Leviathan, Marxism, Will to Grow

Modern Political Philosophy is framed by the English Civil War, which Hobbes diagnoses as rooted in a 'war of all against all', each of whom is motivated by Self-Preservation.  Accordingly, his solution is a general Peace, implemented by a contractually empowered sovereign.  Now, the arc of the Marxist doctrine can be recognized as a special case of the Hobbesian project--class warfare is the problem, resolved by the elimination of conflict in a class-less society, in which sovereignty is immanent.  So, both doctrines can be conceived as expressing a Will to Peace as its Species-Principle.  However, while the scope of Leviathan is national, that of Marxist Socialism is global, e. g. the exhortation to the workers of the world.  So, the Species-Principle expressed by the intervening two centuries is a Will to Grow.

Human Species, History, Will to Grow

There is evidence for each of the following four moments in Human history: 1. Origin at a single location; 2. World-wide inhabitation; 3. Unprecedented capacities for global transportation and communication; 4. Extra-terrestrial travel and exploration.  From these can be inferred that the Species is governed by a principle that can be called a Will to Grow, implying an effort, though not necessarily a successful one.  This principle is an alternative to the more prevalent Will to Peace, to Harmony, or to Unity, including that as a phase of a Fall-Redemption arc.  Accordingly, any episode in history is to be interpreted and evaluated on the basis of the Will to Grow.  Thus, for example, if Socialism is superior to Capitalism, and if it is a permanent arrangement, are determinable by reference to the Will to Grow.

Species and Political Philosophy

The primary aim of a Political Philosophy, whether Ancient or Modern, is to define the best mode of social organization.  Now, since, according to Marxism, Economic relations determine Political ones, Socialism is the basis of a Political Philosophy.  Thus, for Marx, Species-Being functions as a principle of organization, with the Species as the concrete Unity of the members of Human society.  However, as such, the Species is still partly abstract.  For, as is expressed in the familiar concept, 'the propagation of the species', the Human Species is determined by a principle that is independent of its mere function as the Unity of its individual members, a principle that, if Darwinism is correct, is itself profoundly significant.  In other words, the concept of Species entails a content that is a determinant in the mode of social organization that it effects, e. g. an Evolutionary factor.  Thus, the introduction of Species as a Political concept signals, regardless of Marx's ambitions, the possibility of development well beyond the achievements of unity and peace in Human society, which are the traditional goals of Political Philosophy.

Globalization and Species-Being

Despite standard jingoist political propaganda, the ubiquity of the World Wide Web is one indication that Global-Consciousness is no longer an abstract or teleological dream, but a concrete, even if incomplete, reality.  Likewise, the inhabitants of this Cosmopolity are, transcending all previous particularities, 'Humans'.  Thus, Species-Being is no longer a Biological concept, but a Political one, as well.  Similarly, it, not 'Reason', 'Spirit', 'Will', etc., is revealed as the fundamental principle of History.

Politics, Economics, Locality

If, as has been said, all politics is local, history has shown that so, too, is Economics, and that 'local' is variable.  As the prefix 'eco-', which connotes 'household', suggests, the origin of Economics is even more modest than that of Politics, which connotes 'city'.  In sharp contrast, by the 18th-century, the scope of each is the Nation, as Smith's title plainly expresses.  So, Marx-Engels' exhortation to the "workers of the world" signals a further expansion of locality that has since been, and continues to be, gradually actualized, by both Capitalism and Socialism.  In other words, what is becoming 'local' are both Cosmopolitics and Cosmoeconomics, with respect to which the Nationalist doctrines of the 17th- and 18th-centuries, including Wealth of Nations, may be quaint, if not obsolete.

Nationalism and Invisible Hand

The expression 'wealth of nations' is ambiguous--it could mean 'the wealth of a nation', or 'the combined wealth of an indefinite group of nations'.  Now, most of the substance of Smith's work suggests that the former is its topic.  On the other hand, in some passages, e. g. his objections to protectionist tariffs, he seems to be extending the scope of free enterprise principles to a multiplicity of nations.  In so doing, he exposes the fundamental inconsistency underlying both scenarios--between the concept of Nation, and that of the Invisible Hand.  For, the latter entails no such limitation as the former, from which it follows that Capitalism is neither a national nor even a multi-national system--it is global, with respect to which a Nation is as inessential a constituent unit as is a Precinct.  That contradiction remains only superficially addressed in contemporary political platforms that are both jingoistic and Economically laissez-faire.

Friendship and Capitalism

Aristotle discerns elements of Friendship in each of three types of constitution, what he calls 'Monarchy', 'Aristocracy', and 'Timocracy', but lacking in three corresponding "perversions" of each--'Tyranny', 'Oligarchy', and 'Democracy', respectively.  But, though he briefly alludes to the role of Wealth in an Oligarchy, he does not address whether or not Plutocracy entails Friendship.  Regardless, it is easy to deduce that it does not.  For, the latter entails action that benefits another, whereas, one exemplification of the former, Capitalism, explicitly excludes such an end as motivation.

Friendship, We, Revolution

Aristotle conceives Friendship as based on Self-Love, because it consists in the treatment of the Friend as another I.  However, even as he discerns the role that the relation plays in any mode of political organization, he does not consider one further stage of its development--the combination of the Is into a We. Thus, the appearance of the latter at the outsets of the U. S. Constitution and the Marseillaise, unprecedented in the history of Political Philosophy, signifies its revolutionary character, and, conversely, the synthesis that is the foundation of modern Revolution.

Family, Friendship, Socialism

As has been previously discussed, in the German Ideology, Marx-Engels attempt to distinguish between 'natural' and 'voluntary' relations, using the family as an example of the former.  Now, one curiosity in the discussion is that there is no explanation of how the husband-wife connection, which is the product of some contract, is 'natural'.  Instead, there is no such curiosity in a much clearer illustration of the natural-voluntary contrast: Family vs. Friendship, i. e. because the relation of siblings is biological and involuntary, as well as not necessarily amicable.  So, the use of "brothers" and "sisters" in reference to the members of a Socialist society is antithetical to the presumed voluntariness of the latter, whereas "comrade" is more appropriate.

Friendship, Socialism, Marxism

An argument in favor of Socialism is: 1. The best social arrangement, regarding both the whole and each of its parts, is Friendship, as Aristotle conceives it; 2. Thus, the best Economic system is the one that best promotes Friendship; 3. Socialism is the Economic system that best promotes Friendship; 4. Therefore, Socialism is the best Economic system.  Now, it is unclear why a Marxist would object to this argument, and, yet, it entails none of the standard Marxist principles.  That absence tends to indicate that the strength of Marxism is its exposure of the flaws of Capitalism, though perhaps undercut by an insistence on expressing its diagnoses in neo-Hegelian terms, i. e. Dialectical Materialism.

Friendship and Socialism

The codification of the priority of Theory over Practice begins with Aristotle. on his grounds that the former, but not the latter, can be self-sufficient.  However, a Practical Virtue which he recognizes, but that does not reduce to his standard formulation, i. e. an activity guided by a Mean, is Friendship, which consists in the mutually-recognized, reciprocal treatment of an other as another Self.  Now, Aristotle does not consider that Theoretical Virtue, i. e. Contemplation, rather than being independent of Friendship, is deprived of it, and, hence, is the lesser Good.  So, specifically lost in the subsequent history is the significance of mutual recognition, which is not included in Kant's Kingdom of Ends, and is lacking by Hegel's Unhappy Consciousness.  It also eludes any reduction of an association to the sum of those associated.  In other words, Friendship presents a paradigm for Socialism, though it is unclear if it is appreciated as such by Marxists.

Organism, Socialism, Ecosystem

Kant conceives an Organism as a Whole from which each Part benefits and to which each Part contributes.  Hence, the concept is exemplified by that of Marxist Socialism, i. e. as expressed by Marx's "from each . . . to each" formulation, as well as by the common concept of Ecosystem.  However, aside from veterinarian activity, the best evidence to date is that if Humanity affects the rest of Nature at all, it is destructively.  Accordingly, a concept of Nature as an Ecosystem that includes Humanity is difficult to accept.  Still, there are three reasons why that judgment might not be conclusive.  First, the problem has rarely been even considered, so better evidence of the contributions of the species to an Ecosystem of which it is a part may yet be forthcoming.  Second, if, as Marx proposes, Humanity is a work-in-progress, so, too, is its role in Nature.  Finally, if, as is implicit in the works of both Darwin and Nietzsche, the species is a transition to another, that development itself would constitute a contribution to an eventual Ecosystem.  Otherwise, failing all three, it is difficult to deny that Anthropocentrism has survived the repudiation of Geocentricism.

Socialism, Chain of Being, Ecology

The repudiation of Geocentricism may have toppled the part of the Great Chain of Being above Humanity, but not the part from there downwards.  The survival of that segment of the heirarchy is best represented in the Teleology of Kant, i. e. the Philosopher most closely associated with Copernicus, in which Humanity is designated as the "ultimate purpose" of Nature.  Likewise, while Trotsky promotes an organic model of human society, his Cosmology remains vertical, with Humanity atop the rest of Nature.  Instead, the appropriate correlate to Socialism is the Ecosystem, in which, likewise, each of the parts, including the Human Species, both contributes and benefits, though any demonstration of the former of which in the case of Humanity has hitherto been lacking.

Species-Being, Economics, Ecology

The concept of Species-Being can be understood as sublating the two dominant, and antithetical, Philosophical concepts of the centuries preceding the nineteenth--the Cartesian Cogito and Newtonian Physics.  For, in Species-Being, individual thought is supplanted by collective action, and Physics, by Biology.  However, Marx's further judgment, inspired by the French Revolution, that Economics likewise sublates Epistemology and Metaphysics as the fundamental Philosophical enterprise, is short-sighted.  For, as Darwin brings to attention, Nature is the more comprehensive context for any species.  Accordingly, a systematic derivation of Economics presupposes the establishment of Ecological principles, as does, therefore, Socialism, as well as Capitalism.

Anthropocentrism and The Environment

More than three hundred years after Spinoza recognizes that the repudiation of Geocentricism entails that of Anthropocentrism, the full implications of what can be classified as his Rational Pan-Naturalism are only slowly being realized.  For example, Anthropocentricism is implicit in Trotsky's Materialist proposition that the rest of Nature is unconditionally at the disposal of Humans.  Likewise, it is entailed in the popular concept of 'The Environment', i. e. which locates Humans in the center of its biota.  Instead, the complete elimination of vestigial Anthropocentrism yields an Ecosystem with no privileged element.  Now, one facet of such a Rational Pan-Naturalism has to date rarely been even entertained, let alone explored--the essential role of the Human Species in the system, i. e. how it affects the rest of it even when, through the careless discharge of its waste products, it is not wreaking havoc on the rest.  The limitation of Spinoza's prototype is not its scope of Human influence, but its restriction to merely Mechanistic relations.

Species-Being and Climate Change

The Marxist premise, that Socialism is the actualization of the universal consciousness of the Species-Being of its members, is problematic in two respects.  First, as has been previously discussed, Species-Being entails Nature-Being, so that the former involves the elimination of inter-personal exploitation is contingent on the principles of the latter, to which that goal might be indifferent or even contrary.  Second, the relation between that entailment, and Trotsky's proposition that Socialism is based on and promotes the human power over Nature, is difficult to reconcile.  for, Trotsky takes for granted that the rest of Nature is at the disposal of the Human Species, thereby merely secularizing a traditional Theological proposition, which seems antithetical to the subordination of Species to Nature.  Indeed, without any divine sanction, the presumption that Humans have been granted by Nature indefinite power over Nature seems arrogant, as has been confirmed in subsequent decades by the emergence of the destructiveness by that Human power over Nature.  Especially significant is the phenomenon often mischaracterized as "Global Warming", the error of which is only its second term.  For, that Climate Change is, indeed, global, indicates that the presumed power of the Species over Nature is conditioned in some respect, contrary to Trotsky's formulation.  Of course, given that the U. S. and China are both perpetrators of that phenomenon shows that it is not exclusive to either a Capitalist or a Socialist system.

Species-Being and Nature-Being

Though the separation of Individual from Species is antithetical to Marxist Socialism, acceptance of the concept of Species-Being potentially poses a stronger challenge to the doctrine.  For, insofar as it is difficult to deny that the human species is part of Nature, it is difficult to deny that Species-Being is determined by Nature-Being.  Thus, if Nature-Being is, for example, as Darwin conceives it, then human Species-Being for each member consists in the promotion a new, more evolved, species.  But, none of the various Marxist arguments for Socialism is on the basis that it is a means to the next evolutionary step, i. e. there is no demonstration that the Marxist concept of Species-Being is consistent with the concept of Nature-Being that has prevailed in the past century and a half.  Its concept of Socialism is similarly vulnerable to most other concepts of Nature-Being.

Species-Being and Being

Detachment of the Individual from the Species has been accomplished in a variety of ways over the centuries: via the traditional theological concept of the incorporeal Soul; by Philosophical surrogates for the Soul, e. g. Leibniz' Monad and Kant's Noumenon; and by Smith's Egoism.  Now, in apparent opposition to these Individuations is Heidegger's re-appropriation by Being from fallenness into Beings, a plightwhich mirrors the structure of Marx's concept of alienation from Species-Being, and inverts it into a mode of Nihilism.  However, there is one weakness in Heidegger's project that has no Marxist correlate: an abstraction of Being from its origin as the Husserlian Phenomenologist functioning in 'the Life-World'.  Rather, the correlate of that abstraction is Heidegger's eradication of any association with his Jewish mentor.  So, re-grounding this presumed 'Fundamental Ontology' in concrete activity exposes all of its elements, including its concept of 'individual beings', as a possible product of aliention from Species-Being.

Species-Being, Alienation, Individual

A familiar expression of alienation from Species-Being is the common use of the word 'individual' as a substantive.  For, individual is properly a quantifier, so the abstraction of it from a bearer, i. e. 'human', reflects a detachment from the species.  Likewise, in any ensuing 'individualism' vs. 'collectivism' debate, usually as a proxy for a Capitalism vs. Socialism dispute, 'collective' actually connotes 'collection of individuals', thereby reinforcing the alienation, and falsifying Marxist Socialism.

Species-Being, Species-Consciousness, Dialectical Materialism

Insofar as Marxist Socialism is a whole, what distinguishes it from the sum of its parts is what can be called universal Species-Consciousness, in which awareness of Species-Being, a concept that Marx borrows from Feuerbach, becomes explicit in each member.  Now, prior to the achievement of Species-Consciousness, Species-Being is obscured because of alienation from it that reaches an extreme in Capitalism, which codifies Social Atomism.  But, presupposed in that analysis is a non-alienated precondition, the loss of which requires an explanation that seems to be lacking, and which seems beyond the resources of Dialectics, which is a process of progressive totalization.  So, the relations between Species-Being, Dialectical Materialism,and Species-Consciousness in Marxism are unclear.

Whole, Parts, Spirit

What distinguishes Sublation or Emergence from mere Association might be formulated by the principle 'The whole is greater than the sum of its parts'.  Thus, resistance to Atomism by either Dialectical Materialism or Emergent Evolution depends on the adequacy of the characterization of the surplus that elevates a Whole over the sum of its Parts.  Now, one traditional concept can help fill that gap--Spirit, but as immanent in that Multiplicity, not as a supervention from a transcendent realm.  In other words, it functions precisely as does the Dialectic in Dialectical Materialism.  Accordingly, the latter can be conceived not as eliminating Spirit, nor as reducing it to a phantasm, but as relocating it from its traditional position.

Emergent Evolution, Dialectical Materialism, Unity

While Emergent Evolution and Dialectical Materialism each entails a process of Unification at a higher level, in the former, the initial condition is any Multiplicity, in the latter, it is exclusively a contradictory Dyad.  So, since a Dyad is a special case of a Multiplicity, Emergent Evolution is the more comprehensive theory.  Furthermore, the restriction on Dialectical Synthesis means that it is only from a Two-Class conflict that Socialism qua Unification can be produced, with no explanation for the development of a unified Class-Consciousness from an atomized Proletariat.  In contrast, Emergent Evolution easily accounts for the development of Socialism from the radical Individuation of Capitalism.  So, the rigid adherence of Marxism to Dialectical Materialism, can hinder, in at least some crucial respects, the rise of Socialism.

Socialism, Emergent Evolution, Dialectical Revolution

One interpretation of Techne is that it is the product of what Alexander calls 'Emergent Evolution', which, as a pervasive primitive pattern, is less an explanation than a general description.  The main features of the pattern are a specifically configured multiplicity from which a novel unity emerges, important Philosophical examples of which are a color, from an underlying photoelectric configuration, and Consciousness, from an underlying cerebral configuration.  So, one potential further application of the concept is to Socialism, which can be interpreted as emerging from a specific social configuration.  Now, Emergence seems analogous to the Sublation that constitutes the Synthesis moment of Dialectics.  However, the translation into Marxism is otherwise problematic.  For, Emergence is essentially fortuitous, and so its Evolution cannot be the product of deliberate Revolution.  Furthermore, when Marxists do seem to entertain the possibility of the former, under the rubric the transformation of Quantity into Quality, the Quality is the Negation of, not the Sublation of, Quantity.  Likewise, by implication, what in Emergent Evolution is the emergence of Socialism from a social configuration, is, in Dialectical Materialism, the Negation of a Revolutionary process.  So, despite the structural similarity of Emergence and Sublation, Emergent Evolution is not only not instructive for Dialectical Materialism, it conflicts with it in crucial respects.

Techne, Technology, Ethics

Properly conceived, 'Technology' is 'the study of Techne', i. e. the structure of skilled activity. So, since gymnastics and dancing are skilled activities, Technology does not necessarily involve instruments, means of production, or anything that the common use of the term signifies.  Now, the fundamental challenge to a Technology is to define its distinguishing feature, i. e. the dimension of a skilled activity that is lacking in unskilled activity.  One possibility is Aristotle's concept of Balance, formulated as the Mean between Extremes, which can also be appreciated as gracefulness.  In that case, because, in his system, balanced conduct is the highest Practical Virtue, Technology and Ethics therefore converge, even if elsewhere he separates Techne and Phronesis.

Techne and Dehumanization

Just as skilled conduct transcends merely mechanical behavior, Techne involves mastery of Automation, which is why the commonly conceived equivalence of the latter and Technology is so deeply erroneous.  Now, one variety of dehumanization is mechanical behavior, yet Marxism's attention to the former problem overlooks Techne as a solution to it.  For example, Marx-Engels present co-ownership of the means of production in an industrialized Socialist society as adequate compensation to the self-employed artisan for the loss of the value of their craft, even suggesting that resistance to the compensation is Lumpenproletarian.  Furthermore, Trotsky's promotion of human power over Nature does not entail such power over the Automation that would replace human Labor.  In other words, without an incorporation of Techne into it, Socialism that abolishes Economic exploitation does not suffice to completely eliminate dehumanization.

Techne, Phronesis, Socialism

Concrete experience is continuous.  For example, picking up a hammer and hitting a nail into a piece of wood, or picking up a hammer and striking someone with it.  It is thus only by a subsequent abstraction from these two courses of action that a single Means--wielding a hammer--is isolated from a choice of two possible Ends, i. e. either a carpentry project, or injuring someone.  Likewise, Aristotle's distinction between Techne--skill--and Phronesis--wisdom in choice of Goods--thus presupposes such an abstraction.  Accordingly, Dewey's diagnosis of Class prejudice as determining the segregation of Means from End, e. g.  productive labor from the enjoyment of its fruits by someone else, implies that under Socialism, i. e. the abolition of Classes, Aristotle's distiction between Techne and Phronesis would also be dissolved.

Techne, Technology, Automation

The original meaning of "techne" is "skill", which, since it is equivalent to "know-how", is classified by Aristotle as an "Intellectual Virtue".  Thus, the common use of "technique" accurately reflects its ancestry.  On the other hand, "technology", properly parsed, would present an analysis of skilled conduct, e. g. of the interaction of mental and physiological process involved.  In other words, the common use of "technology" is radically improper, as the more accurate "automation" suggests, i. e. "techne" connotes a human process, while automation is in itself inert.  Thus, for example, while the "power over nature" to which Trotsky alludes is Automation, an analysis of the form-imposing action that liberates Hegel's 'slave' would be Technological.

End, Means, Socialism

As has been previously discussed, Trotsky, in asserting that there are some means that Socialism does not justify, conceives the relation between Means and End as a continuum, of which the former is an earlier phase, and the latter, the final one.  Now, though not himself a Marxist, Dewey deepens that analysis, arguing that the split of the two phases reflects a separation of Classes--the Working class, and the Leisure class whose ends the former serves.  So, implicit in Dewey's analysis is an insight that Trotsky misses--the abolition of Classes in Socialism, and the integration of Means and End in action, are systematically related.

Husband-Wife: Religion, Socialism, Technology

According to Marx-Engels, the subservience of Wife to Husband is "natural", though they offer no definition of that term.  In contrast, according to Genesis, it is not natural qua Edenic, but is part of the divine curse on the species.  Nevertheless, Religion in recent centuries has insisted upon it as if were itself a divine ordering, any deviation from which being what is sinful.  Now, presumably, though it is not explicitly addressed, the abolition of Private Property in Socialism applies to the Husband-Wife relation.  Still, well beyond the anticipation of Marx-Engels has been the liberation of women, Wife or not, via Technology, e. g. in vitro fertilization.

Practice, Virtue, Sin

While, in Genesis, there are direct references to sexual intercourse at the end of ch. 2 and the beginning of ch. 4, there is none in ch. 3.  Rather, the eating from the tree of Good and Evil described there is comparable to Prometheus' theft of fire--it renders Adam and Eve like God (lines 5 and 22), and makes them "wise" (line 6).  In other words, the alleged 'original sin' of Western Theology is not sexual intercourse, but the acquisition of Practical Wisdom.  Thus, in the appropriation of ancient Philosophy by Medieval Religion, what for Aristotle is a methodologically inferior Virtue, is transformed into the archetypal Sin.  Accordingly, Marx's exhortation to Philosophers to privilege Practice involves a defiance of that Religious tradition.  Still, because of his inattention to Practical Religion, previously discussed, he misses the deep irony of Genesis 3--it vilifies all Religious rites, including that of the reading of the passage itself.

Religion, Individual Soul, Class Consciousness

Though it does not appear literally as such in Genesis 3, the curse that is upon Adam and Eve, specifically, is usually extended to the entire species.  Nevertheless, the Salvation from it offered by Christianity does not have that scope.  Rather, that Salvation is directed at an element that is not part of the original premise, but seems borrowed from a different tradition--an individual Soul.  Thus, Religion is antithetical to Socialism in a respect other than its Immateriality--the cultivation of Egoism, which, even of a 'higher' sort, hinders the development of Class Consciousness as a dissociative influence.