Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 06:24:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Negating the negation


Jerry - (1&2)

> >Translation, in abbreviated form, of the previous post follows:
> >How can the antagonistic form that humans have towards (the rest of)
> >nature be resolved? We can become truly human and surpass capitalism or
> >humanity itself, along with much of the rest of the natural world, will
> >be allowed to decay and die. Either way, it's the negation of the negation.
> >> Domination of nature ==> Negation of negation.
> >> Negation of negation ==> realization of human potentialities and
> >>                          inter-relationship with nature
> >>                          or
> >>                          negation of life.
> >> Negation of negation ==> end of pre-history of humanity
> >>                          or
> >>                          end of humanity.

Hugh:

> To negate this negation, humanity (represented by the working class) will
> have to ditch capitalism and bring in socialism on a world scale, via
> revolution and a series of workers' states (how otherwise?).
> Negating the negation in this way will realize human potentiality and
> establish a beneficial interrelationship with nature. It will also bring an
> end to the prehistory of humanity.<snip>.
> Failing to negate the negation, that is, continuing to exploit nature as an
> alien thing, will lead to the negation of life (at least in its 'higher'
> forms -- ourselves and the animals and perhaps plants closest to us). This
> naturally entails the end of humanity.
> Negation of the negation = socialism
> Failure to negate the negation = barbarism

Jerry (new)

Don't you hate arguing about something you agree with? ALL that you have
written above is in *agreement* with what I wrote.

Hugh:

> There is no way capitalism will just continue to operate for ever if left
> to its own devices. It is a one-way, unbalanced, dynamic system heading
> towards one of two cataclysmic solutions, socialist revolution or collapse
> into barbarism.

Jerry

Although I agree with the "spirit" of the above, capitalism is not:

* one way ONLY

* JUST unbalanced

* ONLY dynamic

How can any mode of production develop ONLY in one direction? If a system
is ordinarily unbalanced, then there must be the *possibility* (in an
abstract, formal sense) for balance. Although one can speak of capitalism
in terms of _having_ a dynamic, it has both non-dynamic and dynamic
aspects.

Think dialectical, Hugh.



     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---