals, or if we want to drink clean water. But sure, we can choose the “paleo diet,” we can choose to be vegans, or to eat only raw foods. Is having a ton of false choices (false in the sense that if we really wanted a natural option we could choose none of them) really more valuable than being able to choose an actual natural option?
+According to this development viewpoint, in order to perceive or solve any problem in real life, we must consider all things, phenomena, and ideas with their own forward tendency of development taken in mind. On the other hand, the path of development is a dialectical process that is reversible and full of contradictions. Therefore, we must be aware of this complexity in our analysis and planning. This means we need to have a ''historical viewpoint'' [see Annotation 114, p. 116] which accounts for the diversity and complexity of development in perceiving and solving issues in reality.
-Secondly, referring to individual freedom, maybe one could say that being able to choose a certain path means possessing a certain freedom. That seems like an interesting point. Firstly because in this case, freedom becomes something rather abstract, as someone who declares themselves conscious of their decisions could claim to be free. This declaration is refuted by the fact that we live in a civilized environment. We are exposed daily to an infinite number of sensory stimuli that profoundly affect our perception of reality. One can believe that one is forging their own path, but in reality upbringing and environment have determined one’s path in this or that direction. Even the most de-constructed anarchist will find himself obligated to admit the extent that civilized frameworks have cleaved to his being. If he doesn’t, he’s an idiot. And this isn’t even mentioning us eco-extremists (though perhaps I am only speaking for myself here): I have no problem admitting that I am a modern and civilized human, profoundly domesticated and separated from my true animality. I am not free at all. Even eco-extremism, as Halputta Hadjo has indicated, is a product of its environment, namely, a hostile one, sick, and immersed in artificiality. This is the environment that pushes us toward confrontation, since we listen to the call of our instincts and our ancestral roots.
+-----
-Inside civilization, to speak of individual freedom seems meaningless. We can’t even remove ourselves freely from it in a physical sense, not to mention mentally. But even outside of civilization, considering a scenario in which civilization collapses, these concepts would not be practical. No animal moves about in total freedom. Falcons can’t explore underwater caves, polar bears can’t live in tropical environments, and so on. And mentally speaking, speaking on an abstract and subjective level, it’s also not possible. I will point out one example. A bonobo born into a family of bonobos is accustomed from birth to feed on fruits and insects while living an active life in a tropical environment. That’s the only option it was given, no other option is available. Perhaps if it tried another type of food, its tastes would have changed. It’s possible that it would rather have lived in a hotter (or colder) climate. One will never know.
+==== Annotation 125 ====
-Take another example: wolves lived for thousands of years in a wild manner in a great variety of environments. At some point, wolves began to encounter humans. They lay by the heat of human fire, and experienced the comfort of receiving food without having to hunt it themselves. And that caused many of them to stay around humans. Little by little, they lost their wildness and became domesticated animals. Here the reader can arrive at an opinion. We could think that wolves, in renouncing life in the wild, subjugated themselves to the slavery of domestication. But it is certain that they didn’t have freedom to make this decision. Living a violent life, often going without, and having to struggle mightily to survive, how could anyone consider that freedom? Wolves made their decisions between two options that presented themselves. They opted for one and not the other. There can’t be a real objection if someone said that this decision gave those wolves a type of freedom that life in the wild could not give them.
+Materialist dialectics requires us to consider the complexity and constant motion of reality. By comparison, the metaphysical viewpoint (which considers all things, phenomena, and ideas as static, isolated entities which have linear and simple processes of development) stands as a barrier to understanding this complexity and incorporating it into our worldview. Thus, it is vital that we develop comprehensive and historical viewpoints which acknowledge the diversity and complexity of reality.
-Another point I would like to pursue concerns animal and earth “liberation.”
+In summary, as a science of common relations and development, Marxist-Leninist materialist dialectics serve a very important role in perception and practice. Engels affirmed the role of materialist dialectics in this passage:
-First, is removing an animal from a physical cage necessarily giving it freedom? The options are limited in this regard.You could always bring it to a vegan sanctuary in which it will have a limited amount of space to run around, and depend on the schedule of humans in order to eat or run about. Here in the majority of cases it will have to live with many other animals in a crowded space, in a very unnatural way. It will have to feed on industrial garbage given by the hands of some human. Anyone can see that if freedom actually existed, it wouldn’t be this.
+“An exact representation of the universe, of its evolution, of the development of mankind, and of the reflection of this evolution in the minds of men, can therefore only be obtained by the methods of dialectics, with its constant regard to the innumerable actions and reactions of life and death, of progressive or retrogressive changes.”
-Another option for this “rescued” being would be abandonment in some remnant of wild nature that still exists. That animal may have been ripped from its natural environment from the first moments of its life, or may have been born in an artificial environment, and thus would not know at all the natural environment in which it should have been brought up. It would lack the tools necessary to survive on its own in wild nature. It probably would not survive one night out there. At the very least, it would probably be severely wounded and scarred for the rest of its life. But let’s say it does survive for some time, adapting to its environment from having been a domesticated animal, and recovering from its wounds. Even if it becomes feral, it will not live in freedom in wild nature, because there freedom is irrelevant on the theoretical and practical level.
+Lenin also said: “Dialectics requires an all-round consideration of relationships in their concrete development, but not a patchwork of bits and pieces.”<ref>''Once Again On The Trade Unions'', Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1921.</ref>
-Regarding “Earth liberation,” there is not much to say. It seems a rather delusional leftist concept. The Earth doesn’t need a group of humans to come and give it back its lost “liberation.” If in this ephemeral moment it is putting up with and giving shelter to human trash on its surface, that doesn’t mean that it won’t make them suffer the consequences down the road. The human sinks further into misery. Humans have been disrespectful with the Earth for too long, and the Earth itself will erase all trace of civilization, whether soon or later really doesn’t matter. Also, the Earth doesn’t need freedom, it only needs to be and to develop in its cycles and processes like it has through its history. I ask myself, what would make the Earth freer? The fall of civilization? A more responsible use of “resources”? Human extinction? I believe that different people could have various observations on this, but the whole concept, aside from being false and leftist, is extremely subjective. No serious analysis of reality could come from this.
+== III. Basic Pairs of Categories of Materialist Dialectics ==
-The central point of this essay is that freedom does not exist. To this I will counterpose, as a concept and practice, wild nature.
+''Category*'' is the most general grouping of aspects, attributes, and relations of things, phenomena, and ideas. Different specific fields of inquiry may categorize things, phenomena, and/or ideas differently from one another.
-As I said previously, it is mostly your environment that determines your path. No animal decides how their life will be, nor where it will occur. All of these conditions are imposed on them from birth. This idea of freedom has only arisen with the civilized human, in his immense confusion that pretends to be “reasoning” and “intelligent:” the only animal that has transformed its vital experience to the point that it believes that it can opt for one determined way of life or another, all justified by the abstract and harmful concept of freedom. Human confusion expresses its weakness at this extreme point. We have constructed an immense barrier between ourselves and the natural world. The majority of humans fear all that hides, crawls, flies, creeps, or runs outside the concrete walls that surround their cities. From here comes the insatiable search of civilization to design the most comfortable cage possible in which individuals can gather with tranquility, without making too much of a scene.
+-----
-Failure is inevitable. You can’t simply take a group of animals that lived in one way for thousands of years, throw them in a cage and expect that they will develop in a healthy and full way. Nature has already given us our place in the game, it is not a central role, it is not of vital importance to anyone or anything. It is only one piece within a great compendium of other pieces, useful but dispensable. This is our role, and this is how it is because it fits together symbiotically with all that surrounds us, and this is how things have developed through the centuries. It doesn’t matter how many scientists and eggheads doing cold calculations and having technical insights to come up with the best healthy environment. Things simply don’t work that way. We need to walk around barefoot, not to have the finest shoes that adapt to the shape of the ground. We need an active life, not nice gyms to exercise. We need contact with gods and spirits that inhabit the whole surface of the Earth, and all the logic in the world could never satiate that need. Nature is that which is for itself, as has been stated previously. It does not need a purpose, it does not need to explain itself. It does not need reasons. Our civilized mentality tries to find the reasons for everything; we play at being the lords and masters of existence, ignoring that we are merely minor actors playing a historical role within this ephemeral and overvalued experience known as life. We will never be anything but a flicker that lasted only a few seconds, only to submerge itself back into the darkness of the infinite. We deny our role in this game, we bathe in illusions, and we forget the truth.
+==== Annotation 126 ====
-Eco-extremism is only the belief in a natural order or chaos, however you would like to put it. We obey it without any reproach on our part. All animals know from the moment of their birth the path that they must pursue. They don’t think about it, they act through instinct, as a simple robot follows the commands of a computer. Instinct influences, as does the contemplation of the environment, the proof of direct experience, the teaching of elders, among other factors. At this point, really it doesn’t matter if monkeys are able to build buildings; they would never do something so stupid. The human attacks itself constantly since it denies its own nature and from the beginning of civilization until now, no intelligent or sensible human act has been recorded. The fact that they can do certain things and have the capacity to carry them out does not mean that any of these things were either necessary or important. The lie of civilization has taken control of the weak minds of those animals, now imprisoned and on the brink of extinction, since they perverted their environment and nature to try to overcome themselves. This lie takes on a special role in the minds of those who believe that they are in opposition to this torturous reality. Those who take up the values of civilization that they are most “comfortable” with, and they try to create scenarios that are just as fictitious as the ones they are denying.
+<nowiki>*</nowiki> ''Translation note:'' In Vietnamese, the word “phạm trù” is used here, which translates in this context more closely to the English philosophical term “category of being,” which means “the most general, fundamental, or broadest class of entities.” “Category of being” is sometimes simplified in English-language philosophical discourse to “category,” which we have chosen to do here for ease of reading and to better reflect the way it reads in the original Vietnamese.
-They are horrified by the barbaric acts of savages who lived in other times, but they are really praising a false vision of nature and the existence of the rest of the forms of animal life. It seems that in civilization the logic of “taking what I like and leaving the rest” never stops. Sure, anyone can be comfortable thinking about the noble natives who lived free of hierarchies and authority, in harmony with nature, but when we speak of the Selknam and their patriarchy, the Calusa and their complex hierarchical society, or tribes that headhunted or trafficked in women, more than one of these noble-savage lovers averts their eyes and pretends to have no idea what you are talking about. And it is such a delicate point for secular anarcho-primitivists to accept that their idealized primitive humans worshipped deities. Of course, who doesn’t want to dream of a life without need of a paying jobs, walking calmly through the meadows picking mushrooms. But a life in the wild never was like that.
+Every science has its own systems of categories that reflect the aspects, attributes, and basic relations that fall within its scope of study. For example, mathematics contains the categories “arithmetic,” “geometry,” “point,” “plane,” and “constant.” Physics contains the categories of “mass,” “speed,” “acceleration,” and “force,” and so on. Economics includes “commodity,” “value,” “price,” “monetary,” and “profit” categories.
-We cannot state it emphatically enough: freedom is an illusion. Nature is not our mother, she is cruel, merciless, and yes, oppressive. Or at least that is how the hyper-civilized would see it. But for us, all this merely is, and what has always been. We don’t tremble at the movement of the tectonic plates, or when the tsunami makes a particular eco-system disappear. Nor are we taken aback when a crocodile eats its young or a tribe of savages strangles its babies. We got rid of our civilized prejudices, we killed our moral being. We blew to pieces those who sought to domesticate our bodies and minds. We accept reality, we look our truth in the eyes and we are NOT afraid.
+Every such category reflects only the common relations found within the specific fields that fall within the scope of study of a specific science.
-<right>
+''Categories of materialist dialectics'', on the other hand, such as “matter,” “consciousness,” “motion,” “contradiction,” “quality,” “quantity,” “reason,” and “result,” are different. Categories of materialist dialectics reflect the most general aspects and attributes, as well as the most basic and general relations, of not just some specific fields of study, but of the whole of reality, including all of nature, society and human thought.
-Zupay
-</right>
-** On Terrorism and Indiscriminate Violence
+Every thing, phenomenon, and idea has many properties, including: a reason for existing in its current form, a process of motion and change, contradictions, content, form, and so on. These properties are aspects, attributes, and relations that are reflected in the categories of materialist dialectics. Therefore, the relationship between the categories of specific sciences and categories of materialist dialectics is a dialectical relationship between the Private and the Common [see ''Private and Common,'' p. 128].
-<br>
+-----
-“<em>We are not looking out for humans (that enormous contorted mass of alienated beings swarming everywhere), we are looking out for Wild Nature and reason has pushed us to radical action. Let it be very clear, our hand will not tremble when attacking with all means at our disposal that imposed reality as well as those who defend and sustain it.”</em>
+==== Annotation 127 ====
-In recent times there has been a debate concerning the use of violence, especially types of violence such as indiscriminate and selective attack against human targets, and the practice of terrorism.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-40.png|''The categories of specific sciences are limited to the scope of study, while the categories of materialist dialectics encompass all things, phenomena, and ideas.'']]
-And it seems that in anarchist circles there is a tremendous aversion to all that is not inoffensive sabotage.
+Unlike the categories contained within specific scientific fields, the philosophical categories of materialist dialectics can be used to analyze and define all things, phenomena, and ideas. The categories of specific scientific fields and the materialist dialectical categories have a Private/Common dialectical relationship [discussed on the next page].
-Using the excuse of their being easily replicated, they limit themselves to these sorts of attacks. That is why we read over and over again communiques claiming responsibility for actions filled with lots of words declaring war and fire to the prisons, cities, police stations, ministries, and palaces... clamoring for the blood of judges, kings, popes, ministers, and capitalists only to finally, at the end, claim responsibility for throwing paint on the front of a building, tagging graffiti, posting a sign, sealing a lock with silicone, or slashing some tires...
+-----
-There are some groups that go a bit beyond this, placing incendiary devices or explosives that have caused moderate to serious material damages, but again they limit themselves to that, while their guilty targets remain unaffected physically and legally. Also, in the last few years the laws have been changing, especially concerning terrorism. Governments aren’t stupid and they know that with societal dissatisfaction comes the emergence of groups or individuals that radicalize and begin doing their thing, so they end up cracking down in order to make an example of those who refuse to play by the rules of the game.
+As a science of general relations and development, materialist dialectics summarizes the most general relations of every field of nature, society, and human thought into basic category pairs: ''Private and Common, Reason and Result, Obviousness and Randomness, Content and Form, Essence and Phenomenon, Possibility and Reality.''
-In the past, authorities may not have given much importance to, for example, a “low level” incendiary attack, but today they take it as a serious threat, searching for traces of DNA or other evidence to catch the perpetrators, and if they catch them, harsher laws dictate charges of terrorism and longer stays in prison. That is why we have examples of groups or individuals who, without having killed anyone, are serving sentences of hundreds of years for incendiary sabotage or explosive attacks against material targets. Stated in another manner, if you’re going to play the game, cause as much damage as you can, including against those responsible for our misery.
+-----
-Aside from that, respect for the sacredness of life seems to be taken out of the most rancid Christianity. We do not respect the lives of our enemies, we do not respect the life of the judge, the politician, those who pretend to be the lords of our existence. And neither do we respect the life of the slave who accepts their lashings with pleasure, or of the honorable citizen who accepts actively all that is just as it is. We also think that the value of life is over-inflated (if you could even call it “life”). Really it is reduced to a succession of predictable situations and monotonous and routine acts, a grey existence devoid of emotion and contact with nature; a cowardly and artificial existence that could be summarized as a life with one’s head down, waiting to die without having really ever lived.
+==== Annotation 128 ====
-Of course there are different levels of responsibility in all of this: a person of higher position is not the same as their lackey employee. But the fact is that all of them form part of the same machine and make it function, and for that reason they are all valid targets. There is no collateral damage in this war because everyone, even us, is responsible for this current order and so civilization continues on. That is why we support indiscriminate or selective attack against human targets.
+Every individual materialist dialectical category has a dialectical relationship with another materialist dialectical category. Thus, all categories in materialist dialectics are presented as ''category pairs.'' So, a ''category pair'' is simply a pair of categories within materialist dialectics which have a dialectical relationship with one another.
-When an attack is carried out, one cannot do it halfway. At the moment that we decide to hit a target, it is not important to us that people who have nothing to do with the target are in between us and it. If we want to strike at a target, we do it regardless of what happens. If we wanted to bomb an office of some company or a government building, it doesn’t matter to us if the explosion kills or maims workers, employees, the actual people responsible, or anyone else in, or passing by, the target building.The important thing is that the target has been successfully hit. There will be no warning calls, no one is innocent, and we are carrying out our attack regardless of any other considerations. That is why we speak of terrorism without any qualifications, while leftists and most anarchists are ashamed of that term. They reject it as “diabolical,” but we embrace the term proudly and make it our own. For we really want to realize in live practice the purest meaning of the term. That is to say, we want to spread demoralizing panic and chaotic terror through brutal acts of savagery. Also, we refuse to leave to our enemies the exclusive right to use these or any other methods. If the civilized order uses terrorism and violence to perpetuate itself, we will fight them with terrorism and violence as well.
+Note that the this formalized system of category pairs reflects many decades of work by Vietnamese philosophical and political scientists based on the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and other socialist thinkers. Also note that these are not the only category pairs that can be discussed; there are potentially an infinite number of categories which can be used in materialist dialectical analysis. However, universal category pairs, which can be applied to analyze any and all things, phenomena, and ideas, are much fewer and farther between. That said, the universal category pairs discussed in this book are the ones which have most often been used by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and other prominent materialist dialecticians.
-Society is scandalized if a policeman is shot dead by a criminal, or if a bank or other structure is bombed (even if no one was hurt), or if one vandalizes some private or public property. And they rejoice when the demonized criminals, the terrorists and vandals, are caught and sentenced to rot away in prison, or simply mowed down by the “heroic” officers of law and order, or tortured or beaten in a cell of some dirty police station. Members of this society don’t hesitate to snitch against their own neighbors; some even try to play the hero and foil a crime. This society has no mercy on us and they only wish us ill. And we are the ones who have to be merciful?
+=== 1. Private and Common ===
-Society is indifferent, or better stated, it is an accomplice when their governments send their soldiers to bomb and kill indiscriminately in some faraway country to plunder its resources using lying excuses that no one believes (overthrowing tyranny to bring democracy, war against terrorism, etc.) Society is indifferent or an accomplice when all that is wild and natural is destroyed in the name of industrial progress and technological civilization. What does this society care about the destruction of the Earth, the poisoning of the water and air, and the artificialization of life as long as they have gas for their fucking cars, the shop windows are full of shit to consume, and they can avoid this miserable gray reality looking at Facebook on their new Smartphone or drugging themselves by watching the newest reality show to entertain their atrophied minds. The destruction of life and wild nature on this planet has reached the point of no return. Plants and animals are massacred daily, domestication and artificialization of all and every aspect of life. What does it matter that half the world is dying of hunger or thousands waste their lives in shitty jobs to benefit a system based on the application of daily violence in all its forms and variations... All of this does not scandalize the good citizenry. All of this is just another news item on the nightly news. Nevertheless they scream to high heaven and it is the top story on all of the media if anyone burns a bus or alters even minimally the status quo. They would even drag through the mud those good-intentioned souls of the church of anarchism.
+==== a. Categories of Private and Common ====
-At this point we would like to highlight again the hypocrisy of many anarchists, including self-proclaimed nihilists, who are scandalized by not only indiscriminate violence, but also any sort of violence whatsoever, especially if it is anything more than material damages even against those who are directly responsible. They admire those historical figures of anarchism (or Russian nihilism) of the late 19th and early 20th century who carried out attacks, robberies, and other barbarities where the bourgeoisie, judges, politicians, snitches, bosses, exploiters, enemies in general were killed, but also many people who just happened to be in the way at the time. Without even having to go that far back, many anarchists admire and even hold up as an example those armed groups and guerrillas of the 1970s-1990s who in the majority of cases were of leftist or communist persuasion, and had values far from those of anti-authoritarians. These include the RAF of Germany, the Red Brigades in Italy, ETA in Spain, and many similar groups in Europe or the Americas, as well as the Palestinian guerrillas. Armed groups often have a lot of deaths of innocent civilians to their credit. But even today the armed Kurds and Turkish left, who are held up as examples to be followed by many anarchists today, have carried out selective and indiscriminate attacks, where soldiers and police have fallen but so have those who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. All of this is justified and noble, however, because it takes place within <em>their</em> ideological framework while the attacks carried out by individualist nihilists or eco-extremists are severely criticized. This is due to the fact that any attack, group, position, or action of any type that falls outside of their atrophied logic is the object of criticism, accusations, defamations, and predictable insults that anarchos resort to when they encounter people who don’t play by their rules. The accusations are boilerplate: it’s psyops carried out by the State, or a product of paramilitary elements, agent provocateurs, fascists, authoritarians, psychopaths... What is all this other than hypocrisy?
+The ''Private Category'' encompasses specific things, phenomena, and ideas; the ''Common Category'' defines the common aspects, attributes, factors, and relations that exist in many things and phenomena.
-In the course of history the majority of atrocities and tyrannies have been carried out in the name of civilization, the State, law and order, God and country, or of an ideology that in its epoch received the acceptance of the greater part of the social body. But when an individual guided by his egoist desire or one idea or another decides to arm himself and attack (robberies, attacks, sabotage, uprisings...), the vast majority of society is scandalized and cries out for order to be imposed again by severe measures.
+Within every Private thing, phenomenon, and idea, there exists the Common, and also the Unique. The Unique encompasses the attributes and characteristics that exist in only one specific thing, phenomenon, or idea, and does not repeat in any other things, phenomena, or ideas.
-By stating all of this we don’t want to make ourselves out to be the “good guys” against the other side who are the “bad guys.” We are only citing examples of the lies and hypocrisy of society, which has determined that a particular act is a crime or is “justice” based on who commits it and their motives (and this is the same hypocrisy that is shared by many anarchists who determine which attacks are carried out by “revolutionaries” and which ones are just the actions of a crazy person out for blood.) We reject this Christian concept of looking out for the well-being of one’s neighbor, that is, people who we don’t know and who, if they found out what we were up to, would cry out for us to be locked up or worse.
+-----
-What consideration should we give to society when society gives us no consideration whatsoever?
+==== Annotation 129 ====
-We owe it nothing. Let us also remember that society, the masses, the citizen, from the humblest to the most wealthy, are directly responsible for the contemporary state of things through their servile obedience, even if they only go along with it due to fear, comfort, or conformity. The status quo is not maintained by magic, it is maintained by most people accepting and reproducing it through their civic and political assent, defined roles, and attitudes. Disgusting civic morality characteristic of the domesticated modern human is the first barrier and one of the principle sustaining factors that maintains the civilized order. Police, armies, and bosses are not needed when the slave is their own jailer. Thus, no one is free from guilt and we won’t have any regrets if “civilians” are hurt in our attacks.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-41.png]]
-If we said that no one is innocent, that’s not to say that everyone has the same amount of responsibility and plays the same role. Obviously there are people with important positions; their elections or the functions they carry out are priorities, but if in attacks on these people or any other human or material target there is some collateral damage, we won’t shed a single tear over it. Nor will we show any signs of remorse. The same is the case if other groups decide that is it is a priority to attack society, that “swarm of alienated beings,” indiscriminately. These are the conforming masses, and whatever happens, the war continues.
+The ''Private'' category includes specific individual things, phenomena and ideas.
-**** “In the War against Civilization and Progress, there is no such things as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ attacks, because this war is extremist and indiscriminate, or it’s no war at all.”
+The ''Common'' category includes aspects, factors, and relations that exist in many things, phenomena, and ideas. For example, say there are two apples: Apple A and Apple B. Apple A is a specific individual object. Apple B is another distinct, separate object. In that sense, both apples are ''private'' apples, and fall within the ''Private'' category.
-<right>
+However, both Apple A and Apple B share common attributes. For instance, they are both fruits of the same type: “apple.” They may have other attributes in common: they may be the same color, they may have the same basic shape, they may be of similar size, etc. These are ''common'' attributes which they share. Thus, Apple A and Apple B will also fall within the ''common'' category, based on these common attributes.
-Fiera
-</right>
-<br>
+Apple A and Apple B will also have ''unique'' attributes. Only Apple A has the exact molecules in the exact place and time which compose Apple A. There is no other object in the world which has those same molecules in that same place and time. This means that Apple A also has ''unique'' properties.
-<right>
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-42.png|''All private subjects have attributes in common with other private subjects.'']]
-</right>
+The Common and Private categories have a dialectical relationship. The Common contains the Private, and the Private contains the Common. Every private subject has some attributes in common with other private subjects, and common attributes can only exist among private subjects. Thus every thing, phenomenon, and idea in existence contains internally within itself dialectical relationships between the Private and the Common, and has dialectical Private/Common relationships externally within other things, phenomena, and ideas.
-** For a Metropolis against Itself
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-43.png|''All private subjects have attributes in common with other private subjects.'']]
-<br>
+It is also true that every private subject contains within itself ''Unique'' attributes which it does ''not'' share with any other thing, phenomenon, or idea. For example, Mount Everest is unique in that it is 8,850 meters tall. No other mountain on Earth has that exact same height. Therefore, the private subject “Mount Everest” has unique properties which it does not share with any other subject, even though it has other attributes in common with countless other private entities.
-**** The time has come, the time has come
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-44.png|''All things, phenomena, and ideas contain the unique, the private, and the common.'']]
-**** The vengeance is here and it won't end
+Whenever two individual subjects have a relationship with one another, that relationship is a ''unique relationship'' in the sense that it is a relationship that is shared only by those two specific subjects; however, there will also be common attributes and properties which any such relationship will share with other relationships in existence. This recalls the ''principle of Unity in Diversity and Diversity in Unity'' [see Annotation 107, p. 110]. So, every thing, phenomenon, and idea contains the Common ''and'' the Unique and has unique ''and'' common relationships with other things, phenomena, and ideas.
-**** The shaman sung the icaros
+This category pair is very useful in developing a comprehensive viewpoint [see Annotation 114, p. 116]. Remember that a comprehensive viewpoint indicates an understanding of the internal and external relations of a given subject. This means that in order to develop a comprehensive viewpoint, you must know the private aspects of each individual relation, component, and aspect of the subject, and you must also study the commonalities of the subject as well. It’s also important to study a variety of ''private'' information sources or data points to look for ''commonalities'' between them. In other words, if you want to have a proper comprehensive viewpoint [see Annotation 113, p. 116] about any subject, you have to find and analyze as many ''private'' data points and pieces of evidence as possible.
-**** The river rose and took everything
+For example: If a person only ever saw one apple, a green apple, then that person might believe that “all apples are green.” This conclusion would be premature: the person is attempting to make an assumption about the ''Common'' without examining enough ''Privates''. This is a failure of mistaking mistaking the ''Private'' for the ''Common'' which stems from a lack of a comprehensive viewpoint.
-**** A gringo fell to the waters
+Now, let’s take a look at an example of how the “Unique” can become “Common,” and vice-versa: 1947 TODAY
-**** A boa swallowed him and then spit him out
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-45.png]]
-**** The rebellion of all animals
+''“Unique” things, phenomena, and ideas can become “common” through development processes (and vice-versa).''
-**** Every spirit, every being, every god
+In 1941, a Soviet soldier named Mikhail Kalashnikov was in the hospital after being wounded in the Battle of Bryansk. Another soldier in the hospital said to Kalashnikov, “why do our soldiers only have one rifle for two or three of our men, while the Germans have automatics?” To solve this problem, Kalashnikov designed the AK-47 machine gun. When he finished making the first prototype, it was the only AK-47 in the world.
-**** Got together to end the evils
+At this precise moment, the AK-47 was simultaneously ''Unique'', ''Private'', and ''Common.''
-**** Of humans and their occidental methods
+It was ''Unique'' because it was the first and only AK-47 in the world, and no other object in the world had those properties. It was ''Private'' because it was a specific object with its own individual existence. It was ''Common'' — even though it was the only existing prototype — because it shared Common features with other rifles, and with other prototypes. It was the only AK-47 in existence.
-**** Petroleum pollution
+Soon, however, the Soviet Union began manufacturing them, and they became very common. Now there are millions of AK-47s in the world. So, today, that prototype machine gun remains simultaneously ''Unique, Private,'' and ''Common,'' with some slight developments:
-**** Has the jungle sick with hate
+It remains ''Private'' because it is a specific object with its own individual existence. Even though it is no longer the only AK-47 in existence, it remains ''Unique'' because it is still the very first AK-47 that was ever made, and even though there are now many other AK-47s, there is no other rifle in the universe that shares that same unique property. It remains ''Common'' because it still shares common features with other rifles and other prototypes, but it now also shares ''commonality'' with many other AK-47 rifles. It is no longer ''Unique'' for having the properties of an AK-47 in and of itself.
-**** You can't hunt, you can't drink water
+If someone were to destroy Kalashnikov’s prototype AK-47, the ''Private'' of that ''object'' would no longer exist — it would remain only as an ''idea'', and the Private would transform to whatever becomes of the material components of the rifle. The ''Unique'' would also no longer remain specifically as it was before being destroyed. However, there would still be many other AK-47s which would share common features related to that prototype; for instance, that they were all designed based on the prototype’s design.
-**** But you can dance like in the ancient times!
+''Translator’s Note:'' The words “Private,” “Common,” and “Unique” may seem unusual because they are direct translations from the Vietnamese words used to describe these concepts in the original text. Various other words have been used by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and other materialist dialecticians when discussing the underlying concepts of these philosophical categories. For instance, in most translations of Lenin, his discussion of such topics is typically translated into English using words such as “universal,” “general,” “special,” “particular,” etc.
-**** Anarkia Tropikal, “La Tierra Kontrataka”
+Example (from Lenin’s ''Philosophical Notebooks''): “Language in essence expresses only the universal; what is meant, however, is the special, the particular. Hence what is meant cannot be said in speech.” Here, “universal” refers to that which is ''Common'' in all things, phenomena, and ideas, and “special/particular” refers to the ''Private — s''pecific individual things, phenomena, and ideas — along with their ''Unique'' properties.
-Cities are a virus. No one really knows how they started, but from one moment to the next we transitioned from living in a constant equilibrium without a notion of time and progress, to living only by and for the virus, expanding and reproducing it until there are no more resources left or until we leave the empty shell of this planet to carry the virus to other worlds. If there is a true physical manifestation of civilization, cities are it. They are Leviathan made asphalt. They are as much part of us as we are part of them, and we carry them with us no matter how deep we enter in wild territory. Like it or not, they are our eco-system.
+Here are excerpts from Lenin’s ''Philosophical Notebooks'' discussing these concepts:
-Nevertheless, we are also a part of Leviathan. We are Leviathan at war against itself. We can't forget that civilization is not an homogenous mass and that the concepts, for example, of Humanity and Society are as ridiculous as the concept of Global Revolution. As much as Mark Zuckerberg would disagree, my Third-World neighborhood has nothing in common with a German suburb, and an eco-extremist has nothing in common with a petroleum sheikh. And I wonder, if we can be at war against our context, what other allies could we find in our situation?
+<blockquote>
+(‘It?’ The most universal word of all.) Who is it? I. Every person is an I.
-If we look at the tools that in other times have helped win battles against the colonizing advance of civilization, I can think of two answers (although more are always welcomed): The territory and the gods.
+Das Sinnliche? It is a universal, etc., etc. ‘This??’ Everyone is ‘this.’
-The territory may seem the most obvious one, from the Mapuche resistance to the Pirate Golden Age, passing through every guerrilla of recent history, the best weapon in asymmetric struggles has been the knowledge and use of space against the enemy.
+Why can the particular not be named? One of the objects of a given kind (tables) is distinguished by something from the rest...
-That's why cartography has always been an instrument of the settler. But we don't live in virgin forests and unknown seas anymore. Cartography and surveillance won, and we now live in streets completely mapped and patrolled, accepting voluntarily the tracking of our every movement. We need to develop a new way of moving through cities, accept them as our eco-system, and remember that the map is not the territory. We need to create a Metropolis against itself.
+Leaves of a tree are green; John is a man; Fido is a dog, etc. Here already we have dialectics (as Hegel’s genius recognised): the individual is the universal... And a naïve confusion, a helplessly pitiful confusion in the dialectics of the universal and the particular — of the concept and the sensuously perceptible reality of individual objects, things, phenomena.
-The gods, on the other hand, may seem like a more counterintuitive answer. Weren't they killed by Humanism and buried below a thousand layers of concrete? Weren't their altars destroyed and replaced by crosses, churches, and martyrs? I think the question we need to ask instead is, how can they be gone if we are still here? The gods have always been as important as territory in this war, because they are two sides of the same coin. If I wanted to win a battle in this river, I would call the god of this river to help me. Our mistake is to believe that since the river is gone, since there are no more forests, there are no more gods.
+Further, the ‘subsumption’ under logical categories of ‘sensibility’ (Sensibilität), ‘irritability’ (irritabilität) — this is said to be the particular in contrast to the universal!! — and ‘reproduction’ is an idle game.
+</blockquote>
-Gods change with us. We may have forgotten their names, they may have hidden under bridges and in tunnels, but they are still here. To find them we don't have to go looking for them in fenced parks or in pine forests or in artificial lakes, we just need to give a name to the gods of lead, gasoline, and smoke that surround us and keep us company in this war. Maybe it’s not a bad idea to sit and listen to that prophet dressed up in supermarket bags, or to follow stray dogs to their shrines. No one hates cops more than stray dogs do.
+Marx, too, discussed these concepts using words which are commonly translated into English using different terms. For example, in ''Capital'':
-If we are going to fight this war, we need to learn to coexist with the Metropolis and to use every tool at our disposal. This essay wasn't meant to deliver answers, but to raise questions. Each one will know how to answer them differently depending on their situation.
+<blockquote>
+The general form of relative value, embracing the whole world of commodities, converts the single commodity that is excluded from the rest, and made to play the part of equivalent – here the linen – into the universal equivalent.
+</blockquote>
-To all the friends who I don't know yet,
+Here, “general form” refers to the ''commonalities'' of form that exist between all commodities. The “single commodity” refers to a private commodity; a specific commodity that exists separately from all other commodities. And when referring to a “universal equivalent,” Marx is referring to equivalence which such a commodity has in ''common'' with every other commodity.
-and to all the enemies who aren't expecting me...
+The rest of this passage continues as a materialist dialectical analysis of the ''Private, Common,'' and ''Unique'' features and aspects of commodities:
-I'm coming!
+<blockquote>
+The bodily form of the linen is now the form assumed in common by the values of all commodities; it therefore becomes directly exchangeable with all and every of them. The substance linen becomes the visible incarnation, the social chrysalis state of every kind of human labour. Weaving, which is the labour of certain private individuals producing a particular article, linen, acquires in consequence a social character, the character of equality with all other kinds of labour. The innumerable equations of which the general form of value is composed, equate in turn the labour embodied in the linen to that embodied in every other commodity, and they thus convert weaving into the general form of manifestation of undifferentiated human labour. In this manner the labour realised in the values of commodities is presented not only under its negative aspect, under which abstraction is made from every concrete form and useful property of actual work, but its own positive nature is made to reveal itself expressly. The general value form is the reduction of all kinds of actual labour to their common character of being human labour generally, of being the expenditure of human labour power. The general value form, which represents all products of labour as mere congelations of undifferentiated human labour, shows by its very structure that it is the social resumé of the world of commodities. That form consequently makes it indisputably evident that in the world of commodities the character possessed by all labour of being human labour constitutes its specific social character.
+</blockquote>
-<right>
+We have chosen to use the terms “Private,” “Common,” and “Unique” in the translation of this text because they most closely match the words used in the original Vietnamese. In summary, it is important to realize that you may encounter the underlying ''concepts'' which are related by these words using various phrasings in the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc.
-Eleuterio Pinto Paredes
-</right>
-<br>
+==== b. Dialectical Relationship Between Private and Common ====
-** Out of the Self: A Sermon for the Dead
+According to the materialist dialectical viewpoint: the Private, the Common and the Unique exist objectively [see Annotation 108, p. 112]. The Common only exists within the Private. It expresses its existence through the Private.
-<br>
+-----
-<br>
+==== Annotation 130 ====
-**** “There was earth inside them, and they dug.” “Isn’t it rather a pity that the void has no ears?”
+The ''Common'' can’t exist as a specific thing, phenomenon, or idea. However, every specific thing, phenomenon, or idea exists as a ''private'' subject which has various features in ''common'' with other ''private'' things, phenomena, and ideas. We can therefore only understand the ''Common'' through observation and study of various ''private'' things, phenomena, and ideas. For example, a human can’t perceive with our senses alone the ''Common'' of apples. Only by observing many ''private'' apples can begin to derive an understanding of what all ''private'' apples have in ''common''.
-**** Paul Celan
+The Common does not exist in isolation from the Private. Therefore, commonality is inseparable from things, phenomena, and ideas. The Private only exists in relation to the Common. Likewise, there is no Private that exists in complete isolation from the Common.
-**** “Isn’t it rather a pity that the void has no ears?”
+-----
-**** Pierre Klossowski
+==== Annotation 131 ====
-In the midst of a primeval forest there lies a vile and dark swamp. An ancient tree rises up from the putrid depths, its crown burnt by lightning. The tree does not speak, it is motionless, opaque. But its destiny is to liberate humanity from the curse of guilt. In the shape of this grotesque and mutilated tree, a presence can be perceived. Arms without a head. From it, a force emanates like a miasma. A force that attacks reason, that places one in opposition to others. In the force conjured by this tree is the experience of the presence of death. And through this confrontation, the veil is parted. Who will stand before the tree and bend the neck? And more importantly, who will wield the knife? To accept within the self the ultimate perversion, the ultimate crime, is the path to join the totality of creation. To unleash destruction upon the world as it exists, in full awareness and consciousness, is to gaze into the future of the world to be.
+No commonality can possibly exist outside of private things, phenomena, and ideas because commonality describes features which different things, phenomena, and ideas share. No private thing, phenomenon, or idea can possibly exist ''absolutely without'' commonality because there is no thing, phenomenon, or idea that shares ''absolutely no features'' with ''any other'' thing, phenomenon, or idea.
-“It is splendid as the lion in the instant he striketh down his victim. It is beautiful as a day of spring. It is the great Pan himself and also the small one. It is Priapos.”
+The Private category is more all-encompassing and diverse than the Common category; Common is a part of Private but it is more profound and more “essential” than the Private. This is because Private is the synthesis of the Common and the Unique; the Common expresses generality and the regular predictability of many Privates.
-For Georges Bataille, Lord of Shit, Lord of the Slaughterhouse, the sacrifice becomes the foundation of the myth that will ensure survival in a world of war. The confrontation with the presence of death. The sacred and the profane are one in the same, as are death and eros. Duality exists, though it is an illusion. The “accursed share,” the part that represents holiness, death, silence, and expenditure, is denied by techno-industrial society. Only a vile accumulation remains. It chokes the sun. Excess is the path to liberation. It is a path that follows the bloody road of the war cults, sexual perversion, and sacrifice. It is the path of dynamism and force, movement and expansion: “the sexual act is in time what the tiger is in space.” An explosion of cosmic forces. A rupture, through which the yawning void can be perceived and its power flows forth. The influence of accumulation is static, inert, bloodless. The movement of excess expenditure is ecstatic riot. To stand apart from oneself. Rituals of triumphant waste, destruction, and “euphoric social dissolution.” The festival, the potlatch, creates a liminal space, in which society collapses in upon itself. The rejection of economic use and productivity is asserted in games and the spectacle. Let us declare the reign of the unproductive, of immoderation, of the excessive, of the perverse!
+-----
-“It is the monster of the under-world, a thousand-armed polyp, coiled knot of winged serpents, frenzy.”
+==== Annotation 132 ====
-Bataille once wrote: “<em>Our existence is the condemnation of all that is recognized today. What we are undertaking is a war. It is time to abandon the world of the civilized and its light.</em>” Drum beats sound in the depths of the forest. In the homogeneity produced by techno-industrial society, action is only validated by its accumulative effects. All is subjugated. And to what? To a monstrous banality. In the confrontation with living death, we tear open the fabric of the world and become defiantly alive. We become utterly incommensurate, we become “a force or a shock that presents itself as a charge.” We embody excess, delirium, and barbarous war. We become fecal, beings of pure erotic power. We enter the realm of the bloodthirsty mob, the aristocratic warrior, madmen, dreamers, prophets, and poets. We reassert the sacred within the profane. We are those who refuse rule. From its infancy, techno-industrial society is defined by its aversion to filth. The horror of excrement is full of the horror of death. Thus we become denatured, cleansed, purged of our living essence, in a sterile universe. The movement of humankind is from filth to eroticism to death. In its denial of death, techno-industrial society has made the cosmos into an endless, empty sea.
+The Private encompasses all aspects of a specific, individual thing, phenomenon, or idea; thus it encompasses all aspects, features, and attributes of a given subject, including both the Common and the Unique. In this way, the Private is the synthesis of the Common and the Unique.
-“It is the hermaphrodite of the earliest beginning.”
+Common attributes require more consideration, effort, and study to properly determine, because multiple private subjects must be considered and analyzed before common attributes can be confidently discovered and understood. They offer us a more profound understanding of the essence [see ''Essence and Phenomenon,'' p. 156] and nature of things, phenomena, and ideas because they offer insights into the ''relationships'' between and within different things, phenomena, and ideas. As we discover more commonalities, and understand them more deeply, we begin to develop a more comprehensive perspective of reality. We begin to develop an understanding of the laws and principles which govern relations between and within things, phenomena, and ideas, and this gives us the power to more accurately predict how processes will develop and how things, phenomena, and ideas will change and mutually impact one another over time.
-As Bataille wrote, that “<em>If this world is compared with worlds that have disappeared, it is hideous and seems the most failed of them all.</em>” There was freedom and joy in the long-lost world of brutality. The magic of life has disappeared. It has been buried in the dusty tombs of forgotten history, with bones and trophies. A horde of women with wild hair, closed eyes, and moaning mouths stumbling forward. They are wrapped in lion skins, they wear bull heads, and carry spears hidden in pinecones. Their breasts are bare and they joyously caress their bodies as they dance. They smear saliva on their genitals. Sweat drips from their red burning cheeks and snakes glisten and slither around their hips and thighs. They are pursued by bearded drunken brutes, who are singing and playing flutes and wagging their erect penises. Finally the Liberator comes, riding a chariot pulled by panthers and leopards. His features are dark and Asiatic. His beard is long and curly. Ivy creeps up his arms and legs. His eyes are bright but say nothing. The Roarer, the Goat Killer, The One in the Trees, The Great Uniter, The Hidden One. Dionysus comes to release humanity from its enslavement, enslavement to anxiety, to neurosis, to labor, to technology, to symbols, to power, to profit. He comes to kill the oppressors and free the wild. As he rose from the dead, so too will the spirit of the wild. With a touch from his fennel wand, madness reigns and walls tumble down.
+Under specific conditions, the Common and the Unique can transform into each other [See Annotation 129, p. 128].
-“It is the lord of the toads and frogs, which live in the water and go up on the land, whose chorus ascendeth at noon and at midnight.” A gathered crowd drinks the unmixed wine from wide bowls, and shrieks fill the night. Dionysus presides over the riot, looking on silently. Bataille’s words drift through the night, “<em>in those disappeared worlds it was possible to lose oneself in ecstasy, which is impossible in the world of educated vulgarity.</em>” To lose oneself, this is the goal. To break down the walls of the self and enter the flow of the universe. There is a world where this is still possible, out there somewhere among the wastes and barren deserts of techno-industrial society. How much we have lost and how little we have gained in return. There is pleasure in civilization but only mechanized, sterile, disembodied, callous pleasure. Pleasure that dulls the mind and body. Filtered through brutally repressive culture, through technology, and the domination of the symbolic, pleasure vanishes as soon as it dries. “<em>They think to profit from civilization but by that profit have become the</em> <em>most degraded of all beings who have ever existed,</em>” Bataille writes. Profit and accumulation have made humanity into a thing so weak that no animal on earth would ever envy us. The strong limbs of the wild ones cry for exertion, they despise the flaccid, withering weakness of their counterparts, wasting in office chairs and commuter trains, slowly decaying as they labor their lives away in servitude. Their profits don’t give them strength, happiness, or freedom. They cannot feel, they cannot experience ecstasy; they can only analyze and assess.
+The dialectical relationship between Private and Common was summarised by Lenin:
-“It is abundance that seeketh union with emptiness.”
+“Consequently, the opposites (the individual as opposed to the universal) are identical: the individual exists only in the connection that leads to the universal. The universal exists only in the individual and through the individual. Every individual is (in one way or another) a universal. Every universal is (a fragment, or an aspect, or the essence of) an individual. Every universal only approximately embraces all the individual objects. Every individual enters incompletely into the universal, etc., etc. Every individual is connected by thousands of transitions with other '''kinds''' of individuals (things, phenomena, ideas) etc.”<ref>''On the Question of Dialectics'', Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1915.</ref> [Note: “individual and universal” here refer the same underlying concepts of “Private and Common” (respectively); see translator’s note on p. 132].
-The revelers continue to drink and dance, mixing the blood of bulls with their wine until their eyes roll back in their heads and they enter the trance. Following the wheel of death and rebirth, Dionysus goes down into the sunken chambers beneath the earth. Ten times the soul must reenter the world before it is finally released. Older and more powerful by far than Zeus and his Olympian family, is Dionysus. The wild spirit of nature is older and more powerful than god. The wildness in humanity must be free for it will never accept its captivity and the longer it is restrained, the more wrathful it will become.
+==== c. Meaning of the Methodology ====
-Bataille writes, “<em>Dionysus has gone down in order to ascend and now the Black One has begun to dance.</em>” The movement beneath and within corresponds to the return to the sky and to the expansion into the cosmos. Like the serpent that burrows into the dirt so it can rise again.
+We must acknowledge and recognize the Common in order to study the Private in our cognitive and practical activities. If we fail to acknowledge the Common, then whenever we attempt to understand and comprehend any Private thing, phenomenon or idea, we will make mistakes and become disoriented. To understand the Common we have to study and observe the Private because the Common does not exist abstractly outside of the Private.
-The star wants to descend on:
+-----
-So as to swim down below, down here
+==== Annotation 133 ====
-Where it sees itself shimmer in the swell
+Our understanding of Common attributes arise from the observation and study of private things, phenomena, and ideas. At the same time, developing our understanding of Commonalities between and within Private subjects deepens our understanding of their essential nature [see: Essence and Phenomenon].
-Of wandering words. (Paul Celan)
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-46.png|''Dialectical analysis of private and common characteristics involves observing private subjects to determine common attributes and considering common attributes to gain insights about private subjects.'']]
-Black Kali dances in the sky. Her feet, wet with the blood of her enemies, crush houses and flatten cars like ants. In one black hand she holds a bloody sword. In the other she holds the severed head of Shiva, her husband. She laps at the blood that drips from his pulsing veins with her long tongue and the rest of it pours down her bare breast and into her pubic hair. Drunk on blood, Kali spins and whirls, seeking new enemies to kill. She brings with her, terror, darkness, and chaos. Behind her come a host of thieves, prostitutes, the rotting dead, and the diseased. They rise up from the sea.
+It is impossible to know anything at all about the Common without observing Private subjects, and attempting to understand Private subjects without taking into consideration the attributes and features which they have in Common with other Private subjects will lead to incomplete and erroneous analysis.
-“It is the mightiest creature, and in it the creature is afraid of itself.” Kali demands blood and a thousand priests armed with a thousand cutlasses kill a thousand cows with a single cut to the back of the head. Fountains of blood paint the sky red. We knew the price of blood then. Bataille knew the price of blood, “<em>we are deathly beings. Beings unto death. In the act of sacrifice we seek to kill the animal in us.</em>” The revelation of consciousness is achieved through the death of the animal. If we could but perceive the death of our self, then we could alike perceive the portion that comes from the stars. But, tragically, the revelation never occurs. It is always deferred. For the human being dies when its animal nature dies. Thus we can never understand death because we cannot watch ourselves ceasing to be. Kali’s dance has now become so wild that the atoms of the universe themselves are beginning to rupture.
+-----
-“It is the delight of the earth and the cruelty of the heavens.” For Bataille, the factory was the ultimate symbol of the repugnant world we inhabit: a world that denies death and life.
+In addition, we must identify the Common features and attributes of every specific Private subject we study. We must avoid being dogmatic, metaphysical, and inflexible in applying our knowledge of commonalities to solve problems and interpret the world.
-**** “When I review my own memories, it seems that for our generation, out of all the world’s various objects glimpsed in early childhood, the most fear-inspiring architectural form was large factory chimneys...I was not hallucinating when, as a terrified child, I discerned in those giant scarecrows the presence of a fearful rage.
+-----
-**** A loathsome finger jabbing obscenely at the heavens. Defiant and yet asserting nothing. The pure essence of what is most violent and cruel in the world is represented in the clouds of smoke rising from the factory.”
+==== Annotation 134 ====
-“Each star is a god, and each space that a star filleth is a devil. But the empty-fullness of the whole is the pleroma.”
+==== Dogmatism and Revisionism in Relation to the Private and Common ====
-Glaciers the size of continents drift into the sea from the icy poles and titan waves sweep away houses and roads. A giant teak coffin washes up on the shore next to me. I lift off the lid and inside is a dead man wearing a fine suit and top hat. He is taller than any man I have ever seen. His face bears the marks of intense age, not just old but from a different time. His wife, the spirit of the river Liffey, comes forward carrying a wicker basket filled with peat cuttings. She lays down her burden and unfurls a white cloth, which she spreads out on the soggy earth. She places the body of her giant husband in the center of the cloth and surrounds him with silver platters and goblets.
+''Dogmatism'' is the inflexible adherence to ideals as incontrovertibly true while refusing to take any contradictory evidence into consideration. Dogmatism stands in direct opposition to materialist dialectics, which seeks to form opinions and conclusions only after careful consideration of all observable evidence.
-The river woman welcomes a grim procession of shadowy figures who emerge from the sea and circle around the body. As they prepare to begin the feast however, the body disappears. The guests then sit and tell tales of old Finnegan; of his sufferings at the hands of the Pirate Queen of Connacht, of sucking marrowbones in a stockade with one deaf man and one mute and talking of bison and Brian Boru, of surveying the field of ancient battles with his wife. Before long the mourners become uncouth and disorderly. One man accuses another of embellishing his story in an unseemly manner. The storyteller defends himself against such slander and threats come, followed by blows. In the course of the fight a glass of whisky is split and Finnegan’s corpse reappears. The giant leaps to his feet and begins roaring for whisky but his friends gently stuff him back into his coffin and promise him that the world he is in now is the better one. Each one of them raises their glass and they push the coffin back out to sea. Someday he will return: Finn Again.
+Dogmatism typically arises when the Common is overemphasized without due consideration of the Private. A dogmatic position is one which adheres to ideals about commonalities without taking Private subjects into consideration.
-“The dark gods form the earth-world. They are simple and infinitely diminishing and declining. The devil is the earth-world’s lowest lord, the moon-spirit, satellite of the earth, smaller, colder, and more dead than the earth.”
+Dogmatism can be avoided by continuously studying and observing and analyzing
-In her anger and madness Kali hurls the severed head of Shiva into the air and it lands on the ground in front of me in an explosion of blood and brains. I push open his lips with my arms and step into his mouth. The long teeth hang down like stalagmites in a cave. I begin to pound and smash the teeth and tongue and cheeks with my fists. From the inside out I try to destroy the head. Bataille’s voice echoes among the shattered bones, “<em>Human life is defeated because it serves as the head and reason of the universe. Insofar as it becomes that head and reason it accepts slavery.</em>” This is why Bataille called his secret cult of sacrifice <em>acephale</em>, headless: the utter denial and repudiation of the head, the proud declaration of arms, the steel weapon, and the fiery heart. The spirits that haunt the head are worthless and drab. They condemn us to a world of emptiness. If we give ourselves fully to the annihilation of the head and the weak sense of self that emanates therefrom we shall find ourselves again in a jungle-world teeming with life and bloody vitality. But no paradise of peace this, for the wild world is a savage one. Let us be clear, however, that there is no form of wild savagery and cruelty that is not more desirable in all forms than the one we currently inhabit. Bataille writes “<em>The earth, as long as it only engendered cataclysms, trees, and birds was a free universe; the fascination with liberty became dulled when the earth produced a being who demanded necessity as a law over the universe.</em>” We need not fear the cataclysm! If anything, all we have to fear is the absence of the world-rending powers!
+Private subjects and taking any evidence which contradicts erroneous perceptions of “false commonalities” into consideration. This will simultaneously deepen our understanding of the Private while improving our understanding of the Common. For example: Sally might observe a few red apples and arrive at the conclusion: “all apples are red.” If Sally is then presented with a green apple, yet refuses to acknowledge it by continuing to insist that “all apples are red,” then Sally is engaging in dogmatism.
-The earth will do what it will, for all our laws and commandments. Our reason cannot restrain the earth; it can only suppress our own happiness and freedom. “<em>Let us escape</em>.” Bataille says, “<em>Let us escape from our heads like the condemned man from his prison.</em>” Where there is freedom, existence is still a joyful game.
+According to Vietnam’s ''Curriculum of the Philosophy of Marxism-Leninism For University and College Students Specializing in Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh Thought,'' the opposite of Dogmatism is ''Revisionism''. Revisionism occurs when we overestimate the Private and fail to recognize commonalities. In failing to recognize common attributes and features between and within things, phenomena, and ideas, the Revisionist faces confusion and disorientation whenever they encounter any new things, phenomena, and ideas, because they lack any insight into essential characteristics of the subject and its relations with other subjects.
-“Eros flameth up and dieth. But the tree of life groweth with slow and constant increase through unmeasured time.”
+For example: if Sally has spent a lot of time studying a red apple, she may start to become confident that she understands everything there is to know about apples. If she is then presented with a green apple, she might become confused and disoriented and draw the conclusion that she has to start all over again with her analysis, from scratch, thinking: “this can’t possibly be an apple because it’s not red. It must be something else entirely.” Sally can avoid this revisionist confusion by examining the other common features which the red and green apples share before making any conclusions.
-I look up and where Kali stood, I now see a headless giant. His essence is both pure and profane. Where is his nagging, skeptical head? In his crotch, of course. But it’s a death’s head, a shining skull. His arms are spread wide over the world. In one hand he wields a stunning weapon of steel. In the other hand burns the blazing heart of Dionysus. His chest is tattooed with endless stars. His stomach is the endless labyrinth where we lose ourselves over and over again. Not man, not god but a monstrous spirit.
+==== Metaphysical Perception of the Private and Common ====
-The steel weapon obliterates the world.
+The ''metaphysical'' position attempts to categorize things, phenomena, and ideas into static categories which are isolated and distinct from one another [see Annotation 8,
-A dog barks. It’s late at night and I am standing with Bataille in a drafty house by the sea. The painter Andre Masson is in the kitchen drinking wine and humming along to a recording of Mozart’s <em>Don Giovanni</em>. We all sit down together around the table and imagine our own deaths. We sit for some time with our eyes staring off into the void. Bataille finally breaks the silence, “<em>the lot and the infinite tumult of human life are not open to those who exist like poked-out eyes, but to those who are like clairvoyants, carried away by an upsetting dream that does not belong to them.</em>” We dream the dreams of the other. My dreams are not my own. They belong to the soul of the world.
+p. 8]. In this way, the metaphysical perception ultimately fails to properly understand the role of both the Private ''and'' the Common. Categories may be arranged in taxonomic configurations based on shared features, but ultimately every category is seen as distinct and isolated from every other category. This perspective severs the dialectical relationship between the Private, the Common, and the Unique, and thus leads to a distorted perception of reality. As Engels wrote in ''Socialism: Utopian and Scientific'':
-<br>
+<blockquote>
+The analysis of Nature into its individual parts, the grouping of the different natural processes and objects in definite classes, the study of the internal anatomy of organized bodies in their manifold forms — these were the fundamental conditions of the gigantic strides in our knowledge of Nature that have been made during the last 400 years. But this method of work has also left us as legacy the habit of observing natural objects and processes in isolation, apart from their connection with the vast whole; of observing them in repose, not in motion; as constraints, not as essentially variables; in their death, not in their life. And when this way of looking at things was transferred by Bacon and Locke from natural science to philosophy, it begot the narrow, metaphysical mode of thought peculiar to the last century.”
+</blockquote>
-Masson’s little house is filled with his paintings. Pasiphae, the mother of the Minotaur, getting fucked by a bull, wriggling and writhing in joy and agony. Endless labyrinths. Bull skulls. I enter the labyrinth through the door in the hand. I follow the stairs up the forearm. The skin of the walls is hard and white like cracked marble. Far below me, a giant pillar supports one leg at the knee. The other rests upon a swan. The Minotaur’s head above me has one eye and one horn. I crawl down into the chest and guts and find a flaming leaf.
+In other words, Engels points out that separating and dividing Private subjects into distinct and isolated categories without acknowledging the dialectical nature of the Private and the Common leads to severe limitations on what we can learn about the world. Instead, we have to examine things, phenomena, and ideas ''in relation to one another'', which must include the analysis of Commonalities.
-“Now the dead howled and raged, for they were unperfected.” Pasiphae’s husband, the greedy king Minos, cared for nothing but wealth and neglected his wife’s hungry bed. In his absence, she grew itchy with desire and contrived to lay down with the holy bull. Ovid describes Pasiphae as a comic figure, dressing up in an elaborate cow costume, prancing in the field, and batting her bovine eyes flirtatiously at the object of her affection. But Pasiphae’s lust is darker and more profound. It represents the fierce need for humanity to acknowledge its primordial wildness. She named her monstrous son Asterion “The Ruler of the Stars.” But Minos, possessed by a civilized demon of greed and repression, couldn’t stand to see him. He had his servant, the slavish mathematician Daedalus, build an endless prison to contain the living, breathing proof that we are proud, beautiful, earthly, animal beings. And in that sunless prison, despised Asterion became wrathful and horrible. He howled and beat on the stone walls with bones and demanded bloody sacrifices until the bland, beardless Attic hero Theseus came and slit his throat with his thin blade.
+Rather than divide subjects into distinct, separate categories, materialist dialectics seek to examine Private subjects as they really exist: as a synthesis of Unique and Common attributes; and simultaneously to examine commonalities as they really exist: as properties which emerge from the relations of Private objects.
-How like the puritanical Greeks to imprison the spirit of the wild in a maze of reason. They worshipped at the altar of the intellect and hated the ecstasy of freedom and spontaneous experience. When Dionysus came to them from the unknown forests of the East, they crucified him because they feared the truth: that he came to tear down the hollow, dishonest edifice of humanity that they had constructed.
+In our cognitive and practical activities, we must be able to take advantage of suitable conditions that will enable transformations from the Unique and the Common (and vice versa) for our specific purposes.
-The spirit of the wild is the power of the earth that burns inside of us as it does in the fibers of every living thing, it cannot be 164
+-----
-denied, shut away, or repressed until the earth itself turns black and burns away into nothingness and here at the end of the world, like in every age before us, it will fight to be free.
+==== Annotation 135 ====
-See how things all come alive—
+In advancing the cause of socialism, revolutionaries must work to transform our Unique positions into common positions. For instance, the process of developing revolutionary public knowledge [see Annotation 94, p. 93] begins with studying and understanding revolutionary knowledge. Initially, this knowledge will be ''unique'' to the socialist movement. By disseminating the knowledge to the public, we hope to transform this knowledge into ''common knowledge''.
-By death! Alive!
+Likewise, we hope to transform other common things, phenomena, and ideas back towards the Unique. For instance, the capitalist mode of production is currently the most common mode of production on Earth. In order to advance humanity towards communism, we must transition the capitalist mode of production from the Common towards the Unique, with the ambition of eventually eliminating this mode of production altogether.
-Speaks true who speaks shadow. (Paul Celan)
+=== 2. Reason and Result ===
-<right>
+==== a. Categories of Reason and Result ====
-Abraxas
-</right>
-<br>
+The ''Reason'' category is used to define the mutual impacts between internal aspects of a thing, phenomenon or idea, or between things, phenomena, or ideas, that bring about changes.
-** [[Eco-extremism and]] the Woman part 1
+The ''Result'' category defines the changes that were caused by mutual impacts which occur between aspects and factors ''within'' a thing, phenomenon, or idea, or ''externally'' between different things, phenomena, or ideas.
-*** Introduction
+-----
-This article, which will be divided into two parts, discusses a topic that has not been given much importance within the tendency, at least publicly. We speak of the relationship between eco-extremism and women.
+==== Annotation 136 ====
-Women, just like men who lived in groups before technoindustrial civilization, had a particular role to play in primitive tribes. They had a unique way to relate with their environment. Today in modernity, women also play a very important role within the war that we are waging. It may not be the same as before, but we continue to be immersed in our environment in which we develop in unique ways. This article discusses views of what it means to be a female eco-extremist in this environment, and also incorporates a talk among those in complicity on this topic, which will form the second part, and perhaps another surprise.
+''Translation note:'' the Vietnamese words for “reason and result” can also be translated as “cause and effect.” We have chosen to use the words “reason and result” to distinguish materialist dialectical categories from metaphysical conceptions of development.
-<br>
+In metaphysics [see Annotation 8, p. 8], any given ''effect'' is seen to have a single ''cause''. In materialist dialectics, we instead examine the ''mutual impacts'' which occur within and between subjects through motion and development processes.
-Hello eco-extremist woman.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-47.png|''Metaphysical vs. Materialist Dialectical conceptions of development.'']]
-There are many things that I would like to tell you, some even “prohibited.” Not having a person of affinity physically near me sometimes feels suffocating and sometimes I feel that I could blow at any minute. Still I remain firm as a fierce she-wolf who looks like another white sheep in the mass of the disgusting flock.
+In the metaphysical conception of cause and effect, (A) causes effect (B), then effect (B) causes effect (C), and so on. Materialist dialectics, on the other hand, uses the model of ''development'' (see Annotation 117, p. 119), wherein objects (A) and (B) mutually impact one another, resulting in development (C). (C) will then have relations with other things, phenomena, and/or ideas, and the mutual impacts from these new relations will become the reasons for future results. Consider the following example:
-I’ll say a little about myself. Years ago I denied my gender. Like a good anarchist I rejected the concept and I considered myself to be “asexual” or “queer.” Today I regret that past but I have recognized it as part of a cycle, an integral part of what I once was that has led to what I am today.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-48.png|''Metaphysical vs. Materialist Dialectical conceptions of frying and eating an egg.'']]
-Those feminist positions remain in the past since I realized that nature made me a woman, and proudly so, not due to a question of gender but for a much greater and stronger question, one which I don’t have to force myself much to comprehend. You know, humans are always looking for a way to find a theory of everything; any science is occupied with that. They feel that they have a “reasonable” explanation for everything, but they really know <em>nothing</em>. They only know weak anthropomorphic concepts that are only convincing to humans.
+In the metaphysical “cause and effect” model, putting an egg in a hot pan is the cause which results in the effect of producing a fried egg. The egg being fried has the effect of the egg now being suitable for eating, which is the cause of the egg being eaten by a hungry person.
-That is why I don’t focus on understanding “why” I am a woman. I simply came into the world this way and even though reality is much harsher for us on some occasions, this serves to harden our character and to grow as warriors.
+This is a simplification of the metaphysical conception of causes and effects, since metaphysics does recognize that one cause can have branches of multiple effects, but the essential characteristic of the metaphysical conception of causality is to break down all activity and change in the universe into static and distinct episodes of one distinct event causing one or more other distinct events.
-As you will know, at this time feminism is a compelling fashion, and even though it is hard for me to accept it, if this fashion had come into being when I still had those ideas some years ago, I would have accepted the label and would now be condemning “macho” men and denouncing instances of sexual harassment that never happened. But luckily, this feminism came too late for me, as I have escaped this trap of the system some moons ago.
+In contrast, the materialist dialectical model of development holds that every result stems from mutual impacts which occur relationally between things, phenomena, and ideas, and that the resulting synthesis — the newly developed result of mutual impacts — will then have new relations with other things, phenomena, and ideas, and that these ''relations'' will become new reasons for new results through ''mutual impact''.
-The Western view is for one to look upon oneself as a woman as a victim of everyone and everything. It forces you to focus on dumb struggles that only distract from the true problem: Civilization. The system benefits when we look for the guilty amongst ourselves, and when we turn our anger on men, immigrants, the justice system, the state, the speciesists, etc. Thus, going along with all of the ephemeral struggles makes us part of the herd, but of a black herd: the supposedly “rebel” one, which one realizes is not even the case.
+In this example, the egg and the hot pan will mutually impact each other. The frying pan will become dirty and need to be washed (the result of putting an egg in the frying pan); meanwhile, the egg will become a fried egg, which is fit for human consumption (the result of being cooked in the frying pan). The fried egg will then have a relationship with a hungry human, and this relationship will be a new reason which will lead to further results (i.e., the human eating and digesting the egg).
-I have not wanted to remain thus. I have accepted my existence as a woman, and I have declared war without quarter on civilization, and not on a model of a system of domination called patriarchy. The eco-extremism that I defend is not focused on gender. I have wounded both men and women equally, since this war is against civilization as a whole. Though the gender of the target is not important, at the same time I realize that as an individualist my condition as a woman is in what I have done. Maybe I don’t recognize it publicly for strategic reasons, but I do with those in affinity.
+So, the key difference between the classical metaphysical conception of causality and the materialist dialectical model of development is that metaphysics focus more on individual events in time whereas materialist dialectics focus on the relations and mutual impacts between things, phenomena, and ideas over time.
-I have cured the wounds of my man with herbs that I have collected. I have wept because of his absence and have received him back with an open heart after an attack. I have counted the money he robbed from banks and have held his hand fleeing from arsons that we committed. I have hid the gun with which he has murdered people from police since this foolish system dictates that a woman can’t murder, or that she can’t kill with a bomb, for example. I go along with my feminine characteristics since nature made me this way. I am an individual but I realize at the same time that my male companion completes me, and in that I find neither subjugation nor a relationship of power as the politically-correct modern commentators would put it. These people disgust me. I see us just as if we were a lemur couple: together, playful, united, and wild.
+==== b. Dialectical relationship between Reason and Result ====
-In the culture of my ancestors, the woman was the wise one, even wiser than the shaman. She was the one who guarded the fire of war, and only when the situation was favorable did she give the fire to the warriors so that they might go and take the lives of their enemies. The woman is the one who guards the word and the wisdom of the spirits. Some ask if there exists in reality a space where furious action of the feminine spirits can be unleashed. That space is within us, female eco-extremists, in our words and our acts, by ourselves or with our clan. I, as I have stated to you before, have guarded these jealously for the next strike, but as to whether our place is in the savage attack of our female ancestors, of this there is 168
+The relationship between Reason and Result is objective, and it contains inevitability: there is no Reason that does not lead to a Result; and likewise, there is no Result without any Reason.
-no doubt.
+Reasons cause Results, which is why Reason always comes before Result, and Result always comes after Reason.
-Without anything further, eco-extremist woman, I bid farewell, intoning the chants of the moon, with one hand full of medicinal plants and the other holding a knife that will go into the jugular of the enemy.
+A Reason can cause one or many Results and a Result can be caused by one or many Reasons.
-<right>
+When many Reasons lead to a single Result, the impacts which lead to the Result are mutual between all things, phenomena, and ideas at hand. These mutual impacts can have many relational positions or roles, including: direct reasons, indirect reasons, internal reasons, external reasons, etc.
-Meztli
-</right>
-<right>
+-----
-Full moon of April 2017 Chikomoztoc
-</right>
-*** Eco-extremist women speak
+==== Annotation 137 ====
-<em>Do you think that it is more difficult for a woman to adopt the eco-extremist tendency than it is for a man?</em>
+As stated in the previous annotation, Reasons which lead to Results stem from mutually impacting relations between things, phenomena, and ideas. There is no way for one subject to affect another subject without also being affected itself in some way.
-<strong>Yoloxochitl</strong>: I believe it is relative. The attraction of the Tendency is many times the product of the life that you have led, the conditions in which you find yourself, and the situations that you face daily. This is evident through the number of individualists who have been positioning themselves in our favor recently. An individualist in Europe can be attracted to eco-extremism through the same hatred of civilization that could be felt in the Americas or on another continent. The experience is the same in both the man and the woman. The hatred of this artificial reality is a shared one. This transcends borders, languages, cultures, and also genders.
+Reasons can take many forms, including (but not limited to):
-<strong>More</strong>: What a coincidence as this is a theme that I was talking about with other sisters in the Tendency not too long ago. And my answer is this: yes and no. Sometimes it is difficult for a woman to adopt eco-extremism due to the fact that, as we are in the era of suffocating and diseased feminism, many women are attracted to progressivist trash. Especially within “radical” circles, either anarchist or communist, feminism is the order of the day, it’s the “in” thing. Eco-extremism is seen as a psychopathic position, at least in Mexico, and to be honest, who would dare to be against all that has been established in the present time? Who dares to launch a criticism against <em>all</em> and act accordingly? Very few, and I am not saying that women should be attracted to eco-extremism as opposed to feminism. Of course not, but I am only saying that our present situation makes the existence of more people with affinity to our Tendency difficult. Most cannot reject the values that the vast majority of people defend. It’s difficult, but we are here. We don’t need to be many, we just need to be dangerous, that’s it.
+'''Types of Reasons and Results'''
-<em>Do you believe that eco-extremism is something that one lives differently as a woman as opposed to a man?</em>
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-49.png|''Direct Reasons stem from immediate relations.'']]
-<strong>Yoloxochitl</strong>: In some aspects I believe this is the case. For example, in the question of using traditional medicine, we are those who carry the baton since, from ancestral times, women have been the ones who have preserved with pride the knowledge of the arts of healing of the Earth. Certainly spirituality is more powerful in us women than in many eco-extremist men. Here I am mentioning a relative and not absolute superiority based on my own individual experience as an eco-extremist woman.
+'''Direct Reasons''' are Reasons which stem from immediate relations, with no intervening relations standing between the Reason and Result.
-But of course I don’t doubt that somewhere there is an ecoextremist man who has knowledge of ancient medicine and that his powers and spiritual practices are of an advance level due to, perhaps, a closeness to native roots.
+For example, dropping a coffee cup causes an immediate relationship between the cup and the ground, and that relation leads directly to the Result of the coffee cup breaking to pieces.
-<strong>More</strong>: Yes, we women know how to cure with plants and the men don’t, haha! I’m joking, but in all seriousness, one does live ecoextremism as a woman, that’s for sure. Women and men are different, we have never been equal, so living our eco-extremism is always different. On this, we can turn the whole victimization of women that people obsess over today to our favor. Perhaps it’s a bit harder for a male eco-extremist to go unnoticed when carrying out an attack against a target. But a “poor and helpless woman”? In many cases, this perception of the woman as the “weaker sex” can be a double-edged sword.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-50.png|''Indirect Reasons have an intervening relationship between the Reason and the Result.'']]
-<em>What do eco-extremists think of gender? Is it a question of nature or nurture?</em> <strong>Yoloxochitl</strong>: It’s a natural question that civilization has made into a social, political, economic etc. question. Gender exists among various species to propagate those species, and this is also the case with human beings. But in the last case that natural inclination has been perverted and it has been weighed down by all of those excess humans swarming all over the place. Nature is so wise that she has made it so that a life can grow within a woman. If you think about it, it’s a magical thing, from the fertilizing of the egg to the birth of a child, it is a process involving numerous glands, hormones, enzymes, etc. This is what the Unknowable has gifted us, only the modern human doesn’t know how to appreciate this. There are women who give birth one after the other, up to five or eight kids, stupidly just like that. They are only good for spreading their legs and aren’t even responsible for the consequences. This situation makes my misanthropic hate grow by the day. I value my condition of being a woman, but I hate women who are trapped in the vicious cycle of human suffering.
+'''Indirect Reasons''' are Reasons which have intervening relations between a Reason and a Result.
-<strong>More</strong>: Gender for me is a question of nature. We were born women for a reason and I thank Nature for that. I have never denied my condition of being a woman, and I am proud of it. I love being a woman, my sensual femininity, the cycles I share with the moon, my physical characteristics, and the like.
+For example, the dropped coffee cup above may have smashed into pieces directly because it hit the ground, but it may also have indirect Reasons. The person holding the cup may have been frightened because she heard a loud noise, and the loud noise was caused by a car backfiring, and the car backfiring was caused by the driver not maintaining his car engine.
-Society has taken it upon itself to make gender seem like it is something obsolete. They say that we are all the same; their mouths are filled with useless diatribes about the equality of genders. This makes me laugh because they do this only when convenient. They bark about equality of genders when a man is beaten, but when the man fights back, they say it’s machismo, misogyny, and other things of that sort. Who gets this stuff? They wanted equality, didn’t they? Many women don’t realize that this is precisely what the system wants: to make all equal so that everyone can serve the same system and perpetuate it, regardless of gender, race, economic condition, language, etc.
+In materialist dialectical terms, the driver’s relationship with his car would be an indirect Reason for the car backfiring; the relationship between the car (which backfired) and the person holding the coffee cup would be the direct Reason for dropping the cup; and the cup’s relationship with the ground would be the direct reason for the cup smashing. At the same time, the driver’s relationship with his car would be an indirect Reason for the Result of the coffee cup smashing to pieces.
-<em>What do you think of patriarchy?</em>
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-51.png|''Internal Reasons stem from internal relationships.'']]
-<strong>Yoloxochitl</strong>: It is a just another system of domination that we have to deal with. It’s been inserted in our head that Western society is <em>completely</em> based on patriarchy, but it also has some aspects of matriarchy involved as well. They don’t tell us that so as to not scandalize the masses of stupid women who scream that such-and-such-a- thing is a product of patriarchy every time something “oppresses” them.
+'''Internal Reasons''' are Reasons which stem from internal relations that occur between aspects and factors ''within'' a subject.
-<strong>More</strong>: It’s an excuse for the feminists to continue their sorry campaign regarding the whole gender issue. They just seek to play the bigger victim and continue their social campaign to include women even more in the system they claim to hate and are perpetuating by their efforts.
+For example, if a building collapses because the steel structure ''within'' the building rusts and fails, then that could be viewed as an ''internal Reason'' for the collapse.
-<em>Even though eco-extremists don’t deny our condition as man or woman, what do you think of the characteristics that the market and media has given both genders? For example, de-sensitizing men at early stages of emotional development, or the forced submission imposed on girls, relegating them to a secondary role in the service of men and placing their own desires and motivations second, the dependence of women on the man for important things, the overvaluing of sex for the man, leading him to live with a constant obsession for it, and linking his access to sex with social recognition, etc. (This is what came into my head but obviously more could be said. If anything else pops in your head you can mention it as well.) Do you think it is important to separate yourself from these characteristics?</em>
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-52.png|''External Reasons stem from external relations.'']]
-<strong>Yoloxochitl</strong>: In terms of women, I think that the culture of the market has very much influenced them. This all comes from a series of Western cultural factors that has made men and women forget that they coexisted fully at a certain point in human history. Now of course this has been forgotten. Historical amnesia is contagious, and it is necessary to see the past to find ourselves, to rescue our roots and intelligently not reproduce the same values that have been repeating themselves for generations. It is clear that the market and the media have harmed our essence so that it now takes some work to find it again. But as I have said, we have to separate ourselves from Western moralistic and humanistic conceptions so that we can have another perspective.
+'''External Reasons''' are reasons which stem from external relations that occur between different things, phenomena, and ideas.
-<strong>More</strong>: Not only is it important to separate oneself from the characteristics previously mentioned, but it is a necessity made into a desire of the inhumanists. I am very much aware of all that you have stated, all insensibility found in men as well as women is generated by the media, the education imposed on us from when we were girls, the shit exchanged for gold in this era of artificial complacency. Before all of this, I know it is necessary to be complicit with individualist men and women, and to harden oneself against any humanist moral or civilizing indecision contaminating the air of this necropolis. Refinding your “I” is one of the most important tasks that we have, and completing it should be our priority.
+For example, if a building collapses because it is smashed by a wrecking ball, then that could be viewed as an ''external Reason'' for the collapse.
-<em>What do you think of the fact that people use the feminine as an insult, as in when they say that this man was weak like a woman, or he fought like a woman when stating that he didn’t know how to fight?</em>
+All of these roles and positions can be viewed ''relatively''. From one viewpoint, a Reason may be seen as internal, but from another viewpoint, it might be viewed as external. For example, if a couple has a disagreement which leads to an argument, the disagreement may be seen as an external Reason from the perspective of each individual within the couple. But to a relationship counselor viewing the situation from the outside, the disagreement may be seen as an internal Reason which leads to ''the couple'' (a subject defined by the internal relationship between the husband and wife) arguing.
-<strong>Yoloxochitl</strong>: I think that those insults are old. Today I hear more frequently people saying that weakness or cowardice is more related to being homosexual, with gays being the object of ridicule and not women. Either way, civilization has made modern women weak, they have been seen as a symbol of inferiority for so long, but before, I remember my grandparents talking among themselves about how women in their time were considered more resistant to certain aspects of the hard life, such as work in the field or tolerating birth pangs, for example.
+From one perspective, a government official ordering a building to be torn down may be seen as the direct Reason for the Result of the building being torn down. But from a different perspective, one can see many intervening relations: complaints from local residents may have led to the government official making the order, the order would be delivered to a demolition crew, the demolition crew would assign a crew member to operate a wrecking ball, the crew member would operate the wrecking ball, the wrecking ball would smash the building. All of these can be seen as intervening relations which constitute indirect reasons leading up to the direct Reason of the wrecking ball smashing the building. Choosing the right viewpoint during analysis is critical to make sure that Reason and Result relations are viewed properly and productively, and care must also be taken to ensure that the correct Reasons are attributed to Results (see ''Reason and Result'', p. 138).
-As I said, today I see that when someone doesn’t know how to fight (for example) more often than not they are dropping the word “faggot” or “fairy,” and no longer make references to women, though I am sure the people who use “woman” as an insult still exist. I think that it is part of civilized culture, and I am not scandalized in the least by it. If at some point someone tells me that to my face, maybe I’ll let it slide or maybe I’ll rearrange their face, it depends on how I feel at the moment.
+Likewise, a Reason can cause many Results, including primary and secondary Results.
-<strong>More</strong>: Those insults make me laugh, and, you know, this is a very complex topic, because not only does this involve “macho insults” or whatever someone interprets as a macho insult due to an inferiority complex, but also touches on themes of inferiority.
+-----
-Let’s consider some examples, say, the survival of Inuit nomads (often misnamed Eskimos). Their way of life is based on hunting and fishing, so that the men provide the greater part of the food needed for the subsistence of a small tribal group. Not having a variety of flora in the North Pole, women had the role of raising the children and on occasion they could collect moss and various small plants. But in this, where is the weakness? Is the Inuit woman weak for taking care of the children and collecting a small quantity of plants while the man was off hunting sea lions and waiting for hours to trap a seal or large fish on his hook? I don’t think this is the case. Each Inuit person, man or woman, had their part to play in their way of life, one could not exist without the other. They are part of a beautiful symbiosis, where one finds real support in the other.
+==== Annotation 138 ====
-Another example could be found in the bands of Bushmen. As with the Inuits, the men are charged with the hunting of gazelles, birds, rabbits, etc. in the Kalahari Desert in Africa, while women take care of the children, and, when the hunt is scarce, they collect berries, plants, fruits, seeds; dig for tubers; etc. They say that at that time of year, men practically live off whatever the women collect without moving a finger. Here the modern human would accuse the men of being freeloaders, but that’s not the case. As I said, there is a part of the year when the animals are scarce since they have migrated or they’re dying due to thirst, and the men can do nothing about it. Going out and trying their luck in the dry season would only leave them hungrier and more exhausted. Thus the women provide for them until the time comes when conditions are better to go out and hunt. Should the men among those groups be considered weak because they let the women feed them instead of going out and getting their own food during the dry season? No, among the Bushmen the men and women complement each other, one is for the other and that’s it.
+'''Primary''' Results are Results which are more direct and predictable.
-And, well, in the modern era that would vary quite a bit. Obviously we are not in the same situation, and I think along with Yo- loxochitl that the modern woman considers herself to be the weaker sex and is always playing the victim before the dominant male.
+'''Secondary''' Results are Results which are indirect and less predictable.
-<em>What are the primitive and ancestral features that you associate the most with your femininity?</em>
+For example, an earthquake may have ''primary'' Results such as the ground shaking, buildings being destroyed, etc. ''Secondary'' Results from the earthquake might include flights being rerouted from local airports, shortages at grocery stores, etc.
-<strong>Yoloxochitl</strong>: Menstruation, the “sixth sense” (if you can call it that), wise sayings, the knowledge associated with the art of curing with plants, the capacity to perpetuate oneself not only in the species, but as a “being apart,” the maternal protection of the affinity group, the serenity to see things from an objective perspective, being able to wear your heart on your sleeve, etc.
+In the motion of the material world, there is no known “first Reason” or “final Result.”
-<strong>More</strong>: The female body being in sync with the cycles of the moon. It still is impressive to me how the moon has a marked influence on women and they don’t even notice. For me, this is a point that one has to emphasize, the intimate relationship between women and nature. There are others things I could mention but these are the most important.
+-----
-<em>Are there any ancient female warrior role models that you know of and you look up to?</em>
+==== Annotation 139 ====
-<strong>Yoloxochitl</strong>: There are many examples of women who left inspiring stories in our ancestral paths, and I always keep these foremost in mind. Some have names, but others don’t. Personally I like to remember those who history has forgotten, those who are only mentioned in passing. I could mention many here, but I always like to remember the women who were part of the Mixton War in northern Mexico in the 16th century. As many know, when the Spanish troops had the Teochichimeca warriors surrounded on Mixton Hill and Nochistlan Rock, their hopes for victory were non-existent and that’s when the Teochichimecas decided to realize “until your death or mine:” fighting to the death against the invader. When all of the male warriors had been killed, that is when the women along with their children threw themselves as human projectiles against the Spanish who were climbing up the steep hill. Thus they showed that they were not willing to submit to domination by the foreigners and they preferred to die instead. That’s the type of woman I remember, the ones who in their last moments gave their lives to be able to maintain their true essence.
+With our current understanding of the universe, it is uncertain what might have caused the creation of all existence. Was it the Big Bang? If so, did the Big Bang have some underlying reason? There is also no way to know if there will ever be a “final Result.” Will the heat death of the universe occur, and if so, will that end all transpiring of relations which would end the cycle of development — of Reasons and Results?
-<strong>More</strong>: Women like Tuira Kayapo, who violently opposed the arrival of petroleum exploration in the Amazon and even struck the representative of Petrobras with a machete during one of his meetings with the Kayapo tribe.
+As of now, we do not have solid answers to these questions. If and when answers arise, it is possible that the materialist dialectical framework will need to be updated to reflect new scientific knowledge, just as Marx, Engels, and Lenin have updated materialist dialectics in the past [see Annotation 72, p. 68]. What’s important to understand in the meantime is that within our realm of human experience and understanding, for all practical purposes, every Result which we live through and observe has some underlying Reason, and will itself lead to one or more Results.
-The elder Kiepja, wise woman, the last Selknam descendant who nurtured the ancestral imagination with her stories and tales, and who filled the air of the huts of the most important tribes of the southern continent with pagan lore.
+Engels said: “we find upon closer investigation that the two poles of an antithesis [see Annotation 200, p. 192], positive and negative, e.g., are as inseparable as they are opposed, and that despite all their opposition, they mutually interpenetrate [are mixed together]. And we find, in like manner, that cause and effect are conceptions which only hold good in their application to individual cases; but as soon as we consider the individual cases in their general connection with the universe as a whole, they run into each other, and they become confounded when we contemplate that universal action and reaction in which causes and effects are eternally changing places, so that what is effect here and now will be cause there and then, and vice versa.”<ref>''Socialism: Utopian and Scientific'', Friedrich Engels, 1880.</ref>
-Maria Sabina, native healer of Mexico, expert in the use of powerful plants. The only thing that angers me about this one is that her teachings were used by the idiotic youth in search of “trips” in the alternative drug counterculture of the 1960s.
+-----
-** A Note on Reproduction from the Eco-Extremist Perspective
+==== Annotation 140 ====
-<br>
+In the above passage, Engels is simply explaining that since all things, phenomena, and ideas are relationally linked and inter-related [see ''Basic Principles of Materialist Dialectics'', p. 106], the mutual impacts and processes of change which lead to development (the reasons and results which transpire between all things, phenomena, and ideas) are also all linked and inter-related. What might be viewed as a Reason is also a Result of one or more prior Reasons, just as every Result is also a Reason for future Results.
-There is no doubt that we are living in a very difficult situation, going through a process of mass extinction that the planet has not seen in a long time. The progress of civilization is destroying the few wild places that we have left, while increasing the domestication in the minds of modern humans. Still, we remain like caged animals, sick from domestication. We still maintain deep within ourselves the primitive core of our being, and a few of us bind ourselves to it with all of our strength.
+==== c. Meaning of the Methodology ====
-I have heard more than once the now-cliched line: “Who would want to bring another person into the world?” My response for a long time was, “Not me, never.” But I have begun to have my doubts on this issue. At first glance, it seems illogical that people who consider themselves to be enemies of the civilized reality--and of humanity itself--would consider the possibility of reproducing themselves. We see ourselves surrounded by millions of people all the time, their faces make me both sick and angry. I am one who would prefer that my species go extinct. But you know what? I can’t do anything about that, none of my actions will significantly influence the fact that masses of humanoids swarm the Earth. In fact, we can’t change things no matter what we do; we don’t really matter at all.
+Because the relationship between Reason and Result is objective and inevitable, we can’t ignore the relationship between Reason and Result in our perception and practice. In reality, there is no thing, phenomenon or idea that can exist without any underlying Reason or Reasons; and vice versa, there is no Reason that does not lead to any Result.
-It is for this reason that I discard any external motivation to do anything, and I can only base things on my own desires and will. These are my only guides on the rough sea of life. Yes, of course, the majority of my desires are conditioned. They aren’t really what I want, many things that I experience in daily life are forced upon me and I know this quite well. Thus I look beyond the cities of concrete and metal toward the remaining wild spaces: how the animals there run free. The lessons that I most value are found there, since I know I am made of the same material as they. At the end of the day, I am no better than a bush or a cricket.
+-----
-Modern humans like to think that they aren’t merely stupid animals. This is especially the case with anarchists. They would like to think that their interests and motivations are more complex, more difficult to understand, but that explanation is only believable in their domesticated heads. In the physical realm, we aren’t anything more than confused monkeys who want to deny everything, even our true instincts. They will rationally decide not to reproduce themselves, because they do not want to bring another being into the world. But guess what? This is the only world that we have, and these “defective” organisms are the only ones that exist. There will not be another world, at least not one that we will ever see. Your personal decisions won’t affect anyone but yourself.
+==== Annotation 141 ====
-It’s the same with leftists and anarchists when they say things like, “Wait, it’s not time to wage the armed struggle or commit violent attacks. The conditions aren’t right yet.” What “conditions” are you talking about? I only want to satisfy my darkest and most primitive desires, those that long for the bloody wounds of disgusting human flesh, that fantasize about the cries and screams of horror of the hyper-civilized. These are the same desires that make me want to reproduce.
+In political activity, it is important to remember that ''every'' interaction within every relationship will lead to mutual impacts which will cause change and development; in other words, everything we choose to do will be the Reason for one or more Results. We must be aware of unintended or unpredicted Results from our activities.
-Thus, there is no reason at all to justify my longing to have children, at least not one that would satisfy the most complex and modern minds. I only know that I long to do it, to unite myself with my woman and unleash our desires, the most evil and dangerous, as well as the most loving and tender. To unite ourselves for a love without limits, moral or any other type. To procreate and live wherever we like. I think of that child not yet born and I already feel love, a real union, sincere, a caring love that protects and sustains. And if as an adult they would get up the courage to ask why we decided to bring them into the modern world knowing how disgusting it is, I will perhaps respond, “I was only being the animal that I am, and now you have the opportunity to be so as well: the marvellous opportunity to connect yourself to an ineffable force; to do the same before the wild majesty of the world is extinguished completely.”
+Reason-Result relationships are very complicated and diverse. Therefore, we must accurately identify the types of Reasons [direct, indirect, internal, external, etc.] so that we can come up with proper solutions which are suitable for the specific situation in both perception and practice. A Reason can lead to many results and, likewise, a Result can be caused by many Reasons, which is why we must have a comprehensive viewpoint and a historical viewpoint [see Annotation 114, p. 116] in our perception of reality so we can properly analyse, solve and apply Reason-Result relationships.
-<right>
+-----
-CW
-</right>
-<br>
+==== Annotation 142 ====
-<br>
+It is critical to understand that there may be many events or relationships which might be falsely ascribed as Reasons for a given Result (and vice-versa).
-<right>
+For example: in 1965, the United States of America officially declared war on North Vietnam after the so-called “Gulf of Tonkin Incident,” in which Vietnamese forces supposedly fired on a United States Navy ship in the Gulf of Tonkin. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident is often described as the “cause” or the “Reason” that the Vietnam War began.
-</right>
+However, the real “Reason” why the USA declared war on North Vietnam had to do with the underlying contradiction between capitalist imperialism and communism in Vietnam. This contradiction had to be resolved one way or another. The United States of America willfully decided to try to negate this contradiction by instigating war, and this was the true reason the war began. In fact, the so-called “Gulf of Tonkin Incident” never even occurred as described — the attack on the USA’s ship never really occurred. A document released by the Pentagon in 2005 revealed that the incident was completely fabricated. So, saying that the “Gulf of Tonkin Incident” was the Reason for the war is nonsensical, since it’s an event which never even occurred in reality.
-** Eco-extremist Spiritual Exercises
+Understanding the true nature of Reason and Result is very important for making decisions and choosing a path forward in political action. Attributing the wrong Reason to a Result, or misunderstanding the Results which stem from a Reason, can lead to serious setbacks and failures. Therefore, it is vital for revolutionaries to properly identify and understand the ''actual'' Reasons and Results which drive development.
-<center>
+=== 3. Obviousness and Randomness ===
-</center>
+==== a. Categories of Obviousness and Randomness ====
-*** “Et introibo ad altare Dei”
+-----
-I came from an evangelical family, but I have long ago disposed of the values that it taught me. I became a humanist, and coming to believe again and rejecting atheism was a tremendous blow to the gut. I had to start again with another vision, a very personal and particular one for sure. It took some work, but afterwards I understood that my belief in something more had never left, and really I don’t pray, since I understand praying to be repeating things, and I don’t like doing that since in my upbringing we didn’t say prayers but talked to God. I do this still (in specific moments of course), to welcome solstices, to express gratitude for the coming of a new lunar phase, and especially for a red moon; to be thankful for the cold, the heat, the rain, the air, and fire.
+==== Annotation 143 ====
-There are rituals that I like to perform. I have skulls of wild and domesticated animals on my altar, where I burn copal. In the Mesoamerican traditions copal represents spiritual cleansing. Four times a year (the Mexica year, not the Gregorian one) I go to sacred places with an offering. These are places sacred to me and not my ancestors--their sacred places are covered with commercial buildings and highways. I come to the four holy places with offerings like river stones, mesquite branches, tallow candles, and coals from the last fire (four things). On my knees I speak to the environment, almost always before a tree, a rock, a river, or a ravine (four things). There I smoke a birch pipe, mixed with salvia, eucalyptus, domesticated mint, and Lacandon tobacco (four things). These are the only times I smoke and it’s not to get high or anything like that. Those herbs don’t make one hallucinate and only serve to assist meditation, as they did for my ancestors.
+In Vietnamese, the words for these categories are “tất nhiên” and “ngẫu nhiên,” which respectively translate to “obvious” and “random.” In socialist literature, various words have been used by different authors to convey the underlying meaning of these categories (Engels, for instance, used the terms “necessary” and “accidental” to mean “obvious” and “random,” respectively). We have chosen to use words which closely match the Vietnamese used in the original text, but the reader should be aware that these same concepts may be described using many different words in various English translations of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, etc.
-I have indicated that four is an important number for me, as it is for many cultures. There are four phases of the moon, four seasons of the year, four cardinal directions, and four things over the earth (stars, the sky, the moon, and the sun.) Four things breathe, those that swim, that fly, and those of four legs and two legs. Four are the most important forces in Mexica culture: quetzalcoatl, huitzilopochtli, xipe totec, and tezcatlipoca.
+The ''Obviousness'' category refers to events that occur because of the essential [see ''Essence and Phenomenon'', p. 156] internal aspects of the material structure of a subject. These essential internal characteristics become reasons for certain results under certain conditions: the Obvious ''has'' to happen in a certain way, it ''can’t'' happen any other way.
-You can make your own prayers, your own disciplines; knowing what you know it will probably not be difficult, as there are probably always herbs, animals, figures, hours, and certain prayers involved. You should pick what is right for you, seek what element of the earth you most identify with; something can grow out of that base.....
+-----
-There are other “crazier” rituals, like blood offerings of my own blood spilled out on those skulls for protection, or cutting one’s knees so that the blood flows down to the earth as a sign of connection to it as the traditional dancers do over here. They also sometimes puncture their earlobes with maguey thorns until they bleed.
+==== Annotation 144 ====
-I do “baptisms of fire” to end one cycle and begin another, with what is known as the “new fire,” I make a friction fire with a drill made of two eucalyptus sticks (the drill) and and one of quiote (a large stalk of the flower of the blue maguey plant) as the base. When the sticks get red hot, I say some words and burn my skin. Well, that’s a little extreme, but I believe that pain is inevitable, suffering is only one option. I believe that pain makes us stronger, spiritually and physically, so getting burnt is no big deal, nor is getting a cut or scrape that hurts for some days. I know that my beliefs are marked on my body.
+''Obviousness'' can only apply to material subjects in the material world and results which are certain to happen based on the material laws of nature. Obviousness arises from the internal aspects, features, and relations of physical objects. Paper ''will'' burn under certain specific conditions, due its internal material structure. If those conditions (i.e., temperature, the presence of oxygen, etc.) exist, then paper ''will'' catch fire predictably. In other words, paper will ''obviously'' burn under certain circumstances due to its internal composition,.
-As I said, you can make your own disciplines and be your own guide, knowing that the master is watching and teaching you valuable things every day.
+The ''Randomness'' category refers to things that happen because of external reasons: things that happen, essentially, by chance, due to impacts from many external relations. A Random outcome ''may'' occur or it ''may not'' occur; a Random outcome could happen ''this'' way or it could happen ''that'' way.
-*** “Permiso wacho”
+-----
-Like you it was an effort to start believing again (but not to believe in that something, more to get out of my head that dumb anarchist habit of atheism). I go to a hill, that’s as far and wild as I tend to go. I don’t carry out more significant rituals right now. I always look for the moon at night; I greet her and ask her to protect my steps. I ask her to give me strength, and really just converse with her, always barefoot with my feet on the earth. I like to feel the cold, I think it’s really necessary. It’s true that the cold can be unbearable, but modern humans can’t stand many things. So I try to bear it and I feel it in my bones; just as I feel the heat in summer, the cold in winter can’t be missed.
+==== Annotation 145 ====
-I also do the other thing. When I take out a plant or a branch or flower to drink or for another use, I always ask permission. When I take leaves to make lemon verbena tea, I always say in a colloquial manner, “excuse me, buddy” or “excuse me, brother” and then I pull the leaves off. Really, being the civilized person that I am, I try to renounce civilized vices and customs as much as possible. I go into the wild by myself and contemplate the stars. I converse with the insects.
+As we discussed above, paper ''will'' burn if it reaches a certain temperature — that much is ''obvious''. If your friend holds paper over the flame of the lighter, the paper ''will'' burn — that’s ''obvious''. But you can’t be certain whether your friend will actually hold the paper to the flame or not. This demonstrates ''Randomness''. Whether your friend will ultimately hold the paper to the flame or not depends on an external relation which is not defined by the internal structure of the paper, and which can’t be predicted with the same predictability as obvious events which are rooted in internal material aspects.
-I remember when I was a teenager I prayed every day before going to bed, “Our Father who art... bless my family, give me health... etc” The thing is, it was just going through the motions, and at no point was I sincere and real. It got to the point that even thinking about praying put me off, but I did it because they said that that was how you loved Christ. I always found that very constricting, having to do it out of obligation.
+==== b. Dialectical relationship between Obviousness and Randomness ====
+Obviousness and Randomness both exist objectively and play an important role in the motion and development of things and phenomena. Obviousness plays the decisive role.
+-----
+==== Annotation 146 ====
+Obviousness plays the decisive role simply because Obviousness is far more predictable and the laws which govern material phenomena are essentially fixed. We can’t change the laws of physics, the nature of chemical reactions, etc.
+Obviousness and Randomness exist in dialectical unity; there is no pure Obviousness, nor pure Randomness. It is obvious that Randomness shall occur in our universe, however Obviousness clears a path through this Randomness.
+-----
+==== Annotation 147 ====
+Our universe is incredibly complex and there are many different potential external relations which could impact any given situation, such that some degree of Randomness is always present in any situation; in other words, the presence of Randomness can be seen as Obvious.
+In 1922, Ho Chi Minh identified objective internal characteristics of the working class of France and its colonies. He wrote: “The mutual ignorance of the two proletariats gives rise to prejudices. The French workers look upon the native as an inferior and negligible human being, incapable of understanding and still less of taking action. The natives regard all the French as wicked exploiters. Imperialism and capitalism do not fail to take advantage of this mutual suspicion and this artificial racial hierarchy to frustrate propaganda and divide forces which ought to unite.”
+In this example, Ho Chi Minh identifies prejudice as an obvious outcome of mutual ignorance. The prejudice arises as a matter of course from internal objective aspects of the two proletarian groups. As long as French and native workers remain ignorant of one another, prejudice will arise. The specific forms which this prejudice will take, however, and their resulting impacts and developments, will be more or less Random because there are many external factors (including the external impacts of the capitalist class, which seeks to take advantage of these prejudices) which can’t be predicted. Therefore, it is necessary for political revolutionaries to account for both random and obvious factors in confronting such prejudice. Ho Chi Minh’s suggestion for overcoming these difficulties was concise and to-the-point: “Intensify propaganda to overcome them.” Only by negating the internal aspects of mutual ignorance through education and propaganda could communists hope to negate the resulting prejudice.
+As Engels said: “One knows that what is maintained to be necessary [''obvious''] is composed of sheer accidents, and that the so-called accidental [''random''] is the form behind which necessity hides itself — and so on.”<ref>''Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy'', Friedrich Engels, 1886.</ref>
+Obviousness and Randomness are not static properties: Randomness and Obviousness continuously change and develop over time. Under specific conditions, Obviousness and Randomness can transform into each other: Obviousness can become Random and Randomness can become obvious.
+-----
+==== Annotation 148 ====
+Randomness can be introduced to an obvious situation: it may be obvious that a mineshaft will collapse, until human beings come along and intervene by repairing the structural integrity of the mineshaft. It may seem Random whether a city’s economy will grow or shrink, until a volcano erupts and buries the city in lava and ash, making it obvious that the economy will not grow because the city no longer exists.
+Most situations are in a flux, as Obviousness and Randomness dialectically develop and change over time, with outcomes becoming more or less obvious or Random over time. It is vital that we, as political revolutionaries, are able to distinguish between Obviousness and Randomness and to leverage this understanding to our advantage.
+==== c. Meaning of the Methodology ====
+Basically, in our perception and reality, we have to base our plans, strategies, and actions as much as possible on the Obvious, not the Random. However, we must not ignore Randomness, nor try to separate the Obvious from the Random. When faced with situations which seem very Random, we must find ways to develop Obviousness. When faced with what seems obvious, we must keep an eye out for Randomness. Obviousness and Randomness can mutually transform, so we need to create suitable conditions to hinder or promote such transformation to suit our purposes.
+-----
+==== Annotation 149 ====
+We must always remember that no situation is purely obvious, nor purely Random, and to take this into account in all of our planning and activity.
+A skyscraper made from heavy steel beams may seem quite sturdy and stable; it may appear obvious that the structure will remain stable and sound for decades. However, it is still important for engineers to periodically ''confirm'' that the steel is still sound through testing and observation. Engineers must also be prepared for Random events like lightning, earthquakes, storms, etc., which may affect the seemingly obvious structural integrity of the building.
+Likewise, when faced with extremely complex situations which seem completely Random, we must seek out (or bring about) the obvious. Wildfires are extremely chaotic and difficult to predict. However, firefighters can rely on certain obvious patterns and natural laws which govern the spread of fire. By digging trenches, lighting counter-fires, spraying water, and other such actions, firefighters can bring wildfires under control. This illustrates how humans are able to make situations less Random by bringing about an increasing amount of Obviousness over time through practical activity.
+=== 4. Content and Form ===
+==== a. Categories of Content and Form ====
+The ''Content'' category refers to the sum of all aspects, attributes, and processes that a thing, phenomenon, or idea is made from.
+The ''Form'' category refers to the mode of existence and development of things, phenomena, and ideas. ''Form'' thus describes the system of relatively stable relationships which exist internally within things, phenomena, and ideas.
+-----
+==== Annotation 150 ====
+Content and Form can be difficult to comprehend at first because the ways in which Content and Form manifest and interact can vary wildly depending on the subject being discussed and the viewpoint from which the subject is being considered.
+<blockquote>
+Content represents the component things, materials, attributes, features, etc., which, together, make up a thing, phenomenon, or idea. You can think of it as the “ingredients” from which a subject is made.
+Form refers to a stable system of internal relationships which compose a thing, phenomenon, or idea, as well as the mode of existence and development [see Annotation 60, p. 59] of those relations.
+</blockquote>
+Remember that from a dialectical materialist perspective, everything in our universe is defined by internal and external relations. If a thing, phenomenon, or idea has internal relations which are ''relatively'' stable, then it has a Form.
+We would not call all of the assorted ingredients which are used to make a cake “a cake” unless they have been assembled together and baked into the stable form which we interpret as “a cake.” Once a portion is removed from the cake, the portion itself assumes a new stable form which we call “a slice of cake.” The slice of cake will maintain its relatively stable form until being eaten, discarded, or otherwise transitioning into some other form. It is only considered a “slice of cake” for as long as it maintains its own specific stable form.
+Stability itself is also ''relative'': a “spray” of water may only last for a few seconds but we can still conceive of it as having Form. On the other hand, a mountain has a set of stable internal relations (a Form) which might last for millions of years.
+We can think of Form as having two aspects: inner Form and outer Form.
+''Inner form'' refers to the internal stable relations which we have already discussed.
+''Outer form'' is how an object “appears” to human senses.
+In this book, we are primarily concerned with the ''inner Form'' of subjects, however, in other contexts (such as art and design), the ''outer Form'' plays a more prominent role.
+Now, let’s identify some of the common viewpoints from which Content and Form might be considered.
+'''Material vs. Ideal'''
+When discussing the ''material'' — i.e., ''objective'' systems and objects<ref>See Annotation 10, p. 10 and Annotation 108, p. 112.</ref> — discussion of Content and Form is more straightforward.
+'''Material'''
+With material things and phenomena, the ''Content'' is what the thing is made out of: the physical parts, aspects, attributes, and processes that compose the subject. For example, the Content of a wooden chair might be the wood, nails, paint, and other materials which are used to create the chair.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-53.png|''A material object can be described in terms of content, inner form, and outer form.'']]
+The ''inner Form'' of a material object refers to ''stable internal relations'' which compose the object. The stable relationship between the wood and the nails — the nails bind the wood together, the wood is cut in certain patterns, the paint adheres to the wood through physical and chemical bonds, etc. ''Stability'' is, again, relative — over time, the paint will chip and flake, the wood will rot, the nails will rust, etc. Dialectical processes of change will eventually reduce the chair into something other than a chair (i.e., through rotting, burning, disassembly, etc.), but as long as the internal relations maintain the Form of a chair we conceive of it as a chair.
+The ''outer Form'' of a material object refers to the way it appears to human consciousness. Its shape, aesthetics, etc.
+==== Ideal ====
+With the ideal — i.e., ''abstract'' ideas and concepts — discussion of Content and Form becomes more complicated. As Vietnam’s ''Marxism-Leninism Textbook for Students Who Specialize in Marxism-Leninism'' explains:
+<blockquote>
+Many times, human consciousness has difficulty in trying to clearly define the Content of a subject — especially when the subject is an abstract idea. We often mistake Content with inner Form. Usually, in this situation, there is a strong combination and intertwining between both Content and Form. In such a situation, the Form can be referred to as the “inner Form,” or the “Content-Form.”
+With physical things and phenomena, this type of Form usually belongs to a very specific Private, it doesn’t exist in any other Private, it is the Unique [see Annotation 129, p. 128].
+</blockquote>
+-----
+The reason the inner Form of physical objects usually exists in ''Private'' as the ''Unique'' is because the stable internal relations of any given physical object are equivalent to the specific material components which distinguish one physical object from all other physical objects. In other words, if you have two chairs which are exact copies of each other, made from the same kind of wood, cut into the same shape, using the same type and configuration of fasteners, etc., they are still not the exact same object. The internal relations of one chair are what make it ''that'' chair and distinguish it from all other objects in the universe. The ''outer Form'' of these chairs may have many commonalities (they look similar, they have the same color, etc.), but the ''inner Form'' is what distinguishes one chair from the other.
+<blockquote>
+However, within the realm of abstract ideas, there are also Forms which many abstract Privates share. In the context of abstract ideas, we call this kind of Form the “outer Form,” the “form-Form,” or the “common Form.”
+When we try to define the Content of a subject which is an abstract idea, our consciousness usually tries to answer the question: “what is the subject?”
+</blockquote>
+This is usually a simple matter. Take, for example, the abstract idea of “freedom.” When we try to think of the Content of ''freedom'' we can answer it pretty easily. What is the subject of ''freedom''? It is the condition which allows humans to follow their own will, it is the absence of external coercion, etc., etc.
+<blockquote>
+But, when we try to define the Form of an abstract idea, our consciousness tries to answer the question: “how is the subject?” — this is when we have to define the mode of existence (the Form) of that subject.
+</blockquote>
+This is where things get more complicated. The mode of existence of an abstract idea can usually be considered to be language, since our ideas are usually expressed through language, but it can take on other modes of existence as well, such as visual media (paintings, photographs), physical motions of the human body (body language, dance), etc. This is how the field of art studies is concerned with the philosophical categories of Content and Form.
+==== Content and Form in Art ====
+Many readers may already be familiar with the subject of Content and Form from studying art, design, communications, and related fields. At first glance, the definitions of Content and Form may seem different from what we’ve been discussing so far.
+This is because art concerns itself with ''abstract ideas'' expressed through various Forms of ''physical representations.''
+These physical representations may include physical objects (photographs, paintings, sculptures), performed and/or recorded physical activities (dance, music, theater, film), human language recorded in stable physical Forms of written language (novels, poems, stories) or spontaneously performed oral language (storytelling, impromptu spoken-word poetry).
+Because the study of art is primarily concerned with interpreting and understanding ideas expressed through these physical manifestations, art is concerned with the ''stable inner relations'' of the ''ideas'' which artists imbue within their works of art — much more than the stable inner relations of the physical components of the object.
+According to the Vietnamese art textbook ''Curriculum of General Aesthetics'':
+<blockquote>
+What is the Form of a work of art? Form is the way to express the Content of an artwork. Form and Content within a work of art have a strong unity with each other and they regulate each other. Form is the organization, the inner structure of the Content of an artwork. Therefore, Form is the way that the Content expresses itself, and that way is described by two features. We must ask:
+First: what expresses the Content of a work of art?
+Second: how is it expressed?
+Art exists when two conditions are met: first, there must be a subject with an outer Form. Second, an artist must convey aesthetic meaning, or humanization, of that subject. This aesthetic meaning is the Content.
+</blockquote>
+So, in studying works of art, we are less concerned with the ''physical content'' of the artwork (the canvas, paint, etc.) than we are with the ''abstract content'' of the artwork (the ideas which the artist imbues within the artwork).
+As for Form, the ''inner Form'' of art represents the stable internal relations which compose the art (both ideal, i.e., the stable internal relations of the abstract ideas imbued within the art by the artist, as well as physical, i.e., the stable internal relations of the physical media of the art).
+The ''outer Form'' of art represents how our human senses perceive the art, such as composition techniques, the use of color, etc.
+The chart below breaks down the differences in a general, non-artistic viewpoint of physical objects and processes in materialist dialectical terms (i.e., the viewpoint an engineer might have), as compared with the artistic viewpoint of physical objects and processes (which an art critic might have). Some fields, such as designing products for human use, might draw from both viewpoints.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-54.png]]
+==== Content and Form in Specific Artistic Media ====
+Every medium of art will interpret Content and Form in its own way. For example:
+'''Literature''' is a specific art discipline which deals with recorded human language in the Form of writing. In written literature, the Content would be the ideas expressed in a piece of writing; what the words say. The inner Form would be the way the ideas relate to each other — i.e., story structure, pacing, character development, etc. The outer form would be the physical format of the writing — i.e., manuscript, magazine article, paperback book, ebook, etc.
+'''Painting''' is a specific art discipline in which pigments are applied to objects to create images which convey ideas and emotions. In painting, the Content would be the meaning which an artist embodies in a work of art. The inner Form would include the stable internal relations within the artwork (i.e., the bonds and mixtures between the pigments, the canvas, etc.), while the outer Form would be how the artwork appears to human senses (composition, aesthetics, etc.). Generally speaking, the creator of the art will have to make decisions about the inner Form (i.e., selection of oil vs. acrylic vs. watercolor, selection of shade, tint, and hue, physical brush strokes, etc.) so as to produce the desired outer Form (the way the finished artwork will appear to viewers).
+'''Theater''' is a specific art discipline in which human beings perform physical actions and use their voices to convey ideas to an audience. In theater, the Content includes the ideas which are being presented, such as the script, the musical score, the story, the performance choices of actors, costumes, props, etc. The inner Form would include the stable relations between the members of the cast, the director, the physical stage, the lighting, etc., and the outer Form would be the way the play appears to the audience.
+These are just some examples. Each medium of expression will have its own variations in how Content and Form are considered.
+Engels described the manifestation of Content and Form in ''Dialectics of Nature:''
+<blockquote>
+The whole of organic nature is one continuous proof of the identity or inseparability of form and content. Morphological and physiological phenomena, form and function, mutually determine one another. The differentiation of form (the cell) determines differentiation of substance into muscle, skin, bone, epithelium, etc., and the differentiation of substance in turn determines difference of form.
+</blockquote>
+Content and Form are discussed frequently in analysis of human social systems and objective relations which occur within society. For example, Marx made many criticial insights into economics by analyzing and explaining the form of value [see Annotation 14, p. 16] under capitalism.
+Indeed, the entire capitalist system can be viewed in terms of content and form. The current form of human civilization is capitalism. That is to say, capitalism is the stable set of relations and characteristis of the current political economy which dominates the planet. The content of capitalism includes all the components of the base and superstructure, including the various classes (capitalists, working class, etc.), the means of production, government institutions, corporate institutions, etc. All of these elements are configured together into the relatively stable form which we call “capitalism.”
+==== Other Viewpoints of Content and Form ====
+Of course, there are many other viewpoints for discussing Content and Form of abstract ideas. Every philosophical field will have its own unique ways of utilizing Content and Form analysis. One example is the concept of Content and Form in legal philosophy. Vietnamese legal expert Dinh Thuy Dung writes:
+<blockquote>
+The law has internal and external forms:
+The inner Form is the internal structure of the law, the relationships and the connections between the elements constituting the law. The inner Form of the law is called the legal structure, which includes the constituent parts of the legal system such as the branch of law, legal institutions, and legal norms.
+The outer Form is the manifestation, or mode of existence, of the law. In other words, the outer Form of the law is how we view and understand the law [i.e., who enforces the law and what repercussions will occur if we violate the law]. Based on the outer Form of the law, one can know how it exists in reality, and where and to whom it applies. The external Form of the law is also approached in relation to its Content.
+According to this understanding, the Content of the law includes all the elements that make up the law, while the Form of the law is understood as the elements which contain or express the Content.
+If you understand that the Content of the law is the will of the state, then the legal Form is the way of expressing the will of the state.
+</blockquote>
+There are countless other ways in which Content and Form can be used to analyze and understand things, phenomena, and ideas. We hope that these examples have given you a better idea of the various ways in which Content and Form can be used to understand the world. In general, socialist texts deal with the ''inner Form'' of things, phenomena, and ideas. That is to say, the inner relations which compose the subject being considered. The outer form — how things appear to our senses — tends to be less relevant in analysis of human social systems, though it is often important in consideration of specialized fields of revolutionary activity such as aesthetics, propaganda, etc.
+==== b. Dialectical relationship between Content and Form ====
+Content and Form have a strong dialectical relationship with one other. There is no Form that does not contain any Content. Simultaneously, there is no Content that does not exist in a specific Form. The same Content can manifest in many Forms and a Form can contain many Contents.
+The relationship between Content and Form is a dialectical relationship in which Content decides Form and Form can impact Content.
+-----
+==== Annotation 151 ====
+For example, if you want to make a table, and all you have available are wood and nails, then that Content (the wood and the nails) will determine the Form the table ends up taking. You are going to end up with a wooden table, and it will therefore have to have certain characteristics of Form.
+When Content changes, the Form must change accordingly. If, instead of wood, you have iron, then the table you end up building will have a much different Form. Form can also ''influence'' the Content, but not nearly as much as Content ''determines'' Form. For instance, if you have wood and nails, but you develop a technique for building a table that doesn’t need any nails, then the result (a wooden table without any nails) would be an example of a development in Form reflecting as a change in Content.
+The main tendency of Content is change. On the other hand, Form is relatively stable in every thing and phenomenon. As Content changes, Form must change accordingly. However, Content and Form are not always perfectly aligned.
+-----
+==== Annotation 152 ====
+Since all things, phenomena, and ideas are constantly changing, it stands to reason that the internal components (things, phenomena, and ideas, and their relations) which compose the Content of a subject will constantly be undergoing processes of change and development. Thus, we say that the tendency of Content is change. Since the Form is based on the ''internal relations'' of the components of Content, it stands to reason that a change in Content will lead to change in Form. These kinds of changes in Content and Form also occur through the dialectical process: changes in quantity lead to changes in quality [see Annotation 117, p. 119].
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-55.png|''Quantity changes in Content lead to quality shifts in Form.'']]
+As soon as a wooden chair is finished being built, the paint is already beginning to degrade. The wood is already beginning to rot. The iron nails are already beginning to rust. These changes may be imperceptibly slow — they may even take centuries to occur, if the chair is kept in a hospitable environment — but the changes are occurring, quantitatively, over time, none-the-less.
+Eventually, changes in quantity will lead to changes in quality. At some point, the chair might weaken and begin to wobble whenever it’s sat in. Human beings might recognize this quality and begin to think of it as a “wobbly chair.” The chair might degrade to the point where it can’t be safely used at all, in which case it will have quality shifted into a “broken chair.” If the chair is repaired, that would represent another quality shift. If it is used for firewood, that would be another quality shift.
+Keep in mind that changes in Form do not directly cause changes in Content. If you disassemble a wooden chair into the constituent wood and nails, the wood and nails remain more or less unchanged. But if you burn a wooden chair, it’s the ''change in Content'' which leads to the change in Form from “chair” to “pile of ash.”
+Form simply represents the stable relationships between the component parts of the subject’s Content. The only way to change Form is to change those inner relations, or to change the components which are relating. There is no way to change Form without changing the Content, and changing the Content changes the Form by definition.
+Content determines Form, but Form is not ''fully'' decided by Content, and Form can impact back on Content. If a Form is suitable with its Content, it can improve the development of its Content. If a Form is not suitable with its Content, it can constrain the development of its Content.
+-----
+==== Annotation 153 ====
+The dialectical relationship between Content and Form is somewhat similar to the dialectical relationship between the material and the ideal (see ''Matter and Consciousness'',
+p. 88). Just as the material world ''determines'' consciousness while consciousness ''impacts'' the material world, the Content of a subject ''determines'' the Form while the Form ''impacts'' the Content.
+''Suitability'' describes the applicability of a subject for a specific application or role. Whether or not something is “suitable” or not can be highly subjective (i.e., which music would be “suitable” to play at a party), or it can be more objective (i.e., what kind of batteries to use with an electronic device).
+We might say that hardwood is “suitable” Content for the Form of a chair because it is durable, strong, relatively inexpensive, and long-lasting. It might be “unsuitable” to have a chair made of hardwood if it is to be used as an office chair, because the hard surfaces might cause strain and discomfort. However, we can utilize conscious activity to adjust and develop suitability between Content and Form. Changing the Content by adding cushioning or padding might make the Content and Form more suitable with each other. Similarly, changing the Form by designing contours and adding adjustability to the chair might make the Content and Form more suitable with each other for their intended application as an office chair.
+If a Form is not suitable with the Content, it restrains the development of the Content. Just think of a shovel (Form) made of wood (Content), which will degrade very rapidly over time, vs. a shovel (Form) made of steel (Content) which will last much longer. This works in both directions. Consider the Content of drinking cups: a porcelain cup might last for a long time and even develop positively over time (by acquiring a desirable patina), while a cup made out of mild steel would not be desirable, as it would be highly prone to rust from extended use containing liquids.
+==== c. Meaning of the Methodology ====
+Content and Form always have a dialectical relationship with each other. Therefore, in our perception and practice, we must not try to separate Content and Form, nor should we solely focus on one and ignore the other.
+Because Content determines Form, whenever we are considering a thing, phenomenon, or idea, we must base our consideration first on its Content. If we want to change a thing or phenomenon, we have to change its Content first.
+In reality, we must promote the positive impact of Form on Content by making the Form fit the Content. Likewise, we must also change the Form that is no longer suitable with its Content and therefore constrains the development of its Content.
+-----
+==== Annotation 154 ====
+In any analysis, it is very important that we carefully consider whether or not Content and Form are suitable with each other in our own projects and activities. We can learn a lot about suitability from observation and practice (see ''Cognitive Theory of Dialectical Materialism'', p. 204) and improve suitability through conscious activity.
+Marx believed that it is vital to consider Content and Form when analyzing human society and political economy. One of his core critiques of political economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo was a failure to consider Content and Form when it comes to value, commodities, and money. He discusses this extensively in ''Capital Volume 1'', as in this excerpt:
+<blockquote>
+The value-form, whose fully developed shape is the money-form, is very elementary and simple. Nevertheless, the human mind has for more than 2,000 years sought in vain to get to the bottom of it all, whilst on the other hand, to the successful analysis of much more composite and complex forms, there has been at least an approximation. Why? Because the body, as an organic whole, is more easy of study than are the cells of that body. In the analysis of economic forms, moreover, neither microscopes nor chemical reagents are of use. The force of abstraction must replace both.
+</blockquote>
+Marx, here, is saying that studying the economy is more difficult than studying the human body because it can’t be physically observed and dissected. Rather, we have to rely on abstraction, which leaves us prone to making many more mistakes in analyzing Content and Form.
+<blockquote>
+But in bourgeois society, the commodity-form of the product of labour – or value-form of the commodity – is the economic cell-form. To the superficial observer, the analysis of these forms seems to turn upon minutiae. It does in fact deal with minutiae, but they are of the same order as those dealt with in microscopic anatomy.
+</blockquote>
+Marx’s analysis of capitalism relies to great extent upon recognizing the commodity-form of the product (Content) of labor. Labor existed long before capitalism. Labor has existed for as long as humans have worked to change our own material conditions. But under capitalism, labor specifically takes on the Form of a ''commodity'' which is bought by capitalists. This becomes the basis for Marx’s entire critique of capitalism.
+Obviously, there is much more to Marx’s use of Content and Form in analyzing capitalism and human society, but this should hopefully give you some idea of the importance of Content and Form in analysis of human society and revolutionary activity.
+-----
+=== 5. Essence and Phenomenon ===
+==== a. Categories of Essence and Phenomenon ====
+The ''Essence'' category refers to the synthesis of all the internal aspects as well as the obvious and stable relations that define the existence, motion and development of things, phenomena, and ideas.
+The ''Phenomenon'' category refers to the external manifestation of those internal aspects and relations in specific conditions.
+-----
+==== Annotation 155 ====
+Understanding Essence and Phenomena can be challenging at first, but it is very important for materialist dialectical analysis.
+Essence should not be confused with ''Form''. Form represents the stable internal relations of the component content of a subject, whereas Essence represents the ''synthesis'' of all internal aspects as well as all obvious and stable attributes which ''define the existence, motion, and development'' of a subject.
+Phenomena are simply external manifestations of a subject which occur ''in specific conditions''.
+The Essence of a subject is not dependent on conditions, whereas in different conditions, the same subject will exhibit different Phenomena. For example, COVID-19 is, ''essentially'', a specific virus strain. That is to say, all of the internal aspects and stable relations that define the existence, motion, and development of COVID-19 are synthesized as a virus which we call COVID-19.
+The ''Phenomena'' of COVID-19 which we can observe in patients would include symptoms such as fever, coughing, trouble breathing, etc.
+The Essence of a cloud is water vapor in the atmosphere: that is the synthesis, the coming-together, of all the internal stable relations and aspects which will determine how a cloud exists, moves, and develops over time.
+The Phenomena of clouds are all the things we can sense: the appearance of big fluffy white things in the air, shadows on the ground, and, sometimes, rain.
+Essence defines Phenomenon: the internal attributes and stable relations will produce the Phenomena which we can observe. A cloud is not ''essentially defined'' as a fluffy white thing in the air; that is just the appearance a cloud has to our human senses in certain specific conditions.
+==== b. Dialectical relationship between Essence and Phenomenon ====
+Essence and Phenomenon both exist objectively as two unified but opposing sides.
+''The unity between Essence and Phenomenon:'' Essence always manifests through Phenomena, and every Phenomenon is always the manifestation of a specific Essence. There is no pure Essence that exists separately from Phenomena and there is no Phenomenon that does not manifest from any kind of Essence.
+When Essence changes, Phenomena also change accordingly. When Essence appears, Phenomena also appear, and when Essence disappears, Phenomena also disappear. Therefore, Lenin said: “The Essence appears. The appearance is essential.”<ref>''Philosophical Notebooks'', Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1914–16.</ref>
+''The Opposition of Essence and Phenomenon'': Essence is that which defines a thing, Phenomenon, or idea, while Phenomena are diversified and conditional. Essence is internal, while Phenomena are external. Essence is relatively stable, while Phenomena continuously change.
+-----
+==== Annotation 156 ====
+Essence and Phenomenon are simultaneously unified and opposite because neither can exist without the other, yet they have completely opposite features from one another.
+Discussing the Essence and Phenomena of physical objects is relatively straight-forward. The Essence will typically encompass the physical object or system itself. For example, a car engine is ''essentially'' a machine; that is to say, the synthesis of all the internal aspects (the engine parts) as well as the obvious and stable relations (the relations between the parts of the engine; how they are assembled and work together in the engine system) that define the existence, motion and development of the engine (the way it works) are what ''essentially make it'' a car engine. All of these essential characteristics are internal, relatively stable, and remain the same regardless of the condition of the engine (i.e., they continue to exist whether the engine is turned on, turned off, inoperable, etc.).
+The Phenomena of the car engine are all the things that we can sense from it, but this can vary a great deal depending on conditions. When the car engine is turned off, it will be silent. It may be cool to the touch. It will be at rest. If the engine is turned on, the parts will move, it will become hot, it will make noise. In some situations it might smoke or even catch on fire. All of these Phenomena are conditional, unstable, and external to the engine itself.
+With ''ideas'' and abstract thought, Essence and Phenomenon becomes more difficult to determine and analyze. Lenin discussed this in his ''Philosophical Notebooks'', beginning with a quote from Hegel:
+<blockquote>
+Dialectics in general is “the pure movement of thought in Notions“ (i.e., putting it without the mysticism of idealism: human concepts are not fixed but are eternally in movement, they pass into one another, they flow into one another, otherwise they do not reflect living life.
+</blockquote>
+Knowing that Hegel was an idealist, Lenin wanted to strip all idealism from his conception of dialectics, and thus made it clear that “the pure movement of thought” simply refers to the fact that human thoughts are constantly changing, always in motion, within the living human mind, writing:
+<blockquote>
+The analysis of concepts, the study of them, the “art of operating with them” (Engels) always demands study of the movement of concepts, of their interconnection, of their mutual transitions).
+</blockquote>
+This is a description of materialist dialectical analysis of human thought. We must understand that human thoughts are always in motion, always developing, and always mutually impacting other thoughts.
+<blockquote>
+In particular, dialectics is the study of the opposition of the Thing-in-itself, of the essence, substratum, substance — from the appearance, from “Being-for-Others.” (Here, too, we see a transition, a flow from the one to the other: the essence appears. The appearance is essential.) Human thought goes endlessly deeper from appearance to essence, from essence of the first order, as it were, to essence of the second order, and so on without end.
+</blockquote>
+This is where Lenin introduces the concept of Essence and Phenomenon (or “appearance,” as Lenin puts it) as simultaneously oppositional and in unity. Essence refers to the qualities and nature of the “thing-in-itself” (its internal components, relations, etc.) while Phenomena represents “being-for-others” (that which external observers can sense or witness of a subject). However, as Lenin notes, Essence and Phenomena have a dialectical relationship with each other — a “flow from the one to the other.” The Essence “appears” by exuding Phenomena which we can sense.
+Conscious thoughts also have Essence and Phenomena of their own. With thought, the development from Essence to Phenomena is constant and inevitable. The Essence of each thought leads to thought-Phenomena which develop in turn into the Essence of new thoughts in a constant flow.
+In this sense, Essence and Phenomenon of abstract thought is somewhat different from Essence and Phenomenon of physical objects, but physical objects can have this same dialectical pattern of development. For example, the emissions from the engine of a car can be considered Phenomena of the engine, but as these Phenomena build up in the air (along with the emissions from many other cars), they can develop into a physical subject with a new Essence of its own, which we call “air pollution.”
+We can also think of the light which comes from the sun. The light itself can be thought of as Phenomena of the sun, but the light energy can be captured by a solar panel and converted into energy, creating a new subject with its own Essence which we would describe as “solar energy.” In this sense, it is possible for Phenomena to have Phenomena. If you witness light waves in the desert which cause an optical illusion, then the illusion is a Phenomenon of the light waves (the light waves being the Essence which exuded the Phenomenon of illusion), and the light waves are the Phenomena of the sun (the essential subject which exudes the Phenomena of the light waves).
+Essence and Phenomena can also be contextual. In some contexts, physical objects which have their own Essence (and Phenomena) may be the Phenomena of some other entity. For example, archaeologists can’t observe prehistoric civilizations directly. They can only study the things which are left behind. In this sense, we can think of an archaeological artifact, like a stone tool, as a Phenomenon of a prehistoric civilization. The tool has its own Essence and Phenomena, but it is also itself a Phenomenon. A single stone tool can’t tell archaeologists much about an ancient civilization, however, archaeologists can gather many Phenomena (tools, structural ruins, nearby animal bones and seeds, human remains, etc.) to look for patterns which reveal more insights about the Essence of the prehistoric civilization which exuded those Phenomena.
+<blockquote>
+Dialectics in the proper sense is the study of contradiction in the very essence of objects: not only are appearances transitory, mobile, fluid, demarcated only by conventional boundaries, but the essence of things is so as well.
+</blockquote>
+Lenin, here, points out that proper analysis hinges on understanding the ''Essence'' of a subject, since the Phenomena are fleeting and subject to change. Most notably, we should look for ''contradictions'' within the subject (see ''Definition of Contradiction and Common Characteristics of Contradiction'', p. 175), because contradictions are what drive dialectical development of a subject over time.
+-----
+==== c. Meaning of the Methodology ====
+If we want to be accurately aware of things, phenomena, and ideas, we must not just stop at studying their Phenomena, we have to study their Essence. Only through examining many Phenomena of a subject can we fully and correctly understand the Essence of said subject.
+-----
+==== Annotation 157 ====
+With physical objects, we must study the Phenomena to know anything about a subject, since Phenomena is, by definition, that which we can observe. Only through systematic, repeated observations can we come to understand the Essence of the object which exudes the Phenomena. Because Phenomena can change based on conditions, we must observe Phenomena under various conditions in a systematic way. This is the basis of all scientific inquiry.
+This is also true for analyzing aspects of human society. To understand a social system, we must observe its Phenomena systematically over time and look for patterns which form under various conditions. We must also keep in mind that social systems develop and change over time, and so the Essence might develop with or without changes in certain Phenomena. For example, the phenomena of the United States of America have changed significantly over the years. The national flag, military uniforms, seals, and other iconography have changed throughout the history of the USA. Similarly, there have been many presidents, and the government and constitution have also been through many changes. That said, the essential nature of the USA’s political economy has not changed significantly since its foundation; the USA has been a capitalist bourgeois democracy since the beginning and remains so to this day. Regardless of which bourgeois-dominated political party holds power in the white house and congress — Whig, Republican, Democrat, or otherwise — the essential nature of the USA as a capitalist bourgeois democracy has remained the same.
+According to Lenin: “Human thought goes endlessly deeper from appearance to essence, from essence of the first order, as it were, to essence of the second order, and so on, ''without end.''”<ref>''Philosophical Notebooks'', Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1914–16.</ref> On the other hand, Essence is what defines a thing, phenomenon, or idea. Therefore, in our perception and practice, we must recognize a thing, phenomenon, or idea based on its Essence, not its Phenomena, to evaluate it correctly, and after that, we can make fundamental improvements.
+-----
+==== Annotation 158 ====
+For example: Thousands of years ago, people observed that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west everyday. Based on these Phenomena, many human civilizations developed the belief that the Essence of our solar system was that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun rotated around it. Today, thanks to scientific observation and practice, we have proven that the sun is the center of the solar system and that the earth is rotating around it, which is totally opposite to what many believed hundreds of years ago. In this case, the initially observed Phenomena were misleading, and it was only by getting a better grasp of the essential nature of the solar system that we could better comprehend its functioning.
+It is usually easy to observe Phenomena (since they are defined by being observable) but it’s also easy to misunderstand relationships between Essence and Phenomena. Sometimes people get a false perception of Essence from real Phenomena, such as believing the Sun revolves around the Earth. Sometimes people attribute the wrong Phenomena to Essences as well, such as believing that all poor people are lazy.
+Phenomena can easily be mistaken for essence. For example, bourgeois liberal political parties often portray themselves as being pro-worker and therefore exhibit phenomena such as rhetoric, slogans, propaganda, and even platform positions which appeal to workers. These phenomena may confuse many into believing that they are workers’ parties when, in reality, they are essentially dominated by the capitalist class. The reverse can also occur. For example, workers may be fooled into believing that a ruthless capitalist politician or celebrity is “working class at heart,” falsely believing that the capitalist’s class position is merely a phenomenon when in fact it is essential.
+Understanding true Essence based on real Phenomena is one of the most important aspects of analysis. It is the primary realm of science. In politics, misunderstanding or mischaracterizing Essence and Phenomena can reinforce false beliefs about the way society works which can lead to promulgation of dangerous and reactionary ideologies like neoliberalism and fascism amidst the working class. For this reason, we must avoid examining Phenomena alone. We have to dive deep to discover and understand the essential nature of things, phenomena, and ideas in our analysis.
+=== 6. Possibility and Reality ===
+==== a. Categories of Possibility and Reality ====
+The ''Possibility'' category refers to things that have not happened nor existed in reality yet, but that would happen, or would exist given necessary conditions.
+The ''Reality'' category refers to things that exist or have existed in reality and in human thought.
+==== b. Dialectical Relationship Between Possibility and Reality ====
+Possibility and Reality have a unified and inseparable relationship: Possibility can transform into Reality and Reality contains new Possibility; any given Possibility, under specific conditions, can transform into Reality.
+Given specific conditions, there could be one or many possibilities for the development of any given thing, phenomenon, or idea: practical Possibility, random Possibility, obvious Possibility, abstract Possibility, near Possibility, far Possibility, etc.
+-----
+==== Annotation 159 ====
+'''Excerpt From Marxism-Leninism Textbook of Students Who Specialize in Marxism-Leninism'''
+''Editor’s notes in [brackets]''
+Reality has many aspects. It also has many tendencies of development. These aspects and tendencies of Reality have different roles and positions in the development process of Reality. For example, manifesting any given Possibility into Reality requires us to change a specific subject from one status to a different status. Some subjects are easier to transform and others are more difficult to transform. Some require us to change quality, others only require quantity changes [see Annotation 117, p. 119].
+Because Reality has many aspects and tendencies of development, it is useful to classify Possibility. There are at least four types of Possibility, in two separate categories.
+[The categorization below draws a distinction between the ''obvious'' and the ''practical.''
+The ''obvious'' is that which will ''certainly'' occur. If you drop an object, it will ''obviously'' fall. The ''practical'' is that which we ''certainly could make occur'' through human will. If you are holding an object, you could ''practically'' drop it.]
+'''Obvious Possibility and Random Possibility''' [see: Obviousness and Randomness, p. 144].
+''Obvious Possibility'' refers to Possibility that ''will'' happen, because conditions to make it happen are set in place so that the Possibility developing into Reality is unavoidable.
+[If the conditions arise for a hurricane to form, it eventually becomes ''obvious'' that a hurricane will form.]
+''Random Possibility'' is Possibility which may or may not happen depending on how external factors develop, our actions, the actions of others, etc. [Whether or not a hurricane may develop on any given day is, from our human perspective, random, since we do not have any technology to cause or prevent the development of hurricanes. Other events may be more or less random. We can, for instance, ''prepare'' for an incoming hurricane to minimize the risk of harm to human communities.]
+Second, based on the practical relationships between subjects, we have:
+'''Practical Possibility vs. Abstract Possibility:'''
+''Practical Possibility'' means that conditions in Reality which ''could'' make something happen are already in place. [If you have all the ingredients, knowledge, and equipment needed to make a pie, you ''could'' make a pie. The material conditions are in place.]
+''Abstract Possibility'' is Possibility which may become Reality in the future but the conditions which would make this Possibility become Reality have not yet developed.
+[It is an abstract Possibility that you ''could'' make a pie, even if you don’t have the tools, ingredients, or knowledge. It is possible, in the abstract, that you could buy the ingredients and equipment and learn the necessary skills to make a pie. ''Near Possibility'' simply refers to Possibility which may become Reality in the shorter term, ''far Possibility'' refers to things which may happen in a more distant future, relative to the subject being discussed.]
+-----
+In social life, in order to transform a Possibility into Reality, there must be objective conditions and subjective factors. Subjective factors include the ability of humans to change Possibility into Reality. Objective conditions refer to the situations needed to make such a change occur. [In other words, humans are able to ''subjectively'' change possibility into reality, but only when the ''objective'' circumstances exist in the external world.]
+==== c. Meaning of the Methodology ====
+We must base our perception and practice on Reality.
+Lenin said: “Marxism takes its stand on the facts, and not on possibilities. A Marxist must, as the foundation of his policy, put [forth] ''only'' precisely and unquestionably demonstrated ''facts''.”<ref>''To N. D. Kiknadze'', Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, written after November 5, 1916.</ref>
+However, in our perception and practice, we also need to comprehensively recognize possibilities which could arise from Reality. This will allow us to develop methods of practical operation which are suitable to changes and developments which might occur. We must actively make use of subjective factors in perception and practice to turn Possibility into Reality whenever it would serve our purposes.
+-----
+==== Annotation 160 ====
+This idea is perhaps best exemplified in the traditional Vietnamese proverb: “you can’t just open your mouth and wait for fruit to drop into your mouth.” We have to actively apply our will, through practice and labor, to develop the best possibilities into manifested Reality. See more about subjective factors in Annotation 207, p. 202.
+== IV. Basic Laws of Materialist Dialectics ==
+''Laws'' are the regular, common, obvious, natural, and objective relations between internal aspects, factors, and attributes of a thing or phenomenon or between things and phenomena.
+There are many types of laws in this world and they all have different prevalence, reach, characteristics, and roles in regard to the motion and development processes of things and phenomena in nature, society, and human thought. So, it is necessary to classify different laws for humans to understand and apply them effectively into practical activities. Classifying laws based on prevalence, we have: private laws, common laws, and universal laws [see: ''Private and Common'', p. 128].
+''Private laws'' are laws that only apply to a specific range of things and phenomena. For example: laws of mechanical motion, laws of chemical motion, laws of biological motion, etc.
+''Common laws'' are laws that apply to a broader range of subjects than ''private laws,'' and they impact many different subjects. For instance: the law of preservation of mass, the law of preservation of energy, etc.
+''Universal laws'' are laws that impact every aspect of nature, society, and human thought. Materialist dialectics is the study of these universal laws.
+If we classify laws based on the ''reach of impact'', we will have three main groups: laws of nature, laws of society, and laws of human thought.
+''Laws of nature'' are laws that arise in the natural world, including within the human body. They are not products of human conscious activities.
+''Laws of society'' are the laws of human activity in social relations; these laws only apply to the conscious activities of humans, yet they are still objective.
+-----
+==== Annotation 161 ====
+We have already discussed how relations between human beings are objective [see Annotation 108, p. 112]. By extension, the human relations which compose human societies are objective, and thus, any laws which govern objective human relations must also be objective.
+Marx’s assertion that human social relations are objective is critical to understanding his work. Marx pointed out that social relations may not be “physical,” in the sense that they can’t be observed directly with human senses, but that they still have an ''objective character'' — they exist externally to a given subject, and they have objective impacts on reality. For instance, the class relations between the capitalist class and the working class result in objective manifestations in reality, such as wealth accumulation, modes of circulation, etc.
+''Laws of human thought'' are laws of the intrinsic relationships between concepts, categories, judgments, inference, and the development process of human rational awareness.
+As the science of common relations and development, materialist dialectics studies the ''universal laws'' that influence the entire natural world, human society, and human thought, all together as a whole.
+These universal laws are:
+* The law of transformation between quantity and quality.
+* The law of unification and contradiction between opposites.
+* The law of negation of negation.
+-----
+==== Annotation 162 ====
+Each of these laws is considered ''universal'' because they apply to all things, phenomena, and ideas, and all the internal and external relations thereof, in human perception and practice. All things, phenomena, and ideas change and develop as a result of mutual impacts and relationships in accordance with these universal laws. On a fundamental level, materialist dialectics is the study of these universal laws and their utility.
+=== 1. Law of Transformation Between Quantity and Quality ===
+The law of transformation between quantity and quality is a universal law which concerns the universal mode of motion and development processes of nature, society, and human thought.
+-----
+==== Annotation 163 ====
+Remember that mode refers to ''how'' something exists, functions, and develops [see Annotation 60, p. 59]. The universal mode of motion and development processes thus refers to ''how'' all things, ideas, and phenomena move, change, and develop.
+Friedrich Engels defined the law of transformation between quantity and quality in ''Dialectics of Nature'':
+<blockquote>
+The law of the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa. For our purpose, we could express this by saying that in nature, in a manner exactly fixed for each individual case, qualitative changes can only occur by the quantitative addition or subtraction of matter or motion (so-called energy).
+</blockquote>
+In other words, ''quantitative'' changes of things, phenomena, and ideas lead to ''quality'' shifts.
+-----
+The universal mode of motion and development processes follows the law of transformation between quantity and quality, which states:
+Qualitative changes of things, phenomena, and ideas arise from the inevitable basis of the quantitative changes of things, phenomena, and, ideas; and, vice versa: quantitative changes of things, phenomena, and ideas arise from the inevitable basis of qualitative changes of things, phenomena, and ideas.
+-----
+==== Annotation 164 ====
+Put simply: quantity changes develop into quality changes, and quality changes lead to quantity changes [see Annotation 117, p. 119]. We say that these changes to quantity and quality occur on the “inevitable basis” of one another because quality changes always, invariably, arise from quantity changes, and, likewise, quantity changes always, invariably, arise from quality changes.
+Just as quantity shifts lead to quality shifts, it is also true that quality shifts lead to quantity shifts. For example, if you have 11 donuts, then add 1 donut, you now have ''1 dozen'' donuts. If you add 12 more donuts, you would then have ''2 dozen''.
+Another example of quality shift leading to quantity shift would be a pond filling with rain water. Once enough drops of water collect and the pond is considered full — that is to say, once it is considered to be “a pond” of water — we will no longer think of the pond in terms of “drops.” We would think of the pond as “filled,” “overfilled,” “underfilled,” etc.
+Note that both of these examples are related to our human perceptions and understanding of the material world. The material world does not change based on our perceptions, nor how we classify the quantity or quality of a given subject. There are also objective aspects related to quality shifts leading to quantity shifts. For example, if we adjust the quantity of the temperature of a sheet of paper to the point of burning, and the paper burns, then the quantity of paper would be reduced from one sheet to zero sheets. In other words, the quality shift arising from temperature quantity increase (i.e., the paper burning into ash) results in a quantity shift in how many pieces of paper exist (from one sheet to zero sheets). However, even this is ultimately a subjective assessment rooted in human consciousness, since we subjectively think in terms of “sheets of paper,” and the concept of a “sheet of paper” is essentially a classification rooted in human consciousness. It is merely an abstract way of perceiving and considering the quantity and quality of the material subject which we think of as “paper.”
+The law of transformation between quantity and quality is an inevitable, objective, and universal relationship that repeats in every motion and development process of all things, phenomena, and ideas in nature, human society, and human thought.
+==== a. Definitions of Quality and Quantity ====
+''- Definition of Quality''
+''Quality'' refers to the organic unity which exists amongst the component parts of a thing, phenomenon, or idea that distinguishes it from other things, phenomena, and ideas.
+-----
+==== Annotation 165 ====
+Note: we have already given basic definitions of quantity and quality in Annotation 117, p. 119. What follows are more comprehensive philosophical definitions of quality and quantity. Our world exists as one continuity of matter. All things and phenomena in our universe exist essentially as one unified system — namely, the entity which we call “the universe.” This unified nature of existence is extremely difficult for human beings to comprehend. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel pointed out that, in this sense, the unity of “pure being” is indistinguishable from “nothingness.” In ''Science of Logic'', Hegel noted that if we try to comprehend pure material existence, as a whole, without distinguishing any component thing or phenomenon from any other, then all is incomprehensible. Human consciousness needs to delineate and distinguish the component parts of this unified system from each other in order to make sense of it all.
+<blockquote>
+Pure light and pure darkness are two voids which are the same thing. Something can be distinguished only in determinate light or darkness... [F]or this reason, it is only darkened light and illuminated darkness which have within themselves the moment of difference and are, therefore, determinate being.
+</blockquote>
+The human mind has evolved to perceive various things, phenomena, and ideas as ''differentiated''. Quality is the basis on which we perceive subjects as distinct from one another. Every thing, phenomenon, and idea is composed of internal components and relations. The unity of these internal components and relations is what we refer to as ''quality''. For example, a human being’s ''quality'' refers to the unity of all the internal components and relationships of which the human being is composed (i.e., the cells, organs, blood, etc., as well as the thoughts, memories, etc., which make the human) ''in unity''. Quality is also a subjective phenomenon: a ''reflection'' of the material world in human consciousness [see Annotation 68, p. 65]. Therefore we may conceive of various qualities for the same subject. We can think of 12 donuts as “a box of donuts,” “a dozen donuts,” or as 12 individual donuts. We could consider a building as “one apartment building” or “forty apartments,” depending on the viewpoint of analysis.
+-----
+So, objective and inherent attributes form the quality of things, phenomena, and ideas, but we must not confuse quality and attribute with one another. Every thing, phenomenon, and idea has both fundamental and non-fundamental attributes. Only fundamental attributes constitute the quality of things, phenomena and ideas. When the fundamental attributes change, the quality also changes. The distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental attributes of things, phenomena, and ideas must depend on the purpose of the analysis; the same attribute may be fundamental when analyzing with one purpose but non-fundamental when analyzing with another purpose.
+-----
+==== Annotation 166 ====
+Whether or not an attribute is considered “fundamental” depends entirely on conscious perspective. For example, one baker may consider chocolate chips to be “fundamental” for baking cookies while another baker may not. This subjective characteristic of what might be considered “fundamental” or not is reflected in how we consider quality. If you are trying to determine how much water you need to fill a swimming pool, you may think of a pool in terms of size (i.e., “this is an Olympic sized pool”), but if you just want to go for a swim, you are likely to just think in terms of the water level (i.e., “the pool is empty, we can’t swim”).
+If you are planning the construction of a school and want to know how many classrooms it will need, you might think in terms of “classrooms of students.” But if you are considering funding for a school year, you might consider the ''total number of students''.
+The quality of a thing, phenomenon, or idea is determined by the qualities of its component parts.
+-----
+==== Annotation 167 ====
+Qualities are composed of qualities, combined, in unity. “A swimming pool” may consist of a certain amount of concrete in a specific configuration combined with 5,000 gallons of water. A car may be composed of a body, an engine, four tires, etc. Each individual component exists as a quality — a unity of component attributes — in and of itself.
+Quality is also determined by the structures and connections between component parts which manifest in specific relations. Therefore, distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental attributes is also relative.
+-----
+==== Annotation 168 ====
+It’s not just the component parts of a subject which define its quality, but also the relations of those component parts. For instance, a quantity of wood and nails configured in one set of structural relations may have the quality of a chair, whereas the same component parts arranged with different structures and relations may have the quality of a table. In this sense, quality can be thought of as a synthesis of the Content and Form [see ''Content and Form'', p. 147] of a thing, phenomenon, or idea from a certain perspective.
+For example, if we see two shoes, we may think of each shoe as an individual qualitative object (two shoes). On the other hand, we may think of the shoes, together, as a single qualitative “object” in terms of its utility and in terms of synthesis of content and form (“a pair of shoes”), so much so that if one shoe is lost then the remaining shoe is considered useless and discarded as trash.
+Because there are countless ways in which quality — the configuration and relations and composition of constituent parts of any given subject — can manifest, we must recognize that quality itself, based on the distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental attributes, is a relative and subjective phenomenon of human consciousness.
+Any given subject will have multiple qualities, depending on the relations which exist between and within that subject and other subjects.
+-----
+==== Annotation 169 ====
+Any thing, phenomenon, or idea may be perceived from various different perspectives which would cause us to consider it as having different qualities. A single shoe may be considered as: a shoe, 3 pounds of leather, half of a pair, etc., depending on its internal and external relations and the perspective of the person considering the shoe.
+We can’t consider things, phenomena, and ideas apart from quality. Quality exhibits a subject’s relative stability.
+-----
+==== Annotation 170 ====
+Remember that ''quality'' is the way in which the human mind conceives of the world as a collection of distinct things, phenomena, and ideas. These perceptions of quality are purely relative, but they are important, because they are what allow us to develop an understanding of the complicated system of things, phenomena, and ideas which make up our universe. In our perception, quality represents the relative stability of a thing, phenomenon, or idea which makes it a subject that we can consider and analyze in and of itself. Understanding how we distinguish between different subjects is crucial in developing a scientific understanding of the world which is rooted in observation and practice.
+''- Definition of Quantity''
+''Quantity'' refers to the amount or extent of specific attributes of a thing, phenomenon, or idea, including but not limited to:
+* The amount of component parts.
+* Scale or size.
+* Speed or rhythm of motion.
+A thing, phenomenon, or idea can have many quantities, with each quantity determined by different criteria. [i.e., a car may be measured by many criteria of quantity, such as: length in meters, weight in kilograms, speed in kilometers per hour, etc.]
+Quality and quantity embody two different aspects of the same subject. Both quality and quantity exist objectively [see Annotation 108, p. 112]. However, the distinction between “quality” and “quantity” in the process of perceiving things, phenomena, and ideas has only relative significance: an attribute may be considered “quantity” from one perspective but “quality” from another perspective.
+-----
+==== Annotation 171 ====
+If you are filling a box with a dozen donuts, then once you add the 12<sup>th</sup> donut, one “dozen” may represent the ''quality'' which you seek. From the perspective of a customer buying donuts for a party, “dozen” may represent the “quantity.” In other words, you need to make an ''order'' (quality) of ''three dozen donuts'' (quantity). And the manager of the store, at the end of the day, may tally ''twenty'' ''orders'' (quantity) as the day’s ''sales goal'' (quality). Quantity and quality, therefore, are both considered ''relatively'', based on perspective and the purpose of analysis at hand.
+==== b. Dialectical Relationship Between Quantity and Quality ====
+Every thing, phenomenon, and idea exists as a unity of two aspects: quality and quantity. Quantity and quality do not exist separate from one another. Quantity and quality dialectically and mutually impact one other. Changes in quantity lead to changes in quality. However, not every change in quantity will cause a change in quality.
+-----
+==== Annotation 172 ====
+In order for quantity change to lead to quality change, a certain amount must be met.
+This amount is called the ''threshold'', which is explained further below in this section. A threshold may be exact and known (i.e., it takes exactly 12 donuts to make a dozen donuts) or it may be relative and unknown (i.e., a certain quantity of air inflated into a balloon may cause it to burst, but the exact, specific quantity of air may be relative to other factors such as air temperature and may be unknown to the observer until the balloon actually bursts).
+With any given subject, there will be a range of quantity changes which can accumulate without leading to change in quality. This range is called the ''quantity range''.
+''Quantity range'' is defined as a relationship between quantity and quality: the range of intervals in which the change in quantity does not substantially change the quality of a given subject. Within the limits of a quantity range, the subject retains the same quality.
+-----
+==== Annotation 173 ====
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-56.png|''The quantity range is a range of quantities between quality shifts.'']]
+Quantity range can be thought of as the range of quantities which exists between thresholds. For instance, between the qualities of “''one donut''” and “''one dozen donuts'',” there is a quantity range of 10 donuts (2 donuts through 11 donuts) which can be added before the quality shifts to “''one dozen donuts''.” You can keep adding additional donuts, up to the quantity of 11 donuts, without reaching the threshold of quality shift to “one dozen donuts.” This is the ''quantity range'' between the qualities of ''donut'' and ''one dozen donuts''. Again, the quantity range is relative to the perspective and the nature of analysis. One person may only be concerned with “dozens of donuts,” while another may consider the quality of “half dozens,” which would consider a quality shift to “one half-dozen donuts” to occur once the sixth donut (quantity) is added.
+Motion and change usually begins with a change in quantity. When changes in quantity reach a certain amount, quality will also change. The amount, or degree, of quantity change at which quality change occurs is called the ''threshold.''
+-----
+==== Annotation 174 ====
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-57.png]]
+Note that the threshold is an approximate range. At a certain quantity, a glass may be considered “half full” and at another certain quantity, after passing the threshold, the glass will be considered “full,” though there may be a wide range of quantities at which the glass would be considered to have the quality of being “full,” depending on perspective and purpose of analysis.
+When quantity change meets a threshold, within necessary and specific conditions, quality will change. This change in quality, which takes place in the motion and development process of things, phenomena, and ideas, is called a ''quality shift''.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-58.png|''A quality shift occurs when a quantity changes beyond a threshold, leading to a change in quality.'']]
+''Quality shifts'' inevitably occur as transformations in the development processes of things, phenomena, and ideas. Qualitative changes can be expressed or manifested through many forms of quality shifts which are determined by the contradictions, characteristics and conditions of a given subject, including such characteristics as: fast or slow, big or small, partial or entire, spontaneous or intentional.
+-----
+==== Annotation 175 ====
+Quality shifts are ''inevitable'' because there is no thing, phenomenon, nor idea which can exist statically, forever, without ever undergoing change. Eventually, any given subject will undergo quality shifts, even if such transformation may take millions of years to occur.
+Quality shifts can take various forms, depending on the nature of internal and external relationships, contradictions, and mutual impacts. For instance, a river may dry up or it may flood depending on internal and external relations and characteristics, but it will not simply flow at the same level forever without ever undergoing any quality shifts.
+The rate and degree of quality shifts can vary considerably based on such internal and external factors, and may be “spontaneous,” that is to say, without human intervention, or may be the result of the intentional, conscious action of human beings.
+''Quality shifts'' mark the end of one motion period and the start of a new motion period.
+-----
+==== Annotation 176 ====
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-59.png|''The Quantity Range (A) refers to the range of quantities between two qualities in the process of development. The Quality Shift (B) refers to the point at which quantity accumulates to the point of changing the Quality of the developing subject. The Period of Motion (C) includes both the quantity range and the quality shifts themselves.'']]
+''Period of motion'' refers to the development which occurs between two quality shifts, including the quality shifts themselves.
+''Period of motion'' differs from ''quantity range'' because quantity range only includes the range of quantity change which can occur ''between'' quality shifts, without including the quality shifts themselves.
+For example, a ''period of motion'' for a cup filling with water from a half cup would include all of the change which occurs from the cup being half full to the cup becoming entirely full. The ''quantity range'' of this same process would only include the quantities of water that stand between half-full and full, where the cup is neither considered to be “half full” or “full” but somewhere in between, i.e., between quality shifts.
+Quality shift represents ''discontinuity'' within the continuous development process of things and phenomena. In the material world, all things, phenomena, and ideas are constantly undergoing continuous sequences of quantitative changes leading to quality shifts, creating an endless line of nodes, showing how all things, phenomena, and ideas move and develop to increasingly advanced degrees [see illustration on p. 121 for a visualization of this “endless line of nodes”].
+As Friedrich Engels summarised: “merely quantitative changes beyond a certain point pass into qualitative differences.”<ref>''Anti-Dühring'', Friedrich Engels, 1878.</ref>
+==== Annotation 177 ====
+Processes of change and development in our universe are continuously ongoing. Whenever a quality shift occurs, it represents a brief ''discontinuity'' in the sense that we perceive a definite and ''distinct'' transformation from one thing, phenomenon, or idea into another; in other words, we can ''distinguish'' between the mode of existence of the thing, phenomenon, or idea before and after the quality shift.
+Take, for example, the “lifespan” of a house. A human being could easily distinguish between the empty land which exists before the house is built, the construction site which exists as it’s being built, and the house itself once construction is completed. In reality, this process of change is continuous, but to our human perception, each quality shift represents a definite and distinct period of change and discontinuity in terms of our perception of the “thing” which is the house.
+This is related to the ''historic perspective'' of things, phenomena, and ideas, in which we recognize the continuity of existence between different stages of development of things, phenomena, and ideas [see Annotation 201, p. 195].
+When a quality shift occurs, there is an impact on the quantity. Quality impacts quantity in a number of ways, including [but not limited to]:
+* Changing the structure, scale, or level of the subject.
+* Changing the rhythm or speed of the motion and development of the subject.
+''In summary,'' dialectical unity between quantity and quality exists in every thing, phenomenon, and idea. A gradual quantitative change [through the ''quantity range''] will eventually meet the ''threshold'', which will inevitably lead to a qualitative change through ''quality shift''. Simultaneously, the new quality will mutually impact the quantity, causing new quantitative changes of things, phenomena, and ideas. This process takes place continuously, forming the fundamental and universal mode of movement and development processes of all things, phenomena, and ideas.
+==== Annotation 178 ====
+Transformation between quantity and quality is the mode of movement and development of all things, phenomena, and ideas, because it reflects the way in which human consciousness perceives movement and development.
+So, it is important to understand that there is no ''material manifestation'' of quantity and quality. They are simply mental constructs which reflect the ways in which we observe and understand change, motion, and development of things, phenomena, and ideas. Transformation processes in the material world are fully fluid and continuous, but our consciousness perceives change in ''stages of development''. Quality simply reflects how we distinguish one subject from another subject, as well as how we recognize the transformation process (and stages of development) of a single subject over time.
+There is no specific point, metaphysically distinct point at which a “puppy” becomes an “adult dog,” but human beings will distinguish between a puppy and an adult dog, or recognize at a certain point that a puppy has “become” an adult dog, based on observation of quality.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-60.png|''Quality refers to the differences which are distinguished in human consciousness between one subject and another, or changes in a subject’s form over time.'']]
+There is no metaphysically distinct point at which a “puppy” becomes an “adult dog,” but human beings will distinguish between a puppy and an adult dog, or recognize at a certain point that a puppy has “become” an adult dog, based on observation of quality. We create categories which reflect quality to organize and systematically understand the world around us, and to distinguish between different subjects, and to distinguish between different stages of development of a given subject.
+We can also distinguish differences of quality between different subjects: we can distinguish a cat from a dog, and we can distinguish one dog from another dog. These distinguishing attributes constitute differences in quality. Note that this conception of differentiation of things, phenomena, and ideas into qualities which constantly change and develop over time is fundamentally distinct from ''metaphysical'' categorization, which seeks to divide all things, phenomena, and ideas into static, perpetually unchanging categories (see Annotation 8, p. 8).
+Distinction within the human mind is reflected in the concept of quantity and quality. If we do not observe quality differences between subjects, then we would not be able to distinguish between different subjects at all. If we could not recognize the quality shifts of any given subject, then we would not be aware of change or motion at all.
+-----
+==== c. Meaning of the Methodology ====
+Every thing, phenomenon and idea has characteristics of quality and quantity which mutually impact and transform one another. Therefore, in perception and practice, we need to understand and take into account the law of transformation between quantity and quality in order to have a comprehensive viewpoint of things, phenomena, and ideas [see Annotation 114, p. 116].
+Quantitative changes of things, phenomena and ideas inevitably lead to qualitative changes in all things, phenomena, and ideas. Therefore, in our perception and practice, as we plan and enact change in our world and in human society, it is necessary to gradually accumulate changes in quantity in order to make changes in quality. At the same time, we must recognize and make use of the fact that quality shifts also lead to changes in quantity.
+-----
+==== Annotation 179 ====
+We have to understand and utilize the law of transformation between quantity and quality in our activities. For instance, if a group of activists hopes to address hunger in their community, they have to realize that they can’t immediately enact a quality shift which solves the entire problem of hunger across the city instantaneously. Instead, the activists must recognize that quantity shifts lead to quality shifts through stages of development. In planning and acting, they may need to set certain development targets, predict thresholds at which quality shifts will occur, etc.
+For instance, the first goal for these activists may be to provide free lunches to houseless people in a particular park every weekend. If they can accomplish this, then they will not have completely eliminated hunger in the city, but they will have reached a threshold — a quality shift — in that nobody in that specific park will be hungry at lunch time on weekends. From there, they can continue to build quality shifts through accumulation of changes in quantity, one stage of development at a time.
+Quality shifts leading to quantity shifts must also be recognized and utilized in our planning and activities. For example, once an effective strategy is developed for eliminating hunger in one park through quantity changes leading to quality shifts, this strategy can then be implemented in other parks. Thus the quality shift of “eliminating hunger in one park” can lead to a quantity shift: “eliminating hunger in two parks, three parks, etc.,” until the quantity shift of “eliminating hunger in parks” leads to the quality shift of “eliminating hunger in all the parks in the city.” This entire process of enacting quantity changes to lead to quality shifts, and accumulating quality shifts to change quantity, are all focused toward the ultimate goal of achieving the quality shift of “eliminating hunger in the entire city.”
+In short, it’s vital for us to understand the ways in which quantity and quality mutually impact each other so that we can formulate plans and activities which will lead to motion and development which accomplish our goals, step by step, through one stage of development at a time.
+Changes in quantity can only lead to changes in quality provided the quantity accumulates to a certain threshold. Therefore, in practice, we need to overcome impatient, left-sided thought. Left-sided thinking refers to thinking which is overly subjective, idealistic, ignorant of the laws which govern material reality. Left-sided thinking neglects to acknowledge the necessity of quantity accumulation which precedes shifts in quality, focusing instead on attempting to perform continuous shifts in quality.
+On the other hand, we must also recognize that once change in quantity has reached a threshold, it is ''inevitable'' that a quality shift will take place. Therefore, we need to overcome conservative and right-sided thought in practical work. Right-sided thinking is the expression of conservative, stagnant thought that resists or refuses to recognize quality shifts even as changes in quantity come to meet the threshold of quality shift.
+-----
+==== Annotation 180 ====
+“Right-sided thinking” and “left-sided thinking” are Vietnamese political concepts which are rooted in the ideas of Lenin’s book: ''Leftwing Communism: an Infantile Disorder''. In Vietnamese political philosophy, “left-sided thinking” is a form of dogmatic idealism which upholds unrealistic conceptions of change and development. Left-sided thinkers don’t have the patience for quantity accumulation which are prerequisite to quality shifts, or expect to skip entire stages of development which are necessary to precipitate change in the real world. An example of left-sided thinking would be believing that a capitalist society can ''instantly'' transition into a stateless, classless, communist society, skipping over the transitions in quantity and quality which are required to bring such a massive transformation in human society to fruition.
+“Right-sided thinking,” on the other hand, is conservate resistance to change. Right-sided thinkers resist quality changes to human society; they either want to preserve society as it exists right now, or reverse development to some previous (real or imagined) stage of development. Right-sided thinkers also refuse to acknowledge quality shifts once they’ve occurred, idealistically pretending that changes in material conditions have not occurred. For example, right-sided thinkers may refuse to recognize advances which have been made in the liberation of women, or even attempt to reverse those advances in hopes of returning to previous stages of development when women had fewer freedoms. Here is a practical example of these concepts in use, from the ''Vietnam Encyclopedia'', published by the Ministry of Culture and Information of Vietnam:
+<blockquote>
+Opportunism is a system of political views that do not follow a clear direction nor a clear line, do not have a definite stance, and are inclined toward the immediate personal gain of the opportunist. In the proletarian revolutionary movement, opportunism is a politics of compromise, reform, and unprincipled collaboration with the enemy which run contrary to the basic interests of the working class and the working people. In practice, opportunism has two main trends, stemming from right-sided thinking and from left-sided thinking, respectively:
+Right-wing opportunism is reformist, favors undue compromise, and aims to peacefully “convert” capitalism into socialism while abandoning the struggle for meaningful victory of the working class. Right-wing opportunism, typified by Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky, has its origins in the Workers’ Parties of the Second International era and exists to this day.
+Left-wing opportunism is a mixture of extremism and adventurism, dogmatism, arrogance, subjectivity, cults of violence, and disregard for the objective situation.
+Both “right” and “left” opportunism push the workers’ movement to futile sacrifice and failure.
+</blockquote>
+-----
+Quality shifts are diverse and plentiful, so we need to promote and apply quality shifts creatively and flexibly to suit the specific material conditions we face in a given situation. This is especially true in changing human society, as social development processes depend not only on objective conditions but also on subjective human factors. Therefore, we need to be active and take the initiative to promote the process of converting between quantity and quality in the most effective way.
+-----
+==== Annotation 181 ====
+Put simply, we have to use our human will and labor to actively promote quantity changes which lead to quality changes, and quality changes which lead to quantity changes, which move us towards our goal of ending all forms of oppression in human society. This will involve not just objective factors<ref>See Annotation 108, p. 112.</ref> (i.e., material conditions which are necessary to accomplish something), but subjective factors<ref>See Annotation 207, p. 202.</ref> as well (factors which we, as a subject, are capable of impacting directly).
+=== 2. Law of Unification and Contradiction Between Opposites ===
+The law of unification and contradiction between opposites is the ''Essence'' of dialectics [see: ''Essence and Phenomenon'', p. 156]. According to Lenin: “In brief, dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This embodies the Essence of dialectics, but it requires explanations and development.”<ref>''Summary of Dialectics'', Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1914.</ref> According to the law of unification and contradiction between opposites, the fundamental, originating, and universal driving force of all motion and development processes is the inherent and objective contradiction which exists in all things, phenomena, and ideas.
+-----
+==== Annotation 182 ====
+In other words, ''contradiction'' (defined further in the next section) is the force which serves as the fundamental, originating, and universal force which drives all motion and development of all things, phenomena, and ideas.
+Contradiction is a ''fundamental driving force'' because it is the most basic driving force which all other forms of motion and development are based upon.
+Contradiction is the ''originating driving force'' because all motion and development arises from contradiction.
+Contradiction is the ''universal driving force'' because ''all'' things, phenomena, and ideas — without exception — are driven to motion and development by contradiction.
+==== a. Definition of Contradiction and Common Characteristics of Contradiction ====
+''- Definition of Contradiction''
+In dialectics, the concept of contradiction is used to refer to the relationship, opposition, and transformation between opposites which takes place ''within'' all things, phenomena, and ideas, as well as ''between'' all things, phenomena, and ideas. This dialectical concept of contradiction is fundamentally different from the metaphysical concept of contradiction. The metaphysical concept of contradiction is an illogical conception of opposition without unity and without dialectical transformation between opposites.
+-----
+==== Annotation 183 ====
+A contradiction is, fundamentally, just a type of relationship. In a contradictory relationship, two things, phenomena, and/or ideas mutually impact one another, resulting in the eventual ''negation'' of one subject and the ''synthesis'' of the negator and the negated into some new form.
+The metaphysical concept of contradiction is considered illogical because it establishes no connection between that which is negated and the resulting synthesis.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-61.png|''In the metaphysical conception of contradiction, the negated “disappears” and is not represented in the resulting synthesis.'']]
+Metaphysical contradiction presents contradicting subjects as isolated from one another and completely distinct, when in reality the relationship between the negated and the negator essentially defines the contradiction. The negated subject is seen as completely negated; that is to say, it is conceived of as essentially “disappearing” into the synthesized result of the contradiction. In this sense, this metaphysical conception of negation is inaccurate in that it is represented as a complete, terminating process.
+In the above example, once the fox eats the rabbit, the rabbit is considered “gone” after a terminal negation process (see Annotation 196, p. 188) ends the contradiction.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-62.png|''The materialist dialectical conception of contradiction recognizes that contradicting subjects are defined by their relationship and that the synthesis of the contradiction carries forward attributes and characteristics from both the negator and the negated.'']]
+Materialist dialectical contradiction recognizes that every contradiction is defined by the relationship between the negated and the negator. Materialist dialectics also recognizes that attributes and characteristics of the negated subject are carried forward into the synthesized subject [see Annotation 203, p. 198]. Materialist dialectics also recognizes that contradiction continues indefinitely, as the negated becomes negated again, and so on, continuously, forever [see ''Negation of Negation'', p. 185].
+In the example on the previous page, the fox consuming the rabbit constitutes a negation process in which the fox takes on characteristics from the rabbit (i.e., nutritional and energy content, any diseases which may be carried forward to the fox, etc.).
+Contradiction arises from opposition which exists within or between things, phenomena, and ideas. The concept of opposing “sides” refers to such aspects, properties, and tendencies of motion which oppose one another, yet are, simultaneously, conditions and premises of the existence of one another. Examples include:
+* Negative charge and positive charge within atoms.
+* Anabolism and catabolism within living organisms [anabolism refers to the growth and building up of molecules within an organism, while catabolism refers to the digestion and breaking down of molecules within an organism].
+* Production and consumption as socioeconomic activities.
+* Trial and error which leads to cognitive development.
+==== Annotation 184 ====
+All of the above forms of contradiction ''drive motion and development''. These processes exist in ''unity and opposition''. For example, in political economics, production is driven by consumption and consumption is facilitated by production. Even though these are fundamentally opposite forces (production adds to the total quantity of products, while consumption reduces the total quantity of products), they can’t exist without one another, and they drive each other forward. This is the dialectical nature of contradiction as the driving force of all motion and development as defined in materialist dialectics.
+''- The General Properties of Contradictions''
+Contradiction is objective and universal. According to Friedrich Engels: “If simple mechanical change of position contains a contradiction, this is even more true of the higher forms of motion of matter, and especially of organic life and its development. We saw above that life consists precisely and primarily in this — that a being is at each moment itself and yet something else. Life is therefore also a contradiction which is present in things and processes themselves, and which constantly originates and resolves itself; and as soon as the contradiction ceases, life, too, comes to an end, and death steps in. We likewise saw that also, in the sphere of thought, we could not escape contradictions, and that, for example, the contradiction between man’s inherently unlimited capacity for knowledge and its actual presence only in men who are externally limited and possess limited cognition finds its solution in what is — at least practically, for us — an endless succession of generations, in infinite progress.”<ref>''Anti-Dühring'', Friedrich Engels, 1877.</ref>
+==== Annotation 185 ====
+Here, Engels is explaining how contradiction is the driving force in both material and conscious processes of motion and development. The process of life is a process of contradiction — all organic life forms must consume organic matter so that they can produce growth and offspring, must produce certain molecules and metabolic processes so that they can consume nutrients, and so on. Once these contradictory processes stop, as Engels says, “death steps in” (though even death is a transition forward).
+Conscious motion and development are also rooted in contradictory forces. Engels points out the contradiction between humanity’s seemingly infinite capacity for learning with the seemingly infinite amount of knowledge which can be obtained in the world. This great contradiction drives a seemingly endless process of expanding human knowledge, collectively, over countless generations.
+Contradictions are not only objective and universal, but also diverse and plentiful. The diverse nature of contradictions is evident in the fact that every subject can include many different contradictions and that contradictions manifest differently depending upon specific conditions. Contradictions can hold different positions and roles in the existence, motion, and development of things, phenomena, and ideas. These positions and roles include [but are not limited to]:
+* Internal and external contradictions
+* Fundamental and non-fundamental contradictions
+* Primary and secondary contradictions
+==== Annotation 186 ====
+''Internal'' contradictions are contradictions which exist in the ''internal relations'' of a subject, while ''external'' contradictions exist ''between'' two or more subjects as external relations.
+For example: a sports team might have ''internal contradictions'' between players, between the players and the coach, between the coach and management, etc. External contradictions might exist between the team and other teams, between the team and league officials, between the team and the landlords who own the team’s practice space, etc.
+A ''fundamental'' contradiction is a contradiction which defines the Essence of a relationship [see ''Essence and Phenomenon'', p. 156]. Fundamental contradictions exist throughout the entire development process of a given thing, phenomenon, or idea. A ''non-fundamental'' contradiction exists in only one aspect or attribute of a thing, phenomenon, or idea. A non-fundamental contradiction can ''impact'' a subject, but it will not control or decide the essential development of the subject. Whether or not a contradiction is fundamental is relative to the point of view.
+For example: the ''fundamental contradiction'' of one nation engaged in war against one another might be the war itself. There will exist many other contradictions; one nation at war might have a trade dispute with a third nation which is not participating in the war. From the “war perspective,” this contradiction is ''non-fundamental'', as it does not define the essential characteristic of the nation at war (though from the perspective of a diplomat charged with ending the trade dispute, the war may be seen as a non-fundamental contradiction while the dispute would be seen as fundamental).
+In the development of things, phenomena, and ideas, there are many development stages. In each stage of development, there will be one contradiction which drives the development process. This is what we call the ''primary'' contradiction. ''Secondary'' contradictions include all the other contradictions which exist during that stage of development. Determining whether a contradiction is primary or secondary is relative: it depends heavily upon the material conditions and the situation.
+For example: when restoring an old car that doesn’t run any more, a mechanic may consider the ''primary contradiction'' to be the non-functioning engine. There may be many ''secondary contradictions'' which contribute to the problems with the car’s engine problems. The battery may be dead, the spark plugs may need to be bad, the tires may need replacement, the timing belt may be loose, etc. Those are all ''secondary contradictions'' which do not define the stage of development which is “repairing the engine.” Some of these secondary contradictions may need to be resolved (such as replacing the spark plugs) before the primary contradiction can be fully addressed; others, such as a cracked windshield, may not need to be addressed before the primary contradiction can be dealt with.
+On the other hand, a secondary contradiction may become the primary contradiction: if a mechanic resolves every problem with the engine ''except'' for one bad spark plug, then the bad spark plug will shift from being a secondary contradiction to being the primary contradiction: the bad spark plug is now the primary reason the car won’t start and this stage of development can’t be completed.
+Within all the various fields of inquiry, there exist contradictions which have a diverse range of different properties and characteristics.
+==== Annotation 187 ====
+Different fields of study will focus on different forms of contradictions, and any given thing, phenomenon, or idea may contain countless contradictions which can be analyzed and considered for different purposes. For example, consider a large city, which might contain far too many contradictions to count. Civil engineers may focus primarily on contradictions in traffic patterns, the structural integrity of bridges and roads, ensuring that buildings are safe and healthy for inhabitants, etc. Utilities departments will focus on contradictions related to sewage, electrical, and sanitation systems. The education system will focus on contradictions which prevent students from achieving success in schools.
+All of these various methods of analysis may focus on specific forms of contradictions, though there will also be overlap. For instance, designing a school bus system will require the education system and civil engineers to discover and grapple with contradictions which might be hindrances for transporting students safely to school.
+==== b. Motion Process of Contradictions ====
+In every contradiction, the opposing sides are united with each other and opposed to each other at the same time. The concept of “unity between opposites” refers to the fact that a contradiction is a binding, inseparable, and mutually impacting relationship which exists between opposites.
+-----
+==== Annotation 188 ====
+Contradictions are ''binding'' and ''inseparable'' because they hold a relationship together. If two opposing things, phenomena, or ideas simply ''separate'', then contradiction, by definition, no longer exists. For example, an economy is bound together by the contradiction of production and consumption; if production exists without consumption (or vice-versa), it can’t be considered to be an economy.
+Contradictions are said to be ''mutually impacting'' because any time a contradiction exists between two opposing sides, both sides are mutually impacted for as long as the contradiction exists and develops. Of course, it is possible for two opposing sides to separate from one another; for example, a factory which produced buggy whips may have failed to find consumers after the invention of the car. Thus, there would exist a situation in which production exists without consumption. In this situation, the termination of the contradiction between production and consumption leads to a new contradiction: the factory will now be in the midst of a crisis which will require it to either provide a different product or go out of business.
+Thus we see that production and consumption can’t be separated from one another without leading to a change in the essential nature of the relationship and the opposing subjects, and we see that the opposing sides mutually impact one another (a change in consumption will affect production, and vice-versa).
+In any given contradictory relationship, each oppositional side is the premise for the other’s existence. Unity among opposites also defines the identity of each opposing side. Lenin wrote: “The identity of opposites (it would be more correct, perhaps, to say their ‘unity,’—although the difference between the terms identity and unity is not particularly important here. In a certain sense, both are correct) is the recognition (discovery) of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature (including mind and society).”<ref>''On the Questions of Dialectics'', Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1915.</ref>
+-----
+==== Annotation 189 ====
+Here, Lenin is explaining that ''identity'' and ''unity'' are (more or less) the same concept when it comes to understanding the nature of contradiction between opposites. In material processes of nature, social processes, and processes of consciousness, we perceive and define oppositional forces by recognizing mutually exclusive and contradictory tendencies within and between things, phenomena, and ideas. In other words, whenever we think of an oppositional relationship, we ''define it'' in terms of the opposition.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-63.png|''War, disease, and economy are all examples of unity in contradiction.'']]
+When we think of a war, we think of the contradictions which exist ''between'' the opposing nations. When we think of a disease, we define it by the oppositional forces ''between'' the ailment and the human body. When we think of an economy, we think of the oppositional forces of production and consumption ''within'' the economy.
+In other words, the identity of contradictory relationships is ''defined'' by the ''unity'' of the opposing sides with one another.
+The concept ''struggle of opposites'' refers to the tendency of opposites to eliminate and negate each other. There exist many diverse forms of struggle between opposites. Struggle can manifest in various forms based on:
+* The nature of a given thing, phenomenon, or idea.
+* Relationships within a thing, phenomenon, or idea (or between things, phenomena, and ideas).
+* Specific material conditions [see Annotation 10, p. 10].
+The process of unity and struggle of opposites inevitably leads to a ''transformation between them''. The transformation between opposites takes place with rich diversity, and such transformations can vary depending on the properties of the opposite sides as well as specific material conditions.
+-----
+==== Annotation 190 ====
+Opposing sides, by definition, ''oppose'' one another. If forces or characteristics which exist within or between things, phenomena, or ideas do ''not'' oppose one another, then they are not, by definition, ''opposites''. Thus, it can be understood that opposing sides have a tendency to ''struggle against'' one another. It is this very struggle which defines two sides as opposites, and as contradictory.
+Lenin explained that some contradicting opposite sides can exist in what he described as ''equilibrium'', but that this is only ever a temporary state of affairs, as exemplified in his article ''An Equilibrium of Forces.''
+[See Annotation 64, p. 62 for relevant text and more info on equilibrium.]
+Clearly, Lenin sees that this equilibrium of contradictory forces is not permanently sustainable. Indeed, ''no'' equilibrium of contradictory forces can be permanent. Eventually, one opposing side will overtake the other, and eventually, any given contradiction will result in one opposing side overcoming the other.
+According to the law of unification and contradiction between opposites, the struggle between two opposing sides is absolute, while the unity between them is relative, conditional, and temporary; in unity there is a struggle: a struggle in unity. According to Lenin: “The unity (coincidence, identity, equal action) of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute.”<ref>''On the Questions of Dialectics'', Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1915.</ref>
+-----
+==== Annotation 191 ====
+“Absolute” and “Relative” are philosophical classifications which refer to interdependence. That which is ''absolute'' exists independently and with permanence. That which is ''relative'' is temporary, and dependent on other conditions or circumstances in order to exist.
+So Lenin’s point is that ''unity'' exists temporarily in any given pair of opposing sides, as the unity only exists as long as the opposing sides are opposing one another. As soon as one side eliminates or negates the other, the unity subsides. However, ''opposition'' is considered absolute, because it is opposition which drives motion and change in all things, phenomena, and ideas through contradictory processes of opposing sides.
+In the same text quoted in the passage above, ''On the Questions of Dialectics,'' Lenin notes:
+<blockquote>
+The distinction between subjectivism (skepticism, sophistry, etc.) and dialectics, incidentally, is that in (objective) dialectics the difference between the relative and the absolute is itself relative. For objective dialectics there is an absolute within the relative. For subjectivism and sophistry the relative is only relative and excludes the absolute...
+Such must also be the method of exposition (i.e., study) of dialectics in general... To begin with what is the simplest, most ordinary, common, etc., with any proposition: the leaves of a tree are green; John is a man: Fido is a dog, etc. Here already we have dialectics (as Hegel’s genius recognised): the individual is the universal.
+The individual exists only in the connection that leads to the universal. The universal exists only in the individual and through the individual. Every individual is (in one way or another) a universal. Every universal is (a fragment, or an aspect, or the essence of) an individual. Every universal only approximately embraces all the individual objects. Every individual enters incompletely into the universal, etc., etc. Every individual is connected by thousands of transitions with other kinds of individuals (things, phenomena, processes) etc. Here already we have the elements, the germs, the concepts of necessity, of objective connection in nature, etc. Here already we have the contingent and the necessary, the phenomenon and the essence; for when we say: John is a man, Fido is a dog, this is a leaf of a tree, etc., we disregard a number of attributes as contingent; we separate the essence from the appearance, and counterpose the one to the other.
+</blockquote>
+In other words, we must understand that in materialist dialectics, the absolute and the relative exist within one another; in other words, the absolute and the relative have a ''dialectical relationship'' with one another in all things, phenomena, and ideas.
+''Relative unity'' refers to the nature of ''unity'' between contradictory subjects. Contradictory subjects are ''unified'' in the sense that any given contradiction is essentially defined by the contradiction between two subjects. Thus, the two subjects are ''unified'' in contradiction. However, this unity is ''relative'' in the sense that this unification is temporary (the unity will end upon negation and synthesis) and relative (i.e., defined by the relationship between the two contradicting subjects).
+''Absolute struggle'' refers to the fact that contradiction, negation, and synthesis will go on forever; in this sense, contradictory processes are ''absolute'' because such struggle exists ''permanently;'' struggle has no set beginning or end point, and exists independently of any specific thing, phenomenon, or idea.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-64.png|''Relative Unity refers to the temporary and relative nature of specific relationships which define and unify specific contradictions; Absolute Struggle refers to the permanent, constant nature of development through contradiction.'']]
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-65.png|''The relationship between relative unity and absolute struggle defines and drives change, motion, and development through contradiction.'']]
+This applies to contradictions. The ''relative unity'' and the ''absolute struggle'' between opposing sides have a dialectical relationship with one another. The permanent absoluteness of struggle — the fact that all things, phenomena, and ideas are constantly undergoing processes of change through contradictory forces — can only manifest in the relative unity of opposing sides, which can only exist through the temporary existence of conditional relations between opposing sides.
+-----
+The interaction that leads to the transformation between opposites is a process. At the beginning, contradictions manifest as differences and then develop into two opposing sides. When the two contradictions are fiercely matched and when the conditions are ripe, they will transform each other, and finally, the conflict will be resolved. As old contradictions disappear, new contradictions are formed and the process of mutual impact and transformation between opposites continues, which drives the motion and development of all things, phenomena, and ideas. The relationship, impact and transformation between opposites are the source and driving force of all movement and development in the world. Lenin affirmed: “Development is the ‘struggle’ of opposites.”<ref>''On the Questions of Dialectics'', Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1915.</ref>
+-----
+==== Annotation 192 ====
+Any given process of development — that is to say, of transformation or motion — can be seen as a struggle between opposites. Various forms of struggle can exist simultaneously for any given subject, and the way we interpret struggle can depend on our point of view.
+For an engineer, a car moving along a road might be seen as a struggle between the power generated by the engine against the mass of the car itself and the friction of the tires on the ground. The driver of the car might see the process in terms of the struggle between the driver and the environment as they navigate across town avoiding accidents and following traffic laws.
+An organism’s life can be seen as a struggle between the organism’s life processes and its environment, or it might be seen as a struggle of contradictory forces within the organism itself (i.e., forces of consumption of nutrition vs. forces of expending energy to survive, forces of disease vs. forces of the organism’s immune system, etc.).
+Materialist dialectics requires us to identify, examine, and understand the opposing forces which drive all development in our universe. Only through understanding such contradictions can we intercede and affect changes in the world which suit our purposes.
+For example, in order to fight against capitalism and other forms of oppression, we must first understand the contradictory forces which exist within and between those oppressive social structures. Only then can we determine how we might best apply our will, through labor processes, to dismantle such oppressive structures. We might do this by exacerbating existing contradictions within oppressive structures, by introducing new contradictions, by negating contradictions which inhibit our own progress, etc.
+==== c. Meaning of the Methodology ====
+Given that contradictions are objective and universal, and that they are the source and driving force of movement and development, it is therefore necessary to detect, recognize, and understand contradictions, to fully analyze opposing sides, and to grasp the nature, origin and tendencies of motion and development in our awareness and practice.
+Lenin said: “The splitting of a single whole and the cognition of its contradictory parts… is the ''essence…'' of dialectics.”<ref>''On the Questions of Dialectics'', Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1915.</ref>
+-----
+==== Annotation 193 ====
+In other words, materialist dialectics is simply a system of understanding the world around us by viewing all things, phenomena, and ideas as collections of relationships and contradictions which exist within and between all things, phenomena, and ideas.
+Since contradictions exist with such rich diversity, it is necessary to have a historical point of view [see Annotation 114, p. 116] — that is, to know how to analyze each specific type of contradiction and have appropriate methods for resolving them. In our perception and practice, it is necessary to properly distinguish the roles and positions of different types of contradictions in each situation and condition; we must also distinguish between different characteristics which contradictions might have in order to find the best method of resolving them.
+-----
+==== Annotation 194 ====
+The historical viewpoint is vital because in order to fully understand any given contradiction, we must understand the process of development which led to its formation.
+For example, before a car engine can be repaired, we must first find out what caused the engine to stop working to begin with. If the car is out of fuel, we must determine what caused it to run out of fuel. Did the driver simply drive until the fuel tank was empty, or is there a hole or leak in a fuel line, in the tank, etc.?
+It is vital to know the history of development of a given pair of opposing sides, as well as the characteristics and other properties of both opposing sides, to fully understand the contradiction. Since all conscious activity (like all processes of motion and change) ultimately derives from the driving force of contradiction, it is vital for us to develop a historical and comprehensive perspective of any contradictions we hope to affect through our conscious activities.
+=== 3. Law of Negation of Negation ===
+The law of negation of negation describes the fundamental and universal tendency of movement and development to occur through ''dialectical negation'', forming a cyclical form of development through what is termed “''negation of negation''.”
+==== a. Definition of Negation and Dialectical Negation ====
+The world continuously and endlessly changes and develops. Things, phenomena, and ideas that arise, exist, develop and perish, are replaced by other things, phenomena, and ideas; one form of existence is replaced with another form of existence, again and again, continuously, through this development process. This procedure is called ''negation''.
+All processes of movement and development take place through negation. From certain perspectives, negations can be seen as end points to the development (and thus, existence) of a given thing, phenomenon, or idea [which we can think of as “terminal negations;” see Annotation below]. But from other perspectives, negations can also create the conditions and premises for new developments. Such negations, which create such conditions and premises for the development of things and phenomena, are called ''dialectical negation''.
+-----
+==== Annotation 195 ====
+''Negation'' refers to any act of motion or transformation which arises from contradiction. Specifically, negation is what occurs when one opposing side completely overcomes the other. Nothing in our universe can transform or move all by itself, without any contradiction. Thus, negation drives all development and motion of all things, phenomena, and ideas [see Annotation 119, p. 123]. There are various forms of negation, and the same negation process may be seen to take different forms depending on viewpoint of analysis [see Annotation 11, p. 12, and Annotation 114, p. 116], as depicted in the diagram below.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-66.png|''An overview of various forms of negation as they relate to dialectical development.'']]
+''Dialectical negation'' occurs when the end of development leads directly to some new development process. Dialectical negation occurs through quality shifts [see Annotation 117, p. 119], which, themselves, occur through negation of opposite sides.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-67.png|''Replacement negation refers to the replacement of one thing, phenomenon, or idea with another through dialectical negation.'']]
+'''Translation Note:''' ''The terms “terminal negation” and “replacement negation” do not appear in the original Vietnamese text. We chose to assign terms to these concepts for clarity.''
+''Replacement negation'' occurs when one thing, phenomenon, or idea takes the place of another. Replacement negation is always a dialectical process, where one subject is replaced gradually by another. Replacement may be relatively fast or slow, but it is never instantaneous — nothing can pop in and out of existence instantaneously. For example: swords were gradually replaced by firearms as the primary weapons of war over the course of many centuries. Today, swords have been completely replaced by firearms on the battlefield. This was a process of ''replacement negation'' — weapons are still used in war, but the type of weapon used has been completely replaced. Development continues, even though development of swords as battle weapons has essentially ended.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-68.png|''Terminal negation refers to the end of a specific cycle of development.'']]
+''Terminal negation'' is what happens when development completely ends for a given thing, phenomenon, or idea. For example, from one viewpoint, the development of swords as weapons of war can be seen as having ended — having been ''terminally negated'' — due to the innovation of firearms. In essence, swords are no longer developed, nor implemented, in modern warfare.
+Replacement negation and terminal negation must be considered in relative terms. From one viewpoint, we can see the rise of firearms as the underlying reason for the ''terminal negation'' of military use of swords. Today, no army on Earth uses swords as primary battlefield weapons and militaries no longer develop sword technology for battlefield use. However, from another viewpoint, the development of battlefield weapons has continued on long after the end of the primacy of swords, and it could be said that firearms have ''replaced'' swords as the primary battlefield weapon.
+Consider the death of a human being. From one perspective, death is a ''terminal negation'' — the person’s consciousness has ended, and no further development of consciousness will occur for that individual. From other perspectives, development continues. The individual may have had children who will continue their familial lineage, they may have contributed ideas which will continue to impact other people for centuries to come, and so on. In that sense, replacement negation may be viewed as dialectical negation. For example, someone studying modes of transportation in the history of the USA may see the process of steam locomotives replacing horses, and then cars replacing steam locomotives, as processes of dialectical negation from the overarching perspective of the transportation system.
+-----
+Materialist dialectics is concerned with all forms of negation, but focuses primarily on dialectical negation. Therefore, materialist dialectics is not just a theory of transformation in general, but fundamentally a theory of development
+-----
+==== Annotation 196 ====
+All transformation is driven by negation. Development is a process, specifically, of ''dialectical'' negation, which is a specific form of transformation in which an end of development creates the conditions for new development, either through internal quality shifts or through replacement by some external subject.
+Materialist dialectics is primarily concerned with dialectical negation (which drives development) because it is ''development'' which brings forth continuous change in our world. Terminal negations and other forms of transformation which do not drive further development are of limited utility, and can only represent certain limited viewpoints [i.e., the viewpoint of that which is terminated].
+From a broader perspective, nearly all “terminations” are replaced in some way or another by some other form of development. For instance, even when a person dies, although the consciousness of that person may terminate, there will be continuous impacts which will be carried forward from the deceased person’s lifetime of consciousness, as well as from the developments which arise from the death itself.
+This dialectical definition of negation differs greatly from metaphysical conceptions of development [see Annotation 201, p. 195], which are essentially viewed as terminal. From the metaphysical perspective, all things, phenomena, and ideas are viewed as separate from one another; therefore negations are viewed as terminal processes which bring development processes to their ends.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-69.png|''The metaphysical perspective of terminal negation views negation as an essentially terminal process representing the end point of the existence of a static and isolated thing, phenomenon, or idea.'']]
+In the above example, the metaphysical framework would present smashing a vase with a hammer as a terminal negation from the perspective of the observer. Once the vase is smashed, the vase is considered to no longer exist, and the broken shards are not considered to be “a vase” any more. Materialist dialectics, on the other hand, view “the shards” as merely a developed form of the vase; a transition to a new stage of development; the negation was only terminal from the perspective of the vase itself.
+'''''Excerpt From'' Vietnam’s High School Freshman Civic Education textbook:'''
+Metaphysical and dialectical negation share one commonality: they both see development as the replacement of an old subject with a new subject. However, metaphysical negation happens when outside forces impact on a subject, deleting completely the existence of the old subject. According to this metaphysical perspective, the old subject and the new subject which replaces it do not have any connection.
+Dialectical negation fundamentally differs from metaphysical negation because it views development as a process of internal development. Dialectical negation does not view complete erasure or deletion of any former subject; instead, dialectical development sees the older subject, which is replaced (negated), as the premise or basis of existence for the new subject.
+'''Comparison Examples:'''
+{|
+| | '''Metaphysical Negation'''
+| '''Dialectical Negation'''
+|
+|-
+| | The earthquake destroyed the house.
+| The house was impacted by the external force of an earthquake, which caused it to collapse, due to internal characteristics of the house itself (which could not withstand the forces of the earthquake). The debris from the collapsed house will be cleared away, and will continue to develop. The space where the house stood will also continue to develop in some way, with the earthquake and the resulting collapse serving as the basis for this further development.
+|
+|-
+| | Water eroded the mountain.
+| The external force of water caused erosion by transferring material away from the mountain, due to the internal characteristics of the mountain’s composite material. The water, the material which was washed away, and the mountain will all continue to develop. The erosion process will be the basis for this further development.
+|
+|-
+| | The car has a new tire because it ran over a nail.
+| The external force of the nail caused the tire to permanently deflate, due to the internal characteristics of the tire, which could not withstand running over a nail. This served as the basis for further development: the old tire was removed and will be disposed of, which will serve as the basis for further development (i.e., the tire may be recycled or sent to a landfill); the removal of the tire serves as the basis for the further development of a new tire being installed.
+|
+|-
+| | When you add water, sunlight, and nutrition to a seed, it will grow into a plant.
+| The seed went through a process of negation as a sprout grew, through various stages of development, into a plant, facilitated by outside forces (such as water, nutrition, sunlight, etc. — the seed would not grow in isolation) as well as the internal characteristics of the seed itself; the seed served as the basis of the sprout’s development. The sprout then served as the basis for the growth of a seedling, and the seedling served as the basis for the growth of a fully grown plant. All of this development was driven by negation processes as quantity shifts gradually led to quality shifts through those various stages of development.
+|
+|}
+As you can see from the examples above, the metaphysical perspective focuses on external forces affecting a given subject and views every development process as terminal, with a beginning, middle, and end. The metaphysical perspective thus views negation as a termination of the subject (and, by extension, of development).
+Materialist dialectics, on the other hand, views development as a continuous and never-ending process of mutual impact, negation, and further negation of each negation. A comprehensive and historical viewpoint [see Annotation 114, p. 116] must thus be sought to fully comprehend development and negation processeses.
+Dialectical negation has two basic characteristics: ''objectivity'' and ''inheritance''.
+Dialectical negation is ''objective'' because negation arises from contradictions which exist between two opposite sides. These opposing sides may exist within a thing, phenomenon, or idea, but the opposing sides are still, by definition, externally opposed to one another from the perspective of either side.
+-----
+==== Annotation 197 ====
+Though any given negation may be viewed as terminal from a certain perspective, materialist dialectics is most concerned with processes of development wherein the end of one stage of development creates the conditions for further development [see Annotation 117, p. 119].
+Therefore, every development is simultaneously an ''internal'' and an ''external process,'' depending on perspective. Development processes may, from certain perspectives, be seen to take place ''within'' a subject or ''between'' two subjects, but they are always ''external'' (and, therefore, objective — see Annotation 108, p. 112) from the perspective of either opposing side while simultaneously ''internal'' to the relationship.
+For example: The relationship between a husband and wife may be seen as an ''internal process of development'' of “the marriage” from the perspective of a marriage counselor. However, from their own perspectives, each “opposing side” (i.e., the husband and the wife) see one another as external to each other.
+Therefore, the development of a marriage may be seen as an internal process, but the mutual impacts and negations which occur within the relationship are objective and external forces from the perspective of either opposing side.
+This is important because it means that all development and all negation are essentially objective processes; therefore no entity has complete, omniscient control over any development process. We must, therefore, understand the nature of development and negation in order to be able to properly plan and affect change in our world.
+Dialectical negation is, therefore, the result of the process of resolving inevitable contradictions within a subject [i.e., a relationship] itself. Dialectical negation allows for the old to be replaced by the new, thereby creating trends of development. Therefore, dialectical negation is also self-negation.
+-----
+==== Annotation 198 ====
+To reiterate: from the perspective of either opposing side, development is an ''external, objective'' process. From the perspective of the contradictory ''relationship'', processes of development are ''internal'' processes of ''self-negation''. Thus, dialectical negation is both an objective process which no entity can completely control, while, simultaneously, an internal process of self-negation and self-development.
+If two nations go to war, either nation may view the war as an objective, external development process, but from a wider perspective, the war is an internal development process of the diplomatic relationship between the two warring nations. This is drastically different from the metaphysical perspective, which views any negation process as a purely external process of development wherein one subject is permanently deleted from existence, then replaced by another subject [see Annotation 196, p. 188]. From the metaphysical perspective, a war is simply a conflict between two distinct and separate nations, and the conclusion of the war is a terminal negation which ends development of the war. From the materialist dialectical perspective, on the other hand, the end of the war would be seen as the basis of future development of the relationship between the two formerly warring nations.
+Dialectical negation also has an ''inheritance'' characteristic: when one opposing side negates another, the remaining side inherits factors from the negated side which are suitable with present conditions.
+-----
+==== Annotation 199 ====
+Every negation process arises from contradictions between two opposing sides. Within any such negation process, we can think of one side as the “negator” and the other side as the “negated.” Negation, like all relational processes, leads to mutual impact between both sides [see Annotation 136, p. 138]. Therefore, the negated will impact the negator; in other words, the negated side will be somehow ''reflected'' in the negator [see Annotation 68, p. 65]. This means that the negator will inherit and carry forward certain attributes, factors, and characteristics which it receives from the negated side.
+Again, consider a war between two nations. Even if one nation completely conquers and subjugates the other in total victory, the victorious nation will still inherit certain factors from the defeated nation. Which factors are inherited will depend on the conditions. The victorious nation may pick up some cultural aspects from the defeated nation, such as cuisine, fashion, etc., they may incorporate tactics and strategies which they observed the defeated enemy using on the battlefield, and so on. The point is that the victorious nation will be impacted in some way by the defeated nation.
+The factors which are adopted will be ''suitable with the present conditions''. Take, for example, a car breaking down due to engine failure. This can be seen as an opposing relationship between the car itself and the car’s owner. If the present conditions are suitable [i.e., the owner has the funds and resources available, and the desire to repair the car], then the car may be repaired and continue operating for years to come. If, on the other hand, conditions aren’t suitable [i.e., the owner does not have the funds or resources or the owner no longer wants the car], then the car may be sent to the scrapyard.
+As another example, if a fox eats a rabbit, it will inherit certain characteristics from the rabbit. It will inherit nutrition from the rabbit’s body. It may also inherit other characteristics, such as a disease the rabbit was carrying, if the conditions of the fox’s biological composition are suitable [i.e., if the disease can be transferred from the rabbit to the fox].
+Dialectical negation is not a complete negation [i.e., deletion] of the old. Rather, dialectical negation is a continuity of growth in which the old develops into the new. In processes of dialectical negation, “the new” forms and develops on its own [see Annotation 62, p. 59], through the process of filtering out unsuitable factors, while retaining suitable content. Vladimir Lenin described dialectical negation as:
+“Not empty negation, not futile negation, not skeptical negation, vacillation and doubt is characteristic and essential in dialectics — which undoubtedly contains the element of negation and indeed as its most important element — no, but negation as a moment of connection, as a moment of development, retaining the positive, i.e., without any vacillations, without any eclecticism.”<ref>''Conspectus of Hegel’s Science of Logic,'' Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1914.</ref>
+-----
+==== Annotation 200 ====
+The passage from Lenin above comes from Clemence Dutt’s popular English translation of one of Lenin’s notebooks. Below is our translation from the Vietnamese version of this text from the original text of this book, which we hope might be somewhat easier to understand:
+<blockquote>
+Dialectical negation is not empty negation, it’s not negation without any thoughts, it’s not skeptical negation, it’s not hesitation. Skepticism is not a feature of the essence of the dialectic — of course, dialectics include the negative, it even plays as one of the important factors of a given subject — no, it is negation as the moment of development. Dialectical negation retains the positive, meaning there is no hesitation, there is no eclecticism.
+</blockquote>
+In order to understand what Lenin is saying here, we should first understand what Lenin is responding to. The above notes are referring to the chapter titled “The Absolute Ideal” within Hegel’s ''Science of Logic [see note at the end of this Annotation]''. In this chapter, Hegel recounts various critiques of dialectics and counters them.
+''Skepticism'', here, refers to the tendency to address all human knowledge with doubt.
+Philosophical skepticism never moves past two questions: 1. “Is this knowledge true?” 2. “Will human beings ever obtain true knowledge?” Skeptics of this nature engage in a sort of metaphysical inquisition in which every thesis that is ever encountered is immediately and utterly refuted and thus “negated” in the metaphysical sense of termination [see Annotation 196, p. 188].
+''Eclecticism'' refers to philosophical and ideological conceptions which draw from a variety of theories, styles, and ideas in an unsystematic manner. Lenin contends that dialectical negation is non-eclecticist because it rises above mere rhetorical combativeness and “total negation.” [This concept is explained more below within this annotation.]
+With all this in mind, we see that Lenin is refuting the notion that dialectics are and can only be ''negative'' in nature. The metaphysical-skeptic conception of dialectics holds that negation takes the form of rhetorical arguing and refutation, in which one idea is presented, and a second idea is offered to counter the first idea, which completely and totally negates the first idea. According to this argument, dialectics is, therefore, a ''totally negative process''.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-71.png|''A common misperception of dialectical development is that it is “fully negative,” insomuch as the initial thesis (initial subject) is completely negated by the antithesis (impacting subject). In fact, characteristics from both the thesis and antithesis are carried forward into the synthesis.'']]
+In the chapter from ''Science of Logic'' which Lenin is responding to in the referenced text, Hegel is arguing that the conception of dialectics as ''only negative'' — i.e., a system of thinking in which counter-arguments are presented to completely negate initial arguments — is inaccurate. Hegel explains that when one opposing side negates another, it thereafter “contains in general the determination of the first [opposing side] within itself.” In other words, after one opposing side negates another, it retains features and aspects from the opposing side which was negated. Lenin found this particular point to be so important that he wrote “this is very important for understanding dialectics” in the margin of his notebook.
+The reason both Hegel and Lenin found this idea, that the “negator” contains elements of the “negated” after negation [see Annotation 231, p. 227], is that this counters the accusation that dialectics are “only negative.” This is why Lenin’s notes highlight the importance of the negator “retaining the positive” after negation. Lenin is pointing out the importance of the retention of features of the negated in the negator because it is this retention which prevents dialectical development from becoming a purely negative process.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-72.png|''In materialist dialectics, it is understood that negation is a process of retention: characteristics from both the thesis (initial subject) and antithesis (impacting subject) are retained in the resulting synthesis'']]
+We must also understand what Lenin means when he refers to “skepticism” in his notes. Lenin, here, is referring to the philosophical view that we can never know whether or not our beliefs are true. This belief was popularly known as Machism, or Empirio-Criticism, in Lenin’s time (see Annotation 32, p. 27).
+A common critique of dialectics is that it is an inherently skeptical system of thought, since dialectics is seen as a process of presenting counter-arguments to suppositional arguments. Lenin, in his notes, presents the idea that such skepticism is “not a feature of dialectics” precisely because nothing is ever completely, totally, and entirely negated. In other words, the accusation that dialectical analysis is essentially skeptical is rooted in the mistaken notion that one opposing side (i.e., a counter-argument) ''completely negates'' the original supposition. In fact, according to materialist dialectics, the negator ''always'' retains features and aspects from the negated side, which counters this critique. Thus, dialectical development, which occurs through dialectical negation, is a process of forward motion — not a process of “vacillating” back and forth from one position to another — and there is no skeptical “hesitation” preventing forward progress.
+This same idea (that the negator retains features from the negated) also counters another common critique of materialist dialectics: that dialectical analysis is simply a system of rhetorical sophistry [see Annotation 36, p. 33] and eclecticism.
+''Eclecticism'' is a conceptual approach that is completely unsystematic, drawing from a variety of theories, styles, and ideas without any cohesive and all-encompassing philosophical framework.
+Some critics claim that dialectics must be eclecticist and sophistic in nature. These critics claim that dialectics is simply rhetorical disputation in which any given supposition is counter-argued, and that this counter-argument is negation. But materialist dialectics defines negation as one contradicting side overtaking the other while retaining traces and characteristics from the negated side — it is in no way simply an act of rhetorical dispute or refutation.
+In summary, materialist dialectics upholds that nothing is ever completely and utterly deleted or erased from existence through negation. Instead, any time one opposing side negates another, aspects of the negated side are ''inherited'' by the negating side.
+''Note:'' For reference, here is Hegel’s passage which Lenin is referring to from ''Science and Logic'' in the cited notes above:
+<blockquote>
+...a universal first, considered in and for itself, shows itself to be the other of itself. Taken quite generally, this determination can be taken to mean that what is at first immediate now appears as mediated, related to an other, or that the universal appears as a particular. Hence the second term that has thereby come into being is the negative of the first, and if we anticipate the subsequent progress, the first negative. The immediate, from this negative side, has been extinguished in the other, but the other is essentially not the empty negative, the nothing, that is taken to be the usual result of dialectic; rather is it the other of the first, the negative of the immediate; it is therefore determined as the mediated — contains in general the determination of the first within itself. Consequently the first is essentially preserved and retained even in the other. To hold fast the positive in its negative, and the content of the presupposition in the result, is the most important part of rational cognition; also only the simplest reflection is needed to furnish conviction of the absolute truth and necessity of this requirement, while with regard to the examples of proofs, the whole of Logic consists of these.
+</blockquote>
+-----
+Therefore, dialectical negation is the inevitable tendency of progression of the inner relationship between the old and the new. It is the self-driving assertive force of all motion and development of all things, phenomena, and ideas.
+==== b. Negation of Negation ====
+In the perpetual movement of the material world, dialectical negation is an inexhaustible process. It creates a development tendency of things from lower level to higher level, taking place in a cyclical manner in the form of a “spiral.”
+-----
+==== Annotation 201 ====
+The concept of the “spiral” form of development in dialectical materialist philosophy stands in contrast to the metaphysical conception of “linear” development.
+==== Metaphysical Conception of Linear Development ====
+The metaphysical viewpoint holds that development is more or less a straight line: as one subject is negated, it is replaced by another. This subject will then be negated by another, and so on, in what is essentially conceived of as a straight line of development [see Annotation 196, p. 188].
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-73.png|''The metaphysical “line development” model sees an initial form as being “replaced” or entirely negated into a completely distinct entity.'']]
+In the above example, metaphysical line development simply sees raw aluminum as being negated and “replaced” in the real world. Once the aluminum can is created, the “raw aluminum” as a metaphysical entity is considered no longer to exist. Likewise, when the soda can is transformed into recycled aluminum, the can is considered “replaced,” and is no longer considered to have a metaphysical existence.
+This conception of metaphysical line development directly contradicts the materialist dialectical concept of ''historical viewpoint'' [see Annotation 114, p. 116].
+==== Dialectical Materialist Conception of Development ====
+The dialectical materialist conception of cyclical development stems from essential attributes of dialectical negation processes:
+. In every dialectical negation, the negating side inherits features and characteristics from the negated side.
+. When the negating side is, itself, negated (i.e., ''negation of the negation''), the new negating side will retain features and aspects of the old negator.
+. This development process will continue indefinitely, so that negation is not simply a straight line of complete negation, but rather takes the shape of a “spiral” of negations of negations which always inherit features from previous forms.
+Note that this conception of development as a spiral is simply an abstraction to help understand the essential characteristics of dialectical development and to distinguish this form of development from metaphysical conceptions of “linear development.”
+In the example below, we see a depiction of the spiral development of aluminum through various stages of development. After raw aluminum is mined from the Earth, it begins a repeating spiral development process of being refined into usable goods, then recycled into raw material.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-74.png|''The “Spiral Development” model of materialist dialectics sees every stage of development as a higher form of the previous stage which carries forward characteristics from previous stages.'']]
+The illustrated example on the previous page plots the spiral development of aluminum as it cycles between stages defined as raw materials and refined products. Another perspective might depict development differently. For example, if we are examining development in terms of external relations between aluminum other elements, the development pattern would look different. In reality, all subjects have countless internal and external relations and development processes which can be examined.
+The “raw aluminum” stage of development pictured in the illustration is not truly the beginning of this development process; there were millions of years of development which occurred before it was first discovered by humans. Similarly, the landfill will not be the end of this development process; there will be continued development forever for as long as motion in the universe continues.
+This is a simplified and abstract model of development of aluminum. A more accurate representation might show any number of interim steps between each step depicted in the graphic above. For example: it must also be recognized that in reality the molecules of aluminum which the development process began with will be scattered and mixed with other subjects throughout the development process, and various other complexities exist in terms of the mutual impacts of internal and external relationships.
+Determining the amount of detail to include or exclude in materialist dialectical analysis is crucial: too much detail and analysis might become unwieldy; too little detail and analysis might become too abstract and idealized to be useful in the real world. So, the idea of development as a spiral should not be taken literally; it is simply a way of conceptualizing the differences between dialectical negation and development as opposed to “straight-line” development upheld by metaphysical conceptions of negation and development, always carrying forward traces of previous stages of development.
+In the chain of negations that make up the development processes of things, phenomena, and ideas, each dialectical negation creates the conditions and premises for subsequent developments. Through many iterations of negation, i.e., “negations of negations,” dialectical negation will inevitably lead to a ''forward tendency of motion''.
+-----
+==== Annotation 202 ====
+The ''forward tendency of motion'' describes the tendency for things, phenomena, and ideas to move from less advanced to more advanced forms through processes of motion and development.
+As a reminder, “lower level” and “higher level,” i.e., “less advanced” and “more advanced,” should not be taken to have any connotations of “good” and “bad,” nor of “desirable” and “undesirable,” nor even of “less complex” and “more complex.”
+Development from “lower levels” to “higher levels” is simply a shorthand for understanding the fact that development processes always move “forward,” that is to say, development can never happen in reverse, just as time itself can never be reversed. For example, society in Italy will never go back to the civilization of the Roman empire. It is conceivable that Italian society could develop to be ''more similar'' to Ancient Rome, but it would be impossible for Roman society to ever take on the ''exact characteristics'' of the Roman Empire ever again.
+Cyclicality of development processes usually takes place in the form of a spiral, which is another result of “negation of negation.” Negations of negations lead to a development cycle in which things, phenomena, and ideas often undergo two fundamental negations carried through three basic forms. Through this negation pattern, basic features of the initial form are ultimately inherited by the “third form,” but at a higher level of development.
+-----
+==== Annotation 203 ====
+Dialectical development tends to take place through a cyclical pattern in which development is carried through a triad of forms which develop through a pair of dialectical negation processes:
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-75.png|''The cyclical pattern of development is an abstract pattern of dialectical change over time.'']]
+The graphic above illustrates this cyclical pattern, in which:
+. The initial form (the Assertion) begins the pattern. Contradiction within the initial subject or between it and another subject leads to the first negation.
+. The first negation leads to a second form (the Negation). This second form inherits some features or characteristics from the initial form.
+. The second form then encounters opposition, which leads to a second negation.
+. The second negation leads to a third form (Unity), which retains the features or characteristics of the second form, but now more closely resembles the first, initial form, only at a higher level of development.
+Imagine a new car (initial form) crashes into another car (contradicting subject). The new car is dialectically developed (negated) into a second form: a wrecked car. This second form is now contradicted by a new subject — a recycling center — and negated into a third form: new steel. The third form possesses characteristics of the first form, but in a more developed form: after being recycled, the resulting steel it is newly made, in good condition for sale, etc., similarly to the first form of the new car.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-76.png|''In this example, a new car goes through a cyclical pattern of development in which the third form (new steel) possesses characteristics of the first form (a new car).'']]
+Keep in mind that this is relative to one’s perspective. If you consider the wrecked car to be the first form, then the steel would be the second form. The new steel will then need to be developed in some way (melted, hammered, cut, etc.) in order to be processed into some new product. From this perspective, the third form (i.e., molten steel) will have characteristics of the first form (i.e.: “unrefined”).
+According to Marx and Engels, the development of capitalism from feudalism assumed this cyclical pattern:
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-77.png|''The development of class structure is a dialectical process in which different classes synthesize to form the next era of class society. For example, the capitalist class emerged primarily as a synthesis of the feudal lords and peasants of the medieval era.'']]
+Note that this is only an abstract description of a tendency of dialectical development; exceptions can and do occur. Presumably, the development of communism as a stateless, classless society would constitute the negation of the “Class Society” form of human civilization. The Post-Class stage of development which follows would, itself, be a higher form — a unity — of pre-class human civilization, carrying forward traces from the Class Society stage of development.
+Also note that determining which form is the “first” or “initial” pattern is entirely relative. Using the example of the development of class society: from one perspective, the Patricians may be seen as the initial form, but from another perspective the Plebeians might be considered the initial form. This depends entirely on the viewpoint and purpose of analysis. These conceptions of “spirals of development” and the pattern of “three forms through two negations” are, in essence, models which describe general tendencies and patterns of development and which help us understand the basic characteristics of dialectical negation and development.
+Lenin describes this cycle of dialectical development as going “[f]rom assertion to negation — from negation to ‘unity’ with the asserted — without this, dialectics becomes empty negation, a game, skepsis [examination, observation, consideration].”<ref>''Conspectus of Hegel’s Science of Logic,'' Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1914.</ref>
+-----
+==== Annotation 204 ====
+Here, “assertion” simply refers to the initial form of a dialectical development cycle. The negation is the second form, and the “unity” is the third form, which resembles the first form (the assertion) at a higher stage of development. So, in this quotation, Lenin is simply recounting the “three steps” of a typical dialectical development cycle, and indicating that it is necessary to recognize this process, which is rooted in the inheritance of properties of prior forms through development into ever-higher forms, to prevent dialectics from becoming “empty negation,” or otherwise falling prey to the critiques that dialectics are purely negative, skeptical, and eclectic in nature [see Annotation 200, p. 192 and Annotation 36, p. 33].
+The law of negation of negation generalizes the pervasive nature of development: dialectical development does not take the form of a straight path, but rather in the form of a spiral path. Lenin summarised that this path is “[a] development that repeats, as it were, stages that have already been passed, but repeats them in a different way, on a higher basis (‘the negation of the negation’), a development, so to speak, that proceeds in spirals, not in a straight line…”<ref>''Karl Marx'', Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1914.</ref> The tendency to develop in a spiral curve demonstrates the dialectical nature of development; i.e., the cycle of inheritance, repetition, and progression. Each new round of the spiral appears to be repeating, but at a higher level. The continuation of the loops in a spiral reflects an endless progression from lower levels to higher levels of things, phenomena, and ideas.
+In short, the law of negation of negation in materialist dialectics reflects the dialectical relationship between the negative and the assertion [i.e., the second and first forms of a dialectical development cycle; see Annotation 203, p. 198] in the development process of things, phenomena and ideas. Dialectical development is driven by dialectical negation; in the development of all things, phenomena, and ideas, the new is the result of inheriting characteristics from prior forms. This process of inheritance, repetition, and progression through negation leads to cyclical development. Engels wrote: “what is the negation of the negation? An extremely general — and for this reason extremely far-reaching and important — law of development of nature, history, and thought.”<ref>''Anti-Dühring'', Friedrich Engels, 1878.</ref>
+-----
+==== Annotation 205 ====
+In the same text quoted above, Engels elaborates that dialectical development is composed of “processes which in their nature are antagonistic, contain a contradiction; transformation of one extreme into its opposite; and finally, as the kernel of the whole thing, the negation of the negation.”
+==== c. Meaning of the Methodology ====
+The law of negation of negation is the basis for correct perception of the tendency of motion and development of things, phenomena, and ideas. Development and motion processes do not take place in a straight line; rather, it is a winding, complex road, consisting of many stages, and each process can be broken down into many different sub-processes. However, it must be understood that this complexity of development is only the manifestation of the general tendency to move forward [see Annotation 118, p. 122]. It is important to understand the nature of motion and development so that we can systematically change the world according to our revolutionary viewpoint. In order to consciously impact the development of things, phenomena, and ideas, we need to know their characteristics, nature, and relationships so that we can influence their motion and development in the direction that suits our purposes. We must comprehend and leverage the tendency of forward movement — in accordance with a scientific and revolutionary worldview — in order to effectively and systematically change the world.
+-----
+==== Annotation 206 ====
+Understanding the forward tendency of motion is vital for cultivating a worldview which is both ''scientific'' and ''revolutionary.'' Such a worldview is ''scientific'' because it recognizes the material reality that all things, phenomena, and ideas are constantly undergoing change and development. Nothing in our universe is static, and all things are connected and defined by internal and external relationships (which are also constantly developing). Furthermore, this development progresses with a ''forward tendency'', meaning that no process can be completely “reversed.” For example, you can clean rust from a car [which would be forward progress], but you can’t reverse the temporal process of rust.
+Once we understand that all things, phenomena, and ideas in our universe are constantly developing and moving forward, we can then begin to find ways to ''impact'' motion and development systematically to consciously change the world around us. This is the foundation of a ''revolutionary'' worldview, since revolutionary change requires us to leverage and influence development processes to suit our needs and revolutionary ambitions. Thus, materialist dialectics are an applied system of observation and practice through which we seek to understand development processes and consciously impact them to suit our needs.
+According to the rule of negation of negation, in the objective world, the new must inevitably come to replace the old. In nature, the new develops according to objective laws. In social life, new things arise from the purposeful, self-conscious, and creative actions of human beings. Therefore, it is necessary to leverage ''subjective factors'' as we seek to consciously impact the development of things, phenomena, and ideas.
+-----
+==== Annotation 207 ====
+Subjective factors are factors which we, as a subject, are capable of impacting. This may seem confusing, since we have previously established that all external things, phenomena, and ideas have ''objective'' relationships with all other things, phenomena, and ideas [see Annotation 108, p. 112], meaning that any given subject is ''external'' to every other subject, and thus no subject can directly and completely control the motion and development of any other subject.
+However, from the perspective of any given individual, there are certain things, phenomena, and ideas [as well as processes of motion and development] which we can ''impact''. For example, if I see an apple on a table, the apple is ''objective'' to me. I can’t simply will the apple to move with my consciousness alone. However, I can ''impact'' the apple through conscious activity — I can consciously will my hand to pick up the apple and move it to another location.
+Thus, factors which an individual can consciously impact are ''subjective factors''. As revolutionists, we must focus on subjective factors. In other words, we must concentrate on ''that which we are capable of changing'', since our purpose is to change the world. Focusing on factors which we can’t impact is a waste of time; we must simply determine what ''can be changed'' and then determine the most efficient and effective ways of impacting development processes and changing the world.
+As revolutionists, we must have faith that we can introduce the “new,” faith in the success of the “new,” we must support the “new,” and fight for the victory of the “new.” Therefore, it is necessary to overcome conservative, stagnant, and dogmatic thoughts which restrain the development of the “new” and resist the law of negation of negation.
+-----
+==== Annotation 208 ====
+Change is inevitable. All things, phenomena, and ideas undergo processes of motion and development. Any philosophy, ideology, or strategy which attempts to restrain motion and development is doomed to failure because change can neither be halted nor restrained. Thus, our strategies and actions must align with the material reality that change is inevitable, and we must seek to change the world by ''impacting'' processes of development and motion rather than attempting to reverse, restrain, or halt such processes.
+Ideologies which erroneously strive to restrict change and development include ''rigidity'' (see Annotation 222, p. 218) and ''conservativism'' (see Annotation 236, p. 233).
+In the process of negating the old we must leverage the principle of inheritance with discretion: we must encourage the inheritance of factors that are beneficial to our goals as we simultaneously attempt to filter out, overcome, and reform factors which would negatively impact our goals.
+-----
+==== Annotation 209 ====
+If we understand the principle of inheritance, we can impact inheritance processes which derive from negation. For example, when repairing a car, we can seek out parts of the car which do not function properly or which do not suit the use-case of the car and add or replace parts which are more suitable.
+In the same way, we can impact inheritence processes in our revolutionary political activities. We can seek to inherit characteristics from previous stages of development of our political organizations, social institutions, culture, etc., while simultaneously seeking to prevent the inheritence of traits and characteristics which are unsuitable for our revolutionary purposes. Over time, we can attempt to impact the inheritance of traits and aspects which are more conducive to our purposes while limiting and filtering out traits and aspects which are hindrances.
+In an article titled “New Life” written in 1947, Ho Chi Minh wrote about the dialectical relationship between the new and the old in building a new society, writing:
+<blockquote>
+Not everything old must be abandoned. We do not have to reinvent everything. What is old but bad must be abandoned. What is old but troublesome must be corrected appropriately. What is old but good must be further developed. What is new but good must be done.
+... Growing up in the old society, we all carry within us more-or-less bad traces of the old society in terms of our ideas and habits... Habits are hard to change. That which is good and new is likely to be considered bad by the people because it is strange to them. On the contrary, that which is evil yet familiar is easily mistaken as normal and acceptable.
+</blockquote>
+Ho Chi Minh understood the principles of development very well, as well as the difficulties we will face as revolutionaries as we try to change ourselves and our society. We must strive to develop a similar understanding as we move forward and attempt to affect the development of our world through practice and struggle.
+-----
+= Chapter 3: Cognitive Theory of Dialectical Materialism =
+In Marxism, epistemological reasoning (or epistemology) is the foundation of dialectics. Dialectical materialist epistemology is a theory of applying human cognitive ability to the objective world through practical activities. It explains the nature, path and general laws of the human process of perceiving truth and objective reality to serve human practical activities.
+-----
+==== Annotation 210 ====
+Epistemology is the theoretical study of knowledge. It also deals with the philosophical question of: “how do we know what is true?”
+Throughout history, philosophers have tried to determine the nature of truth and knowledge. In the era of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, there was an ongoing dispute between the materialists, who believed that truth could only be sought through sense experience of the material world, and the idealists, who believed that truth could only be sought through reasoning within the human mind.
+Marx and Engels developed the philosophical system of dialectical materialism to resolve this dispute. Dialectical materialism upholds that the material and the ideal have a dialectical relationship with one another: the material ''determines'' the ideal, while the ideal ''impacts'' the material [see ''The Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness'', p. 88].
+However, it’s important to understand that Marx and Engels didn’t develop the system of dialectical materialism simply to understand the world. As Marx wrote in ''Theses on Feuerbach:''
+<blockquote>
+The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.
+</blockquote>
+So, Marxist dialectical materialist epistemology is developed specifically to enable human beings to not only perceive truth and objective reality, but to then be able to apply our conscious thought, through practical activity, in order to bring about change in the world.
+-----
+== 1. Praxis, Consciousness, and the Role of Praxis in Consciousness ==
+=== a. Praxis and Basic Forms of Praxis ===
+''Praxis'' includes all human material activities which have purpose and historical-social characteristics and which transform nature and society. Unlike other activities, praxis is activity in which humans attempt to materially impact the world to suit our purposes. Praxis activities define the nature of human beings and distinguish human beings from other animals. Praxis is objective activity, and praxis has been constantly developed by humans through the ages.
+<br />
+-----
+==== Annotation 211 ====
+In English, the words “practice” and “praxis” are often distinguished from one another. “Practice” is often used to refer to human activity which provides more information about the world around us and improves our knowledge and understanding, whereas “praxis” often refers to conscious human activity which is intended to change the world in some manner. In their original German, Marx and Engels used the same German word — ''Praxis'' — to refer to both concepts. Similarly, in the original Vietnamese text of this book, the same word — ''thực tiễn'' — is used for both “practice” and “praxis.”
+One reason that these concepts are so closely related is that all conscious activity serves both rolls by simultaneously telling us more about reality ''and'' consciously changing reality in some way. For example, by pushing a heavy stone, you may be able to move the stone a small amount — constituting praxis — while simultaneously learning how heavy the stone is and how difficult it is to move — constituting practice. The main point of distinction, therefore, is ''intention''. Virtually all conscious activity is practice, but only activity which has ''purpose'' and ''historical-social characteristics'' might be considered praxis:
+''Purpose'' simply describes a goal or desired outcome; specifically: a desired change in nature or human society. Activities with ''historical-social characteristics'' are activities which contribute in some way to the development of human society.
+In this translation, we use “practice” and “praxis” interchangably to mean “conscious activity which improves our understanding, and which has purpose and historical-social characteristics.” You are likely to find these words used differently (as described above, or in other ways) in other texts. Engels explains the importance of practice/praxis in ''Socialism: Utopian and Scientific'':
+<blockquote>
+The proof of the pudding is in the eating. From the moment we [use] these objects, according to the qualities we perceive in them, we put to an infallible test the correctness or otherwise of our sense-perceptions. If these perceptions have been wrong, then our estimate of the use to which an object can be turned must also be wrong, and our attempt must fail. But if we succeed in accomplishing our aim, if we find that the object does agree with our idea of it, and does answer the purpose we intended it for, then that is positive proof that our perceptions of it and of its qualities, so far, agree with reality outside ourselves.
+</blockquote>
+Marx wrote in ''Theses on Feuerbach'' that “the coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-change can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice [German: ''revolutionäre Praxis''].” Engels further expounds upon this concept in ''Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy'', writing:
+<blockquote>
+The most telling refutation of this as of all other philosophical fancies is practice [original German: Praxis], viz., experiment and industry. If we are able to prove the correctness of our conception of a natural process by making it ourselves, bringing it into being out of its conditions and using it for our own purposes into the bargain, then there is an end of the Kantian incomprehensible or ungraspable.
+</blockquote>
+Praxis defines the nature of human beings because human beings are (to our present knowledge) the only beings which undertake actions with conscious awareness of our desired outcomes and comprehension of the historical development of our own society, which distinguishes human beings from all other animals. Praxis is ''objective'' activity, meaning that all praxis activities are performed in relation to external things, phenomena, and ideas [see Annotation 108, p. 112].
+Praxis has been constantly developed by humans through the ages, meaning that as we learn more about the nature of reality, of human society, and the laws of nature, we are able to develop our praxis to become more efficient and effective.
+Praxis activities are very diverse, manifesting with ever-increasing variety, but there are only three basic forms: material production activities, socio-political activities, and scientific experimental activities.
+''Material production activity'' is the first and most basic form of praxis. In this form of praxis activity, humans use tools through labor processes to influence the natural world in order to create wealth and material resources and to develop the conditions necessary to maintain our existence and development.
+''Socio-political activity'' includes praxis activity utilized by various communities and organizations in human society to transform political-social relations in order to promote social development.
+''Scientific experimental activity'' is a special form of praxis activity. This includes human activities that resemble or replicate states of nature and society in order to determine the laws of change and development of subjects of study. This form of activity plays an important role in the development of society, especially in the current historical period of modern science and technological revolution.
+-----
+==== Annotation 212 ====
+The three basic forms of praxis activities listed above obviously do not include all forms of human activity, as praxis only includes activities which have ''purpose'' and ''historical-social characteristics''.
+''Material production activity'' has a very clear purpose: to improve the material conditions of an individual human being or a group of human beings. Material production activity has historical-social characteristics because developing material conditions for human beings leads directly to the development of human society. For example, as food production increases in terms of yield and efficiency, society can support a larger number of human beings and a wider range of human activities, which leads to the development of human society.
+''Socio-political activity'' has the purpose of promoting social development, which is obviously inherently historical-social in nature. An example of socio-political activity would include any sort of political campaign, liberation struggle, political revolutionary activity, etc.
+''Scientific experimental activity'' has the purpose of expanding our understanding of nature and human society, which leads directly to historical-social development in a variety of ways. For example, improving our scientific understanding of medicine through scientific experimental activity leads to longer lives and improved quality of life. Improving our scientific understanding of chemistry through scientific experimental activity leads to all sorts of materials which improve the quality of life and enable human beings to solve a variety of social problems.
+In order to qualify as praxis activity, a given human activity must have a purpose and it must have historical-social characteristics. For instance, drawing is not always praxis in the sense of the word used in this text, but it would be praxis if it would qualify as material production activity (i.e., making art in order to sell, so as to make a living) or if the art is made with the intention of invoking social change.
+Every basic praxis activity form has an important function, and these functions are not interchangeable with each other. However, they have close relationships with each other and different praxis activity forms often interact with each other. In these relationships, material production is the most important form of praxis activity, playing a decisive role in determining other praxis activities because material production is the most primitive activity and exists most commonly in human life. Material production creates the most essential, decisive material conditions for human survival and development. Without material production there cannot be other praxis activities. After all, all other praxis activities arise from material production praxis and all praxis activities ultimately aim to serve material production praxis.
+-----
+==== Annotation 213 ====
+Without material production activity, human beings would not be able to live at all.
+Thus, material production activities make all other forms of human activities possible. In addition, the primary reason we participate in socio-political activity is to ensure material security (food, water, shelter, etc.) for members of society, which ultimately relies on material production activity. Therefore, the primary reason we engage in scientific experimental activity is to improve material production activities in terms of efficiency, yield, effectiveness, etc
+Of course, we engage in scientific experimental activity and material production activity for other reasons (art, entertainment, recreation, etc.), but these activities require that material security be secured first for those participating in the production and consumption of such products. In other words, material production activity is a prerequisite for all other forms of activity, since without some measure of material security humans cannot survive.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-78.png|''Material production activity has a dialectical relationship with all other praxis activity, with material production activity determining, while being impacted by, all other forms of praxis activity.'']]
+Thus, material production activity has a dialectical relationship with other forms of praxis activities, in which material production activity determines both socio-political and scientific experimental activity while socio-political and scientific experimental activity impact material production activity.
+-----
+=== b. Consciousness and Levels of Consciousness ===
+The dialectical materialist perspective sees consciousness as a process of reflecting the objective world within the human brain on a practical basis to create knowledge about the objective world. Consciousness is a self-aware process that is productive and creative.
+This view stems from the following basic principles:
+* The dialectical materialist worldview acknowledges that the material world exists objectively and independently of human consciousness.
+* The dialectical materialist worldview recognizes the following human abilities:
+** To perceive the objective world.
+** To reflect the objective world into the human mind, which enables human subjects to learn about external objects. [see Annotation 66, p. 64]
+** To admit that there are no material things nor phenomena which are unrecognizable, but only material things and phenomena that humans have not yet recognised. [see ''The Opposition of Materialism and Idealism in Solving Basic Philosophical Issues,'' p. 48]
+The dialectical materialist worldview affirms that conscious reflection [see Annotation 67, p. 64] of the objective world is a dialectical, productive, self-aware, and creative process. This reflection process develops from the unknown to the known, from knowing less to knowing more, from knowing less profoundly and less comprehensively to knowing more profoundly and more comprehensively.
+-----
+==== Annotation 214 ====
+The above principle (that human knowledge develops from less, and less comprehensive, to more, and more comprehensive states) stands in contrast to various other philosophical systems of belief, including:
+Hegel’s ''Absolute Idealism'' upholds a belief in an “absolute ideal” which constitutes an ultimate limit or “end point” of knowledge which humanity is moving towards. Dialectical materialism upholds that there is no such absolute ideal and thus no such terminal end point of human understanding. [See Annotation 234, p. 230] As Engels wrote in ''Anti-Dühring'':
+<blockquote>
+If mankind ever reached the stage at which it should work only with eternal truths, with results of thought which possess sovereign validity and an unconditional claim to truth, it would then have reached the point where the infinity of the intellectual world both in its actuality and in its potentiality had been exhausted, and thus the famous miracle of the counted uncountable would have been performed.
+</blockquote>
+''Fideism'', which is the belief that knowledge is received from some higher power [i.e., God]. Fideism upholds that all knowledge is pre-existing, and that humanity simply receives it from on high. Dialectical materialism, on the other hand, argues that knowledge is developed over time through dialectical processes of consciousness and human activity.
+''Positivism, or empiricist materialism'', which holds that there are hard limits to human knowledge, or that human knowledge — which can only be obtained from sense data — can’t be trusted. Dialectical materialism upholds that all things and phenomena can be known and understood, and that sense data can be trusted as an objective reflection of reality. For more information about skepticism about human sense data as well as positive and empiricist materialism, see Annotation 10, p. 10, and Annotation 58, p. 56].
+-----
+The dialectical materialist worldview considers praxis as the primary and most direct basis of consciousness, and as the motive and the purpose of consciousness, and as the criterion for testing truth. [See: ''The Relationship Between Praxis and Consciousness'', p. 216]
+-----
+==== Annotation 215 ====
+Given the above principles — that human consciousness exists independently from the material world yet is capable of accurately perceiving and reflecting the material world, and that knowledge develops over time through a synthesis of consciousness and practical activity — we can conclude that consciousness is a self-aware process which is productive and creative.
+Consciousness is productive and creative in the sense that conscious processes, in conjunction with practical experience and activity in the material world, leads to the development of knowledge and practical experience which allows humans to develop our understanding of the world as well as our own material conditions through the application of knowledge to our own labor activities.
+Next, we will examine different ways of categorizing conscious activities as they pertain to developing knowledge and practical understanding of our world.
+From the dialectical materialist point of view, consciousness is a process of development. Consciousness develops from ''empirical consciousness'' to ''theoretical consciousness''; and from ''ordinary consciousness'' to ''scientific consciousness''.
+-----
+==== Annotation 216 ====
+In dialectical materialist philosophy, all systems of relation exist as processes of development in motion [see Annotation 120, p. 124]. Thus, consciousness can be defined as a system of relations between human brain activity and two forms of data input:
+''•'' ''Sense experience'': observations of the external world detected by our senses.
+''•'' ''Knowledge'': information which exists in the human mind as memories and ideas.
+Consciousness is thus a process of the development of knowledge through a combination of human brain activity and human practical activity in the physical world (i.e., labor).
+In the section below, we will explore different forms of consciousness, the development of consciousness, and the relationship between consciousness and knowledge. Note that these are ''abstractions'' of consciousness and knowledge, meant to help us understand how knowledge and consciousness develop over time. Thought processes are extremely complex, so we seek to develop a fundamental understanding of how consciousness develops and how knowledge develops because these processes are fundamental to the development of human beings and human societies.
+Just as consciousness is a process of developing knowledge through brain activity, consciousness itself also develops over time. The development of consciousness can be considered based on the criteria of ''concrete/abstract'' and of ''passive/active''.
+Consciousness develops from a state of direct and immediate observation of the world which results in concrete knowledge to a higher stage which constitutes a more abstract and general understanding of the world. We call consciousness which is focused on direct, immediate, concrete, empirical observation of the world ''empirical consciousness'', and we call consciousness which is focused on forming abstract generalizations about the world ''theoretical consciousness''.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-79.png]]
+Empirical consciousness is a process of collecting data about the world, which we call knowledge. We can gather two forms of knowledge through empirical consciousness: ordinary knowledge, and scientific knowledge.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-80.png]]
+Ordinary knowledge is the knowledge we accumulate through our everyday experiences in the world. Scientific knowledge is gathered through more systematic scientific observations and experiments. Scientific knowledge usually develops from ordinary knowledge, as we begin to seek a more formal and systematic understanding of the things we witness in our daily lives.
+According to ''Themes in Soviet Marxist Philosophy,'' edited by T. J. Blakely:
+<blockquote>
+Ordinary knowledge notes what lies on the very surface, what happens during a certain event. Scientific knowledge wants to know why it happens in just this way. The essence of scientific knowledge lies in the confirmed generalization of facts, where it becomes necessary rather than contingent, universal instead of particular, law-bound, and can serve as a basis for predicting various phenomena, events and objects...
+The whole progress of scientific knowledge is bound up with growth in the force and volume of scientific prediction. Prediction makes it possible to control processes and to direct them. Scientific knowledge opens up the possibility not only of predicting the future but also of consciously forming it. The vital meaning of every science can be expressed as follows: to know in order to predict and to predict in order to act.
+An essential characteristic of scientific knowledge is that it is systematic, i.e., it is a set of information which is ordered according to certain theoretical principles. A collection of unsystematized knowledge is not yet science. Certain basic premises are fundamental to scientific knowledge, i.e., the laws which make it possible to systematize the knowledge. Knowledge becomes scientific when the collection of facts and their descriptions reach the level where they are included in a theory.
+</blockquote>
+Theoretical consciousness arises from conscious reflection on accumulated knowledge, as human beings seek to develop general and abstract understanding of the underlying principles of processes we experience in the world. Once general principles of natural and social law are established, human beings then test those general conclusions against empirical reality through further observation (i.e., through empirical consciousness).
+Thus, there is a dialectical relationship between empirical consciousness and theoretical consciousness, as one form leads to another, back and forth, again and again, continuously.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-81.png|''Empirical and theoretical consciousness have a dialectical relationship in which empirical consciousness and theoretical consciousness lead to and mutually develop one another.'']]
+Consciousness also develops from passive and surface-level observation and understanding of the world (i.e., simply considering what, where, and when things happen) to more active pursuit of the underlying meaning of the world (i.e., trying to understand how and why things happen).
+Consciousness which passively observes the world, directly, in daily life is referred to as ''ordinary consciousness''. Ordinary consciousness often develops into more active consciousness. This active pursuit of understanding through systematic observation and indirect experiences (i.e., experiences that do not occur in daily activity — such as scientific experimentation) is referred to as ''scientific consciousness''.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-82.png]]
+These concepts will be discussed in further detail below.
+-----
+''Empirical consciousness'' is the stage of development of consciousness in which perceptions are formed via direct observations of things and phenomena in the natural world, or of society, or through scientific experimentation and systematic observation. Empirical consciousness results in ''empirical knowledge''.
+''Empirical knowledge'' has two types: ''ordinary empirical knowledge'' (knowledge obtained through direct observation and in productive labor) and ''scientific empirical knowledge'' (knowledge obtained by conducting scientific experiments). These two types of knowledge can be complementary, and can enrich one other.
+''Theoretical consciousness'' is the indirect, abstract, systematic level of perception in which the nature and laws of things and phenomena are generalized and abstracted.
+Empirical consciousness and Theoretical consciousness are two different cognitive stages but they have a dialectical relationship with each other. In this dialectical relationship, empirical consciousness is the basis of theoretical consciousness; it provides theoretical consciousness with specific, rich material [i.e., knowledge]. Empirical consciousness is linked closely to practical activities [since practical activity in the material world is the chief method of gathering knowledge through empirical consciousness], and forms the basis for checking, correcting, and supplementing existing theories and summarizing, and generalizing them into new theories. However, empirical consciousness is still limited in that empirical consciousness stops at the description and classification of data obtained from direct observation and experimentation. Therefore, empirical consciousness only brings understanding about the separate, superficial, discrete aspects of observed subjects, without yet reflecting the essence of those subjects nor the underlying principles or laws which regulate those subjects.
+Therefore, empirical consciousness, alone, is not sufficient for determining the scientific laws of nature and society. To determine such laws and abstractions, theoretical consciousness must be applied. So, theoretical consciousness does not form spontaneously, nor directly from experience, although it is formed from the summation of experiences.
+-----
+==== Annotation 217 ====
+The knowledge we gain from our daily activity often inspires scientific inquiry and more systematic observation, which can yield scientific knowledge which will enrich and improve our daily practice and allow us to experience daily life with a deeper understanding of what we’re experiencing. Thus, the ordinary knowledge we gain through daily practice can enrich and yield scientific knowledge (and vice versa).
+Empirical consciousness and theoretical consciousness have a dialectical relationship with each other in which empirical consciousness provides the basis for theoretical consciousness. Theoretical consciousness attempts to derive general abstractions and governing principles from empirical knowledge which is gained through empirical consciousness. Once theoretical principles, generalities, and abstractions are determined, they are then tested against reality through empirical consciousness (i.e., practical observation and systematic experimentation) to determine if the theory is sound.
+''Empirical consciousness and theoretical consciousness have a dialectical relationship with one another. Our observations of the material world lead to conscious activity which we then test in reality through conscious activity, and so on, in a never-ending cycle of dialectical development.''
+For example, a farmer may notice that plants grow better in locations where manure has been discarded — an act of empirical consciousness. The farmer might then form the theory that adding manure to the soil will help plants grow — an act of theoretical consciousness. This theory could then be tested against reality by mixing manure into the soil and observing the results, which would be another act of empirical consciousness. The farmer may then theorize that ''more'' manure will help plants grow ''even more'' — another act of theoretical consciousness — continuing the cycle of testing and observing.
+This dialectical relationship between ordinary and theoretical consciousness is what allows human beings to develop and improve knowledge through practical experience, observation, and theoretical abstraction and generalization of knowledge.
+Theoretical consciousness is relatively independent from empirical consciousness. Therefore, theories can precede expectations and guide the formation of valuable empirical knowledge. Theoretical consciousness is what allows human beings to sort and filter knowledge so as to best serve practical activities and contribute to the transformation of human life. Through this process, knowledge is organized and therefore enhanced, and develops from the level of specific, individual, and solitary knowledge to a higher form of generalized and abstract knowledge [what we might call ''theoretical knowledge''].
+-----
+==== Annotation 218 ====
+Knowledge which comes from empirical observations (empirical consciousness) is ''empirical knowledge.'' ''Theoretical knowledge'' is a product of theoretical consciousness. Over time, as repeated and varied observations are made through theoretical consciousness activities, knowledge becomes more generalized and abstract; this general and abstract knowledge is what we call ''theoretical knowledge''.
+Note that empirical and theoretical knowledge can be ''ordinary'' or ''scientific'' in nature; if the knowledge arises passively from daily life activities, it will be ordinary knowledge, regardless of whether or not it is empirical or theoretical in nature. If, on the other hand, the knowledge arises from methodological measurement and/or systematic observation, then it is scientific knowledge.vSo far, we have discussed ways of understanding consciousness based on the criteria of directness vs. abstractness. Next, we will discuss another way of looking at consciousness, based on the criteria of passiveness vs. activeness.
+''Ordinary consciousness'' refers to perception that is formed ''passively'' and ''directly'' from the daily activities of humans. Ordinary consciousness is a reflection of things, phenomena, and ideas, with all their observed characteristics, specific details, and nuances. Therefore, ordinary consciousness is rich, multifaceted, and associated with daily life. Therefore, ordinary consciousness has a regular and pervasive role in governing the activities of each person in society.
+''Scientific consciousness'' refers to perception formed ''actively'' and ''indirectly'' from the reflection of the characteristics, nature, and inherent relationships of research subjects. This reflection takes place in the form of logical abstraction. These logical abstractions include scientific concepts, categories, and laws. Scientific consciousness is objective, abstract, general, and systematic, and must be grounded in evidence.
+Scientific consciousness utilizes systematic methodologies to profoundly describe the nature of studied subjects as well as the principles which govern them. Therefore, scientific consciousness plays an increasingly important role in practical activities, especially in the modern age of science and technology.
+-----
+==== Annotation 219 ====
+Logical abstraction refers to an understanding of the underlying rules which govern things, phenomena, and ideas which underly objective processes, relationships, and characteristics. Logical abstraction is the result of scientific inquiry. Over time, our understanding of the rules which govern the things, phenomena, and ideas in our lives become more reliable and applicable in practical activities. This attainment of understanding and practical ability through scientific practice is ''scientific consciousness''.
+Ordinary and scientific consciousness are two different qualitative steps of cognitive processes which, together, allow humans to discover truth about our world. Ordinary and scientific consciousness have a strong dialectical relationship with each other. In this relationship, ordinary consciousness precedes scientific consciousness, as ordinary consciousness is a source of material for the development of scientific consciousness.
+Although it contains the seeds of scientific knowledge, ordinary consciousness mainly stops at the reflection of superficial details, seemingly random events, and non-essential phenomena [see ''Essence and Phenomenon'', p. 156]. Ordinary consciousness, therefore, cannot transform effortlessly into scientific consciousness. To develop ordinary consciousness into scientific consciousness, we must go through the process of accurate summarizing, abstracting, and generalization using scientific methods. Likewise, once scientific consciousness has been developed, it impacts and pervades ordinary consciousness, and therefore develops ordinary consciousness. Scientific consciousness therefore enhances our everyday passive perception of the world.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-83.png|''Ordinary consciousness refers to the passive observation of reality which takes place in our daily lives. Scientific consciousness refers to the systematic application of consciousness to solve specific problems in a methodological manner.'']]
+-----
+==== Annotation 220 ====
+For example, before developing scientific consciousness of farming, a farmer might go through daily life having no idea what makes plants grow to be larger and more healthy and might have no idea how to avoid common problems such as pests. After developing scientific consciousness of farming through scientific experimentation and other systematic methodologies, the farmer will look at things differently in daily life activities. They may see signs of pest infestation and immediately recognize it for what it is, and they may see other indications that plants are unhealthy and know exactly what to do to remedy the situation.
+In this way, scientific consciousness enhances ordinary consciousness. Meanwhile, ordinary consciousness — passive observation of the world during daily activities — will lead to scientific consciousness by inspiring us to actively seek understanding of the world through scientific consciousness.
+=== c. The Relationship Between Praxis and Consciousness ===
+Praxis serves as the ''basis, driving force,'' and ''purpose'' of consciousness. Praxis serves as the criterion of truth by testing the truthfulness of our thoughts. [See Annotation 230, p. 226]
+Praxis is able to serve these roles because reality is the direct starting point of consciousness; it sets out the requirements, tasks, and modes of consciousness, as well as the movement and development tendencies of consciousness. Humans have an objective and inherent need to explain the world and to transform it.
+-----
+==== Annotation 221 ====
+Remember that the material world defines consciousness while consciousness allows us to impact the material world through conscious activity [see ''The Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness'', p. 88]. Consciousness itself arose from the physical needs of the material world [see ''The Source of Consciousness'', p. 64], and these physical needs continue to serve as the basis and driving force for all conscious activities, as we must act consciously to survive.
+Our inherent need to explain the world and to transform it arises from our material needs to eat, seek shelter, cure and prevent disease, and so on. These physical needs, which stem from the material world, drive conscious activity and lead to the development of consciousness and knowledge.
+Therefore, humans must necessarily impact things in the material world through our practical activities in order to survive. The impacts of our practical activities on the world cause things and phenomena to reveal their different properties, including their internal and external relationships [for example, hitting a rock will tell you properties about the rock; attempting to build something out of wood will provide data about the wood, etc.]. In this manner, praxis produces data for consciousness to process, and also helps consciousness to comprehend nature and the laws of movement and development which govern the world.
+Scientific theories are formed on the basis of the dialectical relationship between practical activity and consciousness. For example: mathematics developed to allow us to count and measure things for practical activities such as agriculture, navigation, and building structures. Marxism also arose in the 1840’s from the practical activities of the struggles of the working class against the capitalist class at that time. Even recent scientific achievements arise from practical needs and activities. For example, the discovery and decoding of the human genome map was born from practical activities and needs, such as the need to develop treatments for incurable diseases. In the end, there is no field of knowledge that is not derived from reality. Ultimately, all knowledge arises from and serves practice. Therefore, if we were to break from reality or stop relying on reality, consciousness would break from the basis of reality that nurtures our growth, existence and development. Also, the cognitive subject cannot have true and profound knowledge about the world if it does not follow reality.
+Practice also serves as the basis, driving force, and purpose of consciousness because, thanks to practical activities, our human ability to measure and observe reality improves increasingly over time; our logical thinking ability is constantly strengthened and developed; cognitive means become increasingly developed. All of these developments “extend” the human senses in perceiving the world [for example, by developing new tools to measure, perceive, and sense the world such as telescopes, radar, microscopes, etc.].
+Reality is not only the basis, the driving force, and the purpose of discovering truth but also serves as the ''standard of truth.'' Reality also serves as the basis for ''examining the truthfulness of the cognitive process'' [i.e., we can test whether our thoughts match material reality through experimentation and practice in the real world]. This means that practice is the measure of the value of the knowledge we gain through perception. At the same time, practice is constantly supplementing, adjusting, correcting, developing, and improving human consciousness. Marx said: “The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth — i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice.”<ref>''Theses On Feuerbach'', Karl Marx, 1845.</ref>
+Thus, practice is not only the starting point of consciousness and a decisive factor for the formation and development of consciousness, it is also a target where consciousness must always aim to test the truth. To emphasize this role which practice plays, Lenin said: “The standpoint of life, of practice, should be first and fundamental in the theory of knowledge.”<ref>''Materialism and Empirio-Criticism'', Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1908.</ref>
+The role of practice in consciousness requires that we always grasp the practical point of view. This point of view requires that we derive our ideas from practice, our ideas must be based on practice, and our ideas must deeply explore practice. In our conscious activities, we must attach a lot of importance to the summarization of practice [i.e., developing theoretical knowledge through theoretical consciousness which reflects practical experience]. Theoretical research must be related to practice, and learning must go hand in hand with practicing. If we diverge from practice, it will lead to mistakes of subjectivism, idealism, dogmatism, rigidity, and bureaucracy.
+-----
+==== Annotation 222 ====
+''Subjectivism'' occurs when one centers one’s own self and conscious activities in perspective and worldview, failing to test one’s own perceptions against material and social reality. Subjectivists tend to believe that they can independently reason their way to truth in their own minds without practical experience and activity in the material world. Related to subjectivism is ''solipsism'', a form of idealism in which one believes that the self is the only basis for truth. As Marxist ethicist Howard Selsam wrote in ''Ethics and Progress: New Values in a Revolutionary World'': “If I believe that I alone exist and that you and all your arguments exist only in my mind and are my own creations then all possible arguments will not shake me one iota. No logic can possibly convince [the] solipsist.”
+''Idealism'' has a strong connection with a failure to incorporate practical activity into theoretical consciousness, since idealism holds that conscious activity is the sole basis of discovering truth.
+''Dogmatism'' occurs when one only accounts for commonalities and considers theory itself as the sole basis of truth rather than practice [see Annotation 239, p. 235]. Dogmatists ignore practical experience and considering pre-established theory, alone, as unalterable truth. This results in a breakdown of the dialectical relationship between theoretical consciousness and empirical consciousness, which arrests the development process of knowledge and consciousness.
+''Rigidity'' is an unwillingness to alter one’s thoughts, holding too stiffly to established consciousness and knowledge, and ignoring practical experience and observation, which leads to stagnation of both knowledge and consciousness.
+''Bureaucracy'' arises when theory becomes overly codified and formalized, to the extent that practical considerations are ignored in favor of codified theory. Bureaucracy can be avoided by incorporating practical experience and observations continuously into the development of practical systems and methodologies so that theory and practice become increasingly aligned over time to continuously improve efficiency and effectiveness of practical activities in the material world.
+On the contrary, if the role of practice is absolutized [to the exclusion of conscious activity], it will fall into pragmatism and empiricism.
+-----
+==== Annotation 223 ====
+In this context, ''pragmatism'' refers to a form of subjectivism [see Annotation 222, above] in which one centers one’s own immediate material concerns over all other considerations. For example, workers may place their own immediate needs and desires above the concerns of their fellow workers as a whole. This may offer some temporary gains, but in the long run their lack of solidarity and class consciousness will be detrimental as workers collectively suffer from division, making all workers more vulnerable to exploitation and ill treatment by the capitalist class.
+''Empiricism'' is a faulty form of materialism in which ''only'' sense experience and practical experience are considered sources of truth. This is opposed to the dialectical materialist position that the material ''determines'' consciousness, while consciousness ''impacts'' the material world through conscious labor activity. [See ''The Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness'', p. 88]
+Thus, the principle of the ''unification'' of practice and theory must be the basic principle in practical and theoretical activities. Theory without practice as its basis and criterion for determining its truthfulness is useless. Vice versa, practice without scientific and revolutionary theory will inevitably turn into blind practice. [As Ho Chi Minh once said: “Study and practice must always go together. Study without practice is useless. Practice without study leads to folly.”]
+== 2. Dialectical Path of Consciousness to Truth ==
+=== a. Opinions of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin about the Dialectical Path of Consciousness to Truth ===
+==== Annotation 224 ====
+The section below outlines and explains ''the Universal Law of Consciousness'', which holds that consciousness is a process of dialectical development in which practical activity leads to conscious activity, which then leads back to practical activity, in a continuous and never-ending cycle, with a tendency to develop both practical and conscious activity to increasingly higher levels.
+In his ''Philosophical Notebook'', Lenin generalized the dialectical path towards the realization of truth as development from vivid visualization to abstract thinking, and then from abstraction back to practice. This process, according to Lenin, is the dialectical path towards the realization of truth, and the realization of objective reality.
+According to this generalization, the dialectical path towards the realization of truth (“truth,” here, referring to a correct and accurate reflection of objective reality) is a process. It is a process that starts from “vivid visualization” (emotional consciousness) to “abstract thinking” (rational consciousness).
+-----
+==== Annotation 225 ====
+Given that consciousness has a material basis, and that practical activities are the driving force of consciousness [see Annotation 230, p. 226], it follows that we must strive to align our conscious thoughts and ideas with the material world. The more accurately we can reflect reality in our consciousness, the more effectively and efficiently our practical activities can become.
+For example, through learning more about the mechanical, material, and physical processes which take place inside of an automobile engine, the more we can improve engines to make them more efficient and effective for practical applications.
+Lenin explained that consciousness develops from “emotional consciousness” to “rational consciousness.” Thought about a subject begins at a base level of consciousness that is rooted in emotional and sense-oriented conscious activity, i.e, “vivid visualization,” which then leads to rational, abstract reflection.
+By “vivid visualization,” Lenin is referring to the active, real-time experience of seeing (and hearing, smelling, and otherwise sensing) things and phenomena in the world.
+When a person experiences something through practical activity, the first conscious activity will tend to occur at the emotional and sensory level — in other words, the conscious activities which occur simultaneously along with practical activities. Only after this initial period of emotional consciousness will one be able to reflect on the experience on a more rational and abstract level.
+For example, if a zoologist in the field sees a species of bird they have never encountered before, their first conscious activity will be at the sensory-emotional level: they will observe the shape, coloration, and motion of the bird. They may feel excitement, happiness, and other emotions. This is emotional conscious activity.
+This emotional conscious activity will then develop into rational conscious activity, as the zoologist may begin to consider things more abstractly, attempting to interpret and understand this experience through reason and rational reflection, asking such questions as: “Where does this bird nest? What does it feed on? Is this a new discovery?” and so on.
+Such abstractions are not the end point of a cognitive cycle, because consciousness must then continue to develop through practice. It is through practice that perception tests and proves its own correctness so that it can then continue on to repeat the cycle.
+This is also the general rule of the human perception of objective reality.
+-----
+==== Annotation 226 ====
+Thus there is a dialectical relationship between emotional consciousness (linked to practical activity) and rational consciousness (linked to purely conscious activity).
+This dialectical relationship is a cycle, in which one engages in practical activity, which leads to emotional consciousness, which leads to rational consciousness, which then leads back to practical activity to test the correctness of the conclusions of rational conscious activity.
+We call this cycle of development of consciousness the cognitive process.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-84.png|''The cognitive process is a continuous cycle which describes the dialectical development of consciousness and practical activity.'']]
+The cognitive process is explained in more detail below.
+-----
+'''- Development From Emotional Consciousness to Rational Consciousness'''
+''Emotional consciousness is the lower stage of the cognitive process.'' In this stage of cognitive development, humans use — through practical activity — use our senses to reflect objective things and phenomena (with all their perceived specific characteristics and rich manifestations) in human consciousness. During this period, consciousness only reflects the phenomena [i.e, ''phenomena'', as opposed to ''essence'' — see ''Essence and Phenomenon'', p. 156] — the external manifestations — of the perceived subject. At this stage, consciousness has not yet reflected the ''essence'' — the nature, and/or the regulating principles — of the subject. Therefore, this is the lowest stage of development of the cognitive process. In this stage, consciousness is carried out through three basic phases: ''sensation'', ''conception'', and ''symbolization''.
+Human ''sensation'' of an objective thing or phenomenon is the simplest, most primitive phase of the emotional consciousness stage of the cognitive processes, but without it there would not be any perception of objective things or phenomena. Every human sensation of objective things and phenomena contains objective content [see Content and Form, p. 147], even though it arises as subjective human conscious reflection. Sensation is the subjective imagining of the objective world. It is the basis from which the next phase of emotional consciousness — ''conception'' — is formed.
+''Conception'' is a relatively complete reflection within human consciousness of objective things and phenomena. Conception is formed on the basis of linking and synthesizing sensational experiences of things and phenomena [i.e., ''sensation'']. Compared with sensation, conception is a higher, fuller, richer form of consciousness, but it is still a reflection of the outward manifestations of objects. Conception does not yet reflect the essence, nature, and regulating principles of the perceived subject.
+''Symbolization'' is the representation of an objective thing or phenomenon that has been reflected by sensation and conception. It is the most advanced and most complex phase of the stage of emotional consciousness. At the same time, it also serves as the transitional step between emotional consciousness and rational consciousness. The defining characteristic of symbolism is the ability to reproduce symbolic ideas of objective things and phenomena within human consciousness. Symbolization describes the act of recreating the outward appearances of material things and phenomena within human consciousness, which is the first step of abstraction, and thus the first step towards rational consciousness.
+-----
+==== Annotation 227 ====
+Here is an example of the three phases of the emotional consciousness stage of the cognitive process:
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-85.png]]
+''1.'' ''Sensation'': Jessica ''senses'' a cake in the window of a bakery. She ''sees'' the frosting, the shape of the cake, and the decorations which adorn the cake. She ''smells'' the cake. During this phase, objective data about the cake is received into her consciousness, developing into an immediate and subjective sense perception of the cake. The beginnings of this cognitive activity will be purely sensory in nature; she may have been thinking of other things as she walked by the bakery, but the sight and smell of the cake, upon registering in her mind, will lead to the beginning of a new cognitive process cycle.
+''2.'' ''Conception'': Jessica begins to ''conceive'' of the cake in her mind more fully. She will associate the immediate sense experiences of seeing and smelling the cake with other experiences she has had with cake, and a complete mental image and concept of the cake will form in her mind.
+''3.'' ''Symbolization'': The word “cake” may now form in her mind, and she may begin thinking of the cake more abstractly, as “food,” as a “temptation,” and in other ways. This is the beginning of abstraction in Jessica’s mind, which will then lead to rational conscious activities.
+Note that all of these phases of emotional consciousness activity may take place very quickly, perhaps in a fraction of a second, and may coincide with other conscious activity (i.e., Jessica may simultaneously be thinking of a meeting she’s running late to and any number of other things). At this point, Jessica will transition to the ''rational consciousness'' stage of the cognitive process'','' which is explained in more detail below.
+-----
+By the end of the emotional stage of the cognitive process, consciousness has not yet reflected the essence — the nature, regulating principles, etc. — of the perceived subject. Therefore, at the emotional stage, consciousness is not yet able to properly ''interpret'' the reflected subject. That is to say, emotional conscious activity does not meet the cognitive requirements to serve practical activities, including the need to creatively transform the objective world. To meet these requirements, emotional consciousness must develop into ''rational consciousness''.
+''Rational consciousness is the higher stage of the cognitive process.'' It includes the indirect, abstract, and generalized reflection of the essential properties and characteristics of things and phenomena. This stage of consciousness performs the most important function of comprehending and interpreting the ''essence'' of the perceived subject. Rational consciousness is implemented through three basic phases: ''definition'', ''judgment'', and ''reasoning''.
+''Definition'' is the first phase of rational consciousness. During this phase, the mind begins to interpret, organize, and process the basic properties of things and phenomena at a rational level into a conceptual whole. The formation of definition is the result of the summarization and synthesis of all the different characteristics and properties of the subject, and how the subject fits into the organized structure of knowledge which exists in the mind. Definition is the basis for forming judgments in the cognitive process.
+''Judgment'' is the next phase of rational consciousness, which arises from the definition of the subject — the linking of concepts and properties together — which leads to affirmative or negative ideation of certain characteristics or attributes of the perceived subject.
+According to the level of development of consciousness, judgment may take one of three forms: unique judgment, general judgment, and universal judgment [see Annotation 105, p. 107]. Universal judgment is the form of judgement that expresses the broadest conception of objective reality.
+''Reasoning'' is the final phase of rational consciousness, formed on the basis of synthesizing judgments so as to extrapolate new knowledge about the perceived subject. Before reasoning can take place, judgments must be transformed into knowledge. A judgment can be transformed into knowledge through one of two logical mechanisms: deductive inference (which extrapolates the general from the specific), and inductive inference (which extrapolates the specific from the general).
+-----
+==== Annotation 228 ====
+Here is an example of the three phases of the rational consciousness stage of the cognitive process, continuing from our previous example of the emotional consciousness stage [see Annotation 227, p. 222].
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-86.png]]
+''1.'' ''Definition'': Jessica’s conception of the cake will transition into the rational conscious activity of ''definition''. Jessica will begin to define the concept of the cake more wholly and concretely, summarizing and synthesizing all of the features and characteristics of the cake into a cohesive mental reflection of the cake. The word “cake” may become more pronounced and defined in Jessica’s consciousness, prompting her to think of the object which she defines as a “cake” more fully and rationally.
+''2.'' ''Judgment'': Jessica will begin to form basic judgments about the cake. “That cake looks good,” “that cake smells good,” and so on. Next, these judgments will begin to transform into knowledge through inductive or deductive inferences. An inductive inference might be: “I generally enjoy eating cakes, therefore, I might enjoy eating this cake!” An example of a deductive inference might be: “This cake looks very delicious, therefore, there might be other delicious things in this bakery!”
+''3.'' ''Reasoning'': Processes of inductive and/or deductive inference will begin to transform Jessica’s judgments into the form of knowledge. For instance, she may now possess such knowledge as: “This bakery has delicious looking cakes, this is a cake I would like to eat,” and so on. With this newly acquired knowledge, Jessica can begin reasoning; that is to say, she can begin making rational conclusions and decisions. She might conclude: “I will go into this bakery and buy that cake.”
+Note that this is not the “end” of the cognitive process, because the final phase of the reasoning stage of the cognitive process (reasoning) will lead directly into a new cycle of the cognitive process. In this example, Jessica might engage in the practical activity of checking her watch to see the time, which will begin a new cycle of cognitive process, beginning with the ''sensation'' phase of the emotional stage as the visual sense data of her watch and carrying through to the final ''reasoning'' phase of the rational stage, and so on.
+It should also be noted that this is merely an abstraction of the cognitive process; in reality, the human mind is incredibly complex, capable of carrying out a variety of cognitive processes simultaneously. At any given moment, a person might be considering various different subjects, and each different subject might be at a different stage of the cognitive process. This abstract model of the cognitive process is presented to help us comprehend the component functions of consciousness more easily in the wider context of dialectical materialist philosophy.
+Specifically, this model of the cognitive process is intended to help us understand how human consciousness leads to “truth.” And “truth,” here, refers to the alignment of human consciousness with the material world, so that our perceptions and understanding of the world is accurate and representative of actual reality.
+''- The Relationship Between Emotional Consciousness, Rational Consciousness, and Reality''
+Emotional consciousness and rational consciousness are stages that make up the cognitive cycle. In reality, they are often intertwined within the cognitive process, but they have different functions. If ''emotional consciousness'' is associated with reality, and with the impact of sense data received from observing the material world, and is the basis for cognitive reason, then ''rational consciousness'', based on higher cognitive understanding and abstraction, allows us to understand the essence, nature, regulating principles, and development processes of things and phenomena. Rational consciousness helps direct emotional consciousness in a more efficient and effective direction and leads to more profound and accurate emotional consciousness.
+-----
+==== Annotation 229 ====
+In other words, considering a subject at the level of rational consciousness allows us to then view the same subject, at an emotional consciousness level, with more depth and awareness.
+For example, the more time we have spent rationally considering something like a bicycle, the more quickly and accurately we can examine a bicycle at the level of emotional consciousness. If someone is looking at a bicycle for the first time, they might not be able to distinguish its component parts or functions. On the other hand, if someone has spent more time considering bicycles at the level of rational consciousness, they may be able to immediately and rapidly understand and process a bicycle at the emotional conscious level, so that they can perceive and comprehend the different parts of a bicycle, as well as their functions, immediately and at the emotional-sensory level.
+However, if we stop at rational consciousness, we will only have knowledge about the subjects we perceive, but we still won’t really know if that knowledge is truly accurate or not. In order to be useful in practical activity, we must consciously determine whether knowledge is ''truth'' [i.e., whether the knowledge accurately reflects reality]. In order to determine the truth of knowledge, consciousness must necessarily return to reality. Consciousness must use reality as a criterion — a measurement — of the authenticity of knowledge gained through purely cognitive processes. In other words, all consciousness is ultimately derived from practical needs, and must also return to serve practical activities.
+-----
+==== Annotation 230 ====
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-87.png|''The dialectical relationship between consciousness and practical activities means that conscious activities develop practical activities, and vice versa, in a continuous feedback loop.'']]
+One of the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism is that the material determines the ideal, and the ideal impacts the material [see The Relationship Between Matter and Consciousness]. The fact that the material determines consciousness is reflected in the fact that material needs led to the development of consciousness, and conscious activity stems from material needs [see Social Sources of Consciousness].
+The fact that the ideal impacts the material is reflected in the fact that consciousness must always return to the service of practical activities; as our consciousness develops (along with knowledge), our ability to impact and transform the material world becomes more efficient and effective.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-88.png|''The dialectical relationship between consciousness and practical activity is what drives the development of humanity. We imagine better ways of doing things, then test those ideas against reality through practical activity.'']]
+This dialectical relationship between consciousness and practical activity is thus cyclical. Conscious activity arises from practical activity, and returns to practical activity, in an endless process of developing both conscious ability as well as practical ability.
+-----
+Therefore, it can be seen that the general, cyclical nature of the process of movement and development of consciousness develops from practice to consciousness — from consciousness to practice — from practical activity to the continued process of cognitive development, and so on. This process is repeated continuously, without end. The development level of consciousness and practice in the next cycle are often higher than in the previous cycle, and the cognitive process gradually develops more and more accuracy, as well as fuller and deeper knowledge about objective reality.
+The universal law of consciousness [see Annotation 224, p. 219] is also a concrete and vivid manifestation of the universal laws of materialist dialectics, including: the law of negation of negation, the law of transformation between quantity and quality and the law of unity and contradiction between opposites. The process of cognitive motion and development, governed by these general laws, is the process of human progress towards absolute truth [see Annotation 232, p. 228].
+-----
+==== Annotation 231 ====
+The universal law of consciousness is governed by the three universal laws of materialist dialectics:
+''The Law of Negation of Negation'' dictates that the new will arise from the old, but will carry forward characteristics from the old. This is reflected in the universal law of consciousness in that conscious activity arises from practical activity. This conscious activity then develops into improved practical activity, and so on, in a never-ending cycle of development. Throughout this development process, characteristics of previous cycles of cognitive and practical activities are carried forward and transferred on to newer cycles of cognitive and practical activities.
+''The Law of Transformation Between Quantity and Quality'' recognizes that quantity changes develop into changes in quality, and vice versa. This is reflected in the universal law of consciousness in the development of both conscious and practical activities. Conscious development also develops from quantitative changes to quality changes, and vice versa. For example, once a person accumulates a certain quantity of knowledge, the quality of their knowledge will change. For example, once a person has learned the function of every component part of a car engine, they will have a ''quality shift'' in their understanding of car engines — they will now have competency of the functioning of the engine as a whole. This is also true of practical activities. A quantity of practical experience will lead to quality shifts in practical ability. For example, once a person has practiced riding a bicycle enough that they can reliably ride the bicycle without falling, we would say that the person “knows how to ride a bicycle,” which represents a quality shift from the state of “learning how to ride a bicycle.”
+''The Law of Unity and Contradiction Between Opposites'' states that all things, phenomena, and ideas are defined by internal and external contradictions. This is reflected in the universal law of consciousness by the fact that practical needs serve as the basis for conscious activity, and that cognitive processes serve, in essence, to negate contradictions between consciousness and material reality through practical experience. In other words, the cognitive process is defined by a never-ending process of contradiction between the material and the ideal, as human beings seek to negate contradictions between our conscious understanding of the world and our practical experiences in search of ''truth -'' the accurate alignment of consciousness with the material world.
+=== b. Truth, and the Relationship Between Truth and Reality ===
+''- Definition of Truth''
+All cognitive processes lead to the creation of ''knowledge'', which is what we call human understanding of objective reality. But not all knowledge has content consistent with objective reality, because consciousness exists as the subjective reflection of objective reality in the human mind. The collective cognitive practice of all of humanity throughout history, as well as the cognitive practice of each individual human being, has demonstrated that the knowledge which people have gained and are gaining is not always consistent with objective reality. On the contrary, there are many cases of misalignment between consciousness and reality, and even complete contradiction between human thought and objective reality.
+Within the theoretical scope of Marxism-Leninism, the concept of ''truth'' is used to refer to knowledge which is aligned with objective reality. This alignment is tested and proven through practice. In this sense, the concept of truth is not identical with the concept of “knowledge,” nor with the concept of “hypothesis.” According to Lenin: “The coincidence of thought with the object is a '''process''': thought (= man) must not imagine truth in the form of dead repose, in the form of a bare picture (image), pale (matte), without impulse, without motion…”<ref>''Conspectus of Hegel’s Science of Logic,'' Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1914.</ref>
+-----
+==== Annotation 232 ====
+Here, Lenin is dispelling Hegel’s conception of “absolute truth,” which is not to be confused with Lenin’s concept of “absolute truth” as “objective truth” which aligns consciousness with objective reality [see Annotation 58, p. 56]. For Hegel, “absolute truth” was the idea that there will eventually be some end point to the process of rational consciousness at which we will finally arrive at some final stage of knowledge and consciousness. This rational end point of consciousness, at which the dialectic ends and all contradictions are negated, is Hegel’s “absolute truth.”
+Lenin is also pushing back against the metaphysical conception that all “truths” exist as static categories of information which do not change. Instead, Lenin points out that seeking truth — i.e., aligning consciousness with material reality — is a never-ending process, in particular because reality is constantly developing and changing. Thus, the alignment of consciousness with reality — the pursuit of truth — is a living and dynamic process which will never end, since the development of reality will never end.
+''- The Properties of Truth''
+All truths are ''objective, relative, absolute,'' and ''concrete.''
+The ''objectivity'' of truth is the independence of its content from the subjective will of human beings. The content of knowledge must be aligned with objective reality, not vice versa. This means that the content of accurate knowledge is not a product of pure subjective reasoning. Truth is not an arbitrary human construct, nor is truth inherent in consciousness. On the contrary, truth belongs to the objective world, and is determined by the objective world. The affirmation of the objectivity of truth is one of the fundamental points that distinguishes the concept of absolute truth of dialectical materialism from the concept of absolute truth of idealism and skepticism — the doctrines that deny the objective existence of the physical world and deny the possibility that humans are able to perceive the world.
+-----
+==== Annotation 233 ====
+The Dialectical Materialist conception of objective truth stands in contrast to ''idealism'', which states that conscious reasoning alone leads to truth, and that the subjective ideal determines material reality [see Annotation 7, p. 8].
+This objectivity of truth also refutes ''skepticism'', which states that truth is essentially undiscoverable, because human consciousness is ultimately unreliable and incapable of accurately reflecting material reality [see Annotation 32, p. 27].
+Distinction must also be drawn between the concept of absolute truth as it is understood in dialectical materialist philosophy and the conception of absolute truth in Hegel’s idealist dialectics. Dialectical materialism defines absolute truth as “objective truth;” that is to say: a complete alignment between objective reality and human consciousness (as compared to relative truth, which is a partial alignment between consciousness and objective reality).
+Hegel, on the other hand, views absolute truth as a final point at which human consciousness will have achieved absolute, complete, and final understanding of our universe (see Annotation 232, p. 228) with the ideal serving as the first basis and primary mechanism for bringing absolute truth to fruition.
+Truth is not only objective, but also ''absolute'' and ''relative''. Absolute truth [see Annotation 58, p. 56] refers to truth which reflects a full and complete alignment of consciousness and reality. Theoretically, we can reach absolute truth. This is because, in the objective world, there exists no thing nor phenomenon which human beings are completely incapable of accurately perceiving. The possibility of acquiring absolute truth in the process of the development of conscious understanding is theoretically limitless. However, in reality, our conscious ability to reflect reality is limited by the specific material conditions of each generation of humanity, of practical limitations, and by the spatial and temporal conditions of reflected subjects. Therefore, truth is also ''relative''.
+-----
+==== Annotation 234 ====
+Dialectical materialist philosophy recognizes that it must be theoretically possible to know everything there is to know about a given subject, since we are theoretically capable of accurately perceiving, sensing, and measuring all data which pertains to a subject. However, dialectical materialism also recognizes the practical limitations of human beings. As Engels writes in ''Anti-Dühring'':
+<blockquote>
+If mankind ever reached the stage at which it should work only with eternal truths, with results of thought which possess sovereign validity and an unconditional claim to truth, it would then have reached the point where the infinity of the intellectual world both in its actuality and in its potentiality had been exhausted, and thus the famous miracle of the counted uncountable would have been performed.
+But are there any truths which are so securely based that any doubt of them seems to us to be tantamount to insanity? That twice two makes four, that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles, that Paris is in France, that a man who gets no food dies of hunger, and so forth? Are there then nevertheless eternal truths, final and ultimate truths.
+Certainly there are. We can divide the whole realm of knowledge in the traditional way into three great departments. The first includes all sciences that deal with inanimate nature and are to a greater or lesser degree susceptible of mathematical treatment: mathematics, astronomy, mechanics, physics, chemistry. If it gives anyone any pleasure to use mighty words for very simple things, it can be asserted that certain results obtained by these sciences are eternal truths, final and ultimate truths; for which reason these sciences are known as the exact sciences. But very far from all their results have this validity. With the introduction of variable magnitudes and the extension of their variability to the infinitely small and infinitely large, mathematics, usually so strictly ethical, fell from grace; it ate of the tree of knowledge, which opened up to it a career of most colossal achievements, but at the same time a path of error. The virgin state of absolute validity and irrefutable proof of everything mathematical was gone forever; the realm of controversy was inaugurated, and we have reached the point where most people differentiate and integrate not because they understand what they are doing but from pure faith, because up to now it has always come out right. Things are even worse with astronomy and mechanics, and in physics and chemistry we are swamped by hypotheses as if attacked by a swarm of bees. And it must of necessity be so. In physics we are dealing with the motion of molecules, in chemistry with the formation of molecules out of atoms, and if the interference of light waves is not a myth, we have absolutely no prospect of ever seeing these interesting objects with our own eyes. As time goes on, final and ultimate truths become remarkably rare in this field.
+</blockquote>
+-----
+Relative truth is truth which has developed alignment with reality without yet having reached ''complete'' alignment between human knowledge and the reality which it reflects. To put it another way, relative truth represents knowledge which incompletely reflects material subjects without complete accuracy. In relative truth, there is only partial alignment — in some (but not all) aspects — between consciousness and the material world.
+-----
+==== Annotation 235 ====
+''False consciousness'' is consciousness which is incorrect and misaligned from reality. Discovering and rooting out false consciousness is one of the primary concerns of dialectical materialism, as false consciousness can be a serious impediment to human progress. The term “false consciousness” was first used by Friedrich Engels in a personal letter to Franz Mehring in 1893 (a decade after the death of Karl Marx), and in this letter Engels uses the term interchangeably with the word “ideology”* to describe conscious thought processes which do not align with reality:
+<blockquote>
+Ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker consciously, indeed, but with a false consciousness. The real motives impelling him remain unknown to him, otherwise it would not be an ideological process at all. Hence he imagines false or apparent motives. Because it is a process of thought he derives both its form and its content from pure thought, either his own or that of his predecessors. He works with mere thought material which he accepts without examination as the product of thought, he does not investigate further for a more remote process independent of thought; indeed its origin seems obvious to him, because as all action is produced through the medium of thought it also appears to him to be ultimately based upon thought. The ideologist who deals with history (history is here simply meant to comprise all the spheres – political, juridical, philosophical, theological – belonging to society and not only to nature), the ideologist dealing with history then, possesses in every sphere of science material which has formed itself independently out of the thought of previous generations and has gone through an independent series of developments in the brains of these successive generations. True, external facts belonging to its own or other spheres may have exercised a co-determining influence on this development, but the tacit pre-supposition is that these facts themselves are also only the fruits of a process of thought, and so we still remain within that realm of pure thought which has successfully digested the hardest facts.
+</blockquote>
+Although the ''term'' “false consciousness” is not found in writing until after Marx’s death, the ''concept'' underlying the term “false consciousness” is found often in the works of Marx and Engels. For instance, in ''The Holy Family,'' Marx and Engels explain how communist, class conscious workers have been able to break free of false consciousness of capitalist society:
+<blockquote>
+They (the communist workers) are most painfully aware of the difference between being and thinking, between consciousness and life. They know that property, capital, money, wage-labor and the like are no ideal figments of the brain but very practical, very objective products of their self-estrangement.
+</blockquote>
+This allusion to “the difference between being and thinking” recurs again and again in the works of Marx and Engels.
+<nowiki>*</nowiki> Lenin also discussed the concept of false consciousness extensively, and argued that dialectical materialism was the key to negating the false consciousness of the working class, writing in ''What the “Friends of the People” Are'':
+<blockquote>
+It never has been the case, nor is it so now, that the members of society conceive the sum-total of the social relations in which they live as something definite, integral, pervaded by some principle; on the contrary, the mass of people adapt themselves to these relations unconsciously, and have so little conception of them as specific historical social relations that, for instance, an explanation of the exchange relations under which people have lived for centuries was found only in very recent times. Materialism removed this contradiction by carrying the analysis deeper, to the origin of man’s social ideas themselves; and its conclusion that the course of ideas depends on the course of things is the only one compatible with scientific psychology. Further, and from yet another aspect, this hypothesis was the first to elevate sociology to the level of a science.
+</blockquote>
+Note that this convention of using the word “ideology” to mean “false consciousness” has never been common, and Marx and Engels both used the word “ideology” more often in its more usual sense of “a system of ideas,” but it is still occasionally encountered in socialist literature, as Joseph McCarney explains in ''Marx Myths and Legends'':
+<blockquote>
+Marx never calls ideology ‘false consciousness’. Indeed, he never calls anything ‘false consciousness’, a phrase that does not occur in his work... The noun is almost always accompanied by an epithet such as ‘German’, ‘republican’, ‘political’ or ‘Hegelian’, or by a qualifying phrase, as in ‘the ideology of the bourgeoisie’ or ‘the ideology of the political economist’. More typical in any case is the adjectival usage in which such varied items as ‘forms’, ‘expressions’, ‘phrases’, ’conceptions’, ‘deception’, and ‘distortion’ are said to have an ‘ideological’ character. Even more distinctive is the frequency, amounting to approximately half of all references in the relevant range, of invocations of the ‘ideologists’, the creators and purveyors of the ideological forms.
+</blockquote>
+-----
+“Relative truth” and “absolute truth” do not exist separately, but have dialectical unity with each other. On the one hand, “absolute truth” is the sum of all “relative truths.” On the other hand, in all relative truths there are always elements of absolute truth.
+Lenin wrote that “absolute truth results from the sum-total of relative truths in the course of their development; [...] relative truths represent relatively faithful reflections of an object existing independently of man; [...] these reflections become more and more faithful; [...] every scientific truth, notwithstanding its relative nature, contains an element of absolute truth.”<ref>''Materialism and Empirio-Criticism'', Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1908.</ref>
+Correct realization of the dialectical relationship between relative and absolute truth plays a very important role in criticizing and overcoming extremism and false consciousness in perception and in action. If we exaggerate the absoluteness of the truth of knowledge which we possess, or downplay its relativity, we will fall into the false consciousness of metaphysics, dogmatism, conservativism, and stagnation.
+-----
+==== Annotation 236 ====
+Intentional or unintentional exaggeration of the absoluteness of truth — i.e., considering our knowledge to be more complete and/or aligned with reality than it actually is — leads to incorrect viewpoints and mindsets, including:
+''Metaphysics'' is a philosophical system which seeks truth through the systematic categorization of knowledge [see Annotation 8, p. 8]. This is a flawed method of seeking knowledge because it considers truth to be essentially static and unchanging, and upholds the erroneous notion that truth can be systematically broken down into discrete, isolated categories. In addition to being fundamentally incorrect about the nature of truth and knowledge, it leads to the incorrect presumption that such static categorization of knowledge can lead to truth ''at all''. Metaphysics fails to see truth and consciousness as a ''process'', and instead sees truth as a static assembly of categorized facts and data.
+''Dogmatism'' occurs when one only accounts for commonalities and considers theory itself as the sole basis of truth. Dogmatism inherently overstates the absoluteness of knowledge, as dogmatic positions uphold certain theoretical principles as complete, inviolable, and completely developed. This explicitly denies the continuously developing process of advancing knowledge and consciousness.
+''Conservativism'' includes any position that seeks to prevent change, or to undo change to return to an earlier state of development. Such positions deny the continuous development of consciousness, knowledge, and practice, and incorrectly assert incorrect positions; or mistake relative truth for absolute truth.
+''Stagnation'' is an inability or unwillingness to change and adapt consciousness and practice in accordance with developing material conditions. Stagnation can stem from, or cause, overstatement of absolute truth in theory and forestall necessary development of both consciousness and practical ability.
+On the contrary, if we exaggerate the relativity of the truth of knowledge which we possess, or downplay its absoluteness, we will fall into relativism, thereby leading to subjectivism, revisionism, sophistry, and skepticism.
+-----
+==== Annotation 237 ====
+''Relativism'' is the belief that human consciousness can ''only'' achieve relative understanding of the world, and that truth can therefore never be objectively discovered. Relativism is, thus, the overstatement of the relative nature of truth and the denial of the existence of absolute truth. Relativism leads to such incorrect viewpoints and mindsets as:
+''Subjectivism'': which occurs when one centers one’s own self and one’s own conscious activities in perspective and worldview, failing to test their own perceptions against material and social reality [see Annotation 211, p. 205]. This position denies that truth can be discovered in the external material world, falsely believing that absolute truth stems only from conscious activity.
+''Revisionism'': a failure to recognize and accept commonalities in conscious activity, focusing only on the private [see ''Private and Common'', p. 128]. Revisionism leads to constant and unnecessary reassessment and reevaluation of both knowledge and practice. Revisionism, thus, is a position which overstates the relativity of truth and ignores truths which are more fully developed towards absoluteness.
+''Sophistry:'' the use of falsehoods and fallacious arguments to deceive [see Annotation 116, p. 118]. Sophistry is, thus, the intentional denial of truth and the intentional mischaracterization of truths as either overly relative or as not truths at all.
+''Skepticism:'' the belief that truth is essentially undiscoverable, because human consciousness is ultimately unreliable and incapable of accurately reflecting material reality [see Annotation 200, p. 192]. By denying that truth is discoverable at all, skepticism explicitly rejects absolute truth and declares that all truth is relative and unreliable.
+-----
+In addition to objectivity, absoluteness, and relativity, truth also has ''concreteness.'' The concreteness of truth refers to the degree to which a truth is attached to specific objects, in specific conditions, at a specific point in time. This means that all accurate knowledge always refers to a specific situation which involves specific subjects which exist in a specific place and time. The content of truth cannot be pure abstraction, disconnected from reality, but it is always associated with certain, specific objects and phenomena which exist in a specific space, time, and arrangement, with specific internal and external relationships. Therefore, truth is associated with specific historical conditions. This specificity to time, place, relations, etc., is what we call ''concreteness''.
+Knowledge, if detached from specific historical conditions, will fall into pure abstraction. Therefore, it will not be accurate — it will not align with reality — and such knowledge cannot be considered truth. When emphasizing this property, Lenin wrote: “Truth is always concrete, never abstract.”<ref>''Once Again On The Trade Unions,'' Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1921.</ref> Mastering the principle of the concreteness of truth has an important methodological significance in cognitive and practical activities. It is required that consideration and evaluation of all things and phenomena must be based on a historical viewpoint [see Annotation 114, p. 116]. In developing and applying theory, we must be conscious of specific historical conditions. According to Lenin, Marxism’s nature, its essence, lies in the concrete analysis of specific situations; Marx’s method is, above all, to consider the objective content of the historical process in a specific time.
+-----
+==== Annotation 238 ====
+In other words, Marxism is rooted in seeking truth by examining reality from a historical and comprehensive viewpoint. For more information, see Annotation 114, p. 116.
+''- The Role of Truth in Reality.''
+In order to survive and develop, humans must conduct practical activities. These activities involve transforming the environment, nature, and human society. At the same time, through these activities, humans perform — knowingly or unknowingly — the process of perfecting and developing our conscious and practical abilities. It is this process that helps human cognitive activities develop. Practical activities can only be successful and effective once humans apply accurate knowledge of objective reality to our practical activities. Therefore, truth is one of the prerequisites that ensure success and efficiency in practical activities.
+The relationship between truth and practical activities is a dialectical relationship which serves as the basis for the movement and development of both truth and practical activity: truth develops through practice, and practice develops through the correct application of truth which people have gained through practical activities.
+-----
+==== Annotation 239 ====
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-89.png|''Truth and Practical Activities have a dialectical relationship in which truth develops through practice, and practice develops through the correct application of truth.'']]
+Practice only develops when truth about the universe is consciously applied to practical activities. For example, farm output increases as we learn more truth about the way crops grow and how land can be properly managed. Simultaneously, truth can only be developed through practical activity, as all ideas and knowledge must be tested through methodological observation, experimentation, and other forms of practical activity.
+A ''theory'' is an idea or system of ideas intended to explain an aspect, characteristic, or tendency of objective reality. Theories are not inherently truthful; holding incorrect theories constitutes ''false consciousness''. ''Practice'' (or ''praxis'') is purposeful conscious activity which improves our understanding of the world. Theory and practice have a dialectical relationship with one another which, if understood, helps us to discover truth.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-90.png|''Truth and practical activities mutually develop one another over time.'']]
+This dialectical relationship between theory and practical activities means that we must never favor theory over practice, nor practice over theory, but that we must rather balance development of theoretical understanding as we engage in practical activities to test our knowledge against reality and to develop our practice with ever-advancing understanding of the world. As practice and theory develop one another, our understanding of objective reality comes closer and closer to truth.
+In ''Theses on Feuerbach'', Marx summarizes the relationship between theory and practice, writing:
+<blockquote>
+The problem of the external world is here put as the problem of its transformation: the problem of the cognition of the external world as an integral part of the problem of transformation: the problem of theory as a practical problem.
+</blockquote>
+Here, Marx explains that theory is concerned with solving the “problem” of transforming the external world through practice, and that “cognition of the external world” is required to solve the “problem of transformation. In other words, we must improve our theory in order to improve our practical ability to transform our world, and we learn about the world (thus improving our theory) through those practical activities.
+Marx also writes in ''Theses on Feuerbach'' that:
+<blockquote>
+The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory, but it is a practical question. In practice man must prove the truth, that is, the reality and power... of his thinking.
+</blockquote>
+This point is key for understanding the dialectical relationship between practice and theory: in order to be useful, theory must be ''proven through practice''. Thus, we must seek to develop our practice through theory, and our theory through practice.
+Engels summarizes these ideas a bit more colorfully in ''Socialism: Utopian and Scientific'':
+<blockquote>
+Before there was argument there was action... In the beginning was the deed ... And human action had solved the difficulty long before human ingenuity invented it. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
+</blockquote>
+-----
+Engels wrote in ''Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy'' of the uselessness of what might be called “pure theory,” divorced from practice, and the sort of radical skepticism which refutes that any practical knowledge can ever really be obtained by human beings:
+<blockquote>
+There is yet a set of different philosophers — those who question the possibility of any cognition, or at least of an exhaustive cognition of the world... The most telling refutation of this (scepticism and agnosticism) as of all other philosophical crotchets, is praxis, namely experiment and industry.
+</blockquote>
+It is ''practice'', according to Engels, which proves the merit and utility of theory.
+Through experiment and industry — through practical activities in the material world — we can test our ideas and dialectically develop both theory and practice. Lenin built upon these ideas in his own work, writing in ''Materialism and Empirio-Criticism'':
+<blockquote>
+The materialist theory, the theory of the reflection of objects by our mind, is here presented with absolute clarity: things exist outside us. Our perceptions and ideas are their images. Verification of these images, differentiation between true and false images, is given by practice.
+</blockquote>
+Here, Lenin explains how only a proper understanding and application of the dialectical relationship between theory and practice can lead to the negation of false consciousness [see Annotation 235, p. 231] and the dialectical development of both practice and theory. Simply arguing and debating about ideas without relating them directly to practice will never lead to truth, nor will such pure-theory argumentation develop theory or practice in any meaningful way.
+This brings to mind another line from Marx’s ''Theses on Feuerbach'':
+<blockquote>
+The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question.
+</blockquote>
+The philosophy of dialectical materialism and the system of materialist dialectics are designed specifically to produce ''action'' and to avoid such “scholastic questions” and “pure-theory argumentation.”
+Ho Chi Minh summarized these ideas perhaps most clearly and precisely of all in the very title of his article: ''Practice Generates Knowledge, Understanding Advances Theory, Theory Leads to Practice:''
+<blockquote>
+Knowledge comes from practice. And through practice, knowledge becomes theory. That theory, again, has to be put into practice. Knowledge advances not just from thought to theory, but, above all, from applying theory to revolutionary practice. Once the world’s law is fully grasped as theory, it is critical to put that theory into practice by changing the world, by increasing production, and by practicing class struggle and struggling for national self-determination. This is a continuous process of obtaining knowledge.
+</blockquote>
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-91.png|''“If Uncle Ho says we will win, we will win!” — Propaganda poster from the 30<sup>th</sup> anniversary of the Battle of Dien Bien Phu (1984).'']]
+= Afterword =
+If it seems that this book has come to an end somewhat abruptly, it’s because this is really just the first of four major sections of the full volume from which this text is drawn. If you are reading this afterword after reading the entirety of the preceding contents, then congratulations, you have completed the equivalent to a full semester’s coursework for a class on dialectical materialist philosophy which all Vietnamese college students are required to take!
+The next sections in this curriculum, each covered in the original full volume, include:
+=== Part 2: Historical Materialism ===
+This section covers the definition and basic principles of historical materialism, which is the field of work dedicated to applying dialectical materialism and materialist dialectics to human history and human society. In the West, historical materialism and dialectical materialism are often conflated, but this is in error. Historical materialism is an ''applied field'' of dialectical materialist philosophy and materialist dialectical methodology which is used in the pursuit of understanding and interpreting human history.
+=== Part 3: Political Economy ===
+This section condenses the three cardinal volumes of ''Capital'' by Karl Marx and covers three primary doctrines:
+. The doctrine of value.
+. The doctrine of surplus value.
+. The doctrines of monopolist capitalism and state monopolist capitalism.
+Political Economy, in this course, can be considered the application of dialectical materialism and materialist dialectics to the analysis and understanding of the capitalist mode of production from the perspective of the socialist revolutionary movement.
+=== Part 4: Scientific Socialism ===
+This section relies on an established understanding of dialectical materialism, historical materialism, and political economy as a foundation for developing socialist revolution. The three chapters of this section on Scientific Socialism are:
+. The Historical Mission of the Working Class and the Socialist Revolution
+. The Primary Social-Political Issues of the Process of Building a Socialist Revolution 3. Realistic Socialism and Potential Socialism
+=== Moving Forward ===
+We are already working on the translation of Part 2 of this curriculum, and we hope to complete it as quickly as possible. In the meantime, we believe this book provides the reader with enough of a foundation to continue studying and to begin applying the principles of dialectical materialism and materialist dialectics in political struggle.
+We highly discourage readers from self-study in isolation, just as we discourage individual political action. The best way to study socialism is ''alongside other socialists''.
+Depending on where you live, you may be able to find political education resources provided by communist parties, socialist book clubs, or other organizations. If such resources aren’t available, it should be fairly easy to find study groups, workshops, and affinity groups online where you can study with like-minded comrades. Of course, socialist revolution requires more than just study, as we hope this book has thoroughly explained. Theory ''must'' be coupled with practice. As Ho Chi Minh wrote: “If you read a thousand books, but you fail to apply theory into practice, you are nothing but a bookshelf.”
+To avoid atrophying into the proverbial bookshelf, we encourage you to go out into the world and apply these ideas creatively and collectively with other socialists. Dialectical materialism is a philosophy that was developed from the ground up for ''application in the real world''. Dialectical materialism and materialist dialectics provide a functional model of reality, a way of looking at highly complicated systems, with all their dynamic internal and external relations. Dialectical materialist philosophy demands that we see human systems as processes in motion. In order to fully comprehend such dynamic processes, we must engage with them, which is why Ho Chi Minh taught that “we are not afraid to make mistakes; we would only be afraid of making mistakes if we were not determined to correct them.”<ref>''Revolutionary Ethics,'' Ho Chi Minh, December 1958.</ref>
+As we mentioned in the foreword, many socialists in the West suffer from a lack of practical ''engagement''. Far too many socialists fall into utopianism, idealism, and social chauvinism and we believe this largely stems from failures to test ideas against reality through ''praxis''. We hope that this book has impressed upon the reader that simply arguing about pure theory is a useless and futile pursuit. Indeed, sparring verbally over such “scholastic questions,” as Marx described them, is counter-productive. Marx and Engels defined such failure to engage in theory as “critical criticism” — that is to say, criticism for the sake of criticism. As Marx and Engels wrote in ''The Holy Family,'' such critical criticism is futile, as we will never ''think'' our way to revolution:
+<blockquote>
+According to Critical Criticism, the whole evil lies only in the workers’ “thinking”. It is true that the English and French workers have formed associations in which they exchange opinions not only on their immediate needs as workers, but on their needs as human beings. In their associations, moreover, they show a very thorough and comprehensive consciousness of the “enormous” and “immeasurable” power which arises from their co-operation. But these mass-minded, communist workers, employed, for instance, in the Manchester or Lyons workshops, do not believe that by “pure thinking” they will be able to argue away their industrial masters and their own practical debasement. They are most painfully aware of the difference between being and thinking, between consciousness and life. They know that property, capital, money, wage-labour and the like are no ideal figments of the brain but very practical, very objective products of their self-estrangement and that therefore they must be abolished in a practical, objective way for man to become man not only in thinking, in consciousness, but in mass being, in life. Critical Criticism, on the contrary, teaches them that they cease in reality to be wage-workers if in thinking they abolish the thought of wage-labour; if in thinking they cease to regard themselves as wage-workers and, in accordance with that extravagant notion, no longer let themselves be paid for their person. As absolute idealists, as ethereal beings, they will then naturally be able to live on the ether of pure thought.
+</blockquote>
+Engels expressed his frustration with such endless, utopian, idealist debates in ''Socialism: Utopian and Scientific'':
+<blockquote>
+Hence, from this nothing could come but a kind of eclectic, average Socialism, which, as a matter of fact, has up to the present time dominated the minds of most of the socialist workers in France and England. Hence, a mish-mash allowing of the most manifold shades of opinion: a mish-mash of such critical statements, economic theories, pictures of future society by the founders of different sects, as excite a minimum of opposition; a mish-mash which is the more easily brewed the more definite sharp edges of the individual constituents are rubbed down in the stream of debate, like rounded pebbles in a brook.
+</blockquote>
+Engels concludes by punctuating ''why'' he and Marx had developed dialectical materialism as a praxis-oriented philosophical foundation for scientific socialism: “To make a science of Socialism, it had first to be placed upon a real basis.” We hope that the readers of this text will seek out real bases for your development in theory and praxis, and we trust that you will quickly discover that developing practice develops theory, and vice-versa.
+Remember that Marx and Engels, themselves, were not just theorists who scribbled down their thoughts in an “scholarly” vacuum. They were revolutionists themselves, highly engaged in political struggle and, in so struggling, they risked their lives and freedom over the course of many decades. This struggle is what led to the change and development of their ideas over time. The same can be said for every other successful socialist revolutionary in history.
+Vo Nguyen Giap, the great general who led Vietnam’s military forces through resistance wars against fascist Japan, colonialist France, and the imperialist USA, describes how he applied such principles on the battlefield in his book ''People’s War, People’s Army'':
+<blockquote>
+During the Resistance War, owing to constant fighting, the training of our troops could not be carried out continuously for a lengthy period but only between battles or campaigns. We actively implemented the guiding principles ‘To train and to learn while we fight.’ After the difficult years at the beginning of the Resistance War, we succeeded in giving good training to our army. The practical viewpoint in this training deserves to be highlighted. The content of training became most practical and rich. Training was in touch with practical fighting: the troops were trained in accordance with the next day’s fighting, and victory or defeat in the fighting was the best gauge for the control and assessment of the result of the training. On the basis of gradual unification of the organisation and its equipment, the content of training in the various units of the regular army was also systematised step by step.
+</blockquote>
+Here, Vo Nguyen Giap has provided a concrete example of the dialectical relationship between theory and practice, and their inseparability. This fundamental aspect of dialectical materialist philosophy demands that we think and act like ''scientists'' to change the world, rather than simply speculating and imagining ineffectually like armchair philosophers. As Marx wrote in ''Theses on Feuerbach'' “Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.” We encourage you to apply what you learn in this and other books to ''change the world.''
+=== Advice on Further Study ===
+As you advance in your studies of socialist literature and theory, we offer the following advice:
+First, you must recognize that the specific language used by revolutionary leaders and thinkers may vary widely across time and around the world. Fashions in language develop over time, and many contributions — like the text you’ve just read — come to us through translation from countless languages. This is why we believe it critical to develop an understanding of the ''spirit'' of the ideas of any particular text, and not to get bogged down in semantics and terminology. Liberal ideologists have done much to distract and divert intellectual energy with endless metaphysical altercation over the “proper” usage of this or that word. We caution strongly against this attitude, which makes us susceptible to sophistry, opportunism, and the sewing of undue conflict and division amidst the working class. We have pointed out various instances where Marx, Engels, and Lenin used different language to describe the same concepts. We also offer the reminder that Marx, Engels, and Lenin were writing in different languages at different times, just as socialists around the world have different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. As socialism is an international movement, we must stress the importance of avoiding linguistic barriers by engaging with one another in good faith and testing conflicting ideas and interpretations of theory against one another through practice instead of getting bogged down with “critical criticism.”
+Next, we encourage students of socialist philosophy to always keep in mind that the doctrines and philosophies of revolutionary figures are products of the times and places in which they were conceived. It would be a mistake to view the works of any revolutionary figure as a road map or a set of instructions to follow by rote. Even Marx and Engels changed and developed their own ideas over the decades they were active, as they addressed in the 1872 preface to ''The Communist Manifesto'':
+<blockquote>
+The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.” (See The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council of the International Working Men’ s Association, 1871, where this point is further developed.) Further, it is self-evident that the criticism of socialist literature is deficient in relation to the present time, because it comes down only to 1847; also that the remarks on the relation of the Communists to the various opposition parties (Section IV), although, in principle still correct, yet in practice are antiquated, because the political situation has been entirely changed, and the progress of history has swept from off the earth the greater portion of the political parties there enumerated.”
+</blockquote>
+Vladimir Ilyich Lenin and Ho Chi Minh also frequently took pains to point out that their revolutionary theories were devised specifically to suit the particular objective conditions of their own respective times and places. For example, in ''What is to be Done'', Lenin discusses the question of secrecy in revolutionary activity. Lenin recognizes that secrecy is not always necessary, such as in the more liberal social democracies which existed in Europe in his era. In Russia, however — with its autocratic monarchy — material conditions called for more covert activity:
+<blockquote>
+In countries where political liberty exists the distinction between a trade union and a political organisation is clear enough, as is the distinction between trade unions and Social-Democracy. The relations between the latter and the former will naturally vary in each country according to historical, legal, and other conditions; they may be more or less close, complex, etc. (in our opinion they should be as close and as little complicated as possible); but there can be no question in free countries of the organisation of trade unions coinciding with the organisation of the Social-Democratic Party. In Russia, however, the yoke of the autocracy appears at first glance to obliterate all distinctions between the Social-Democratic organisation and the workers’ associations, since all workers’ associations and all study circles are prohibited, and since the principal manifestation and weapon of the workers’ economic struggle — the strike — is regarded as a criminal (and sometimes even as a political!) offence.”
+</blockquote>
+Ho Chi Minh was even more explicit about the requirement to tailor theory to current and local material conditions in a speech to the Communist Party of Vietnam in 1950:
+<blockquote>
+Studying Marxism-Leninism is not just a matter of repeating the slogan ‘workers of the world, unite’ like a parrot. We must unify Marxism-Leninism with the reality of Vietnam’s revolution. Talking about Marxism-Leninism in Vietnam is talking about the specific guidelines and policies of the Communist Party of Vietnam. For example, our priority now is: great solidarity!
+</blockquote>
+In a 2001 document, the Communist Party of Vietnam explained how Ho Chi Minh tailored lessons learned from prior revolutionaries to the specific material conditions of revolutionary Vietnam:
+<blockquote>
+Ho Chi Minh’s thought is... the creative application and development of Marxism-Leninism to the specific conditions of our country. Ho Chi Minh learned profound lessons from Lenin and the Russian October Revolution, but he did not simply use those lessons as a template, nor did he just copy that foundation. Instead, he absorbed the spirit of Marxism-Leninism. Lenin’s thesis allowed Ho Chi Minh to see what was necessary for the Vietnamese people — the path of national liberation. Ho Chi Minh had creative arguments that contributed to enriching Marxism-Leninism in the issue of national liberation revolution, building a new democratic regime and the transitional path to socialism in an Eastern, semi-feudal colony which was still very backward: Vietnam.
+</blockquote>
+As you find your own revolutionary path, you must carefully examine the objective conditions of your own time and place, and work collectively and collaboratively with your fellow revolutionists to decide how theory and lessons gleaned from history apply to your own circumstances. And, of course, you must test the validity of your conclusions against reality through ''practice''.
+=== Creative Application of Dialectical Materialism and Materialist Dialectics ===
+Finally, we implore you to apply dialectical materialism ''creatively''. Don’t look at this (or any other) book as a set of static instructions. Dialectical materialism and materialist dialectics are living, breathing systems of thought which benefit from the ideas and imagination of comrades working and struggling together. Seek the ''spirit'' of these ideas, study revolutionary theory and history, then ''apply'' what you learn in your daily life. Combat dogmatism and avoid arguments over pure theory. Determine what works and what doesn’t through activity in the real world, and apply what you learn from practical experience to your theoretical development. Over time, you will begin to see how practice and theory impact and develop one another. When you are struggling with a particular problem in revolutionary practice, you will find yourself reading theory in a new light, discovering information and ideas which might be applicable to your immediate circumstances. And as you study theory, you will find that it also impacts your practice, giving you tools and perspective and methodologies for action which you might never have imagined on your own.
+We have tried to make this book a useful companion for further study. We have also made the digital version available for free online. If you have found it useful, we hope you will share it freely and widely.
+=== In Closing ===
+One last time we would like to thank Dr. Vijay Prashad and Dr. Taimur Rahman for their wonderful insights on our translation, and to acknowledge the monumental work of the Vietnamese scholars who wrote and revised the original text from which this volume is drawn. We also want to recognize once more the donors and supporters who have given us the precious resource of time to translate and annotate this work. Finally, we want to thank the teams at the Iskra Books and The International Magazine, who have provided invaluable editing and peer review services, promotion, and guidance. You can find all their publications, respectively, at:
+IskraBooks.org
+InternationalMagz.com
+If you would like to download the free digital version of this book, support future translation work, or if you would like to get in touch, you can visit our website:
+BanyanHouse.org
+We will leave you, now, with the immortal words of the Manifesto:
+'''Workers of the world, unite!'''
+You have nothing to lose but your chains.
+=== In Solidarity, ===
+''-'' ''Luna Nguyen, Translator &amp; Annotations''
+''-'' ''Emerican Johnson, Editor, Illustrator, &amp; Annotations''
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-92.jpg|''“Marxism-Leninism — Long Live the Victories” — a demonstration to welcome the liberation army in the South of Vietnam on April 30, 1975.'']]
+<br />
+= [Appendices] =
+== Appendix A: Basic Pairs of Categories Used in Materialist Dialectics ==
+This is a summary of the basic pairs of universal categories and their characteristics which are discussed in depth starting on p. 126.
+{|
+| | '''Private'''
+| '''Common'''
+|
+|-
+| | A specific item, event, or process.
+| The properties that are shared between Private things, phenomena, and ideas.
+|
+|}
+''Private'' is commonly referred to in literature as ''Special/Specific'' while ''Common'' is commonly called ''General''. ''Note:'' When an aspect or characteristic is not held in common with anything else in existence, it is considered ''Unique''. The Unique can become Common, just as the Common can become Unique. Example: a Unique design for an object may be replicated, making it Common. A type of item that is Common may gradually disappear until there is only one example left, making it Unique. ''See p. 128.''
+{|
+| | '''Reason'''
+| '''Result'''
+|
+|-
+| | Mutual impact between things, phenomena, or ideas which causes each to change.
+| The change caused by a Reason.
+|
+|}
+''Reason'' and ''Result'' may be referred to as ''Cause'' and ''Effect'', respectively, though this should lead to confusion with metaphysical conceptions of cause and effect. ''Note:'' Reasons can be Direct or Indirect. ''See p. 138''
+{|
+| | '''Obviousness'''
+| '''Randomness'''
+|
+|-
+| | Refers to events that always and predictably happen due to factors of internal material structure.
+| Events caused by external impacts and interactions which are thus not completely predictable.
+|
+|}
+''Obvious'' may be referred to as ''Necessary,'' while ''Randomness'' may be referred to as ''Accidental. See p. 145.''
+{|
+| | '''Content'''
+| '''Form'''
+|
+|-
+| | What something is made of.
+| The shape that contains content.
+|
+|}
+Ways in which Content and Form are discussed and perceived can can vary wildly depending on the subject being discussed and the viewpoint from which the subject is being considered. ''See p. 145.''
+{|
+| | '''Essence'''
+| '''Phenomena'''
+|
+|-
+| | Features that make something develop a certain way.
+| The expression of the essence in certain conditions.
+|
+|}
+''See p. 156.''
+{|
+| | '''Possibility'''
+| '''Reality'''
+|
+|-
+| | What may happen, or might exist, in the future, if certain developments take place.
+| What is happening, or what exists, at the present moment.
+|
+|}
+''See p. 160.''
+== Appendix B: the Two Basic Principles of Dialectical Materialism ==
+'''The Principle of General Relationships''' This principle states that:
+“Materialist dialectics upholds the position that all things, phenomena, and ideas exist in mutual relationships with each other, regulate each other, transform into each other, and that nothing exists in complete isolation.”
+From this Principle, we find the characteristics of ''Diversity in Unity'' and ''Unity in Diversity''; the basis of Diversity in Unity is the fact that every thing, phenomenon, and idea contains many different relationships; the basis of Unity in Diversity is that many different relationships exist — unified — within each and every thing, phenomenon, and idea.
+'''''The Characteristic of Diversity in Unity''''' is derived from the fact that there exist an infinite number of diverse relationships between things, phenomena, and ideas, but all of these relationships share the same foundation in the material world.
+'''''The Characteristic of Unity in Diversity''''' is derived from the fact that when we examine the universal relationships that exist within and between all different things, phenomena, and ideas, we will find that each individual manifestation of any universal relationship will have its own different manifestations, aspects, features, etc. Thus even the universal relationships which unite all things, phenomena, and ideas exist in infinite diversity.
+'''The Principle of Development''' This principle states that:
+'''“'''Development is a process that comes from within the thing-in-itself; the process of solving the contradictions within things and phenomena. Therefore, development is inevitable, objective, and occurs without dependence on human will.”
+'''''The Characteristic of Objectiveness of Development''''' stems from the origin of motion. Since motion originates from mutual impacts which occur between external things, objects, and relationships, the motions themselves also occur externally (relative to all other things, phenomena, and objects). This gives motion itself objective characteristics.
+'''''The Characteristic of Generality of Development''''' stems from the fact that development occurs in every process that exists in every field of nature, society, and human thought; in every thing, every phenomenon, and every process and stage of these things and phenomena.
+'''''The Characteristic of Diversity of Development''''' stems from the fact that every thing, phenomenon, and idea has its own process of development that is not totally identical to the process of development of any other thing, phenomenon, or idea.
+== Appendix C: the Three Universal Laws of Materialist Dialectics ==
+=== The Law of Transformation Between Quantity and Quality ===
+The law of transformation between quantity and quality is a universal law which concerns the universal mode of motion and development processes of nature, society, and human thought. The law was formulated by Friedrich Engels in ''Dialectics of Nature'', and states that:
+“In nature, in a manner exactly fixed for each individual case, qualitative changes can only occur by the quantitative addition or subtraction of matter or motion.” ''See more on p. 163.''
+=== The Law of Unification and Contradiction Between Opposites ===
+The law of unification and contradiction between opposites is the essence of dialectics. It states, as formulated by V. I. Lenin in ''Summary of Dialectics'':
+“The fundamental, originating, and universal driving force of all motion and development processes is the inherent and objective contradiction which exists in all things, phenomena, and ideas.” ''See more on p. 175.''
+=== The Law of Negation of Negation ===
+The law of negation of negation describes the fundamental and universal tendency of movement and development to occur through a cyclical form of development through what is termed “negation of negation.” Formulated by Friedrich Engels in ''Anti-Dühring,'' it states:
+“The true, natural, historical, and dialectical negation is (formally) the moving source of all development--the division into opposites, their struggle and resolution, and what is more, on the basis of experience gained, the original point is achieved again (partly in history, fully in thought), but at a higher stage.” ''See more on p. 185.''
+== Appendix D: Forms of Consciousness and Knowledge ==
+''Consciousness'' refers to the self-aware, productive, and creative motion and activity of the human brain. Practical activity is the most direct basis, motive, and purpose of consciousness, and is the criterion for testing truth. See: ''The Relationship Between Praxis and Consciousness'', p. 216.
+''Knowledge'' is the content of consciousness. Knowledge includes data about the world, such as ideas, memories, and other thoughts which are derived by direct observation and practical activities in the material world, through scientific experiments, or through abstract reflection of practical and scientific activities which occur within consciousness.
+Consciousness and Knowledge have a dialectical relationship with one another: knowledge is developed within consciousness, and consciousness develops to higher levels as knowledge is accumulated and tested against reality (which also develops knowledge itself). In this manner, consciousness and knowledge develop into higher forms over time in individual consciousness and human society. Thus, consciousness and knowledge can be considered as existing in various forms which represent stages of development in dialectical processes of development.
+Note that the development processes of knowledge and consciousness are dialectical in nature, not linear. For example, after empirical consciousness develops into theoretical consciousness, theoretical consciousness will then impact empirical consciousness, developing empirical consciousness into a higher stage of development. This is true for all development processes related to empirical and theoretical consciousness. These development processes and forms of consciousness and knowledge are explained in more detail in Chapter 3: Cognitive Theory of Dialectical Materialism, starting on page 204.
+=== Forms of Consciousness ===
+Consciousness is a process of the development of knowledge through a combination of human brain activity and human practical activity in the physical world (i.e., labor). The development of consciousness can be considered on the criteria of ''concrete/abstract'' and of ''passive/active''. For more information, see Annotation 216, p. 210.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-99.png]]
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-100.png]]
+=== The Cognitive Process ===
+The Cognitive Process is a model developed by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin which represents the dialectical path of consciousness to truth. For more information, see ''Dialectical Path of Consciousness to Truth'' on page 219.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-101.png]]
+=== Forms of Knowledge ===
+''For more information see Annotation 218, p. 214.''
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-102.png]]
+== Appendix E: Properties of Truth ==
+Truth is the alignment of consciousness with objective reality. All truths are objective, relative, absolute, and concrete. Truths also have characteristics of concreteness and abstractness.
+'''Objectivity:''' The content of truth is external to the subjective will of human beings. The content of knowledge must be aligned with objective reality, not vice versa. This means that the content of accurate knowledge is not a product of pure subjective reasoning but is objective in nature.
+'''Absoluteness:''' Absolute truth<ref>Note: Absolute Truth in dialectical materialist philosophy should not be confused with Hegel’s conception of Absolute Truth as a final point at which human consciousness will have achieved absolute, complete, and final understanding of our universe.</ref> is derived from the complete alignment between objective reality and human consciousness. The possibility of acquiring absolute truth in the process of the development of conscious understanding is theoretically limitless. However, in reality, our conscious ability to reflect reality is limited by the specific material conditions of each generation of humanity, of practical limitations, and by the spatial and temporal conditions of reflected subjects. Therefore, truth is also ''relative''.
+'''Relativity:''' Relative truth is truth which has developed alignment with reality without yet having reached ''complete'' alignment. To put it another way, relative truth represents knowledge which incompletely reflects material subjects without complete accuracy. In relative truth, there is only partial alignment — in some (but not all) aspects — between consciousness and the material world.
+'''Dialectical Relationship Between Absolute and Relative Truth:''' Relative truth and absolute truth do not exist separately, but have dialectical unity with each other. On the one hand, “absolute truth” is the sum of all “relative truths.” On the other hand, in all relative truths there are always elements of absolute truth.
+'''Concreteness:''' The concreteness of truth refers to the degree to which a truth is attached to specific objects, in specific conditions, at a specific point in time. This means that all accurate knowledge always refers to a specific situation which involves specific subjects which exist in a specific place and time. The content of truth cannot be pure abstraction, disconnected from reality, but it is always associated with certain, specific objects and phenomena which exist in a specific space, time, and arrangement, with specific internal and external relationships. Therefore, truth is associated with specific historical conditions. This specificity to time, place, relations, etc., is ''concreteness''.
+'''Abstractness:''' Abstract knowledge is knowledge which is not attached (or less attached) to specific times, places, relations, etc. Some degree of abstraction is necessary to develop theoretical understanding of general laws and the nature of objective reality, but care should be taken knowledge does not become completely detached from specific historical conditions, as this will result in ''pure abstraction''. Knowledge which is purely abstract will not align with reality, and such knowledge cannot be considered truth.
+== Appendix F: Common Deviations From Dialectical Materialism ==
+Throughout the history of the development of dialectical materialism and materialist dialectics, there have been many philosophical and methodological deviations which have derived from incorrect analysis, interpretation, and a failure to properly link theory and practice. Below are descriptions of some of the more common deviations which the reader should be aware of.
+'''Bureaucracy:''' An expression of ''dogmatism'' which arises when theory becomes overly formalized, to the extent that practical considerations are ignored in favor of codified theory.
+'''Conservativism:''' A mindset which seeks to prevent and stifle development and to hold humanity in a static position. Not only is this detrimental to humanity, it is also ultimately a wasted effort, because development is inevitable in human society, as in all things, phenomena, and ideas.
+'''Dogmatism:''' A breakdown of the dialectical relationship between theoretical consciousness and empirical consciousness, which arrests the development process of knowledge and consciousness. Usually the result of: failure to seek commonalities; considering theory itself as the sole basis of truth rather than practice; ignoring practical experience and considering pre-established theory, alone, as unalterable truth.
+'''Eclecticism:''' An approach to philosophical inquiry which attempts to draw from various different theories, frameworks, and ideas to attempt to understand a subject; the philosophical error of inconsistently applying different theories and principles in different situations. Empiricism: A broad philosophical position which holds that only experience (including internal experience) can be held as a source of knowledge or truth. Though nominally opposed to idealism, it is considered a faulty (or naive) form of materialism, since it sees the world as only unconnected, static appearances and ignores the reality of dialectical (changing) relationships between objects.
+'''Idealism:''' A philosophical position which holds that the only reliable experience of reality occurs within human consciousness. Idealists believe that relying on human reason exclusively or as a first basis is the best way to seek truth. Various forms of idealism exist, broadly broken down into subjective idealism, which denies the existence of an external objective world, and objective idealism, which accepts that an external objective world exists, but denies that knowledge can be reliably gained about it through sense perception.
+'''Opportunism:''' A system of political opinions with no direction, no clear path, no coherent viewpoint, leaning on whatever is beneficial for the opportunist in the short term.
+'''Revisionism:''' A failure to recognize and accept commonalities in conscious activity, focusing only on the private. Revisionism leads to constant and unnecessary reassessment and reevaluation of both knowledge and practice. Revisionism, thus, is a position which overstates the relativity of truth and ignores truths which are more fully developed towards absoluteness.
+'''Rigidity:''' An unwillingness to alter one’s thoughts, holding too stiffly to established consciousness and knowledge, and ignoring practical experience and observation, which leads to stagnation of both knowledge and consciousness.
+'''Skepticism:''' The belief truth is essentially undiscoverable, because human consciousness is ultimately unreliable and incapable of accurately reflecting material reality. By denying that truth is discoverable at all, skepticism explicitly rejects absolute truth and declares that all truth is relative and unreliable. Solipsism: A form of idealism in which one believes that the self is the only basis for truth. As Marxist ethicist Howard Selsam wrote in ''Ethics and Progress: New Values in a Revolutionary World'': “If I believe that I alone exist and that you and all your arguments exist only in my mind and are my own creations then all possible arguments will not shake me one iota. No logic can possibly convince [the] solipsist.”
+'''Sophistry:''' The use of falsehoods and misleading arguments, usually with the intention of deception, and with a tendency of presenting non-critical aspects of a subject matter as critical, to serve a particular agenda. The word comes from the Sophists, a group of professional teachers in Ancient Greece, who were criticized by Socrates (in Plato’s dialogues) for being shrewd and deceptive rhetoricians. This kind of bad faith argument has no place in materialist dialectics. Materialist dialectics must, instead, be rooted in a true and accurate understanding of the subject, material conditions, and reality in general.
+'''Subjectivism:''' The centering of one’s own self and conscious activities in perspective and worldview, failing to test one’s own perceptions against material and social reality. Subjectivists tend to believe that they can independently reason their way to truth in their own minds without practical experience and activity in the material world.
+'''Utilitarianism:''' An ethical philosophical theory founded by Jeremy Bentham which seeks to maximize “utility,” which is considered to be a metaphysical property embodying “benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness.” Karl Marx dismissed utilitarianism as overly abstract, in that it reduces all social relationships to the single characteristic of “utility.” He also viewed utilitarianism as metaphysically static and tied to the status quo of current society, since utilitarianism does not address class dynamics and views all relations in the current status quo of society, making utilitarianism an essentially conservative theory. Marx also pointed out that Utilitarianism essentially views individuals as private individuals, not as social individuals, and seeks to work out solutions to the practical problems of human society through reasoning alone without examining material conditions and processes, and without taking into consideration practice and development, writing:
+<blockquote>
+“The whole criticism of the existing world by the utility theory was... restricted within a narrow range. Remaining within the confines of bourgeois conditions, it could criticise only those relations which had been handed down from a past epoch and were an obstacle to the development of the bourgeoisie... the economic content gradually turned the utility theory into a mere apologia for the existing state of affairs, an attempt to prove that under existing conditions the mutual relations of people today are the most advantageous and generally useful.”
+</blockquote>
+= [Back Matter] =
+== Glossary &amp; Index ==
+{|
+| | '''Absolute Truth'''
+| Absolute Truth can refer to:<br />
+<br />
+. The recognition that objective and accurate truth can be drawn from sense perception of the material world along with labor and practice activities in the material world. The opposite of this position is Relativism. See p. 56, 94, 194, 228–229, 232–234.<br />
+<br />
+. Hegel’s notion of Absolute Truth: that there will eventually be some end point of to the process of rational consciousness at which point humanity will arrive at a final stage of knowledge and consciousness. See p. 228.<br />
+<br />
+See also: Relative Truth, Relativism, Stagnation, Truth.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Absolutization'''
+| To hold a belief or supposition as always true in all situations and without exception. See p. 49.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Abstract Labor'''
+| The abstract conception of expenditure of human energy in the form of labor, without taking into account the value of labor output. When the value of labor output ''is'' taken into consideration, it is referred to as ''concrete labor''. See p. 15, 17.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Adam Smith'''
+| (1723–1790) British logic professor, moral philosophy professor, and economist. Along with David Ricardo, Adam Smith was one of the founders of ''political economy'', which Marx both drew from and critiqued in his analysis and critique of capitalism. See p. 14, 155.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Ahistoric Perspective'''
+| A perspective which considers aspects of human society without due consideration of historical processes of development. For example, Adam Smith and David Ricardo viewed political economy ahistorically, viewing capitalism as a static, universal, and eternal product of natural law rather than seeing capitalism as a product of historical processes of development which would change and develop over time. See p. 116.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Base'''
+| Also known as: Economic Base; Economic Basis. The material processes which humans undertake to survive and transform our environment to support our ways of living. In the dialectical relationship between base and ''superstructure'', the base refers to the relationship which humans have with the means of production, including the ownership of the means of production and the organization of labor. See p. 23. See also: Superstructure.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Biological Motion'''
+| One of the five basic forms of motion described by Engels in ''Dialectics of Nature''. Biological motion refers to changes and development within living objects and their genetic structure. See p. 61.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Biological Reflection'''
+| A complex form of reflection found within organic subjects in the natural world and expressed by ''excitation'', ''induction'', and ''reflexes''. See p. 65.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Bourgeoisie'''
+| The owners of the means of production and the ruling class under capitalism; also known as the capitalist class. See p. 3, 23, 30, 41, 50, 63, 96. See also:<br />
+<br />
+Proletariat, Petty Bourgeoisie.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Bureaucracy'''
+| An expression of dogmatism which arises when theory becomes overly formalized, to the extent that practical considerations are ignored in favor of codified theory. See p. 217–218.<br />
+C→→M→→C C = A Commodity<br />
+M = The Money Commodity<br />
+The mode of circulation described by Marx as occurring under pre-capitalist economies of simple exchange, in which the producers and consumers of commodities have a direct relationship to the commodities which are being bought and sold. The sellers have produced the commodities with their own labor, and they directly consume the commodities which they purchase. See also: M→C→M’<br />
+Marx called this mode of circulation “simple commodity production.” See p. 16.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Capitalism'''
+| The current stage of human political economy, defined by private ownership of the means of production. ''Referenced throughout.''
+|
+|-
+| | '''Capitalist Class'''
+| See: Bourgeoisie
+|
+|-
+| | '''Capitalist Commodity Production'''
+| The capitalist mode of production which utilizes the M→C→M’ mode of circulation, in which capitalists own the means of production and pay wages to workers in exchange for their labor, which is used to produce commodities. Capitalists then sell these commodities for profits which are not shared with the workers who provided the labor. See p. 15.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Category'''
+| The most general grouping of aspects, attributes, and relations of things, phenomena, and ideas. Different specific fields of inquiry may categorize things, phenomena, and/or ideas differently from one another. See p. 126.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Category Pair'''
+| A pair of philosophical categories within materialist dialectics. Materialist dialectics tend to focus on ''universal category pairs'' which can be used to examine the characteristics, relations, and development of all things, phenomena, and ideas. Examples of category pairs include: private and common; content and form; reason and result; essence and phenomena. See p. 127.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Characteristics'''
+| The features and attributes that exist internally — within — a given thing, phenomena, or idea. See p. 115.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Chemical Motion'''
+| Changes of organic and inorganic substances in processes of combination and separation. See p. 61.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Chemical Reflection'''
+| The reflection of mechanical, physical, and chemical changes and reactions of inorganic matter (i.e., changes in structures, position, physical-chemical properties, and the processes of combining and dissolving substances). See p. 65–66.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Circulation'''
+| The way in which commodities and money are exchanged for one another. See p. 16.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Commodity'''
+| In Marxist political economy, commodities include anything which can be bought and sold, with both a use value (i.e. it satisfies a need of any kind) and a value-form (aka. ‘Exchange value’ and understood as the average socially necessary labour time needed to produce this object). Under capitalism, more and more human activity and production is ‘commodified’ (mediated through market exchange). See p. 15, 87, 133.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Common'''
+| See: Private and Common
+|
+|-
+| | '''Common Laws'''
+| Laws (of nature and/or human society) that are applicable to a broader range of subjects than ''private laws'', and which impact many different subjects. For instance: the law of preservation of mass, the law of preservation of energy, etc. See p. 162.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Comprehensive Viewpoint'''
+| A ''viewpoint'' which seeks to consider the internal dialectical relationships between the component parts, factors, and aspects within a thing or phenomenon, and which considers external mutual interactions with with other things, phenomena, and ideas. Dialectical materialist philosophy demands a comprehensive basis in order to fully and properly understand things and phenomena in order to effectively solve problems in real life and develop humanity towards communism. See p. 115, 172, 235.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Conception'''
+| A relatively complete ''reflection'' within human consciousness of objective things and phenomena. See p. 221–22.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Concrete Labor'''
+| The production of a specific commodity with a specific value through labor. When labor is considered without the consideration of output value, it is referred to as ''abstract labor''. See p. 15, 17.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Conditioned Reflex'''
+| Conditioned reflexes are reactions which are learned by organisms. These responses are acquired as animals associate previously unrelated neural stimuli with a particular reaction. See p. 66, 68.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Consciousness'''
+| The dynamic and creative reflection of the objective world in human brains; the subjective image of the objective world which is produced by the human brain. See p. 68–69, 70.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Content'''
+| See: Content and Form.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Content and Form (Category Pair)'''
+| Content is the philosophical category which refers to the sum of all aspects, attributes, and processes that a thing, phenomenon, or idea is made from. The Form category refers to the mode of existence and development of things, phenomena, and ideas. Form thus describes the system of relatively stable relationships which exist internally within things, phenomena, and ideas.<br />
+<br />
+Content and Form have a dialectical relationship with one another, in which content determines form and form impacts back on content. See p. 115, 147155, 166.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Contradiction'''
+| A contradiction is a relationship in which two forces oppose one another, leading to mutual development. See p. 123, 159, 163, 169, 175–191.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Consciousness'''
+| The self-aware, productive, creative motion and activity of the human brain. See p. 216, 249.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Conservativism'''
+| Also referred to as Prejudice; a mindset which seeks to prevent and stifle development and to hold humanity in a static position. Not only is this detrimental to humanity, it is also ultimately a wasted effort, because development is inevitable in human society, as in all things, phenomena, and ideas. See p. 125, 233.
+|
+|-
+| | '''David Hume'''
+| (1711 — 1776) Scottish philosopher who developed radical skepticism as a philosophy of empiricist rejection of human knowledge. See p. 11, 29, 56, 7273.
+|
+|-
+| | '''David Ricardo'''
+| (1772 — 1823) British economist who, along with Adam Smith, was one of the key figures in the development of Political Economy which was a basis for much of the work of Marx and Engels. See p. 14, 18, 155.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Deductive Inference'''
+| Logical inference which extrapolates from the general to the specific. See p. 224.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Definition'''
+| The first phase of rational consciousness. During this phase, the mind begins to interpret, organize, and process the basic properties of things and phenomena at a rational level into a conceptual whole. See p. 224.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Development'''
+| The change and motion of things, phenomena, and ideas with a forward tendency: from less advanced to more advanced; and/or from a less complete to a more complete level. See p. 38, 45–46, 52, 55, 61, 65, 76–96, 105–107, 114118, 119–127, 131–132, 138–140, 143, 147, 154, 155–165, 169–175, 177–181, 183–207, 210, 213, 216–223, 225–229, 233, 235–237.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Development Viewpoint'''
+| A viewpoint which considers that, in order to perceive or solve any problem in real life, we must consider all things, phenomena, and ideas with their own forward tendency of development taken in mind.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Dialectic; Dialectical; Dialectics'''
+| In Marxism-Leninism, the term dialectic (adjective: dialectical) refers to regular and mutual relationships, interactions, transformations, motions, and developments of things, phenomena, and processes in nature, society and human thought. “Dialectics” refers to a dialectical system. See p. 3, 9–11, 47.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Dialectical Materialism'''
+| A universal philosophical and methodological system which forms the theoretical core of a scientific worldview. Dialectical Materialism was first developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels with the express goal of achieving communism. Dialectical Materialism has since been defended and developed by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin as well as many others. See: p. 3, 6, 1011, 19–21, 27–30, 33, 38, 45–47, 48–97, 101, 104, 204, 209, 226, 228, 230–232, 237.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Dialectical Negation'''
+| A stage of development in which a new subject arises from a contradiction between two previous subjects; dialectical negation is never an endpoint of development, as every dialectical negation creates conditions for further development and negation. See p. 123, 175–176, 183, 185–195, 197–202, 227.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Dialectical Relationship'''
+| A relationship in which two things, phenomena, or ideas mutually impact one another, leading to development and negation. See p. 47, 51, 62.
+|
+|-
+| | '''(Characteristic of) Diversity'''
+| The characteristic which all things, phenomena, and ideas share, dictating that no two subjects (and no two relationships between any two subjects) are exactly the same, even if they exist between very similar things, phenomena, and ideas and/or in very similar situations. See p. 114–115, 125.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Diversity in Unity'''
+| The universal principle which states that even though all relationships are diverse and different from one another, they also exist in unity, because all relationships share a foundation in the material world. See p. 109–110, 125, 130.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Dogmatism'''
+| An inflexible adherence to ideals as incontrovertibly true while refusing to take any contradictory evidence into consideration. Dogmatism stands in direct opposition to materialist dialectics, which seeks to form opinions and conclusions only after careful consideration of all observable evidence. See p. 136–137, 174, 217–218, 233.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Duality of Labor'''
+| The Marxist economic concept which recognizes labor as having two intrinsic and inseparable aspects: abstract labor and concrete labor. See p. 15.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Dynamic and Creative Reflection'''
+| The most advanced form of reflection, which only occurs in matter that has the highest (known) level of structural complexity, such as the human brain. See p. 68–69, 79.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Eclecticism'''
+| An approach to philosophical inquiry which attempts to draw from various different theories, frameworks, and ideas to attempt to understand a subject; the philosophical error of inconsistently applying different theories and principles in different situations. See p. 32–33, 101, 118, 192, 194.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Economic Base'''
+| See: Base
+|
+|-
+| | '''Economism'''
+| Economism is a style of political activism, typified by the ideas of German political theorist Eduard Bernstein, which stresses directing the struggle towards short-term political/economic goals (such as higher wages for workers) at the expense of the larger socialist revolutionary project. See p. 30.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Eduard Bernstein'''
+| (1850 — 1932) German political theorist who rejected many of Marx’s theories. See p. 30, 174.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Emotional Consciousness'''
+| The lower stage of the cognitive process. In this stage of cognitive development, humans, through practical activities, use our senses to reflect objective things and phenomena (with all their perceived specific characteristics and rich manifestations) in human consciousness. See p. 219224.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Empirical Consciousness'''
+| Empirical consciousness is the stage of development of consciousness in which perceptions are formed via direct observations of things and phenomena in the natural world, or of society, or through scientific experimentation and systematic observation. Empirical Consciousness results in Empirical Knowledge. See p. 210–214.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Empirical Knowledge'''
+| Knowledge which results from processes of empirical consciousness and which is characterised by rich and detailed, but still incomplete, understanding of phenomena. It can be utilized for practical ends, but still falls short of full theoretical analysis and comprehension. See p. 212–214.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Empiricism'''
+| A broad philosophical position which holds that only experience (including internal experience) can be held as a source of knowledge or truth. Though nominally opposed to idealism, it is considered a faulty (or naive) form of materialism, since it sees the world as only unconnected, static appearances and ignores the reality of dialectical (changing) relationships between objects. See p. 9–12, 29, 94, 96–97, 100, 218.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Empirio-criticism'''
+| A more developed form of empiricism, proposed by Ernst Mach, which holds that sense data and experience are the sole sources of knowledge and that no concrete knowledge of the external material world can ever be obtained due to the limitations of human senses. See p. 26–29, 32, 54, 55–57, 68.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Epistemology'''
+| The theoretical study of knowledge. It primarily deals with the philosophical question of: “how do we know what we know?” See p. 45, 98, 204.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Ernst Mach'''
+| (1838 — 1916) Austrian physicist who attempted to build a philosophy of natural science based on the works of German philosopher Richard Avenarius’ philosophical system of Empirio-Criticism. See p. 27–29, 32, 52, 72, 193.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Equilibrium'''
+| A state of motion in which one or more subjects are not undergoing changes in position, form, and/or structure. Equilibrium is only ever a temporary stasis of development which will eventually yield to motion, development, and/or negation. See p. 62–63, 122–123, 181.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Essence'''
+| See: Essence and Phenomena
+|
+|-
+| | '''Essence and Phenomena (Category Pair)'''
+| The Essence category refers to the synthesis of all the internal aspects as well as the obvious and stable relations that define the existence, motion and development of things and ideas. The Phenomena category refers to the external manifestation of those internal aspects and relations in specific conditions. Essence always determines which phenomena appear, but phenomena do not always accurately reflect essence in human perception; in other words, it is possible to misinterpret phenomena, leading to a misunderstanding of essence, or to mistake phenomena for essence. See p. 156–160.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Exchange Value'''
+| A quantity relationship which describes the ratios of exchangeability between different commodities, with Marx’s famous example of 20 yards of linen being equivalent in exchange value to one coat. Through analysis Marx shows that in reality the thing being compared is the amount of socially necessary labour required to make the commodities being compared. See p. 15, 18.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Excitation'''
+| Reactions of simple plant and animal life-forms which occur when they change position or structure as a direct result of physical changes in their habitat. See p. 66, 68.
+|
+|-
+| | '''External Contradictions'''
+| See: Internal and External Contradictions.
+|
+|-
+| | '''False consciousness'''
+| Forms of consciousness (ideas, thoughts, concepts, etc.) which are incorrect and misaligned from reality. Equated with ‘ideology’ by Engels, it refers to an idealistic, dogmatic perspective which will inevitably result in errors of analysis and therefore practice. See p. 231–233, 237.
+|
+|-
+| | '''First International'''
+| Also known as the International Workingmen’s Association; was founded in London and lasted from 1864–1876. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were key figures in the foundation and operation of this organization, which sought better conditions and the establishment of rights for workers. See p. 35
+|
+|-
+| | '''(Basic) Forms of Motion'''
+| Engels broke motion down into five basic forms which are dialectically linked; the different forms of motion differ from one another, but they are also unified with each other into one continuous system of motion. Understanding this dialectical relationship between different forms of motion helped to overcome misunderstandings and confusion about motion and development. See p. 61–62.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Form'''
+| See: Content and Form.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Form of existence of matter'''
+| The ways in which we perceive the existence of matter in our universe; specifically, matter in our universe has the form of existing in space and time. See p. 59.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Form of Value'''
+| See: Value-Form
+|
+|-
+| | '''Forward Tendency of Motion'''
+| The tendency for things, phenomena, and ideas to move from less advanced to more advanced forms through processes of motion and development. See p. 197.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Friedrich Engels'''
+| (1820–1895) a German theorist, politician, dialectical materialist philosopher, leader of the international working class, &amp; co-founder of scientific socialism with Karl Marx. ''Referenced throughout.''
+|
+|-
+| | '''Fundamental and Non-Fundamental Contradictions'''
+| A fundamental contradiction defines the essence of a relationship. Fundamental contradictions exist throughout the entire development process of a given thing, phenomenon, or idea. A non-fundamental contradiction exists in only one aspect or attribute of a thing, phenomenon, or idea. A nonfundamental contradiction can impact a subject, but it will not control or decide the essential development of the subject. See p. 178–179.
+|
+|-
+| | '''(Characteristic of) Generality'''
+| A universal characteristic which holds that all things, phenomena, and ideas interact and mutually transform one another. See p. 108–109, 111, 114, 124125.
+|
+|-
+| | '''General Relationship'''
+| Relationships which exist broadly across many things, phenomena, and ideas. General relationships can exist both internally, within things, phenomena, and ideas, and externally, between things, phenomena, and ideas. See p. 106–110, 114.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Generality (of relationships)'''
+| Relationships can exist with across a spectrum of generality; this spectrum ranges from the least general relationships (''unique relationships'' — which only occur between two specific things/phenomena/ideas) to the most general relationships (''universal relationships'' — which occur between or within all things/phenomena/ideas). See p. 109.
+|
+|-
+| | '''George Berkeley'''
+| (1685 — 1753) An Anglo-Irish philosopher whose main philosophical achievement was the formulation of a doctrine which he called “immaterialism,” and which later came to be known as “Subjective Idealism.” This doctrine was summed up by Berkeley’s maxim: “''Esse est percipi''” — “To be is to be perceived.” See p. 11, 27, 29.
+|
+|-
+| | '''George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel'''
+| (1770 — 1831) German philosophy professor &amp; objective idealistic philosopher; developed the system of idealist dialectics which Marx and Engels used as a basis for developing materialist dialectics. See p. 8–11, 29, 69–71, 97, 98, 100–105, 132, 157, 165, 182, 192, 193–194, 209, 228.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Historical Materialism'''
+| The application of materialist dialectics and dialectical materialism to the study of human history. See p. 21–23, 27, 36, 38, 45, 80.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Historical Viewpoint'''
+| A viewpoint which demands that subjects be considered in their current stage of motion and development, while also taking into consideration the development and transformation of the subject over time. See p. 116–118, 125–126, 143, 185, 234.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Idealism'''
+| A philosophical position which holds that the only reliable experience of reality occurs within human consciousness. Idealists believe that human reason exclusively or as a first basis is the best way to seek truth. See p. 8–12, 26–29, 48–51, 53, 56–58, 69–70, 96, 101–102, 104, 157, 174, 209, 218, 228.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Immanuel Kant'''
+| (1724 — 1804) German philosopher who developed a system of idealist dialectics which were later completed by Hegel and whose metaphysical philosophies of epistemology and rationalism served as the basis for later empiricists such as Bacon and Hume. See p. 20, 29, 56, 72–74, 100–102, 205.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Induction'''
+| The reaction of animals with simple nervous systems which can sense or feel their environments. Induction occurs through unconditioned reflex mechanisms. See p. 66, 68.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Inductive Inference'''
+| Logical inference which extrapolates from specific observations to general conclusions. See p. 223–224.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Intelligibility'''
+| The human cognitive capacity to accurately perceive the external material world. See p. 48.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Internal Contradictions'''
+| See: Internal and External Contradictions.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Internal and External Contradictions'''
+| Internal contradictions are contradictions which exist within the internal relations of a subject, while external contradictions exist between two or more subjects as external relations. See p. 178–179.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Judgment'''
+| The phase of rational consciousness which arises from the definition of the subject — the linking of concepts and properties together — which leads to affirmative or negative ideation of certain characteristics or attributes of the perceived subject. See p. 223.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Karl Marx'''
+| (1818–1883) German theorist, politician, dialectical materialist philosopher, political economist, founder of scientific socialism, and leader of the international working class. ''Referenced throughout''.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Knowledge'''
+| The content of consciousness; data about the world, such as: ideas, memories, and other thoughts which are derived through direct observation and practical activities in the material world, through scientific experiments, or through abstract reflection of practical and scientific activities which occur within consciousness.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Labor Value'''
+| The amount of value which workers produce through labor. See p. 14, 17–18, 23.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Law of Negation of Negation'''
+| A universal law of materialist dialectics which states that the fundamental and universal tendency of motion and development occurs through a cycle of dialectical negation, wherein each and every negation is, in turn, negated once more. See p. 163, 185, 195, 198, 200, 201, 202, 227.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Law of Transformation Between Quantity and Quality'''
+| The universal law of dialectical materialism which concerns the universal mode of motion and development processes of nature, society, and human thought, which states that qualitative changes of things, phenomena, and ideas arise from the inevitable basis of the quantitative changes of things, phenomena, and, ideas, and, vice versa, quantitative changes of things, phenomena, and ideas arise from the inevitable basis of qualitative changes of things, phenomena, and ideas. See p. 163–165, 172–173, 227.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Law of Unification Contradiction Between Opposites'''
+| and The universal law of dialectical materialism which states that the fundamental, originating, and universal driving force of all motion and development processes is the inherent and objective contradictions which exists in all things, phenomena, and ideas. See p. 163, 175, 181.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Law of Development of Capitalism'''
+| Also known as Theory of Accumulation and Theory of Surplus Value. The dynamic through which the capitalist class gains wealth by accumulating surplus value (i.e., profits) and then reinvesting it into more capital to gain even further wealth; thus the goal of the capitalist class is to accumulate more and more surplus value which leads to the development of capitalism. See p. 18.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Laws'''
+| In dialectical materialism, laws are the regular, common, obvious, natural, objective relations between internal aspects, factors, and attributes of a thing or phenomenon or between things and phenomena. See p. 162.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Laws of Nature'''
+| Laws that arise in the natural world, including within the human body (and are never products of human conscious activities). Such law includes the laws of physics, chemistry, and other natural phenomena which govern the material world. See p. 162, 213.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Laws of Society'''
+| Laws of human activity in social relations; such laws are unable to manifest beyond the conscious activities of humans, but they are still objective. See p. 162–163.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Laws of Human Thought'''
+| Laws which govern the intrinsic relationships between concepts, categories, judgments, inference, and the development process of human rational awareness. See p. 163.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Life-Process'''
+| Processes of motion and change which occur within organisms to sustain life. See p. 69–72, 79, 88.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Ludwig Feuerbach'''
+| (1804 — 1872) German philosophy professor, materialist philosopher; Marx and Engels drew many of their ideas from the works of Feuerbach (whom they also criticized). See p. 8, 11–13, 21, 55, 74, 80, 114, 205, 237.
+|
+|-
+| | '''M→→C→→M’'''
+| The mode of circulation described by Marx as existing under capitalism, in which capitalists spend money to buy commodities (including the commodified labor of workers), with the intention of selling those commodities for ''more money'' than they began with. The capitalist has no direct relationship to the commodity being produced and sold, and the capitalist is solely interested in obtaining more money. See p. 16. See also: C→M→C
+|
+|-
+| | '''Machism'''
+| See: Empirio-Criticism.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Manifestation'''
+| How a given thing, phenomenon, or idea is expressed externally in the material world. See p. 115.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Marxism-Leninism'''
+| A system of scientific opinions and theories focused on liberating the working class from capitalism and achieving a stateless, classless, communist society. The core ideas of this system were first developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, then defended and further developed by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. See. p. 1.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Material Conditions'''
+| The material external environment in which humans live, including the natural environment, the means of production and the economic base of human society, objective social relations, and other externalities and systems which affect human life and human society. See p. 6, 22, 40–42, 70–72, 80–81, 87, 92–95, 116–118, 161, 174, 179, 181, 206–207, 210, 229.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Material Production Activity'''
+| Material production activity is the first and most basic form of ''praxis''. In this form of praxis activity, humans use tools through labor processes to influence the natural world in order to create wealth and material resources and to develop the conditions necessary to maintain our existence and development. See p. 206–208.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Materialism'''
+| A philosophical position that holds that the material world exists outside of the mind, and that human ideas and thoughts stem from observation and sense experience of this external world. Materialism rejects the idealist notion that truth can only be sought solely through reasoning and human consciousness. See p. 10–13, 48.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Materialist Dialectics'''
+| A scientific system of philosophy concerned with motion, development, and common relationships, and with the most common rules of motion and development of nature, society, and human thought. See p. 10, 21, 45–47, 98202, 227, 237.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Matter'''
+| A philosophical category denoting things and phenomena, existing in objective external reality, which human beings access through our sense perceptions. See p. 26, 27, 32, 48, 51–52, 53–69, 72, 88–95, 97, 103, 164–165.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Means of Production'''
+| Physical inputs and systems used in the production of goods and services, including: machinery, factory buildings, tools, equipment, and anything else used in producing goods and services. See p. 2–3, 7, 14–16.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Mechanical Motion'''
+| Changes in positions of objects in space. See p. 61.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Mechanical Philosophy'''
+| A scientific and philosophical movement popular in the 17<sup>th</sup> century which explored mechanical machines and compared natural phenomena to mechanical devices, resulting in a belief that all things — including living organisms — were built as (and could theoretically be built by humans as) mechanical devices.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Mental Reflection'''
+| Reactions which occur in animals with central nervous systems. Mental reflections occur through conditioned reflex mechanisms through learning. See p. 65, 68, 224.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Metaphysical Materialism'''
+| Metaphysical materialism was strongly influenced by the metaphysical, mechanical thinking of ''mechanical philosophy'', which was a scientific and philosophical movement which explored mechanical machines and compared natural phenomena to mechanical devices. Metaphysical materialists believed that all change can exist only as an increase or decrease in quantity, brought about by external causes.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Metaphysics'''
+| A branch of philosophy that attempts to explain the fundamental nature of reality. Metaphysical philosophy has taken many forms through the centuries, but one common shortcoming of metaphysical thought is a tendency to view things and ideas in a static, abstract manner. Generally speaking, metaphysics presents nature as a collection of objects and phenomena which are isolated from one another and fundamentally unchanging. See p. 52.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Methodology'''
+| A system of reasoning: the ideas and rules that guide humans to research, build, select, and apply the most suitable methods in both perception and practice. Methodologies can range from very specific to broadly general, with philosophical methodology being the most general scope of methodology. See p. 44.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Mode'''
+| The way or manner in which something occurs or exists. See p. 19–20.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Mode of Existence of Matter'''
+| Refers to how matter exists in our universe; specifically, matter exists in our motion in a mode of ''motion.'' See p. 59.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Motion'''
+| Also known as “change;” motion/change occurs as a result of the mutual impacts which occur between two things, phenomena, or ideas in relation with one another. See p. 23, 47, 59–63. 74, 106–107, 122–127, 145, 163–165, 169-173-186, 197, 201–202.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Motion in Equilibrium'''
+| Motion in equilibrium is motion that has not changed the positions, forms, and/or structures of things. Motion in Equlibrium is only ever temporary in nature; all motion will ''eventually'' lead to changes in position, form, and/or structure. See p. 62.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Narodnik'''
+| Agrarian socialist movement of the 1860s and 70s in the Russian Empire, composed of peasants who rose up in a failed campaign against the Czar. See p. 29–30.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Natural law'''
+| See: Laws of Nature.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Natural Science'''
+| Science which deals with the natural world, including chemistry, biology, physics, geology, etc. See p. 13, 19, 26, 103.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Negation'''
+| The development process through which two contradicting objects mutually develop one another until one is overtaken by the other. In dialectical materialism, negation takes the form of ''dialectical negation''. See p. 123, 175176, 183, 185–202.
+|
+|-
+| | '''New Economic Policy'''
+| Also known as the NEP; this early Soviet policy was devised as Vladimir Illyich Lenin to be a temporary economic system that would allow a market economy and capitalism to exist within Russia, alongside state-owned business ventures, all firmly under the control of the working-classdominated state. See p. 33–34.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Objective Dialectics'''
+| The dialectical processes which occur in the material world, including all of the motion, relationships, and dynamic changes which occur in space and time. See p. 98, 102–103, 182.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Objective Existence'''
+| Existence which manifests outside of and independently of human consciousness, whether humans can perceive it or not. See p. 50, 58, 228.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Objective Idealism'''
+| A form of idealism which asserts that the ideal and consciousness are the primary existence, while also positing that the ideal and consciousness are objective, and that they exist independently of nature and humans. See p. 50.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Objectiveness'''
+| An abstract concept that refers to the relative externality of all things, phenomena, and ideas. Every thing, phenomena and idea exists externally to every other thing, phenomena, and idea. This means that to each individual subject, all other subjects exist as external objects. See p. 111–114, 124.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Obviousness'''
+| See: Obviousness and Randomness
+|
+|-
+| | '''Obviousness and Randomness (Category Pair)'''
+| The philosophical category of Obviousness refers to events that occur because of the essential internal aspects of a subject which become reasons for certain results in certain conditions: the obvious has to happen in a certain way, it can’t happen any other way. The Randomness category refers to things that happen because of external reasons: things that happen, essentially, by chance, due to impacts from many external relations. A random outcome may occur or it may not occur, and may occur in many different ways. Obviousness and Randomness have a dialectical relationship with one another. See p. 144–146.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Opportunism'''
+| A system of political opinions with no direction, no clear path, and/or no coherent viewpoint, focusing on whatever actions or decisions might be beneficial for the opportunist in the short term. See p. 174.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Opposites'''
+| Such aspects, properties and tendencies of motion which oppose one another, yet are, simultaneously, conditions and premises of the existence of one another. See p. 61, 175–179, 181, 184, 190, 227.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Ordinary Consciousness'''
+| Perception that is formed passively, stemming from the daily activities of humans. See p. 210–216.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Period of Motion'''
+| Development which occurs between two quality shifts, including the quality shifts themselves. See p. 170.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Perspective'''
+| See: Viewpoint.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Petty Bourgeoisie'''
+| Semi-autonomous merchants, farmers, and so on who are self-employed, own small and limited means of production, or otherwise fall in between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Also called the petite bourgeoisie. See p. 3–6.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Petty Commodity Production'''
+| See: Simple Commodity Production.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Phenomena'''
+| Anything that is observable by the human senses. See p. 156. See also: Essence and Phenomena.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Physical Motion'''
+| Motion of molecules, electrons, fundamental particles, thermal processes, electricity, etc., in time and space. See p. 61.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Physical Reflection'''
+| Reflection which occurs any time two material objects interact and the features of the objects are transferred to one other. See p. 67–68.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Point of View'''
+| See: Viewpoint.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Populism'''
+| The political philosophy of the Narodnik movement; this political philosophy was focused on bringing about an agrarian peasant revolution led by intellectuals with the ambition of going directly from a feudal society to a socialist society built from rural communes. Populism overtly opposed Marxism and dialectical materialism and was based on subjective idealist utopianism. See p. 30.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Positivism'''
+| The belief that we can test scientific knowledge through scientific methods, and through logic, math, etc.; positivism tends to overlap significantly with ''empiricism'' in theory and practice. See p. 32, 209.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Possibility'''
+| See: Possibility and Reality.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Possibility and Reality (Category Pair)'''
+| The philosophical category of Possibility refers to things that have not happened nor existed in reality yet, but that would happen, or would exist given necessary conditions. The philosophical category of Reality refers to things that exist or have existed in reality and in human thought. See p. 160–162.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Practice'''
+| See: Praxis.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Pragmatism'''
+| Pragmatism refers to a form of subjectivism in which one centers one’s own immediate material concerns over all other considerations. See p. 218.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Praxis'''
+| Conscious activity which improves our understanding, and which has purpose and historical-social characteristics. Used interchangeably with the word “practice” in this text. See p. 205–206, 235.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Prejudice'''
+| See: Conservatism.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Primary and Secondary Contradictions'''
+| In the development of things, phenomena, and ideas, there are many development stages. In each stage of development, there will be one contradiction which drives the development process. This is what we call the primary contradiction. Secondary contradictions include all the other contradictions which exist during that stage of development. Determining whether a contradiction is primary or secondary is relative, and it depends heavily upon the material conditions and the situation being analyzed. See p. 178–179.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Primary Existence'''
+| Existence which precedes and determines other existences; materialists believe that the external material world is the primary existence which determines the ideal, while idealists believe that human consciousness (“the ideal”) is the primary existence from which truth is ultimately derived. See p. 50–51.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Primitive Materialism'''
+| An early form of materialism which recognizes that matter is the primary existence, and holds that the world is composed of certain elements, and that these were the first objects — the origin — of the world, and that these elements are the essence of reality. This was later developed into Metaphysical Materialism and, later, Dialectical Materialism. See p. 52.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Principle of General Relationships'''
+| A principle of dialectical materialism which states that all things, phenomena, and ideas are related to one another, and are defined by these internal and external relationships. See p. 106–107, 110, 114.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Private'''
+| See: Private and Common
+|
+|-
+| | '''Private and Common (Category Pair)'''
+| The Private philosophical category encompasses specific things, phenomena, and ideas; the Common philosophical category defines the common aspects, attributes, factors, and relations that exist in many things and phenomena. Private and Common are relative in nature and have a dialectical relationship with one another. See p. 128–138.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Private Laws'''
+| Laws which apply only to a specific range of things and phenomena, i.e.: laws of mechanical motion, laws of chemical motion, laws of biological motion, etc. See p. 162.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Production Force'''
+| The combination of the means of production and workers within human society. See p. 6, 23, 36.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Proletariat'''
+| The people who provide labor under capitalism; the proletariat do not own their own means of production, and must therefore sell their labor to those who do own means of production; also called the Working Class. See also: Bourgeoisie, Petty Bourgeoisie. See p. 1–8, 22–23, 25–26, 29–31, 33–35, 40–41, 63, 231.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Quality'''
+| The unity of component parts, taken together, which defines a subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. See p. 119–121.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Quality Shift'''
+| A change in quality which takes place in the motion and development process of things, phenomena, and ideas, occurring when quantity change meets a certain perceived threshold. See p. 124, 153, 164, 168–174.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Quantity'''
+| The total amount of component parts that compose a subject. See p. 119–121.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Quantity range'''
+| The range of quantity changes which can accumulate without leading to change in quality related to any given thing, phenomenon, or idea. See p. 168–171.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Quintessence'''
+| Original Vietnamese word: ''tinh hoa''. Literally, it means “the best, highest, most beautiful, defining characteristics” of a concept, and, unlike the English word quintessence, it has an exclusively positive connotation. See p. 8, 21, 43, 45, 52.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Randomness'''
+| See: Obviousness and Randomness.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Rational Consciousness'''
+| The higher stage of the cognitive process, which includes the indirect, abstract, and generalized reflection of the essential properties and characteristics of things and phenomena. This stage of consciousness performs the most important function of comprehending and interpreting the essence of the perceived subject. See p. 219–225.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Reason'''
+| See: Reason and Result
+|
+|-
+| | '''Reality'''
+| See: Possibility and Reality.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Reason and Result (Category Pair)'''
+| The Reason philosophical category is used to define the mutual impacts between internal aspects of a thing, phenomenon or idea, or between things, phenomena, or ideas, that bring about changes. The Result philosophical category defines the changes that were caused by mutual impacts which occur between aspects and factors within a thing, phenomenon, or idea, or externally between different things, phenomena, or ideas. Not to be confused with the metaphysical concept of “cause and effect,” which attributes a single cause to any given effect. See p. 138–144.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Reasoning'''
+| The final phase of rational consciousness, formed on the basis of synthesizing judgments so as to extrapolate new knowledge about the perceived subject. See p. 223–225, 228–229.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Reflection'''
+| The re-creation of the features of one form of matter in a different form of matter which occurs when they mutually impact each other through interaction. See p. 64–75, 79–80, 90–92, 103, 165, 208–211, 214–215, 219–224, 228, 232, 237.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Relative and Absolute'''
+| “Absolute” and “Relative” are philosophical classifications which refer to interdependence: That which is ''absolute'' exists independently and with permanence. That which is ''relative'' is temporary, and dependent on other conditions or circumstances in order to exist. See p. 56, 233. See also: Absolute Truth, Relative Truth, Relativism, Truth.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Relative Truth'''
+| Truth which has developed alignment with reality without yet having reached complete alignment between human knowledge and the reality which it reflects; knowledge which incompletely reflects material subjects without complete accuracy. See p. 230, 232. See also: Absolute Truth, Relative and Absolute, Relativism, Truth.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Relativism'''
+| A position that all truth is relative and that nothing can ever be absolutely, objectively known; that only Relative Truth can be found in our existence. See p. 56–58, 233–234. See also: Absolute Truth, Relative and Absolute, Relative Truth, Truth.
+|
+|-
+| | '''René Descartes'''
+| (1596 — 1650) French metaphysical philosopher who developed early methods of scientific inquiry. See p. 20, 53.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Result'''
+| See: Reason and Result.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Richard Avenarius'''
+| (1843 — 1896) German-Swiss philosopher who developed a system of subjective idealism known as “Empirio-Criticism.” See p. 27–29.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Rigidity'''
+| An unwillingness to alter one’s thoughts, holding too stiffly to established consciousness and knowledge, and ignoring practical experience and observation, which leads to stagnation of both knowledge and consciousness. See p. 217–218.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Robert Owen'''
+| (1771 — 1858) Wealthy Welsh textile manufacturer who tried to build a better society for workers in New Hampshire, Indiana, in the USA by purchasing the town of New Harmony in 1825. Owen’s vision failed after two years, though many other wealthy capitalists in the early 19<sup>th</sup> century were inspired by Owen to try similar plans, which also failed.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Scientific'''
+| An adjective which describes methodologies, approaches, and practices of gaining knowledge and insight which are methodological and/or systematic in nature. See p. 1–2.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Scientific Consciousness'''
+| Conscious activities which actively gather information from the methodological and/or systematic observations of the characteristics, nature, and inherent relationships of research subjects. Scientific consciousness is considered ''indirect'' because it takes place outside of the course of ordinary daily activities. See p. 58, 210, 212, 215–216.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Scientific'''
+| Experimental Human activities that resemble or replicate states of nature and society
+|
+|-
+| | '''Activity'''
+| in order to determine the laws of change and development of subjects of study. This form of activity plays an important role in the development of society, especially in the current historical period of modern science and technological revolution. See p. 206–208.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Scientific Materialist Viewpoint'''
+| A perspective which begins analysis of the world in a manner that is both scientifically systematic in pursuit of understanding and firmly rooted in a materialist conception of the world. See p. 105.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Scientific Socialism'''
+| A body of theory and knowledge (which must be constantly tested against reality) focused on the practical pursuit of changing the world to bring about socialism through the leadership of the proletariat. See p. 1–2, 21, 37–39.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Scientific Worldview'''
+| A worldview that is expressed by a systematic pursuit of knowledge that generally and correctly reflects the relationships of things, phenomena, and processes in the objective material world, including relationships between humans, as well as relationships between humans and the world. See p. 3839, 44–45, 48.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Second International'''
+| Founded in Paris in 1889 to continue the work of the First International; it fell apart in 1916 because members from different nations could not maintain solidarity through the outbreak of World War I. See p. 35, 174.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Self-motion'''
+| In the original Vietnamese, the word “''tự vận động''.” Literally meaning: “it moves itself.” See p. 59–60, 124.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Sensation'''
+| The subjective reflection of the objective world in human consciousness as perceived through human senses. See p. 27, 56–58, 68–69, 72, 85, 221–222.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Sensuous Human Activity; Sensuous Activity'''
+| A description of human activity developed by Marx which acknowledges that all human activity is simultaneously ''active'' in the sense that our conscious activity can transform the world, as well as ''passive'' in the sense in that all human thoughts fundamentally derive from observation and sense experience of the material world. See p. 13.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Simple Commodity Production'''
+| What Marx called the “C→M→C” mode of circulation. See p. 16–18.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Simple Exchange'''
+| When individual producers trade the products they have made directly, themselves, for other commodities. See p. 16–17.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Social Being'''
+| The material existence of human society, as opposed to ''social consciousness''. See also: Base. See p. 24, 54–55.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Social Consciousness'''
+| The collective experience of consciousness shared by members of a society, including ideological, cultural, spiritual, and legal beliefs and ideas which are shared within that society, as opposed to ''social being''. See p. 22, 24, 32, 54–55, 80. See also: Superstructure.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Social Motion'''
+| Changes in the economy, politics, culture, and social life of human beings. See p. 61–62.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Socialization'''
+| The idea that human society transforms labor and production from a solitary, individual act into a collective, social act. In other words, as human society progresses, people “socialize” labor into increasingly complex networks of social relations: from individuals making their own tools, to agricultural societies engaged in collective farming, to modern industrial societies with factories, logistical networks, etc. See p. 6, 36.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Socialized Production Force'''
+| A production force which has been socialized — that is to say, a production force which has been organized into collective social activity. See p. 6.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Socio-Political Activity'''
+| Praxis activity utilized by various communities and organizations in human society to transform political-social relations in order to promote social development. See p. 206–208.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Solipsism'''
+| A form of idealism in which one believes that the self is the only basis for truth. See p. 218.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Sophistry'''
+| The use of misleading arguments, usually with the intention of deception, with a tendency of presenting non-critical aspects of a subject matter as critical, to serve a particular agenda. The word comes from the Sophists, a group of professional teachers in Ancient Greece, who were criticized by Socrates (in Plato’s’ dialogues) for being shrewd and deceptive rhetoricians. See p. 32–33, 56, 118, 182, 194.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Stage of Development'''
+| The current quantity and quality characteristics which a thing, phenomenon, or object possesses. Every time a quality change occurs, a new stage of development is entered into. See p. 24, 39, 125, 173–174, 179, 190, 196–197, 200, 212, 221.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Stagnation'''
+| An inability or unwillingness to change and adapt consciousness and practice in accordance with developing material conditions. Stagnation can stem from, or cause, overstatement of absolute truth in theory and forestall necessary development of both consciousness and practical ability. See p. 125, 218, 233. See also: Rigidity.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Struggle of Opposites'''
+| The tendency of opposites to eliminate and negate each other. See p. 61, 181, 184.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Subjective Factors'''
+| Factors which, from the perspective of a given subject, that same subject is capable of impacting. See p. 162–163, 175, 202.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Subjective Dialectics; Dialectical Thought'''
+| A system of analysis and organized thinking which aims to reflect the objective dialectics of the material world within human consciousness. Dialectical thinking has two component forms: dialectical materialism and materialist dialectics. See: p. 98–99, 103.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Subjective Idealism'''
+| Subjective idealism asserts that consciousness is the primary existence and that truth can be obtained only or primarily through conscious activity and reasoning. Subjective idealism asserts that all things and phenomena can only be experienced as subjective sensory perceptions, with some forms of subjective idealism even explicitly denying the objective existence of material reality altogether. See also: Empirio-Criticism, Objective Idealism. See p. 26–27, 50.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Subjectivism'''
+| A philosophical position in which one centers one’s own self and conscious activities in perspective and worldview, failing to test their own perceptions against material and social reality. See p. 56, 182, 217–218, 233–234.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Suitability'''
+| The applicability of a subject for a specific application or role. See p. 154.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Superstructure'''
+| The ideal (non-material) components of human society, including: media institutions, music, and art, as well as other cultural elements like religion, customs, moral standards, and everything else which manifests primarily through conscious activity and social relations. See p. 23. See also: Base.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Surplus Value'''
+| The extra amount of value a capitalist is able to secure by exploiting wagelabourers (by paying workers less than the full value of their labour). Workers will spend part of their workday reproducing their own labourpower (through earning enough to eat, secure shelter and other cultural needs) and the rest of the time will be spent producing surplus value which is then appropriated by the capitalist as profit. See p. 18, 22–23, 39.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Symbolization'''
+| The representation of an objective thing or phenomenon in human consciousness which has been reflected by sensation and conception. See p. 221–222.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Systematic Structure'''
+| A structure which includes within itself a system of component parts and relationships. See p. 114.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Theoretical Consciousness'''
+| The indirect, abstract, systematic level of perception in which the nature and laws of things and phenomena are generalized and abstracted. See p. 210–214, 217–218.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Theoretical Knowledge'''
+| Knowledge which is abstract and generalized, resulting from theoretical conscious activities which include repeated and varied observations. See p. 214, 217.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Theory'''
+| An idea or system of ideas intended to explain an aspect, characteristic, or tendency of objective reality. See p. 235.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Theory of Accumulation/Surplus Value'''
+| See: Law of Development of Capitalism.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Thing-in-Itself'''
+| The actual material object which exists outside of our consciousness, ''as it exists outside of our consciousness''. See p. 72–74, 101, 158.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Third International'''
+| Also known as the Communist International (or the ComIntern for short); founded in Moscow in 1919, its goals were to overthrow capitalism, build socialism, and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. It was dissolved in 1943 in the midst of the German invasion of Russia in World War II. See p. 35.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Three Component Parts'''
+| The three essential elements of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, first identified of Marxism-Leninism by Lenin in ''The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism''. 1. The Philosophy of Marxism. 2. The Political Economy of Marxism. 3. Scientific Socialism.See p. 21, 32, 34, 38.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Threshold'''
+| The amount, or degree, of quantity change at which quality change occurs. Truth is primarily discovered through labor and practice in the physical world. See p. 120, 168–169, 171, 173.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Truth'''
+| A correct and accurate conscious reflection of objective reality. See p. 9–10, 49, 56, 70, 75, 94–96, 194, 204, 209, 215–219, 225–237. See also: Labor, Practice.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Unconditioned Reflex'''
+| Reactions which are not learned, but simply occur automatically based on physiological mechanisms occurring within an organism, characterized by permanent connections between sensory perceptions and reactions. See p. 66, 68.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Unilateral Consideration'''
+| The consideration of a subject from one side only. See p. 49.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Unintelligibility'''
+| A philosophical position which denies the human cognitive capacity to accurately perceive the external material world. See p. 48.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Unique Relationship'''
+| The least general form of relationship, which only occur between two specific things/phenomena/ideas. See p. 109, 130.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Unity in Diversity'''
+| A concept in materialist dialectics which holds that within universal relationships exist within and between all different things, phenomena, and ideas, we will find that each individual manifestation of any universal relationship will have its own different manifestations, aspects, features, etc. Thus even the universal relationships which unite all things, phenomena, and ideas exist in infinite diversity. See p. 42, 110–111, 114, 125, 130.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Universal Law of Consciousness'''
+| A universal law which holds that consciousness is a process of dialectical development in which practical activity leads to conscious activity, which then leads back to practical activity, in a continuous and never-ending cycle, with a tendency to develop both practical and conscious activity to increasingly higher levels. See p. 219.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Universal Laws'''
+| Laws that impact every aspect of nature, society, and human thought. Materialist dialectics is the study of these universal laws. See p. 15, 162–163, 227.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Universal Relationship'''
+| The most general kind of relationship; relationships that exist between and within every thing and all phenomena; along with ''development'', universal relationships are one of the two primary subjects of study of materialist dialectics. See p. 80, 108, 109, 111, 165.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Use Value'''
+| A concept in classical political economy and Marxist economics which refers to tangible features of a commodity (a tradable object) that can fulfill some human requirement or desire, or which serve a useful purpose. See p. 15–18, 95.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Utopianism'''
+| 1. A political and philosophical movement which held the belief that “a New Moral World” of happiness, enlightenment, and prosperity could be created through education, science, technology, and communal living. See p. 18. 2. The idealist philosophical concept which mistakenly asserts that the ideal can determine the material, and that ideal forms of society can be brought about without regard for material conditions and development processes. See p. 8, 17–18, 30, 94.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Value-Form'''
+| Also known as “form of value;” the social form of a commodity. Under capitalism, through the exchange of qualitatively different commodities, the money form of value is established as the general equivalent which can functionally be exchanged for all other values; money is therefore the most universal value-form under capitalism. See p. 15, 17, 155.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Viewpoint'''
+| Also known as point of view or perspective; the starting point of analysis which determines the direction of thinking from which phenomena and problems are considered. See p. 12, 20–21, 23, 25, 26, 30, 32–33, 38–39, 5559, 62, 64, 89, 93–94, 105, 111, 114–120, 122, 125–126, 130, 143, 147, 150, 172, 185–188, 195, 200–201, 233–235. See also: Comprehensive Viewpoint, Historical Viewpoint.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Viewpoint Crisis'''
+| A situation in which a specific viewpoint can’t be settled on, found, or agreed upon. See p. 26, 32–33.
+|
+|-
+| | '''Vladimir Ilyich Lenin'''
+| (1870 -1924) A Russian theorist, politician, dialectical materialist philosopher, defender and developer of Marxism in the era of imperialism, founder of the Bolsheviks, the Communist Party and the government of the Soviet Union, leader of Russia and the international working class. ''Referenced throughout.''
+|
+|-
+| | '''Working Class'''
+| See: Proletariat
+|
+|-
+| | '''Worldview'''
+| The whole of an individual’s or society’s opinions and conceptions about the world, about humans ourselves, and about life and the position of human beings in the world. See p. 1, 11, 37–39, 44–45, 48, 52, 96, 138, 201, 208–209, 218, 234. See also: Scientific Worldview.
+|
+|}
-Always before going out into the street and especially before an action, I commend myself to the spirits of the Fuegians, I thank them and I ask them for protection. My intention is to immerse myself in all of this, learn things that the ancients did, to bring them back in our current age.
+<br />
-*** Friday night lights
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-2.png]]
-My epiphanies come at odd and inopportune times. The last one was at a high school football game. My two children wanted to go to a football game, where they consumed snacks and drank soda, and observed their older peers participating in this ritual of suburban life. I often think, “what this place was like before civilization.” It is not hard, as the waters and greenery always seem to be spilling in where they are not wanted by us, the hyper-civilized. I read about the lives of the people who lived here before the Europeans, what they ate and what they made their houses of; about their gods and taboos. It’s hard to imagine and yet so simple. Over the stadium lights, I saw the canopy of pines, and beyond them, perhaps a cypress swamp, and then the rivers, the lake, the seas. And all of the possums, armadillos, deer, foxes, and raccoons crawling in them. If my mind’s eye were sharper, perhaps I would see the ghosts of the cougars, bears, wolves, and bison who also once roamed these woods. I tried to look over civilization to see what is before and beyond it, but my vision did not reach that far. My eyes returned to the game and those blaring lights on a Friday night...
+''For centuries, the banyan tree has been the symbol of communal life in Vietnam.''
-That is the real epiphany: our failure to see, our realization that we are not worthy of seeing what is beyond and above our dark reality. “Worthy” here does not denote moral judgment, but a metaphysical one. We will not see because we can’t, and the reason we can’t inheres to our innermost being. We no longer see the world as we should, the stars can no longer direct us home, the forests do not nurture us, the animals now are only pests. Even if we worked a lifetime, we would not redeem ourselves. We are the product of this order, and we are defeated as long as it continues.
+''Traditionally, the entrance to a village is graced by a large and ancient banyan tree. It is in the shade of these trees that villagers gather to socialize, draw water from wells, and make collective decisions together. The drooping accessory trunks represent the longevity of villagers — and of the village itself — while the arching canopy represents the safety and protection of the village. The shape of the banyan tree is seen in the full moon, which casts peaceful light across the Earth to guide travelers in the dark of night.''
-Some would say that we, the freaks and psychopaths of society, should just commit suicide, that we should just leave everyone else in peace to continue with their dreams of a better society or of the continuance of society just as it is. No thank you, as long as you’re here I will not be able to sleep soundly in the grave. Even if my only vocation is to, under my breath, mock your affected enthusiasm and fake smiles, it will be worth it. The realization of my smallness and helplessness before the Unknowable (<em>lo Desconocido</em>, <em>deus ignotus</em>) is enough of a prayer for me, and my hatred of those who think themselves more than this smallness is the only sacrifice I can give.
+''Vietnam’s revolution against Japanese fascism and French colonialism began in 1945 beneath the cover of the Tân Trào Banyan Tree, which still stands in the city of Tuyên Quang.''
-But what is the Unknowable? Who is he, or she, or it? From my youth, I have sought it, I have longed to take shelter under it, to stay in that moment when it engulfs me, brings me into itself, and unites with me. But when I became a man, finally I learned that you only catch moments of it.You can’t reproduce it, you can’t buy it off. There’s no way to summon it from Heaven or from wherever it dwells and it will come down. I stopped being a materialist because I realized that the One, the Good, the True, the Beautiful, and Love exist, but not in any way we can grasp completely, permanently, surely. As soon as we grab for them, they are already slipping through our fingers...
+''It is in this deep-rooted, humanistic spirit of collective action that we founded Banyan House Publishing. We hope to deliver volumes which will inspire action and change throughout the village that is our world.''
-But I have seen the splendor of the Unknowable: in the fingers of flame that is the sky over the pampas, or on a mountain outside of Cordoba in Argentina, in the pitch black dome of the firmament over the Mojave Desert, in the rocks battered by the sea off of Point Lobos, in the chorus of birds high above the swamp. I saw it most lucidly when I held my eldest child for the first time. I realized then that I would never understand it, that whatever makes it what it is is not something for me to comprehend or dominate. I don’t own it, no one does. It is in the very act of being a mortal animal that it strikes us as the <em>mysterium tremendum et fascinans</em> spoken of by theologians. We know we are smaller than it, we cry for it like a nursing child cries for its mother. It may come, or it may not, but it will always leave again, because its fullness would probably break us.
+''Visit us at:''<br />
+''BanyanHouse.org''
-All philosophy, all morality, all law, all art, all literature, all culture, are nothing before it. They are almost a blasphemy against it. We need these blasphemies because we can do no other, but when the Human thinks that it is supreme--that it creates the fruit of the Unknowable’s labor and genius--it is at that point that the Human becomes repugnant, vile, and worthy of attack. I don’t consider myself a nihilist because I reject as in a tantrum all that is good and beautiful in this world (even that which could be discerned to be the “products of civilization”). I am a reluctant nihilist because I believe that those feats of genius, those things that make life beautiful or worth living, are not the product (or at least not the sole product) of the Human. Their order and splendor lie elsewhere; thought, culture, law, morality, etc. can only serve as the vessels of the Unknowable that floats high above them like an elusive source of light.
+<br />
-All the same, on this night, or in the moments when I can look out the window at work early in the morning, the times I bring the water to my face in a lake or river, the quiet few minutes when the mosquitoes buzz in my ear at sunset, then I know that the Unknowable will one day take me too. One day, I will return to the great current that pulses at the heart of everything, and on that day I will be grateful that I will no longer have to fight or be a coward. I will finally hear (without hearing) the Human silenced even if I am silenced as well, and the Still Small Voice of Wild Nature whispering eternally in the branches.
+[[File:t-w-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-103.png]]
-<right>
+<br />
-Chicomoztoc—Karukinka —Nanih Waiya
-</right>
-<right>
+<references />
-December 2017
-</right>

Difference between revisions of "User talk:NonZeroSum"

Latest revision as of 01:19, 4 August 2025

Contents

License

Support for This Work

Dedication and Gratitude

Foreword

Preface to the First English Edition

Introduction

Editor’s Note

A Message From The International Magazine

Notes on Translation

Guide to Annotations

Original Vietnamese Publisher’s Note

Original Vietnamese Preface

Table of Contents

Introduction to the Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism

I. Brief History of Marxism-Leninism

1. Marxism and the Three Constituent Parts

Annotation 1

2. Summary of the Birth and Development of Marxism-Leninism

a. Conditions and Premises of the Birth of Marxism

Annotation 2

Annotation 3

Annotation 4

Annotation 5

Annotation 6

Annotation 7

Annotation 8

Annotation 9

Annotation 10

Annotation 11

Annotation 12

Annotation 13

Annotation 14

Annotation 15

Annotation 16

Annotation 17

Annotation 18

Annotation 19

Annotation 20

b. The Birth and Development Stage of Marxism

Annotation 21

Annotation 22

Annotation 23

Annotation 24

Annotation 25

Annotation 26

Annotation 27

Annotation 28

Annotation 29

Annotation 30

Annotation 31

c. The Defending and Developing Stage of Marxism

Annotation 32

Imperialism

Subjective and Empiricist Idealism

Annotation 33

Annotation 34

Annotation 35

Annotation 36

Annotation 37

d. Marxism-Leninism and the Reality of the International Revolutionary Movement

Annotation 38

Annotation 39

Annotation 40

Annotation 41

II. Objects, Purposes, and Requirements for Studying the Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism

1. Objects and Purposes of Study

Annotation 42

Annotation 43

Annotation 44

Annotation 45

2. Some Basic Requirements of the Studying Method

Annotation 46

Part I: The Worldview and Philosophical Methodology of Marxism — Leninism

Annotation 47

Annotation 48

The Worldview and Philosophical Methodology of Marxism-Leninism

Annotation 49