Philosophical
Dialogues XXXII
EXISTENCE AND TRANSCENDENCE
II
By Franz J. T. Lee
16th April, 2000
Alienation, Alienated Labour and Emancipation
Coseino: Dear students, firstly, I just wish to remind you of our understanding of the various levels, degrees and mensions of Relations, of Bezüge, of Truth.
Our Unilogics deals with affirmation, identification, with acts and actions, but also with stereotypical, ideological absolute truths, A = A; Non-A = Non-A. Please note that Non-A is not the Negation of A! There are no contradictions, no negations in Unilogics or even in Formal Logics. For example, "B" would be the Negation of "A"; but this only appears in Dialectics or Dialogics!
For example:
Question:
What did Marx say about religion?
Answer: He said that religion is the "opium of the people".
A = A: Yes, Marx only said Religion is the "opium of the
people".
Question:
Did Marx say that Religion is the "sigh of the oppressed creature",
the
"heart of a heartless world", the
"soul of soulless conditions" and "the opium of the people"?
Answer: No, Marx never said all of that. Non-A = Non-A. I
never heard anything about that; as far as I'm concerned, and everybody knows
it, Marx only said: "Religion is the opium of the people".
Note: "Opium of the People" = "A"; "Sigh of the Oppressed Creature", etc., = "Non-A". Here we have two unilogical levels, Two Absolute Truths:
YES:
Marx only said that Religion is the Opium of the People.
NO: Marx never ever only said, that Religion is the Opium of
the People.
The historic fact of the matter is, that the author of the phrase "Religion is the Opium of the People" is Reverend Charles Kingsley, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who lived long before Marx was born. At best, either Marx just repeated what many authors said before him, or, at worst, he committed plagiarism.
So, here we have two Absolute Truths: A = A; Non-A = Non-A, two affirmations, identifications.
In Formal Logic, A = A, Yes is always Absolute; it recognizes Non-A, -- as derived from A -- but the Non-A has nnothing to do with A, the two are not related, they have no Bezüge whatsoever; it's always Either "A" Or "Non-A" which is the Absolute Truth!
I am either a capitalist or a non-communist. I hate contradictions.
And
what is non-communist, I, as capitalist, determine. I don't need to read
and study "communist" literature. I'm a god, I'm omniscient. I am the source
of absolute truth.
Vice versa, true Communists, "Marxists" do exactly the same:
I am either a communist or a non-capitalist. I hate contradictions.
This is how the absolute majority of mankind, billions of them, do "reason", whenever they open their mouths.
In
our Dialogics, we deal with degrees, with levels a n d degrees,
with affirmation
a n d negation, with two sides of
the very same thing, with differentiation, with thinking and thought. We
are treating the Degrees of Truth!
For example:
Marx said: Religion is the Opium of the People a n d the Sigh of the Oppressed Creature, a n d the Heart of a Heartless World, a n d the Soul of Soulless Conditions. That he said that Religion is the Opium of the People, this is Absolutely True!
But, he did not ONLY say this, he said MORE! This is, not relatively, but Relationally True.
Item: Marx spoke about a manifold, Dialectical Truth.
However,
according to us, Marx, consciously or subconsciously, said EVEN MORE.
Our Trialogics deals with excellence,
transcendence, with superations, with Mensions.
Level: The unilogical statements are true.
Degree: The dialogical statements are true.
Mension: But, also, NEITHER the Unilogical NOR the Dialogical statements
are Absolutely True.
Sphere: Also the above, the Mension is not forever Absolutely True,
etc., etc.
In
other words, Marx neither said that "Religion is the Opium of the
People" nor
that "Religion is the Sigh of the Oppressed Creature".
He said all these, but he also said the following, which includes all the
aforesaid:
"Man makes religion,
religion does not make man,
religion is indeed man's
self-consciousness and
self-awareness as long
as he has not found his feet in
the universe. ... Religion
is the general theory of this
world, its encyclopaedic
compendium, its logic in
popular form, its spiritual
point'd honneur, its enthusiasm.
... It is the fantastic
realization of the human being inasmuch
as the human being possesses
no true reality.
The struggle
against religion is therefore indirectly a
struggle against that
world whose spiritual aroma is religion."
Excellent Students,
in our discussions, in this Philosophy Seminar, please, never forget our
Multi-Logical Method of Reasoning. Otherwise, our debates will degenerate
into an everyday, thoughtless chaos. Now, let's continue where we left off
last week. - I notice, Karl, that you want to comment something.
Karl: Professor Coseino, our debate on Brecht offers many interesting perspectives on the use of the dramatic arts to show the audience how to transcend beyond a problematic existence. I offer the following comments to expand on these perspectives:
Brecht initially embraced Marxism and the Soviet Union in the 1930’s because, like many intellectuals of his generation, he perceived that only these could defeat Nazism and Capitalism. He and the others did not realize that Stalin tried to form an alliance with Hitler and share the conquest of Europe in the upcoming World War II, and would abandon this position only when Hitler attacked the Soviet Union.
Brecht’s play “Mother Courage” describes the pain and suffering of any mother who has lost a son in any war per se, not just in wars related to Capitalism; this exemplifies his focus on issues not confined to ideology. When Brecht immigrated to the USA, he made big money writing screenplays for Hollywood cinema. Like many Marxists of his generation, he liked to live well. “Think like a Marxist and act like a Capitalist” was a major contradiction.
Furthermore, in Shakespeare’s “Merchant of Venice,” Shylock is a portrayal of a stereotyped Jew, which was popular at the time, and it was as unreal as any other stereotype. (Today, Pope John Paul, who was a playwright and actor in Poland, realizes that this stereotyped Jew is a nonsense.) In reality, the Jews were a small ethnic culture no different than any other small ethnic culture present in Europe at the time.
The Jews were singled out simply due to their association with Jesus Christ. Stuck in a region where they didn’t belong, the Jews, who were originally farmers in Ancient Israel, were not allowed to own land and forced into usury. It has been postulated that if there was a real “Shylock,” he was attacked not because he was Jewish (the Italians were not greatly anti-Semitic), but because he was involved in currency manipulation in Venice during the Italian Renaissance. Venice was the centre of a mini-Global economy in Europe and the Mediterranean, which used the Venetian ducat as the standard currency.
Coseino: Thanks, Karl. I'm sure everybody will agree with me, that your comments and suggestions are always educative, informative and piquant. Beyond any doubt, it's true what you were saying. But, let's apply our method, and analyse what else Marx said, what socialism and communism are all about. What a "Marxist" should be, what (s)he should strive for, and how a future Marxian communist society should look like, with reference to poverty and riches. - I see that Indira wants to comment something.
Indira: Karl, I also wish to thank you for an excellent contribution. However, true to our method, as indicated before, let's scrutinize certain aspects of your exposition. I am especially interested in your affirmation:
"When Brecht immigrated to the USA, he made big money writing screenplays for Hollywood cinema. Like many Marxists of his generation, he liked to live well. 'Think like a Marxist and act like a Capitalist' was a major contradiction."
Firstly, I agree with you. This expresses a certain level of truth. But, let's look at other levels a n d degrees of this Truth.
Unfortunately, we live in an ideology-clouded,
smoggy, unimensional world of the one and only, affirmative Capitalist Society,
the negation of which has successfully (and historically) been eradicated.
Not surprisingly, the unreflected standard, stereotype view of "Marxists"
and of "Communism" experiences a renaissance - a view, according to which
Marxists are a strange kind of progress-hostile people, who advocate the
"back to the caves- principle" within a "primitive community". According to
this conception, wealth and Marxism are contradictory terms, that radically
exclude and have nothing to do at all with each other. But, let Marx speak
for himself, as far as the development of the productive forces as a material
premise of communism is concerned. I quote Marx from Marx/Engels, The
German Ideology, Progress Publishers, Moscow, Third Revised Edition
1976, p.56/57:
"This 'estrangement' ['Entfremdung'] (to use a term which will be comprehensible to the philosophers) can, of course, only be abolished given two practical premises. In order to become an "unendurable" power, i. e., a power against which men make a revolution, it must necessarily have rendered the great mass of humanity 'propertyless', and moreover, in contradiction to an existing world of wealth and culture (Bildung); both these premises presuppose a great increase in productive power, a high degree of its development. And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which at the same time implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise, because without it privation, want, ist merely made general, and with want the struggle for necessities would begin again, and all the old Scheisse [sic!] would necessarily be restored; and furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which on the one side produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the "propertyless" mass (universal competition), making each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally puts world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones.
Without this, 1) communism could only exist as a local phenomenon; 2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not have developed as universal, hence unendurable powers: they would have remained home-bred "conditions" surrounded by superstition; and 3) each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism. Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples "all at once" and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with them."
[The underlined passages are my emphasis - Indira.]
Karl: I begin to understand that the author of Capital did not have in mind the restoration of "die ganze alte Scheisse" (Marx) of need, want and poverty. To hang around like a Threepenny Opera "beggar", like a "lumpen-dramatist", was surely not Brecht's Marxist goal, and is not in accordance with the role of a socialist revolutionary in capitalism, who wants to emancipate her/himself and all workers, including the bourgeoisie, from the exploitation, domination, discrimination and alienation of the global, capitalist system.
William: I'm happy that you are dealing with crucial questions today. May I ask a very serious and honest question with reference to the "anti-communism", nurtured in North America during the Cold War period, and which most of its citizens, consciously or subconsciously, have swallowed as ideological stereotypes, hook and sinker?
Coseino: No problem, that's why we're here, analysing body and mind control, in nuce: Ideology.
Frantz: I'm a newcomer. I came all the way from Algeria to attend your classes. One thing is sure, I take the concept "radical", from its very "radix", from its roots. I've been listening to all the contributions made in our Philosophy Seminar, also I have participated in many a discussion with a wide variety of interesting people, especially from North America. However, I can't help to make the following observations.
I noticed, that we all have been massively confronted with the latest variants of the affirmation of this globalized system, and also with brushed up older theories, of course, ranging from Conspiracy Theory, Mind Control, "Satanism", New World Order and "Free Emancipatory Energy for All" to good ol' Adam Smith's "Good Capitalism".
I agree, that an honest attempt has been made to explain the shortcomings of this capitalist system. However, In none of the above mentioned "theories" you will find one single, true, system-negating element, not even in a classical Marxist sense! Can anybody explain to me, why is this so, please?
Indira: You are not alone with your observations, Frantz, some of us also noticed exactly, what you have just described, and made critical remarks in this same direction.
In the "theories" you mentioned right
now, you will find all sorts of religious and
mystic elements, a general aversion against philosophy,
which is regarded as a useless "mental
exercise", furthermore a basically hostile attitude towards thinking - in
the sense we understand the term -, an inclination towards Formal Logics
and "facts", and a "hopeless" faith in the "reformability" of this "best-of-all
systems", of Capitalism. Marx, Marxists and Marxism -- condemned by the
laureated "experts", and by those who never read and understood a single
line of Marx's works, by the very same who repeat over and over that Marx
is "obsolete" -- are simply Satan, Satanists and Satanism, respectively.
- What an ignorance and arrogance, what a&nnbsp; bottom line, my country(wo)men!
Mahatma: Let me help in explaining this, Indira. In a way, after having experienced and learnt so much in life, being a natural, home-grown product of the so-called "Third World", I came to the same conclusion as you and Frantz, and I have very little patience for mediocrity, like all of us. In addition, based on my experience in North America, I have come to understand the culture, ideology and essence of the true thinking potential of even the so-called "progressive" left critics or "Marxist" analysts.
Indira: But, Mahatma, before you continue, I want to point out, that there is, however, a most educative and sometimes even fascinating aspect of this all: In our discussions with others, we get to know with utmost precision how the system operates, how it indoctrinates and ideologizes, and to what extent it is making use of ideas and thoughts, that seem related to us. In no way I am saying this to "downgrade" any discussion member or progressive, independent thinker, that make their honest attempt of analysis.
Mahatma: Agreed, Indira. Of course, we don't need to up- or downgrade anybody. We all are already "down-graded" by the very global system!
Karl: Mahatma, could you explain to us in detail, what exactly you mean, please? I can imagine you would want to refer to the communists as specifically perceived in North America during the Cold War era, and how thus, the "commie" ideologically became a bogey-man in the North American way of "thinking".
Mahatma: Karl, exactly, you are anticipating my thoughts! As we all know, the problem of a majority of North Americans, particularly since the advent of the formation of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc already decades ago, is, that the ruling classes in the U.S have used the "bogeyman" of communism to indoctrinate, ideologize, "educate" and control the minds and intellect of who ever fell prey to the propaganda underlying the fear of an external threat to the security and "democracy" of the "free world". Within this ambit one can deduce remnants of theory, philosophy and ideology that are so imbedded in their brains, that not even the so-called "progressives" can liberate themselves from this mental fogginess, which clouds their visions and their interpretation of any given subject.
Frantz: Is that, why North Americans see so many UFO's and Martian creatures on the 4th of July, year-in and year-out?
Mahatma: Exactly, Frantz. So it is no wonder, that only Americans see UFO's, "Big Foot" "aliens" etc. They are, for ideological reasons, the only ones on this planet, that feel, that somebody out there is out to "get them," whether natural or supernatural.
Most recently, after the fall of Eastern Europe, it was the Iranians, the Palestinians, then the Iraqis and all other Arabs, that were "out to get them". Again, not long ago at the end of last year, North Americans proved that they cannot live without the "external fear factor." Every single conceivable medium of communication was a sea of information of "Arab terrorists" ready to destroy the American way of life. It was such an orgy of mind deceit, that even the "sane" fell for this indoctrination.
The vast majority of North Americans
have always culturally cultivated this "bogey-fear." Not surprisingly, they
cannot surpass themselves in thinking. Not many of them have ever had any
alternative critical "counter-spin" or "system-negating element" that would
truly interpret and analyse the scientific base of their society, that is,
of capitalism and exploitation. This is what I have called the missing
link in their comments, which by and large are very mediocre, and
which I resist to follow, as they're never to the point.
And now, Indira, to get to the gist of your
comments, that is, the conscious or subconscious affirmation of the system
in their analysis, is head on. For the reasons I provided above, they cannot
liberate themselves, as Bob Marley so eloquently put it, from any form of
"mental slavery."
Coseino: It is precisely mental slavery, William, Frantz, Karl, Mahatma, and Indira, that we are trying to overcome with the help of our philosophy seminars. And, in the words of Martin Luther King: "We shall overcome", as long as we remain with our detective spirit that brings to our emancipatory light each and every lie of the system.
That's all for today! In future classes,
we'll deliberate all these contributions, within the framework of our logical
method, science and philosophy. As I informed you already, I am leaving
tomorrow on a trialogical, transhistoric, transgalactic research tour, and
will be back around the 4th of July, ready for the emancipatory fireworks.
Meanwhile conscientiously study, act, think and excel our Science and Philosophy
and Wisdom.
(Coseino looks at himself, and thinks: If a "Communist" eats little children, then, in the eyes of "bogeymanism", what a blood-sucking dragon he, Coseino himself, must be? However, communists are "common" everywhere, they use their "common sense".)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We include an invaluable
contribution from our Pandemonium Member, Bill:
[ Hi! Franz:
No matter how much you apologize for the "loser", very passe' philosophy of Marxism, you'll never save it, resuscitate it, or show how it was ever anything except a philosophy promulgated by the Illuminati to create a world of dichotomy, one-half slave-state, the other pseudo-capitalist, financed by world bankers, so that the elite could reap huge profits selling merchandise between the two. They planned to buy cheap manufactures and materials from the slave state, and sell them at huge profits to the other half of the dichotomy. It didn't work out, so the Marxist toilet was flushed and Russia will eventually become a free-market economy. Marx proved that he knew nothing about capitalism. His definitions and diatribes were meaningless mumbo-jumbo meant to mesmerize a bunch of disenchanted pseudo-intellectuals into thinking there was a real hope represented by it. All it succeeded in producing was a shared poverty, with a new elite. Communist society was not defeated externally. It imploded from disillusionment and demoralization, because it was no competition for the free-market economy.
Bill Lyne ]
[Hi! Bill!
Thanks for your comments;
I'll include your letter as appendix to the published
dialogue.
Warmest Greetings,
Franz. ]