Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Socialism and Evolutionism

There have been two main groundings of Socialism--that it is the inevitable outcome of Dialectical Materialism, and that it corrects the de-humanization of Capitalism.  The first is of dubious value, since Marx-Engels frequently represent Socialism as voluntaristic, and, hence, as transcending a Necessity such as that process.  The limitation of the second is that it pertains to the Good of the Members of a Society, without addressing that of the whole of a Society.  In contrast, a derivation of Socialism from Evolutionism is as follows: The Good of an Organism is Health.  The Health of an Organism entails the Health of each of its Parts.  A Species is an Organism, the Members of which are its Parts.  The Health of an Organism is dependent on the beneficial factors in its environment.  Thus, the Health of an Organism entails that each of its Parts benefits from such environmental factors.  Likewise, the Health of a Species entails that each of its Members benefits from environmental goods.  But, only Socialism guarantees such universal benefiting.  Therefore, Socialism is the best Economic system from an Evolutionist perspective.

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Evolutionism, Monotheism, History

The best evidence suggests that there have been two main periods in human history.  First, given that the species is generally believed to have originated at a single location, and later achieved a worldwide presence, a diaspora constitutes an initial era.  Second, there has been a planetary solidification of those scattered humans, as tribes, as basic units of organization, have become cities, provinces, nations, continents, and, currently in progress, a cosmopolity.  Now, a significant factor in this second main period has been the emergence of Monotheism, which, because of the focus on what it entails regarding the nature of Deity, is sometimes under-appreciated as also entailing and effecting a unification of the race.  So, beyond the not insignificant question of the origin of the human species, Evolutionism and Monotheism are not in much disagreement about the general patterns of subsequent History.

Monday, November 28, 2016

Evolutionism, Marxism, Anthropocentrism

Necessity entails omnipotence, i. e. the absence of resistance.  Thus, the thesis that Dialectical Materialism determines Human History by Necessity entails the omnipotence of the process. However, according to Evolutionism, the History of a Species is at least partly determined by the resistance of an environment.  Thus, Evolutionism exposes the unexamined Anthropocentrism of Marxism.

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Evolutionism, Organism, Political Philosophy

The subject of the evolutionary process, according to the theory, is a Species, which, as is, is open to either a Platonist or a Nominalist interpretation, i. e. a unit or a multiplicity.  However, the apparent antithesis is simply, and appropriately, resolved, by conceiving a Species as an Organism, i. e. as a structured multiplicity.  Now, the structure of the members of most species is often plainly evident, e. g. the formation of birds in flight, and is easily attributable to an instinct.  In contrast, as is the case with many Human features, that instinct is somewhat deficient, forcing the race to construct its own structure, the process of which is commonly known as 'Political Philosophy'.  So, in other words, from the perspective of Evolutionism, any Political Philosophy the foundational unit of which is an individual person is fundamentally mis-conceived.

Saturday, November 26, 2016

Political Philosophy and Evolutionism

Though some version of Evolutionary Theory is now widely accepted, its implications for Political Philosophy have rarely been considered.  To begin with, if the thesis is that Human History is an episode in Natural History, then any pattern of events in the former must be derived from the principles that govern the latter, e. g. Survival, Adaptation, Variation, Mutation, etc.  Accordingly, the goal of the formation of a Polity must be derived from some such principle.  Furthermore, the fundamental subject of the episode is the Species, so any positing of its individual members as foundations of a Polity, including attributes such as 'freedom', 'right', etc., is, as is, ungrounded.  In other words, Evolutionism invalidates Modern Political Philosophy, as well as its Contemporary successors, to the extent that they accept the undermined premises of their predecessors.

Friday, November 25, 2016

History, Happiness, Power

According to the standard model in the Modern Era, the function of the formation of a Polity is to maximize the pursuit of Happiness of the Individual.  But, historicizing this process re-conceives the latter as having being liberated from preceding Oligarchical conditions, in the context of which entering into collaborative construction with others can, thus, be interpreted as in itself a process of Empowerment.  Now, Kantian Autonomy reflects a recognition of that historical development.  However, he is unable to completely jettison the pursuit of Happiness as a fundamental motivation, leaving him needing to combine the two goals as the telos of History, i. e. a Happiness that humans make for themselves, not one that is merely fortuitous.  Marx, too, rejects fortuitous Happiness as a complement to human Labor in the achievement of his concept of a goal of History, but replaces it with Necessary Happiness, i. e. Dialectical resolution.  In contrast with both, Nietzsche eliminates the complementary factor, with the result that Empowerment is the sole principle of these Historical developments, with Happiness nothing distinct from that principle, i. e. he conceives it as a concomitant of Power.

Thursday, November 24, 2016

History and Species

Kant and Marx agree that History is converging on a solidification of the human species. According to the former, the motor of that History is Nature, while according to the latter, it is Dialectical Materialiism.  Thus, neither considers that it is the Species itself.  The likely reason for that neglect is that each accepts the traditional premise that the individual member of the species is given as such.  But, that premise is preempted by that of the concept of the Individual as a part of the Species, which entails the re-conceiving of the Individual as the product of a process of Diversification, thereby transforming the concept of History

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

Nationalism, Planetarism, World Wide Web

The recent U. S. election and Brexit seem to be indicative of a Nationalist resistance to Trans-Nationalism.  However, the Trans-Nationalism of these is primarily Capitalist Globalism.  Instead, a more pervasive Planetary phenomenon is the World Wide Web, which constitutes a de facto cosmo-community.  Accordingly, a better indication of the current Nationalism-Planetarism antagonism is the increasingly familiar sight of people walking around absorbed in mobile telecommunication devices, oblivious to immediate spatio-temporal events.  It will be in the resolution of this conflict that the concrete transition to a Cosmopolity, likely to take centuries, will consist in, of which traditional 'political' phenomena will be derivative manifestations, e. g. the arrival at a settled universal Economic system.

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

Nature and the End of History

As has been previously discussed, a Kantian Cosmopolity may be 'peaceful' only because 'war' is defined as a conflict between independent Nations, and such independence has been absorbed into the pervasive body.  Furthermore, such Peace does not entail a cessation of hostilities that are unbeknownst to Kant--worldwide Class-Conflict, a condition that is not only a fundamental feature of Marxism, but is exemplified in the current process of Globalization.  However, Marxism, too, cannot presume that its Socialist Cosmopolity is conflict-free.  For, according to its own principle of Dialectical Materialism, new antagonisms will be generated from within that condition, as at least some Marxists acknowledge.  Indeed, as only Nietzsche seems to fully recognize, the premise of an insuperable end of History is groundless, and is perhaps wishful thinking in the face of the possibility that Nature is a tenporally indefinite principle.  Even Darwin shrinks from countenancing that, when he subordinates Evolution to Survival.

Monday, November 21, 2016

Cosmopolity, Peace, Conflict

Kant's concept of Perpetual Peace is potentially misleading, if not empty.  For, by Peace, he means the absence of War, and by War, he means a conflict between independent Nations.  But, if Perpetual Peace is a condition of a Cosmopolity, then there are no independent Nations.  So, there can still be conflict at the end of History, except that it is internal to the Cosmopolity, though under the auspices of its jurisprudential system, either Civil or Criminal.  So, the "antagonisms" by means of which, according to Kant, Nature pushes the human race through History to a Cosmopolity, are not thereby, as his term 'Perpetual Peace' seems to connote, permanently eliminated.

Sunday, November 20, 2016

Nature and History

According to Kant, the motor of human history is "Nature", which pushes the species to its goal.  However, just as, as has been previously discussed, his concept of that goal is ambiguous, so, too, correspondingly, is that of Nature.  In both cases, Nature creates "antagonisms", one response to which is a condition of harmony, thereby anticipating the concept of it as Dialectical Materialism.  In contrast, the other response is that humans become proactive in dealing with the situation, i. e. that continued passivity, even on the occasion of happenstance harmonization, is inadequate.  In other words, the second concept of Nature anticipates Darwinian Evolution, and,in particular, Adaptation as the response to an untenable environment.  So, for example, what is 'Natural', in the first sense, about Hobbes' Leviathan is that it replaces War with Peace, but, in the second sense, that humans voluntarily construct the Leviathan, even if they concede their power to it.

Saturday, November 19, 2016

History, Peace, Power

In some passages, it is Peace that Kant posits as the goal of History.  But in others, the goal is to be "worthy" of that Peace, by being its creator.  Now, this priority of Deservedness over Happiness is developed in the 2nd Critique, in passages that are arguably groundlessly designed to make room in his system for the existence of a deity, i. e. as a rewarder of Happiness for having been Virtuous.  So, paring his concept of History of its problematic theological commitment, what remains of the goal of Deservedness is that of Creativity, or, in other words, of the empowerment of humans to determine their own society.  Also, unlike Deservedness, which is the Good of individual Rational beings, universal Empowerment can be conceived as beneficial to the Species qua concrete existent, with respect to which Peace can be an enervating condition.  Analogously, in Marxism, the peace of Socialism can be conceived as de-vitalizing permanent Revolution.

Friday, November 18, 2016

Human Race, History, Rationality

As has been previously discussed, in Kant's system, Rationality and Peace are co-extensive, i. e. universal Rationality and universal Peace are in an Inner-Outer relation.  Likewise, the Cosmopolity that is the telos of History is the appearance of the Kingdom of Ends.  However, there is one discrepancy between the two concepts.  The "cosmopolitan point of view" is also the "standpoint of the human race", entailing the existence of the human race as a concrete unity.  But, there is no corresponding concrete unity in the Kingdom of Ends, which is constituted by only distinct Rational beings.  So, though he briefly envisions a unification of the human race, it is one that transcends the resources of his system, the attainment of which should transform the Atomist presuppositions of the latter.

Thursday, November 17, 2016

Planetary, International, Global, Cosmos

'Planetary' is being used here, rather than apparent synonyms, 'International', or 'Global', because the latter two are inadequate for the purpose.  'International' presupposes 'National', thereby preempting the possibility that the latter is derived from the former.  'Global' avoids that possibility, but its current exclusive association with Capitalism--ironic, given that Smith's doctrine is fundamently Nationalistic, while Marxism transcends such limitations--can easily confuse.  'Cosmopolity' also has some contemporary connative baggage, e. g. a magazine, that only mildly distorts Kant's use of 'Cosmopolitan'.  It is also only slightly misleading, because 'cosmos' means 'world' in a logical, not in a geographical or astronomical, sense.  Still, Cosmopolity is unencumbered enough to adequately signify a potential future Planet-encompassing political unity, into which the United Nations might develop.

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Reproduction, Division of Labor, Dialectical Materialism

According to Marx-Engels, the husband-wife relation is the foundation of Private Property, or, equivalently, Division of Labor, and, hence, Contradiction.  Thus, the foundational Negation of the Negation is the abolition of Private Property, and, equivalently, of Division of Labor.  However, while the result of the former is clear, i. e. the Collectivization of Property, that of the latter is less so.  For, it is unclear what the Negation of the reproductive process might consist in, i. e. unlike Private Property, Reproduction involving two sexes must surely continue.  One possibility is that what is negated is the antagonistic relation between the parties to the reproductive process, leaving a healthier diversification of that labor, e. g. that they are conceived as playing complementary, rather than antagonistic, roles.  On that basis, Dialectical Materialism, in general, can be re-conceived as constituted by complementary moments.  In other words, Marx-Engels do not seem to consider that Dialectic Materialism itself is an underdeveloped version of a process that, upon the achievement of Socialism, reaches full maturity.

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Capitalism, Socialism, Glass Ceiling

Two main manifestations of contemporary 'Sexism'--the treatment of a woman as a sex object, and the 'glass ceiling'--originate in the treatment of women as private property for reproductive purposes.  Now, according to Marx-Engels, that ownership is the foundation of all private property.  Thus, in Socialism, which entails the abolition of private property, there is no such Sexism.  Or, put otherwise, the glass ceiling is peculiar to Capitalism, and the preservation of the latter has priority over the smashing of the former.

Monday, November 14, 2016

Market, Cosmo-Revolution, Planetarism

For Smith, the Market is a national institution.  But, if each Nation has its own Market, and there exists between them at least some interaction, there also exists a World Market.  Now, for Marx-Engels the fundamental Market is a World one.  Thus, only a Cosmo-Revolution, one that spans the entire Market, can give rise to Socialism, which can obtain in only a Cosmopolity.  So, Marxism continues Kant's transition to a Contemporary Planetary Political Philosophy.

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Individual, Nation, Reason

The standard model of Modern Political Philosophy, reflecting its Hobbesian origin, is fundamentally Empiricist--a finite aggregate, i. e. a Nation, of elements unified by associations, e. g. contracts.  However, one systematic problem with the model is that its basic element--the Individual--does not per se exist in that Empiricism, e. g. Hume's bundle of perceptions.  Addressing and solving that problem waits for Kant, for whom the unity of the Individual originates in Pure Practical Reason, i. e. the Rational Agent, as defined by the Fundamental Priciple of Pure Practical Reason.  But, such an Individual is a member of an infinite Universe of such Agents, linked by mutual respect, not mere association. It is thus a member of a society that transcends a finite one like a Nation.  In other words, Kant's critique of the Modern Nationalist Individual initiates a transition to a new concept of the Individual, one which can be characterized as Contemporay and Planetary, spanning an era that is still in progress.

Saturday, November 12, 2016

Political Freedom and Psychological Freedom

Perhaps Kant's most important contribution to Modern Political Philosophy is rarely recognized as such--an implicit critique of the prevailing concept of 'freedom'.  According to that concept, one is 'free' when one's conduct is not subject to the will of another.  In contrast, according to Kant, Freedom is, most fundamentally, a psychological condition that entails mastery of one's impulses.  Thus, mere political 'freedom' is neither a necessary or a sufficient condition of psychological Freedom.  In other words, for example, the 'pursuit of happiness', a treasured 'freedom' in the U. S., can consist in conditioned, i. e. unfree, behavior.

Friday, November 11, 2016

Individual and Nation

Over the centuries, the basic political unit has expanded from City, to Province or County, to Nation, and currently, to Planet.  At each transition, there is a dissolution of the smaller unit, followed by an integration of an aggregate of the constituents of the recently dissolved units.  So, for example, Modern Political Philosophy, spanning Hobbes, Locke, Spinoza, and Rousseau, most notably, is fundamentally Nationalistic.  In other words, their models represent not the Individual per se, but the Individual qua product of Medieval Provincial polities, transitioning to Modern National ones.  Likewise, Kant and Marx signal the transition to what can be termed Contemporary Planetary models.

Thursday, November 10, 2016

Illusion and Supply-Side

In the passage in the Republic commonly known as 'The Parable of the Cave', Plato distinguishes fettering desire from the liberating knowledge of the Good.  In contrast, Marx-Engels oppose the "real" interests of an individual to "illusory" ones, thereby inverting Plato's subordination of Materialism to Idealism.  Now, in contemporary America, the illusion has become so codified in Supply-Side Economics, in which desire, i. e. Demand, is created, that Politics itself is Supply-Side, as is expressed in the wide-spread disjunction of the offerings of major party candidates from the real needs of much of the electorate.  Still, even if Marxist Materialism better explains the contents of the illusion, i. e. irreal desires, Plato's image of how it the illusion is inculcated, i. e. a play of puppet-shadows, remains unsurpassed in its relevance, e. g. the refined calibration of a candidate's media image, which, borrowing current jargon, can be called an 'avatar'.

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

Individual, Universal, Pluralization, Unification

The positing of Individual Freedom, as prevails in Modern Political Philosophy, entails that the independent existence of a concrete Universal is indifferent, if not antithetical, to that principle.  So the absence, in the era, of unifying purpose as a fundamental element in a polity, at least in part reflects the Logic underlying its construction.  In contrast, if Individual Freedom is historicized, it can be re-interpreted as the culmination of a process of Pluralization.  But, if so, then unifying purpose, likewise historicized, can be re-interpreted as a process of Unification, which, rather than antithetical to Pluralization, can function as its complement.  So, a shift in Logic can transform what have been the standard parameters of Modern Political Philosophy.

Tuesday, November 8, 2016

Political Philosophy and Goals

Arguably, Nietzsche does not only call for Philosophers "of the future", to set concrete goals, he himself exemplifies the paradigm, as not only a teacher of the uberhuman, but as an advocate of a means to it, i. e. a program of eugenics.  In either case, this concept of what amounts to Political Philosophy stands in sharp contrast with most of the preceding tradition.  For example, Plato speaks of "the Good", but without offering any elaboration, leading some to interpret it as esoteric, e. g. Strauss, and others, as indefinable, e. g. Moore, when, it is possible that Plato simply has no such elaboration to offer.  Regardless, the concept of a concrete goal disappears in Modern Political Philosophy, except for the Wealth of Smith, and the Socialism of Socialists.  Still, in even these cases, the goals are no more than mediate, albeit timely, in contrast with one that perhaps constitutes a post-human evolutionary step.

Monday, November 7, 2016

History and Purpose

Kant's Teleological concept of Rationality, previously discussed, is shared by Aristotle, with the addition of a concept of conflict-fueled History as the path to that end.  So, regardless of the influence of Hegel on Marx, a precursor of the latter's concept of a Dialectical Materialist History can be found in Kant's system, with the significant variation of the collectivization of property as the binding factor of Society.  Still, as ordinary experience regularly evinces, e. g. a work-crew, the most effective ground of social unification is commonality of purpose in action, the most familiar example of which is war.  Now, the limitation of the latter is at the planetary level, when universal human peace has been achieved, assuming no extraterrestrial beings have been discovered.  Two examples of an extension of purpose past that achievement have been Nietzsche's somewhat veiled promotion of the production of an Uberhuman via eugenics, and, more recently, the development of actual extraterrestrial projects.  In the meantime, the concrete transition from Nationalism to Planetization would be, and perhaps should be, the unifying universal political goal at this stage of human history, of which the collectivization of property is a side-effect.

Sunday, November 6, 2016

Reason and Peace

In Kant's system there are two teloses for the human race--universal peace and rationality.  These are not two distinctly existing goals, but two perspectives of one and the same condition.  A peaceful society is a rational society, and a rational society is a peaceful society.  Furthermore, according to Kant, the relation between the two is not merely a happenstance equivalence, but a logical bi-conditional--Peace only if Reason, and Reason only if Peace.  In other words, Universal Peace and Kingdom of Ends are related as outer and inner.

Saturday, November 5, 2016

Unity of Labor and Collectivization of Property

According to Marx-Engels, social Atomization is the result of Division of Labor.  However, as has been previously discussed, Division of Labor entails Unity of Labor, and, hence, is, more accurately, Organization of Labor.  In contrast, as is expressed in Smith's Egoism, Atomization can be instilled independently of the context of Labor.  Thus, to the contrary of their thesis, Unity of Labor, e. g. a work crew, can contrast sharply with prevailing Atomism, and, indeed, that contrast is often the signal distinction between the Working and the Ownership classes.  Accordingly, it is that solidarity, expressed as collective ownership, that can be conceived as defining the Revolutionary class, in its ascension to power, rather than its class-lessness, as Marx-Engels propose.

Friday, November 4, 2016

Division of Labor and Unity of Labor

The process of dividing presupposes that given is some entity that is unified in some respect.  Likewise, therefore, Division of Labor presupposes a Unity of Labor.  Now, Unity of Labor derives from the unity of the product of labor, e. g. a car.  But, at the same, the division of the  product, e. g. the parts of a car, determines the division of the productive process.  Thus, the concept of Division of Labor abstracts from the combination of the concept of it and the concept of Unity of Labor, or, in other words, from what can be called the concept of Organization of Labor.  Furthermore, prior to involvement in the Labor process, the parties to it are a formless manifold.  Thus, the Marxist analysis, according to which Division of Labor suffices to effect social fragmentation, abstracts from and simplifies a more complicated development.

Thursday, November 3, 2016

Division of Labor and Class

Two cardinal concepts in Marxism are Division of Labor and Class.  Now, as has been previously discussed, the former is usually taken to be closer to Atomization than to Diversification.  But, if so, the relation between it and the concept of Class needs to be explained, for otherwise, the connection Division of Labor and Class-Conflict remains unestablished.  In particular, even granted the emergence of solidarity among the Working Class, the consciousness that that involves, i. e. the awareness of common victimization, does not explain any formation of solidarity among exploiters, each of whom is motivated only by self-interest.  Accordingly, the Marxist diagnosis of the ills of Capitalism conflates particular Employer-Employee exploitation, and Class-Conflict.

Wednesday, November 2, 2016

Division of Labor, Specialization, Exclusivity

Unlike Smith, Marx does not seem to recognize the distinction between division and fragmentation, i. e. the latter as a degenerate mode of the former.  However, Marx does address a complementary problem--Division of Labor from the perspective of the individual participant, who is therein constricted to an exclusive sphere of activity, prompting from Nietzsche the image "inverse cripple".  Still, Marx himself elsewhere implicitly acknowledges a distinction between Specialization and Exclusivity, in his "From each according to his abilities" formulation, that corresponds to that between Division and Fragmentation.  There, he reflects the recognition that individual Specialization and psychological well-roundedness are not mutually exclusive, just as a Diversification of Labor can constitute collective health.

Tuesday, November 1, 2016

Organism, Society, Diversity of Labor

Any organism is constituted by a division of labor.  In such an entity, 'division' means 'diversification', not 'contradiction'.  Furthermore, as the human thumb exemplifies, the greater the diversity of labor, the greater the capacity to function to the benefit of an organism, e. g. the capacity of humans to grip useful implements. So, the Marxist aim of the abolition of Division of Labor is antithetical to a concept of society as a healthy organism.