#without understanding something in the correct historical context your point is just meaningless | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

it-d035n-t-m4tt3r · 3 years

Text

12/5/2020

It’s been a long while since I had bothered to post here. But I have got something new for you all today that I think is imperative in considering philosophically. I want to move away for a while from the existentialist school of thinking and really take some time to move in a different direction. With that being said, lets take a look at G.V. Plekhanov’s writings on “On the Role of the Individual in History”. This work is a considerable theoretical force when trying to understand historical materialism and the dialectic nature of materialist philosophical perspectives. I want to cover, at least for now, the first three sections of his piece as this is where I personally think he really lays the most important philosophical groundwork used later to build it up.

But first, some context.

During the period prior to the first revolution of 1905, particularly through the 1870’s and 80’s in Russia much if not all of the available Marxist and socialist literature had been censored in the universities and outright banned by the Tsar outside of the intelligentsia. The forces of Marxism within Russia were small, but not nonexistent. The Emancipation of Labor Group was inarguably the only force for Russian Marxism which had come to the correct theoretical conclusions; cadre development, dialectical thinking, rejection of a stagiest development out of tsarism and into socialism, a rejection both the terroristic approach to agitation as well as liberal capitulations on the side of a newly burgeoning socially and politically active student population, and an emphatic work both within and without the unions. Plekhanov was considered by those both within this small group and by his opponents to be the most theoretically developed force, most vigorously against Narodnism and the Narodnoi Voli who, to be reductive, were a group of workerist terrorists and the strongest, that is to say the largest political group fighting against Tsarism at the time. Plekhanov’s writings, laid the foundation for Russian Marxism and the ground work for the defense of historical and dialectical materialism, and a reconciliation of these two perspectives, which are essential to Marxist though, and the role that an individual plays within that theoretical framework. But it wasn’t until his publication of On the Development of the Monist View of History and On the Role of the Individual in History in 1895 and ’98 respectively were these theoretical developments laid bare. Therefore, a thorough and complete understanding of these works, in this case the latter, will help to better develop an understanding of dialectics, and as Marxism.

PART I

The most popular perspective of historical consideration at this time was the “Factors Theory of History”. This is one that all contributions to the development of human progress comprises of independent factors which are both of equal historical footing in terms of their prior development, an are of equivocal magnitudes with respect to their ability to affect changes in the real world and to drive history forward. This matter of thinking, and Plekhanov describes, was a generally accepted historical interpretive consensus. This eclecticism of Russian historical thinking amounts to no more than what could otherwise be described as an amalgamation of different perspectives, and an interchange of different historical viewpoints. Exchanging factors for one another, and emphasis of one factor over another, a historical jigsaw puzzle with no true corners or edges which can be swapped or traded: a cherry-picking approach to history.

It was amongst these eclectic historical philosophers where the greatest antagonism to historical materialism can be seen. They saw it as a reductionist conception of historical thinking which subjugated the individual to an “economic factor” rather than as a concurrent and independent one. But historical materialism is not and should not be relegated to any sort of equivocation with quietism, an abandonment of the will or any control of the individual over their conditions.

Plekhanov offers us the example of the two English scientists, Priestley and price to explicate why not only is this an incorrect equivocation of Historical materialism and quietism, but that even when people do believe in a sort of fatalistic quietism, that this is in no way an inhibition on their will. He says “Price argued that materialism was incompatible with the concept free will, and that it precluded all independent activity on the part of the individual”, and in reply Priestley, a member of the Christian Necessarians, used the example of every day experience to say that “where would one find more mental vigor, more activity, more force and persistence in the pursuit of extremely important aims, than among those who subscribe to the doctrine of necessity?”

What is being noted here is that even though, there is a degree of things which are incompatible with free will, it is by no means a wholesale rejection of it within itself! Necessity is of course, the product of materialistic needs which must be met. And under no circumstance can needs be ignored by any amount of will, lest it then cease to exist. Hunger, thirst, warmth, cooling. We make the choice to do these things not because we will ourselves into hunger or thirst, but because as a living thing on this planet, just as any other, we are compelled to do them, otherwise, we have no means of willing anything at all! You cannot use your will to un-dead yourself. Practical, material activity, and the human will be neither irreconcilable nor independent from one another but are complimentary in all human activity. This is of course, a foundational Marxist perspective. He does not assert, and has never asserted, that where the will does not play an active role, it therefore is nonexistent in its totality.

Marxists are certainly not quietists in the sense that they do not carte blanche accept that which is, nor are they fatalists in in accepting an inevitable fate of the universe. Opponents of Marxism, specifically in Russia in the late 19th century assert that Materialism is tantamount to a fatalist approach to historical analysis and, in conjunction a rejection of free will. But underscoring this perspective, as Plekhanov points out, lies a brazen contradiction.

“…history shows that even fatalism was not always a hindrance to energetic, practical action; on the contrary, in certain epochs it was a psychologically necessary basis for such action. In proof of this, we will point to the Puritans, who in energy excelled all the other parties in England in the seventeenth century; and to the followers of Mohammed, who in a short space of time subjugated an enormous part of the globe, stretching from India to Spain.”

Even for those who believe in the predestined world of any number of gods, belonging to any number of historical pantheons have been capable of great exertions of individual will conquering the world three times over.

In light of this contradiction to the inaction of the individual on behalf of fatalism, there is no denying that there are portions, significant ones at that, of human existence wherein there can certainly be no discussion of whether or not will exists. Because it is simply absent. In Plekhanov’s words, the inevitable activities, in the link of inevitable events, is of course demonstrated by the impossibility of inaction which is to say that that this lack of free will in the face of such events posits that any individual is incapable of acting differently from the way they are acting. One cannot “will” the facticities of one’s existence away, you cannot “will” yourself to have been born in a different place, and in a different time, you cannot “will” yourself hungerless. He ends this first section by stating that,

“Hamlet never knew this mood; that is why he was only capable of moaning and reflecting. And that is why Hamlet would never have accepted a philosophy, according to which freedom is merely necessity transformed into mind.”

Those who are incapable of reconciling that, necessity can be transformed into freedom are left to do nothing but reflect and contemplate on meaningless factors of the jigsaw puzzle they have made of history. And of course, thus arises things like alternate history where these factors can be tweaked or moved to anticipate different historical outcomes and the like.

PART II

How is it then that necessity can be then transformed into freedom, a concept which seems to be rather difficult at first?

Plekhanov begins the second section by describing this example of the lunar eclipse.

It is obvious that one cannot the moon into an eclipse so let’s set that aside.

If we are to look at the argument that materialism were a form of quietism,

We would necessarily have to accept the premise that the eclipse would only take place through human activity or intervention, and conversely would not happen due to inaction.

If then as an individual were to refrain from taking part in such an activity knowing well the eclipse would take place without us,

than abstaining from a ceremony to bring it about would be to simply abstain from useless action.

But of course, arguments of this sort would lead us into a sort of circular argumentation in which we were supposed to accept that nature is as it were, which leaves us without cause to engage with it in the first place even though it would be necessary for us to do so. In order for us to really make sense of this example,

” It would have to be imagined that the moon is gifted with a mind, and that her position in celestial space, which causes her eclipse, appears to her to be the fruit of the self-determination of her own will; that it not only gives her enormous pleasure, but is absolutely necessary for her peace of mind; and that this is why she always passionately strives to occupy this position.”

For some, the discovery of such a contradiction between the will and the movement of the moon, in this example would lead them to believe that there must be some liberatory force that may free it from this Sisyphean routine, in order that the moon might continually feel happy and pleasureful. That the moon can “will” itself to only feel happy, and to free itself from routine. But this cannot be done, for a number of obvious reasons. So then where might we be left searching got the underlying cause of such dissatisfaction between the inability to reconcile the moon’s “ideals” and its real movements? Is it not in the movements alone which has brought on the facticities which have thereby created those ideals in the first place? The moon was simply born feeling a vigorous reprieve to have eclipsed as if it were destiny. No. It is the movements of celestial space which have given cause to those ideals and principles.

We could then argue that when one feels most distant from the material forces which they are a part of, they feel loss, alienated, distanced, and melancholic. Just as much, when one feels closest to those same forces, when they can grasp and reconcile them, they feel most free right? It could also very well be the opposite in fact, but in any case, the focal point of Plekhanov’s observation is that it is the material circumstances themselves which give cause to the way we reconcile them in the first place! The material circumstances of capitalism are the same conditions under which both proletarian and bourgeois alike occupy, but only one is aggrieved by them. It is not their immutable “ideals” which were necessary for such aggrievement, but rather the point of departure lies in the material circumstances of the individual that shapes their interpretation of them. Those material circumstances predict the subjectiveness of our ideals and how we reconcile them with the necessities of our existence. Just as the moon would need to do. This is where necessity, becomes freedom,

“When the consciousness of my lack of free will presents itself to me only in the form of the complete subjective and objective impossibility of acting differently from the way I am acting, and when, at the same time, my actions are to me the most desirable of all other possible actions, then, in my mind, necessity becomes identified with freedom and freedom with necessity; and then, I am unfree only in the sense that I cannot disturb this identity between freedom and necessity, I cannot oppose one to the other, I cannot feel the restraint of necessity. But such a lack of freedom is at the same time its fullest manifestation.”

Here we can see the historical and material dialectic at work. The unity of opposites, where the interrelatedness of two congruent factors which then form into a synthesis. In the Marxist sense, it is the proletariat acting out of both individual necessity, (eating, sleeping, etc.) and historical necessity (the progression out of capitalism which I will get to in a moment) which are predicated on the material conditions in which they arise.

It is in this that we understand that freedom is not simply the opposite of restraint; you need not be free from something to be free. His conception of freedom can only be applied to the freedom from external restraint and realistically cannot extend past those definitional confines (ironically enough). There is within this conception, a dualistic construction of freedom between the subject and the object alone.

“The subject is free to/from object”

A pickpocket is free to steal, or the capitalist, is free to own property, which amounts only to a contest of wills which appear only in a vacuum.

This facile thinking leaves no room for either dialectical analysis or a materialist/historical analysis and is only ever an “at present” empirical equation between the object and subject within and of themselves. With Plekhanov’s rejection of this rudimentary dichotomy, we begin to see where the “Monist” view of history begins to take form. More precisely, we begin to see the Marxist perspective of history start to take form for him. For Plekhanov, the subject and object are neither apart from themselves, nor from historical and material preconditions, but also that the current material and historical epoch, mold into one with the object and the subject. Thus, forming a dialectical relationship with all of these so called “factors”, where no single factor is independent, or separable from the others.

“…capitalism, in the course of its development, will lead to its own negation and to the realization of their, the Russian “‘disciples’” – and not only the Russian – ideals. This is historical necessity. The “disciple” serves as an instrument of this necessity and cannot help doing so, owing to his social status and to his mentality and temperament, which were created by his status. This, too, is an aspect of necessity. Since his social status has imbued him with this character and no other, he not only serves as an instrument of necessity and cannot help doing so, but he passionately desires, and cannot help desiring, to do so. This is an aspect of freedom, and, moreover, of freedom that has grown out of necessity, i.e. to put it more correctly, it is freedom that is identical with necessity – it is necessity transformed into freedom.”

By blending the matter of historical necessity, the liberation from restraint, the molding of subject and object, and the inevitability of historical progression, there arises the case of such a necessity to desire no other path than that which is materially inevitable and necessity even with the assumption that we may choose to not participate or to reject the premise as a whole. The desire to aid in the demise of capitalism is at once a historical necessity, wherein, we recognize that this would happen with or without us. But to deny this would be to deny our ideals which we have developed out of the material conditions which form that necessity in the first place, capitalism itself.

“Until the individual has won this freedom by heroic effort in philosophical thinking, he does not fully belong to himself, and his mental tortures are the shameful tribute he pays to external necessity that stands opposed to him. But as soon as this individual throws off the yoke of this painful and shameful restriction he is born for a new, full and hitherto never experienced life; and his free actions become the conscious and free expression of necessity”

PART III

As we can see, being conscious of a historical phenomenon is not simply enough to the desire to see it come to fruition, it is only through the lens of necessity, and the freedom of acting on necessity do we engage with its coming into being. Those who do not sympathize with this manner of historical thinking are either willfully ignorant reactionaries or are simply complacent in their not knowing.

Plekhanov offers us in the third section a mathematical expression wherein we might better understand what this means.

A=Phenomenon

S=Circumstances for Phenomenon to occur

T=Time for Circumstances to occur (OR) ∑T=S

I= Those who sympathize with (A)

a=Activities Sympathetic to (A) (OR) Activities which aid in the development of (S)

THEN

A=I*(Sa)+S

=> Dialectical and Historical Materialism/Monism, where all factors are integral to the equation resulting in a given phenomenon

It is not the case that A=S

=> Dualism where it is only the circumstances or a single factor that contributes to a tautological statement

Let us then consider that

b= another who sympathizes with (A) but is more engaged in aiding the development of (S)

THEN

A=I*(Sb)+S

The equation fundamentally remains the same and the level of activity is inconsequential the fruition of (S) but is only imperative to the level by which (S) has developed fully. (the difference between a failed and a successful revolution) This is not to say that it has not developed and therefore will never exist but not developed to its fullest extent within that given period of time where both the sum of time (S) and the contribution to the development of circumstances (Sx) are still developing congruent to the already existing trend or in the mathematical sense, fulfilling the equation. Al that need change is the sum of time needed to meet the development at its given magnitude. If we are to anticipate the levels of activity, which we have already acknowledged are preconditioned by the general trend of historical development of the material conditions in a given period, we must assume that the consciousness that given phenomenon are matters for affecting the level of activity in developing that historical necessity (A). By understanding the magnitude of both (a) and (b) we can better approximate the time by which phenomenon (A) will occur and the magnitude of the event! This of course, is class consciousness.

But what then do we suppose becomes of the opponents of historical necessity? Does their counteraction negate those who stand opposed to the would-be elimination of the inevitability? No, and under some circumstances, their actions only effect the magnitude at a given time to be most charitable. But less so, their actions are that which is implied in the very circumstances for the inevitability of the event in the first place. They are the very circumstances which suppose the historical necessity of that phenomenon which they are so determined to prevent! Even if they stand more strong and numerous against the meek and the few, the smaller forces vigor of the freedom of necessity becomes transformed into the vigor of despair, and can become just as much an active force for historical development as those who are persuaded by its availability. “Why not, if we have no other recourse”

All of this of course places a higher degree of emphasis on the individual’s consciousness to/of a given phenomenon, and to those ends, many subjectivists (more contemporarily Post Modernists) may conclude a similar result. The emphasis of the individual. Yet they are unable still, to reconcile the role of the individual within an inevitable historical context, and to such ends, are unable to distance the inevitability of a historical phenomena from the role from the role of a given individual who becomes places at its epicenter for their high degree of participation in seeing that phenomenon come to fruition, conscious of its inevitability or not. For them, the individual then becomes its own “critical factor” of historical development, independent and apart from the object of freedom via necessity, apart from will, as well as the otherwise predominant general trend of historical development. This is a simple reiteration of course, of the facile idiocy, found within dualism which falls apart when placed under a greater degree of historical and philosophical and material scrutiny. On the one hand there is a rejection of the simplicity of dualistic thinking, and the over emphasis on the individual actors who are above and apart from larger trends of historical development. Marxists reject the false equivocation with quietism and fatalism with historical materialism, and the ridiculousness of puzzle piece, cherry picked factors existing in a vacuum. On the other hand, there is a rejection of over deterministic bastardized materialism which diminishes any meaningful role on the part of the individual and subjugates them to un quantité néglegeable in bringing about the conditions to fulfill an inevitable historical necessity.

“It is as unsound to sacrifice the thesis to the antithesis as to forget the antithesis for the sake of the thesis. The correct point of view will be found only when we succeed in uniting the points of truth contained in them into a synthesis”

There is the dialectic interpretation of these two counter positions to understand our own roles, and our own freedom

This is the famous painting called “Liberty Leading the People”, a painting done by Eugène Delacroix commemorating the July Revolution of 1830. What we see in this painting is not just a depiction of a bourgeois revolution and the foreword march of “inevitable events” as Plekhanov might say, but a manifestation of an idealist conception of history, a bourgeois conception of history. That is to say, one in which the development of the ideals themselves, not the general material trend in history and the dialectic relationship between all “factors”, moves history forward.

~Put that in your pipe and Smoke it~

#marxism #plekhanov #revolution #history #philosophy #dialectics #materialism

1 note · View note