History, Dialectics, Totalization

Dialectical Reason is essential a principle of Totalization--the contradictions that are its motor are internal, and are expressions of insufficiency and partiality, e. g. Class Conflict.  On its basis, therefore, History is a process of Totalization.  However, any such concept of History ignores and fails to accommodate evidence of alternative processes, e. g. population growth expresses Diversification, which, formally, is the inverse of Totalization.  Furthermore, while subsequent to Marx himself, but at the disposal of his successors, are concepts of Humankind as exceeding Totalization, e. g. as preceding a higher evolutionary stage, or as becoming extra-terrestrial.  So, yoking Socialism to Dialectical Materialism arguably compromises the former, as History after Marx has tended to demonstrate.

Dialectical Materialism and Socialism

Marx derives Dialectical Materialism as follows.  First, according to Hegel, Mental processes necessarily tend towards Totalization, via a synthesis of opposites.  Second, Mind is Material.  Therefore, the internal dynamic of Matter is Dialectical.  So, applied to Society, the elimination of Classes is inevitable, with Socialism the result.  Now, the main weakness in the derivation is the dogmatic reduction of Mind to Matter, not only because the thesis is only one of several familiar varieties of their relation, but also because it accepts the traditional concepts of each.  Furthermore, evidence of Dialectical Materialism is lacking, e. g. the concept of sexual activity as a 'synthesis of opposites' is inadequate, since in combination with the resultant, the sequence better evinces a pattern of Diversification, rather than one of Totalization.  So, the imposition of Dialectical Materialism on History is not only questionable, but obscures the most compelling argument for Socialism--that it corrects the injustice in Capitalism that profit is stealing.

Progressive History, Experimental Reason, Teleology

Hume's concept of past conjunction, a-temporal as is, can be extended to constituents of  a diachronic development.  So, from the latter, a projection of a pattern into the future is also a continuation of it.  Now, such a projection can, further, involve a value judgment of it, as well as, an assessment of how to implement it.  Thus, for example, Globalization is a thesis that includes: 1. Observation of increasing Human integration and control over the planet; 2. A projection that continued increase will eventuate in the establishment of a Cosmopolis; 3. An evaluation of that consequence; and 4. A determination of a course of action based on that evaluation, e. g. whether or not to promote it.  Such a concept of History can be called 'Progressive', and, since nothing beyond #1 is certain, can be analyzed as entailing Experimental Reason. In contrast, according to orthodox Dialectical History, the transition from an observation of past events to eventual totalization is unitary and Necessary, i. e. is Teleological.  To date, the accuracy of Dialectical History is questionable.

Dialectical Necessity as Amphetamine for the Masses

Marx, of course, conceives History as human-made, but, apparently, not in the same way that they manufacture goods.  For the former, but not clearly the latter, is governed by Dialectical Necessity, according to his concept.  Thus, for example, given inclement conditions, someone could build shelter, possibly a log cabin, possibly a tent, with the success of the result uncertain, e. g. the edifice might leak.  Similarly, given an oppressive, unjust, decadent society, a rebellion might ensue, with uncertain consequences, e. g. France in the late 18th-century.  In contrast, according to the Marxist concept of History, transitions from Class Conflict, to Class Consciousness, to Revolution, to Socialism, are each expressions of Dialectical Necessity.  But, that the immanence of that pattern in the course of events distinguishes it from traditional mystification, e. g. from the unfolding of a divine plan, does not suffice to prove that it is essential to the establishment of Socialism.  Accordingly, his thesis of Dialectical Necessity seems to function for him as an amphetamine for the masses.

Making History

Hume's analysis of Causality exposes the latter's traditionally entailed concept of 'Necessity' as habitual expectation.  But, within his own doctrine, while a sense-datum, e. g. a color, might be passively experienced, as his term 'Impression' subtly connotes, neither Habit nor Expectation merely befalls one.  So, perhaps unwittingly, he exposes the error in the traditional implication that Causality is merely a passively observed happening.  Now, Determinist theories of History also entail Necessity.  Thus, from Hume can be derived the challenge to those theories--that History does not happen, but is made.  Furthermore, absent Necessity, the outcome of such making is not guaranteed in advance.

Expectation, Empiricism, Habit

According to Hume, the pivotal component of his concept of Causality--the expectation that the Future will resemble the Past--is a 'habit'.  Now, the ostensible function for him of that derivation is to counter the Rationalist premise that the source of Causal judgments is Reason.  However, he seems unaware that it also suggests a fundamental shortcoming in his methodology.  For, according to his Empiricism, all non-Analytical Knowledge originates in Sense Impressions.  Now, a Sense Impression occurs in the Present.  But, Expectation connotes the Future.  Thus, Expectation cannot be explained by a Sense Impression alone.  Now, Habit is a species of Practice, independent of any mode of Cognition.  Thus, if 'Expectation' is meaningful in Hume's formulation, it can only be as derived from the Practical dimension of Experience, not, as his Empiricism entails, from the Cognitive one.

History and the Future

As has been previously discussed, the 'American exception' to Marxist analysis constitutes a counter-example to the theory of History entailed in the latter.  Now, underlying that disproof is a simple premise that has been typically obscured in even the most prominent of its articulations.  For, the standard representation of Hume's concept of Causality--"'A causes B' = 'A and B' are perceived as constantly conjoined'"-glosses over its precise formulation--"'A causes B' = 'A and B have in the past been perceived as constantly conjoined, and the constant conjunction is expected to continue in the future'".  In turn, presupposed by the weaker 'expectation' is the stronger premise that the future is inherently uncertain.  So, at the heart of Marxism is not merely a denial of that premise, but an evasion of it shared by even non-Marxist Philosophies.

Cosmopolis and War

In a Cosmopolis, intra-species war will likely be a thing of the past, but not necessarily because humans have become perpetually peaceable.  Rather, since the group identifications, e. g. national, religious, that have usually determined the pre-conditions of hostilities, may become as quaint as a war between cities has become.  But, more important, any Cosmopolitical conflict will be internal, and, hence, a jurisprudential problem, either civil or criminal, as is foreshadowed by the concept of International Law, and by tribunals such as those at Nuremberg.  Thus, for example, the classification of the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks as 'criminals', rather than as 'enemies', expresses a Cosmopolitical orientation, rather than a Nationalistic one.

Individual and Cosmocitizen

As is clear in Logic, 'Individual' is a Quantifier, and, hence, grammatically, it is a modifier that presupposes a type that it quantifies.  Accordingly, any concept of 'the individual' qua independent of any collective category is fictional.  So, for example, the concept of an inherent antithesis between Individual Right and General Good is inadequate insofar as it abstracts from an Individual's membership in some other Genus.  Now, Hume and Kant each implicitly expresses recognition of such superficiality.  The former's concept of Self, usually overshadowed by his image of 'bundle', is based on identification with some more or less localized collective with whom one sympathizes, while for the latter, the only constitutive concept of the 'I' is an instantiation of the Universal 'Practical Rational Being'.  Accordingly, a primary challenge to the cultivation of Cosmocitizenship, which, as has been previously discussed, is a significant dimension of ongoing Globalization, is not to reconcile 'the individual' with an incipient world order--it is to loosen entrenched identification with less comprehensive groups, e. g. Race, Nation, Religion, etc.  To that end, for example, stoking nationalistic fervor is counter-productive, and is inconsistent with Pluralistic foreign policy.

Cosmopolitics and Political Philosophy of the Future

While in current parlance, 'cosmopolitan' usually connotes 'worldly', suggesting a local familiarity with culture elsewhere, for Kant, it has more in common with the image of a 'global village', i. e. with the concept of a world-wide social organization.  Accordingly, as Globalization continues, the principles of Cosmopolitics as a Political Philosophy of the Future are beginning to more concretely emerge.  Thus, for example, the ruling body is likely to resemble a United Nations with universal jurisdictional powers, a primary aim of which is the overcoming of decades, centuries, and even millennia of divisions. A significant dimension of such a goal is likely to be the cultivation of Cosmocitizens, via Geopolitical programs, in which even Nietzsche's projection of experimental Miscegenation, not to breed a 'superior race', but to neutralize chronic racial and ethnic hate, might find a place.

American Exceptionalism, Counter-Example, Experiment

Put more strongly and more precisely, what Lovestone characterizes as the American 'exception' to traditional Marxist analysis amounts to a counter-example to the entailed concept of History, and, hence, a disproof of it.  Furthermore, in America's past is the potential basis for an alternative concept of History--Washington's description of it as an "experiment", which could apply to both the revolt against the British, and the choice of the new construction as a Democracy, rather than as a Monarchy.  Experimental Reason recognizes and incorporates what is suppressed in Dialectal Reason as inevitable--the uncertainty of any transition from one set of conditions to another.  But, Reactionary-ism is not exclusive to Marxism, as the continued American Capitalist insistence on the 'intentions of the Founding Fathers', that conveniently ignores their Experimentalism, demonstrates.

Ethics and Cosmopolitanism

While Aristotle conceives Ethics and Political Philosophy as complementary doctrines, in Medieval thought, the former has priority.  For, in that era, the former is conceived as governing the Soul, the latter as governing the Body, and the Soul as superior to the Body.  Now, that order of rank is not necessarily determined by explicit Theological premises, e. g. it is also a consequence of Kant's priority of Noumenon over Phenomenon.  But, Kant's system also entails another priority--Universal over Individual, which does not necessarily presuppose Soul-Body dualism.  Thus, in his writings on History, as well in the Moral writings of Hume and Hegel, a different, concrete contrast begins to emerge--that of Universal social organization to Particular ones.  On that basis, the Ethics-Politics distinction is that of Cosmopolitanism to Tribalism, Civicism, and Nationalism, as is, therefore, the traditional priority.  In other words, concrete Ethics and Cosmopolitanism are one and the same. 

Globalization and Transcendence

It is from the perspective of the species that Globalization is conceived as a process of Integration.  But, from the perspective of the parts of the species, e. g. nations, and their members, it is experienced as Transcendence.  For, to 'transcend', stripped of its usual Ontological or Theological exaggeration, is to surpass some given, and the transitions from Tribe to City to Nation to Cosmopolis each surpasses some status quo.  Now, the concept of Human Universality has been impelling these transitions for centuries, to greater and lesser degrees of abstraction.  So, what is distinctive about the most recent phases of History is that Globalization has been becoming more and more concrete, e. g. the Internet, the United Nations, rapidity of transportation, etc.

American Leadership

The concept of American Exceptionalism, most recently often used to validate military aggression in support of some Economic interests, is a short-sighted version of what can be called 'American Leadership'.  According to the latter, because of its original rootlessness, America is in a unique position to usher the rest of the world in the Globalization that has emerged as the primary theme of human History.  On that basis, its challenge is to promote the ideal both elsewhere and at home, e. g. to intervene in sectarian violence abroad, as well as to set an example by resolving domestic discord.  Plainly, in the fulfillment of that role, the U. S. is a work-in-progress, the rate of which is contingent on the scope of the visions of its own rulers.

American Exceptionalism

In contemporary parlance, 'American Exceptionalism' usually connotes a superiority that validates unilateral action.  Now, the concept originates with de Tocqueville, in reference to the nation's birth in revolution and its Democratic construction.  However, the popularity of the phrase itself can be traced to its use by the Marxist Lovestone, in the 1920s, to argue that America is immune to the doctrinaire Communist projection of an inevitable internal dissolution, thereby drawing the enmity of Stalinists.  Thus, implicit in the revival of the expression in the 1980s is that the more recent American distinctiveness is the result of the 'defeat' of the Soviet Union due to massive increases in Defense spending,  Hence, as subsequent Foreign policy has often been demonstrating, the phrase now represents shifts in the concept of America--from Liberation to Aggression, and from Democracy to Capitalism.

General Will and History

Rousseau's 'General Will' is often interpreted Atomistically, i. e. as an expression of a consensus of Individuals, analogous to a Hobbesian Sovereign.  Now, one under-appreciated alternative is suggested by the decidedly non-political Schopenhauer--that the General Will is fundamentally a species drive, independent of its members, which Kant, Hegel, and Marx gloss as 'Reason', of one variety or another.  On that basis, the Democratization that Rousseau inspires constitutes a moment in the development of the species, whether as part of a Will to Live, or even of a Will to Grow.  Accordingly, even if it is not codified until the works of his successors, the modern concept of a human History that is more than a mere narrative first emerges with Rousseau's General Will.

Trickle-Down Economics

"Trickle-down Economics", a term popularized by Will Rogers, and, subsequently, often used by commentators to characterize Capitalism, is rarely employed by theorists of the latter.  Nevertheless, it is applicable to a set of propositions often appearing in their theories, designed to explain the political benefit of Capitalism, i. e. how the wealth acquired by a few can reach the many.  Now, such an explanation is susceptible to two main types of challenge: first, that the success of the New Deal in America demonstrates that Capitalism is not the most effective means to a general Economic Good; and, second, that the wealth bestowed upon the many is, in fact, theirs, as the source of the labor that first created, to begin with, for which it is very inadequate as compensation.  So, lost in the contemporary usage of "Trickle-down Economics" is Rogers' sarcasm, the target of which, i. e. the ungrounded thesis that the wealth of individuals is therein extended to that of a nation, has rarely been conscientiously addressed by recent Capitalists.

The Purpose of Supply-Side Economics

Demand-side Economics can easily be conceived as a means to the provision of sustenance goods to all members of a society, and, hence, to the strength of the latter.  In contrast, the Good of Supply-side seems less concrete.  For, for example, its recent advocates tout it as an effective counter-measure to Inflation, which, while superficially seeming beneficial to somebody, is typically further justified only by its systematic relation to other abstract formulations.  Now, most of those advocates also both conceive Full Employment as promoting Inflation, and oppose Government subsidies of the needy.  Hence, whatever the purpose of Supply-side Economics might be, it is difficult to identify it with that of Demand-side Economics, and, so, the standard representation of the two as rivals to one and the same end is misleading, at minimum.

Supply-side and Demand-side

The strongest collectivity entails the maximum well-being of each of its members.  Hence, an 'Economy' is the organized effort to satisfy fundamental needs, e. g. food, shelter, etc.  So, since the production of goods in an Economy, as defined, is determined by physiological necessity, the system can be classified as 'Demand-side', which does not preclude competition as an effective means to that end.  On that basis, 'Supply-side' Economics, i. e. in which Supply determines Demand, pertains to an inessential sphere of social activity, regardless of how refined arguments promoting it are, e. g. the Lafler Curve.  Thus, Supply-side categories should not be conflated with Demand-side ones, e. g. subsuming someone seeking life-saving medicine under the same 'Consumer' rubric as someone shopping for a Rolls-Royce.  Such confusion, rampant in contemporary United States, and is a symptom of Political weakness. 

Revolution, History, Leadership

Comparisons of Rousseau and Marx usually focus on topics such as Equality and Property.  Less examined is the bearing of the former on the latter's concept of History.  Now, even though Rousseau does not explicitly incite rebellion, his writings unarguably inspire the French Revolution.  Hence, they are a part of the history of the latter.  Likewise, explicitly provocative, Marx' writings are part of the history of Communism.  But, even as moments of an individual's arrival at a collective consciousness, they still precede similar awakenings in his readers. In other words, within that revolutionary Egalitarian movement is a temporal ordering between writer and audience, i. e. between Leader and Followers, from which Marx' concept of History abstracts.

Invisible Hand and General Will

Some have proposed that as an organizing principle of a society, Smith's 'Invisible Hand' is influenced by an analogous concept introduced by another Hume ally--Rousseau's 'General Will'.  If so, then, while each may be trans-personal, it is Rousseau's idea that is better grounded in Humean methodology.  For, as has been previously discussed, even when stripped of its metaphorical features, Smith's image transgresses Empiricism, i. e. it presumes to express a 'law' that is inherent in social interaction.  In contrast, General Will can be derived from Universal Sympathy, which Hume accepts as a sense-datum.  So, a Smith-Rousseau comparison is perhaps disadvantageous to the former, highlighting the essential passivity entailed in his famous image.

Empiricism and the Invisible Hand

The Capitalist concept of an 'invisible hand of the market' violates Empiricist methodology in three ways.  First, Invisibility is precluded from a system in which the knowledge of any entity is rooted in sense experience.  Second, granting that the Smith's image mis-connotes the 'Law of Supply and Demand', it still abstracts from the Empiricist concept of a 'law' as no more than a past perceived regularity.  Finally, according to the methodology, perceived regularity is a product of an association of independent elements, a connection which, writ large, is actively effected, e. g. via a contract.  So, the intervention of Government in the determination of Market Value is more consistent with Empiricism than is passive submission to the vicissitudes of an impersonal 'law', even conceived as perceived regularity. 

Skepticism and Capitalism

Insofar as Smith is influenced by Hume, Wealth of Nations is open to interpretation as a writ large expression of Skepticism.  Now, while the latter is often presented as a self-subsistent Epistemological theory, its internal incoherence, i. e. it is destabilized by its entailed Skepticism of Skepticism, is an indication of a transitional phase.  Thus, for example, for Kant, it offers a transition from Dogmatic Rationalism to Critical Rationalism, while, more radically, for Pragmatists, it constitutes part of a maturation from Knowledge qua given, to Knowledge qua artefactual, e. g. the results of experimentation.  Likewise, absent the recourse to the groundless 'invisible hand' premise, Smith's invention effects no more than a dissolution of Feudal society, with a concrete still alternative lacking.  For Marx, Socialism is that alternative, but his interpretation of Capitalism as the pivotal negative moment en route to it is complicated, if not compromised, by Dialecticism, through which he is convinced of the inevitability of that outcome.  In any case, the corrosive influence on American society of Capitalists such as Libertarians and the Tea Party can be interpreted as skepticism writ large.

Capitalism, Socialism, Selfhood

Self-Interest may function as a fundamental element in Capitalist theory, but the concept of 'self' that is at Smith's disposal is hardly simple--Hume's 'bundle of perception'.  In contrast, Marx is the beneficiary of Kant's and Hegel's contributions to the topic--'Self-Affection' and 'Recognition', respectively--the common theme of which is the transformability of a Humean 'bundle' via the active contribution to it.  In other words, according to these innovations, one can alter oneself by being the cause of constituents that constitute one's 'self'.  To Marx, the significance of that possibility is that one can change oneself via one's Labor, with respect to the result of which a Capitalist 'individual' is, to put it most charitably, an underdeveloped stage.  But, the intervening development is more than one of degree--the Hume/Smith 'self' is passively determined, while Marx's is self-determining.  Hence, the transformation can be characterized as 'empowerment' or 'maturation', or perhaps more epochally, a transition from Homo Sapiens to Homo Faber.  150 years later, a Capitalist response remains forthcoming.

Competition and Dialectics

Competition and Dialectics, the internal motors of Capitalism and Marxism, respectively, can be conceived as two varieties of Conflict.  On that basis, the primary difference between them is that the resultant of the former is selective, i. e. a 'winner', while that of the latter is a sublating synthesis.  So, one the ironies of actual events is that Socialism has proven to be a formidable rival to Capitalism, supplying an economic organization for which there has been strong demand.  Another is that in its current phase, Dialectical History has arrived at a hybrid of Capitalism and Socialism, in which, contrary to the visions of both their founders, the latter has become pervasively incorporated only nationally, while internationally, the former is the more vital of the two.  But, despite the silly declaration of the Capitalist Fukuyama that the species has arrived at the 'end of history', its development remains a work-in-progress, so any final evaluation of the two systems seems premature.

Capitalism, Socialism, Psychology

Also under-recognized in the more than a century of Capitalism-Socialism struggle is a sharp difference of Psychological theories.  According to Smith, an individual seeks to optimize profit, which entails maximizing gain with minimum expense.  Thus, for example, Government assistance, e. g. Unemployment Benefits, is often, especially in the U. S., interpreted as encouraging laziness and the avoidance of edifying work.  In contrast, Marx, influenced by Hegel, and anticipating Nietzsche, believes that a fundamental human drive is to transform its environment, the process of which is the essence of 'Labor'.  Accordingly, his concept of 'alienation from the fruits of one's labor' is primarily Psychological, not Economic, and to which a wage is never commensurate.  Thus, for example, the Capitalist complaint about Government Assistance is based on two erroneous Psychological propositions--that humans tend towards laziness, and that a job is necessarily edifying.  But, his Criticism of the Capitalist model is not simply that it is false.  Rather, he agrees that it is appropriate to a Capitalist system, as applied to the concept of 'Individual' that is implicit in that system, but it is inadequate to the more highly-developed Socialist 'Individual', i. e. to someone living in a more a highly-developed society.  A Capitalist response to that criticism remains forthcoming, primarily because, in the past century or so, the battle has rarely been engaged at an intellectual level.

Labor, Value, Individual

In Capitalism, the Value of Labor, like that of any commodity, is at least in part determined by Supply and Demand.  Thus, even when a wage is negotiated between an employer and employee, in most cases, the result is conditioned by factors outside that specific context, e. g. the availability of rival employees.  In contrast, Marx argues that the fundamental determinant of compensation for Labor should be the exertion of the Laborer that transforms material into a profitable commodity.  So, contrary to the reputations of the two systems, especially in the U. S., it is Socialism, not Capitalism, that better promotes the interests of the Individual.

Supply, Demand, Justice

A 'just' exchange consists in at least three conditions obtaining for each of the parties involved: 1. Transparency; 2. Voluntariness; and 3. Equity for each between a) the value of the given item, and b) the value of the recieved item.  So, among the ways that an exchange is not 'just' are, correspondingly, it involves an obscured fact, one of the parties is acting under duress, or, one of the parties exerts themselves more than the other.  Now, whether or not Supply-Demand Equilibrium can be characterized as 'just' is unclear.  For, while an exchange between two parties can be conceived as achieving SDE, and, if all three conditions are met, the SDE is 'just', Market Value is determined by factors that far exceed the parameters of an exchange between two parties.  So, in that case, not only is the satisfaction of all three conditions problematic, it is unclear that the model of a just exchange can even be applied to scenarios determined by Market Value.  Thus, the inference, implicit in Capitalism since Smith, and common in the popular imagination, from SDE to Justice, i. e. to the influence of the 'invisible hand of the market', is questionable, at the very least.

Labor and Value

Obscured by over a century of subsequent political hysteria, nearly culminating in a nuclear war, is the analytical heart of Marx' criticism of Wealth of Nations--the Value of Labor, Smith's concept of which is both unjust and immoral, according to Marx.  It is unjust, argues Marx, because the true measure of Labor is the profitability of its products, not, as Smith, holds, its market Value, with the substitution of the latter for the former amounting to a cheating of a laborer.  It is immoral, because by treating them as commodities, it dehumanizes laborers.  A further flaw, unaddressed by Marx, is methodological.  For, Smith implicitly argues that 1. Market Value is the resultant of Supply and Demand; 2. Thus, Market Value expresses an equilibrium; 3. Thus, Market Value is just; and 4. Therefore, the Market Value of Labor is just.  However, regardless of the questionable truth-values of #2 and #3, the inference from the former, a descriptive proposition, to the latter, a normative judgment, is invalid according to Smith's own Empiricist principles, and, hence, so, too, is his conclusion.  Now, that lacuna could explain why Marx' criticism has apparently never been treated with intellectual dignity, while, Marxism's commitment to sometimes violent historical processes likely compounds the indignity.

Competition and Value

The value of Competition is not as unconditional as Capitalists since Smith have taken it to be.  To begin with, in the least controversial case, its goodness is a function of that of a product to which it gives rise.  But, more often than not, its yield is merely a novelty, while Need is often the ground of a truly useful innovation.  Furthermore, its value is conditioned by the profit motive, according to Smith's Psychology, and, so, any inherent relation to any additional utility is lacking in his system.  So, absent any such relation, Competition is merely a mode of antagonism, and hardly suitable as a fundamental factor in a strong society.