Mediaboss Marketing

Mao Zedong.

In our study of the three laws of dialectics presented by Engels, weve examined the law of contradiction and the law of the transformation of quantity into quality. Finally, Engels says that the third law of dialectics is the law of the negation of the negation.

We have seen that Mao Zedong has argued that the law of contradiction is the primary law of dialectics. In our last article we looked at how the transformation of quantity into quality was, in fact, an instance of the law of contradiction. Here, we will examine Maos argument against the negation of the negation as a dialectical law.

First, what does the negation of the negation mean, and why have Marxists thought of it as a worthwhile way to explain dialectical progress? The concept comes from the most advanced philosophy of the time in which Marx and Engels were working: Hegels dialectical idealism. It describes a process in a sequence of steps, starting with an affirmation, followed by a negation that arises as a result of that affirmation, and then followed by a negation of that negation. Hegel was talking about ideas, and so talked about this in terms of thesis, antithesis and synthesis.

Engels makes use of this Hegelian language in referring to the negation of the negation as a dialectical law, but this has the potential to create some confusion among Marxists that we would benefit from sorting out.

Materialist dialectics is concerned with material reality, not just ideas. So to illustrate this sequence, lets consider capitalism as our first affirmation. Marx says the bourgeoisie creates its own gravediggers. In other words, bourgeois society creates its own negation, the proletariat, a class born out of capitalism itself. Capitalism itself gives rise to the necessity of socialist revolution. The proletariat, through socialist revolution, therefore negates the bourgeoisie, capitalist relations, and so on, step by step. But in doing so, the proletariat also eliminates the conditions for its own existence as a class. This is what Lenin describes in The State and Revolution as socialisms withering away, which allows for a stateless and classless society - communism - to come forth. This is the second negation, the negation of the negation, by this way of looking at it.

Taken step by step we see that first we have the original affirmation, the thesis. This is capitalism in our illustration. This is followed by an antithesis, which arises from and negates the original thesis. This is the first negation: socialism. Finally we have the synthesis, which negates the antithesis that had negated the original thesis: communism. Thus the final synthesis is the negation of the negation. Essentially, in this progression of thesis - antithesis - synthesis, the final synthesis serves to negate the antithesis that itself negated the original thesis, while also preserving elements of both in a new unity or identity.

In this process, the law of the negation of the negation is what accounts for the spiral development that makes progress, rather than mere repetition, possible. This synthesis carries forward something from both the original affirmation and the first negation, synthesizing them, that is uniting them, into something qualitatively new. This new unity becomes a new thesis, or a new affirmation, and the sequence begins again, but at a higher level than before.

This conception of the dialectic accounts for progress by describing how this step-by-step process leads from one thing to the next, based on resolving the contradictions that arise from the process. Of course this isnt entirely incorrect, but it is inaccurate. This inaccuracy can lead to some confusion as to what is really taking place, dialectically. The law of the negation of the negation is helpful to a point, but we have to go further. Revolutionary science cant rest with simple explanations.

The thinking behind the law of the negation of the negation confuses the issue in two interrelated ways. First, it gives us too linear an understanding of dialectics, which doesnt account for the complex processes where multiple contradictions are at work at the same time, which weve described in our articles on contradiction. And second, by starting and ending with identity, it enshrines identity, or unity, as primary over contradiction, or struggle.

To truly put the dialectic on a materialist basis also means, as Mao says in his Talk on Questions of Philosophy, to understand that every link in the chain of events is both affirmation and negation. In other words, thesis, antithesis and synthesis arent separated from each other in a metaphysical way. Affirmation and negation are present at every moment of any given process.

In his essay On Contradiction, Mao made a great contribution to the Marxist-Leninist philosophy of dialectical materialism by clearly explaining that the materialist dialectic cannot be understood as a simple, linear sequence, but as a complex structural matrix of many unevenly developed contradictions all at work simultaneously. It is important to note that if we ignore the complexity of contradiction in favor of a simple, linear sequence, we risk taking a mechanical approach to solving problems by failing to recognize the significance of secondary contradictions in the situation. People who claim that everything that isnt pure class struggle is a distraction are guilty of this error.

Furthermore, the law of the negation of the negation preserves a Hegelian metaphysical framework. The Hegelian dialectic begins and ends with identity, mediated by struggle. This first identity is the thesis of Hegels triad, the original affirmation, and the Hegelian synthesis (the negation of the negation) is a new identity, with struggle (antithesis) acting merely as a bridge between them. This is an important point: in the Hegelian sequence contradiction exists primarily between identities rather than within them. Here identity is absolute and struggle is relative. In reality, on the contrary, contradiction is present within and essential to every moment of the process. Bourgeois society contains a multitude of contradictions (affirmations and negations), as does socialism, and so will communism. Struggle is inherent in every part of the process. Every identity is teeming with contradictions. If we dont grasp this point we will think that external contradictions should be the focus of our attention, rather than internal contradictions that tend to drive things forward.

The law of contradiction, as Marxism-Leninism understands it, means that the main thing in dialectics is division, rather than identity. To sum this up, the Chinese revolutionaries put forward the slogan one divides Into two, against the Hegelian two fuse into one, emphasizing the primary place of contradiction. Struggle isnt just a bridge between the old identity and the new. No, in fact, identity without contradiction cannot exist: everything divides into two.

This may seem like an overly philosophical point, but it is important for revolutionaries to grasp to avoid errors based in metaphysical thinking. The law of the negation of the negation would have it that dialectics is a continuous movement towards unity, or synthesis. Mao Zedong argues, on the contrary, that the life of dialectics is the continuous movement towards opposites. The Hegelian sequence leaves us with a dialectic that sees unity as absolute, and contradiction as relative, temporary, and conditional. On the contrary, affirmation and negation exist within every moment of every process. Contradictions exist within the very essence of things, not just between them, and it is those internal contradictions that are the primary motivators of change.

Qualitative change doesnt result from a drive towards synthesis, but from the transformation of the principal and secondary aspects of a contradiction into their opposites. It isnt by uniting two contradictory things that we make historical progress, but by dividing them. We dont make socialist revolution by uniting with the bourgeoisie. It is true that socialism carries forward elements of capitalist relations of production in the transition to communism, but the main thing isnt to preserve those elements, but to destroy and uproot them piece by piece. Qualitative change results from the quantitative accumulation of force which changes the balance of power.

In privileging identity over struggle, the law of the negation of the negation can also put Marxists at risk of a kind of fatalism, where Communism exists as the final cause at the End of History, drawing everything towards it as the final identity where everything is ultimately resolved. Communism isnt a final identity without any contradictions. Contradictions will exist within communism as well. Change and progress will continue. History will never end.

Again, the law of the negation of the negation is useful to a point, but if we dont take it farther we are left open to metaphysical errors. It gives us too linear a description of the dialectical process, and it separates affirmation and negation in a metaphysical way that privileges identity. As Marxism-Leninism has advanced it has advanced the philosophy of dialectical materialism beyond the metaphysical, linear framework of Hegelianism. Mao accomplished this by theorizing the concepts of the principal contradiction, principal and secondary aspects of contradictions, and the uneven development of contradictions within a process. Maos writings on dialectical materialism give us a powerful weapon to analyze the forces at work in the complex processes we face.

Next in our series well look at how these processes shape history. In the following articles well look at the categories and concepts of the materialist conception of history, that is, historical materialism, and what they offer Marxist-Leninists as theoretical tools for changing the world.

Read more:
Red Theory: On the negation of the negation | Fight Back! - Fight Back! Newspaper

In 1947, a book by John Fischer of Harpers Magazine was published and titled Why They Behave Like Russians. The book was an insightful look into Soviet culture, but it was a disappointment that the book did not stress that the communists were Russians first and foremost.

The more recent 1983 book The New Diplomacy by the late Israeli scholar and diplomat Abba Eban makes the point that Soviet aggression was more a Russian trait than communist. My problem with Ebans point is he intended his observation to be assuring, implying we had little to fear from Russian communism.

As we have learned in recent months, it is hardly a comfort that the aggression has proven to be more Russian than communist. Though we have since celebrated the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, it is clear our enthusiasm was premature. Indeed, President Putin of Russia poses a greater threat to peace than had either Khrushchev or Brezhnev.

That is saying a lot, especially when considering that this was the same Nikita Khrushchev who launched a brutal invasion of Hungary in 1956 and pushed President Kennedy to the brink of nuclear war in the Cuban Crisis of 1961. It was also the same Leonid Brezhnev who had invaded Afghanistan in 1979.

Alas, Putin is worse.

Indeed, Putin is the most aggressive and authoritarian leader of Russia since Stalin (for whom Putin has on record expressed admiration).

Even were Putin able to completely subjugate Ukraine (which is his aim), his empire would not be as large as was the Soviet Unions. But Putins ambitions do not stop at Ukraine. The Russian despot envisions a return to the Cold War map with Russia incorporating Central and Eastern Europe. Indeed, it is Putin who proclaimed the fall of the Soviet Union was the worst catastrophe of the 20th century.

Sphere of Influence is a term we have heard often in reference to Vladimir Putins designs on Central and Eastern Europe. Putin has used the term as if it legitimizes his territorial ambitions. The term dates back to the Helsinki Accords in 1975 when Secretary of State Henry Kissinger led the West into conceding Central and Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union. Kissinger had reassured President Gerald Ford that the the Helsinki Accords did not have the sway of a treaty.

But that is not how the Soviets saw it. Brezhnev considered the Helsinki Accords his crowning achievement and very much viewed the accords to have validated Soviet domination of Central and East Europe.

Putin seeks to recover that domination and he believes he can do it. Unfortunately, the United States and the West lack a current strain of leadership to emphasize to Putin that his ambitions are unacceptable.

President Biden was right when he proclaimed in Poland that Putin cannot remain in power. But Biden has since backed off his legitimate call for a regime change in Russia. Biden has only made clear the circumstances in which he will not engage Russia, which includes most scenarios.

Back to the Russian trait, whereas communism in its pure form discourages nationalism, all of the communist movements of the 20th century contained a heavy strain of nationalism. Stalin claimed a Russian background and Trotsky also took pride in his self image as a Russian. The irony is that neither was Russian. Stalin was Georgian and Trotsky was Jewish.

But it is instructive to consider the history of nationalism within the ranks of communism to understand the modern specter of Putin. How far Putin is able to expand the empire of which he dreams remains to be seen. What also remains to be seen is to what degree Putin will carry out his agenda before Biden mounts serious resistance.

John ONeill is an Allen Park freelance writer. He has a degree in history from Wayne State University.

Read this article:
As the war rages, Russia is still Russia - Southgate News Herald

Perhaps the most solid symbol of the geopolitical tension of the Cold War was the Wall that stood between East (the German Democratic Republic or GDR) and West Berlin dividing the communist East and the democratic West. The Wall, ordered to be built by Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev, was to halt the fleeing of skilled workers, professionals, and intellectuals. From 1949 to 1961, about 2.5 million of these people crossed into West Germany, unhappy with the living conditions of the East(because Communism). Barbed wires and concrete antifascist bulwark were built beginning on August 13, 1961.

To those desperate to leave, the possibility of being shot down was a risk they were willing to take. In fact, 100,000 citizens of the GDR tried to pass the Berlin Wall from 1961 to 1988. More than 600 were shot and killed by the border guards, if not from other ways while trying to escape drowning, accidents, or committing suicide once caught.

It was the same for the Bethke brothers, who fled and crossed that iron curtain several years apart on three occasions. They were Ingo, Holger, and Egbert.

Ingo Bethke was just seven when the Berlin Wall was erected, thus leaving his family on the eastern side of Germanys capital. When he grew up, he was called to work as a soldier assigned to guard the border, just like all the other young men required to serve in the Peoples Army. However, all those times, all he thought was escaping that very same wall that he was tasked to guard.

On May 26, 1975, Ingo and his friend drove to the Wall. After seeing that the coast was clear, they crept through a small hole that they cut beforehand within the border fence, making sure that they did not step on the raked sand that would indicate someone was trying to escape. They also had to avoid tripwires that would activate floodlights. The last obstacle was a minefield that they successfully passed through with nothing but a crude wooden block as a mine detector. They finally reached the river bank, and so they blew out their air mattresses and quietly paddled their way across the River Elbe and toward their freedom. It seemed that night that the river wanted them to be free, as she was filled with fogs that moment, concealing the two fugitives from the police boats and spotlights all over. Thirty unnerving minutes of paddling passed, and they made it to West Berlin.

Ingo did not leave behind his family, in a sense that he kept in touch all the time, using fake return addresses, cryptic telephone calls, and the help of their relatives. It took them eight years before deciding to make a move for Holger Bethke to join his brother on the other side of the Wall. On March 31, 1983, he made up his mind to escape. If his brother used an air mattress, his choice was to use his trusty zip wire.

His preparation included practicing at a public park in the guise of a circus performer. In reality, he was scouting the Wall so they could create sketches. Next, he worked on his archery by doing dry runs in the forest. On that day, Holger found a street near Treptow Park with a narrow death strip sandwiched by tall houses. He sneaked into an attic. From there, he shot an arrow that flew 40 meters across and beyond the house opposite it. It trailed a nylon wire that Ingo pulled across the border and tied to his car. On the other side, Holger knotted his end of the line around a chimney. When all was set, Ingo drove a few meters to pull the rope taut.

Heres the scary part: With his metal pulley enclosed in a frame with two handholds and a strap for his wrist, he prepared to launch himself. He gripped the handles before launching himself into the atmosphere, hoping that the soft whirring noise would not be heard from below. 120 ft later, he was in the West, safe in his brothers embrace.

The two Bethke brothers ran a pub together in Cologne, but they knew they had to help Egbert, their youngest brother. For five years, they plotted how they would get him out. Thus, a great and daring escape idea was born.

They sold the pub and used the money to buy two ultralight aircraft that they taught themselves how to fly. Their first attempt was on May 11, 1989, which failed. On May 26, they were back wearing military uniforms and helmets, and their planes were painted with Soviet stars. At 4 AM, Egbert was at Treptower Park, hiding in a bush and waiting for his ride to freedom. Two planes suddenly emerged: one circling above to survey the area, while the other landed in front of him. It had been fourteen years since he last saw his older brother, and it was surreal. However, they didnt have much time for an emotional reunion, so he hopped in, and they flew their way out, now all reunited.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting our Veteran Editorial by becoming a SOFREP subscriber. Click here to join SOFREP now for just $0.50/week.

Go here to read the rest:
The Daring Feat of How the Bethke Brothers Escaped the Berlin Wall and Communism - SOFREP

Mr Bandaranaike, Prime Minister of Ceylon, said in an interview published here yesterday that he had made up his mind that British forces based on Ceylon would have to go.

Having foreign bases on our soil is not at all consistent with our sovereignty as a nation, he said in an interview with the U.S. News and World Report, a weekly magazine.

It is against my line of thinking in making Ceylon the Switzerland of Asia. Also it would make us one of the first targets if war should break out. (Britain has a navy base at Trincomalee and two R.A.F. bases on the island).

The Premier said Britain and Ceylon had not signed any agreement dealing specifically with bases unless the last Government entered into some secret agreement with the British which we dont know about yet.

BECOMING REPUBLIC

Mr Bandaranaike, said Ceylon would become a Republic but he had not yet decided whether it should leave the Commonwealth. He said a long time ago his party now in power advocated becoming a Republic and also withdrawing from the Commonwealth. Now, however, the case of India has shown that it is possible to remain within the Commonwealth without impairing ones sovereignty. There may be certain advantages in staying in, he said.

On the other hand, there may also be certain advantages in staying out. It we wanted to enter into certain regional agreements with other countries, with the U.S.A. for example, it might be easier if we were not members of another grouping like the Commonwealth. With the growth of international organizations, the practical advantages of Asian countries remaining in the Commonwealth are greatly reduced since there are other groupings we can become members of. Regional relationships are more important than the Commonwealth relationship these days. We have to look further into this whole matter of remaining in the Commonwealth.

NEUTRAL COURSE

Mr Bandaranaike said in general he agreed with the spirit of Mr Nehru in foreign policies. He described this as following a neutral course and non-alignment with any Power blocs.

He added: I think, sometimes he (Mr Nehru) has a tendency to lose sight of the intrinsically essential dynamism of communism.

In answer to a question, he said: Communism will continue to expand but the expansion will be slowed up.

Given at least 25 years without war, which I think the world needs, I think that the extremes of communism will disappear as they are doing now and the rest of the world will start moving towards the centre.

A suitable middle ground will evolve probably a type of democratic socialism.

TRADE BARRIERS

He said the most important measure to prevent such an explosion now was the elimination of trade barriers.

Then there must be increased contacts between East and West in other fields, he added. Thirdly, one must not permit oneself to be too fanatical on either side.

Certainly, if the whole world should decide that it wants communism. I am not going to stand in the way. But I dont think that is going to happen. Gradually communism will become watered down.

He said there was no danger of communist subversion in Ceylon. He thought Ceylon should exchange diplomatic missions with China, the Soviet Union and the East European countries. She had no such relations now though she trades with China.

He said he would like to make a trip around the world and would welcome a visit to Ceylon by Mr Bulganin, and Mr Khruschev, now on their way to Britain.

He said the Soviet leaders had agreed to a reasonable working formula to achieve peace when they signed Mr Nehrus statement of 6ve principles of co-existence during their visit to India last year.

Mr Bandaranaike said he would have to examine carefully the U.S.A.s recent decision to grant economic aid to Ceylon.

I am not ruling out aid from any country in the world, he added. But I must look into it carefully to see what conditions might be attached.

He said he would accept aid if it had no strings attached from the U.S.A. and from Russia and China. He would not object if Soviet technicians came to Ceylon and were paid a fee for their services on such projects as irrigation.

Read the rest here:
HT This Day: April 18, 1956 -- Ceylon To Become Republic - Hindustan Times

Weve all been following the war that is being waged in Ukraine, and it has become fashionable to refer to the devastation of the former Soviet satellite as Putins war. That is, perhaps, the most apt colloquialism, because it implies that the incursion into Ukraine is not the wish of the Russian people, but rather that of its president, who craves more power to complement his tremendous wealth.

As I watch the evening news on television and see images of wanton destruction and senseless killing of civilians, I ask myself a simple question which seems to elude a simple answer: Why?

If Russian troops could have simply marched in and claimed the territory for Russia, as they did in Crimea, in 2014, what would the ruling powers of Russia have gained? Even in that relatively bloodless coup, cost/reward calculations do not compute. As Yuval Noah Harari, Professor of History at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, points out in his brilliant 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, Tourist resorts in the Crimea and decrepit Soviet-era factories in Luhansk and Donetsk hardly balance the price of financing the war, and they certainly do not offset the costs of capital flight and international sanctions.

In the 21st Century, limited wars seem to be tolerated by the global economy. The recognition of a global economy began to take root in the 1970s with the publication of Immanuel Wallersteins world-system analysis, which posits that there is really only one economic system, and that is capitalism. At the time, this was best exemplified by the wealthy nations, notably those of North America and Western Europe, as well as Australia and Japan.

During the past 50 years, countries like China, South Korea, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, and a number of wealthy Middle-Eastern countries, like Dubai, have become members of the single, global economic system. The system is so pervasive that limited wars like Darfur (2003), the Libyan and Yemeni Civil Wars of 2011, or even the ISIL insurgency in Tunisia in 2015 dont disrupt the global economy.

So, the Russian take-over of Crimea, which drew very little resistance from the people of the area, many if not most of whom still maintained their allegiance to Russia, attracted little attention from the great powers of the world-wide economic system. And the fact that these limited wars had little impact on the amassed wealth of the oligarchs throughout the world may have at least some significance.

It has been documented that the wealth of the richest people in the world increased during the past decade, despite an estimated 46 limited wars in 2014, 43 in 2015, and 38 in 2016. Writing in 2018, Harari stated that Putin knew far better than anyone else that military power cannot go far in the twenty-first century, and that waging a successful war means waging a limited war.

Putins Russia is not Stalins Russia, nor is it the Russia over which Peter the Great ruled. It was greatly weakened by decades of communist ideology, the expenses of the Cold War, and a decade of being bogged down in Afghanistan, from which the United States should have learned a lesson. Since the Afghanistan debacle, Russias politico-economic reality has shifted from communism to Putinism.

Despite perceived alliances with China and North Korea, modern Russia largely stands alone, and it is ruled by the iron fist of Vladimir Putin. So far, Putin has been backed by a host of Russian oligarchs who have become fabulously wealthy in a supposedly communist society and socialist economy. What communist/socialist system would permit some people to have palaces with water-front views from which they would be able to admire their hundred-million-dollar yachts while working-class people struggle to get from paycheck to paycheck?

Russia, as the core of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, reached its zenith in the mid-twentieth century when heavy industry, fueled by a centralized economic system, produced trucks, tanks, and intercontinental ballistic missiles. But today, as Harari points out, information technology and biotechnology are more important than heavy industry, but Russia excels in neither. Its current economy relies overwhelmingly on natural resources, particularly oil and natural gas. The appeal of the USSR to poorer nations was based on the theoretical appeal of communism as much as the vast reach of the Red Army. In contrast, Putinism has little to offer to Cubans, Vietnamese, or even French intellectuals.

On Aug. 6, 1945, the United States detonated the first atomic bomb above Hiroshima and, three days later, the second over Nagasaki. The use of these now-primitive nuclear weapons caused the death of between 129,000 and 226,000 people mostly civilians. The devastating effects of nuclear warfare were understood worldwide, and at a visceral level.

Other powerful nations were working on developing the same destructive capabilities during WWII, and it wasnt long before they were successful. As Harari points out, It is no coincidence that ever since Hiroshima, superpowers have never fought one another directly, instead engaging in what (for them) were low-stakes conflicts. When I was in college, the professor who taught a class in social disorganization referred to this phenomenon as mutual deterrence.

War between superpowers which had nuclear capability became counterproductive. If A were to launch nuclear weapons at B, it was a foregone conclusion that B would retaliate, ensuring the destruction of both. In the 1960s, U.S.S.R. tried an end run, building missile bases in Cuba, a hitherto technologically low-level threat to U.S. security. It was only level-headed, yet forceful response on the part of the United States that averted a tragedy.

Since then, certainly wars have been fought, but the real focus of attention has been on financial and technological development. Consider this, those countries that lost WWII Germany, Italy, and Japan have experienced both economic and technological miracles. And none of these countries has developed nuclear weapons.

While concerns about the United States getting sucked into a hot war in Ukraine cannot be dismissed out of hand, it is hoped that the effect of nuclear mutual deterrence will hold. However, the fear in this third decade of the 21st century should be of cyberwarfare. Within milliseconds, such a conflict could be brought to California, or Illinois, or New York, shutting down airports, wreaking havoc on power grids, disrupting computer databases.

If such an attack were to be coordinated among an axis of potential enemies, like Russia, North Korea, and China, the effects would be so swift that cyber mutual deterrence might not be possible. And the war would be won not by destroying the enemy, but by disabling it.

While I sympathize with the people of Ukraine and I support our economic and materiel contributions, I hope that our leaders will avoid any breach of diplomacy that could draw us into either nuclear or cyber war, regardless of what combination of allies or enemies might develop. And I hope that Putin keeps it in mind that, while he has a militia with cyber competency, so do we. But the U.S. also has a huge civilian force of computer experts; that element is woefully lacking under Putinism.

Jim Glynn is Professor Emeritus of Sociology. He may be contacted at j_glynn@att.net.

Read this article:
Opinion: Will Putinism lead to cyberwar? - The Madera Tribune