Boden Discount Codes
16-07-01C: Summary Of Essay Seven -- Engels's Third Law, The Negation of The Negation
These are Introductory Essays, which have been written for those who find the main Essays either too long, or too difficult. They do not pretend to be comprehensive since they are simply summaries of the core ideas presented at this site. Most of the supporting evidence and argument found in each of the main Essays has been omitted. Anyone wanting more details, or who would like to examine my arguments and evidence in full, should consult the Essay for which each is a précis. [In this particular case, that can be found here.]
'Law' 3: NON-Sense
The 'Negation of the Negation' [NON] fares no better than the first two 'Laws'. Indeed, since it is itself an elaboration of the previous 'Law', it suffers from all the latter's weakness, too.
As with other DM-theses, the NON is also based on a confusion of logico/linguistic categories with objects and processes in material reality, an ancient error Engels copied from Hegel, who in turn learnt it from earlier mystics. [More on this in Essays Twelve and Fourteen (summary here, and here).]
Nevertheless, the few examples that DM-theorists have dredged up over the years to try to illustrate this 'Law' fail to work even in the way they were apparently intended. For example, concerning grains of barley Engels argues that:
"[T]he grain as such ceases to exist, it is negated, and in its place there appears the plant which has arisen from it, the negation of the grain… It grows, flowers, is fertilised and finally once more produces grains of barley, and as soon as these have ripened, the stalk dies, is in its turn negated…." [Engels (1976), pp.172-73].
Leaving aside the confusion noted here (about whether plants (or whatever) actually change because of an internal "struggle of opposites", or even whether they change into their opposites), if each grain is indeed a UO (i.e., a union of grain and 'non-grain', i.e., the plant it becomes -- where that plant is itself the negation of the grain), the grain must also contain the plant, not potentially, but actually. If this were not so, the grain itself would not itself be a union of these opposites -- and hence there would be nothing to cause it to change, and nothing for it to change into. [Objections to this way of reading Engels will be neutralised presently.]
However, this 'plant-inside-the-grain' sort of organism must for the same reason contain its own opposite, yet another plant (i.e., a 'plant-inside-the-plant-inside-the-grain' sort of organism, if, according to Lenin, the 'plant inside the grain' is itself a UO), which must likewise contain its own opposite, yet another grain (i.e., a 'grain-inside-the-plant-inside-the-plant-inside-the-grain' sort of organism), and so on, forever.
[UO = Unity of Opposites; DM = Dialectical Materialism.]
This objection cannot be neutralised by arguing that the opposite of the 'plant-inside-the-gain' is in fact the grain itself, for if this were the case, the 'plant-inside-the-grain' would turn onto the grain, if all things turn into their opposites. For the 'plant-inside-the-gain' to develop into a plant it has to be in some sort of 'internal struggle' with its opposite, that is, with what it has to yet to become (i.e., a plant), which in turn has to be internal to that 'plant-inside-the-grain' sort of organism. Furthermore, this 'plant-inside-the-plant-inside-the-grain' sort of organism is not itself changeless. Hence, if it is to change into its opposite (which I have surmised to be a 'grain-inside-plant-inside-the-plant-inside-the-grain' sort of organism -- but, that is just my guess), that opposite must already exist for it to change into, or this would be a change with no DM-cause underlying it. The rest follows as before.
Now, this must be so if all things are UOs as Hegel, Engels and Lenin said they were. In that case, Engels's NON (at least as far as barley is concerned) seems to imply the actual existence of an infinite set of organic plant-and-seed 'boxes within boxes', as it were, which is about as believable a picture of reality as that painted by 18th century preformationist/ovist biologists. This is because it would mean that every grain that ever there was must contain, and must be contained by, every subsequent plant that ever there grew, with each of these organic mega-Russian Doll type organisms complete with its own grains and plants within grains and plants…, etc, to infinity.
Of course, dialecticians (and most likely those of the Low Church tendency) who accept Engels's seed analogy will reject the above analysis. According to them, the UO is precisely what we see (and understand) as barley seed, with all its law-governed inner processes which help change that seed into a plant, unfolding the aforementioned 'negation' -- the latter of which does not destroy the grain as such, but "sublates" the original negation/seed (it is not too clear which) from which the new plant emerges.
It could then be argued that none of this means that the original seed contains the subsequent plant in any way, as the above rashly supposes. Whatever opposites this natural process requires for it make that plant grow from that seed can be ascertained from its development. [It is worth pointing out that this 'get-out-of-a-metaphysical-hole-free-card' is withdrawn from circulation here.]
But, what exactly are these "opposites"? And why do the Dialectical Prophets say that things change into their opposites, because of an internal struggle between those very opposites, which must already exist for this to happen?
"The law of the interpenetration of opposites.... [M]utual penetration of polar opposites and transformation into each other when carried to extremes...." [Engels (1954), pp.17, 62.]
"[Among the elements of dialectics are the following:] [I]nternally contradictory tendencies…in [a thing]…as the sum and unity of opposites…. [This involves] not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other [into its opposite?]…. The unity…of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute…." [Lenin (1961), pp.221-22, 357-58. Emphases in the original.]
"And so every phenomenon, by the action of those same forces which condition its existence, sooner or later, but inevitably, is transformed into its own opposite…." [Plekhanov (1956), p.77.]
[Much more of the same sort of material here.]
Now, this can only mean that barley grains contain the plants they subsequently become; so they are like Russian dolls. There does not seem to be any other way of reading this 'Law', as it is depicted by DM-classicists.
From Language To 'Truth', Again
However, ignoring this difficulty for the present, what NON-sense can be made of the claim that a plant is the negation of a seed? This idea seems to depend on the ancient belief that all words, including the negative particle, are names (in this case, the name of a special sort of dialectical process in reality).
Since no DM-theorists has actually given this 'Law' much thought, it is not easy to follow the 'reasoning' here. Perhaps it goes something like this?
If we have a negative particle in language, and it corresponds to something in reality, then it must name that something. So, since negativity appears in language it reflects real negativity in nature. [I have yet to see anything more sophisticated than that in DM-writings. Lenin's feeble attempt in this regard will be examined in Essay Thirteen.]
But, if that is so, it would become rather difficult to rectify incorrect naming and/or identification (something that is easy to do in the vernacular).
Thus, if "not" were incorrectly identified as the name of something else -- let us say that it was mistakenly viewed as the name of "or" --, then it would be impossible to point this out. One could hardly say: "Not is not or", which, if the DM-Identity Theory of Predication were correct, would be equivalent to "Not = not or", and the first "not" would name something other than not, namely "not or" with which it is now 'identical'!
[Exactly why all words are not names will be considered in Essay Twelve.]
More importantly, negation in language typically attaches to propositions (or clauses; however, see here), and if they too are names (in that they allegedly name the true, or the false, or facts, or whatever), then it would seem that any named thing could be negated. This certainly accounts for the nominalisation of the word "negation" in DM-circles, where the word slides imperceptibly between its nominal and verbal forms. One minute it is the name of 'negativity', or perhaps of a subsequently 'sublated' opposite, next minute it is a process that creates novelty. Of course, it is this lexicographical slide that causes the problem. Negation is something we do in language, and we do it to certain sorts of expressions. Treating it as the name of something in the physical word could only therefore amount to the fetishisation of the negative particle. [More on this too in Essay Twelve (summary here).]
Well, even if this syntactic slide represented a sound piece of Stone Age Logic, negation would still only apply to words, not things. Or, to put this another way, if negation applies to objects and processes in the world, DM-theorists have been remarkably coy about how this has been, or even could be, substantiated. [Further ruminations along these lines are explored here. More details will be given in Essays Twelve and Thirteen.]
Engels just assumed that things can be negated; his only 'proof' seems to have been the fact that it is possible to negate sentences and clauses. To be sure, in Hegel's system it makes some sort of crazy sense to suppose things can be negated; in his scheme-of-things the line between reality and language is even thinner than George W's stated excuse for invading Iraq. However, in a materialist theory no physical meaning can be given to this odd idea. On a similar basis, one might just as well think that conjunctions can attach to objects in reality just because we can speak about cats and dogs -- which facility would supposedly then allow us to 'claim' that reality contains 'objects' called "cats-and-dogs" that the natural process of "conjunction" can turn them into. This linguistic trick could then be justified by an appeal to the fourth 'Law' of dialectics, the 'Conjunction of the Conjunction' -- just as we might think, DM-style, that reality contains "negated-seeds". Or even, that nature contains "and"s, or that things are glued together by 'andivity'.
Of course, the motivation for thinking that reality contains negation (and that it does not contain conjunctions) had a spurious 'logical' origin. It derived from Hegel's defective 'analysis' of the LOI, and from his odd belief that the negation of this 'Law' implied a contradiction, and his belief that the 'logical' processing of certain ideas (connected with Spinoza's reckless claim that every determination implies negation) had profound implications for the entire universe, and for all of time. That 'argument' is demolished here. [However, a summary of that argument can be found here.]
[LOI = Law of Identity.]
Even so, this 'secondary' argument (that the world must contain negativity if we have a word for it) fails too, for as we have seen, if this were a sound argument, then reality would contain adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions and expletives (among other linguistic items) -- or what they allegedly 'represent'.
We saw in Essay Three Part One (and will see again in more detail in Essay Twelve (summary here)), that the idea that inferences like this (i.e., from language to the derivation of fundamental principles that govern reality, which underpin the physical world, and which are accessible by thought alone) is a dodge that ancient mystics invented to account for the link between 'God's' word and 'His' creation --, which was then employed to rationalise the 'legitimate' rule of the State (in that it supposedly reflected the divine/logical order of things).
Moreover, if the structure of language in fact allowed us to infer a priori truths about reality from linguistic expressions then we might just as well openly accept the Ideal nature of the world, and be done with it. In that case, the material flip Hegel's system was supposed to have undergone would have been a full 360o, and not the advertised 180.
However, the main objection to the idea that the negative particle finds a counterpart in reality is based on the nature of empirical propositions, and will be aired in Essay Twelve.
Terminator -- The Rise Of Monsanto
Engels argued that as things stand, the development of grain into barley is a natural process; hence the plant that subsequently grows from each seed is its 'natural' negation. But, many things can 'naturally' happen to seeds. For example, they can be eaten, or burnt as energy. But they can also rot, ferment, dry out and be thrown at weddings. In fact, since anything that happens in nature must be natural (it is surely not supernatural), all such processes must, it seems, be governed by these and other DM-'Laws' (that is, if they are genuine laws).
Nor could it be agued that the "natural" development of objects and process is whatever would happen to them if they were 'left alone' to develop naturally. This is because nothing in the DM-universe is ever 'left alone' -- everything is part of an allegedly interconnected DM-Totality. Whatever happens in nature must have been 'mediated' to do so by some DM-'Law' or other, if DM-theorists are to be believed.
It could be argued that if seeds are left to develop according their own 'internal contradictions', the NON will assert itself quite naturally. In that case, the above examples (of seeds being crushed, or eaten, etc.) are not relevant to this 'Law'.
However, quite apart from the fact that the phrase "internal contradiction" is itself as clear as mud (and has yet to be explicated by a single DM-theorist, as Essay Eight Parts One and Two show), dialecticians themselves appeal to 'external contradictions' to account for change (since, without these, their theory would imply that everything in nature is either self-moving, or is hermetically sealed-off from the rest of the universe; on this see Essay Eight Part One, again).
Anyway, several of the above examples involve 'internal change': rotting and fermenting, for instance. Moreover, once grain is inside an animal, that animal's 'internal' regime will take over, and the grain will 'naturally' develop into tissue or energy. In fact, 'internal' to a wedding celebration, the 'contradictions' inherent in the bourgeois institution of marriage will surely prompt someone to throw grain at the hapless couple. All quite 'natural'.
So, exactly where the 'natural' boundaries of this 'Law' are to be found is somewhat unclear, DM-theorists, once more, not having given the fine detail of their own theory much thought.
Now, the advancement of science and technology often confronts older theories with unexpected problems. Hence, Engels was not to know that one day a company like Monsanto would turn up and develop its so-called "Terminator Gene". This is a gene that can, by all accounts, stop certain plants from producing seeds, which thus seems capable of halting the NON in its tracks --, forcing farmers to buy all their grain from Monsanto, etc.
Is, therefore, the NON so weak and ineffectual that a large corporation can countermand its inevitability? Or, is the NON still at work somewhere in all this, 'negating' the rights of Third World farmers behind their backs, as it were, so that they will no longer be able to produce their own seed --, if, that is, Monsanto change their minds, ignore public pressure, and go ahead with the production of this gene? Are Monsanto potential negators of the NON? Or have they learnt how to control it?
In this case, therefore, have we now got a sort of 'seed-plant-non-seed-non-plant' type of NON-development here? Shouldn't we rename Monsanto "NONsanto", as a result?
But, we needn't wait until Monsanto change their minds and produce this NON-starter; anyone who buys fruit these days knows about seedless grapes. In fact, most fruit nowadays does not come from seed; it is produced by propagation from grafts and cuttings.
The question now arises: how come the NON is so easy to by-pass? Countless processes in nature seem to be, as it were, non-NON-events of this sort, as human beings 'upset' the 'natural' DM-order of things.
And what are we to say about genetic engineering in general? Is this an interference in the operation of the NON, an infringement of the 'dialectical law' that all change is internally-generated? Or is it a natural process, in view of the fact that none of the scientists or capitalists involved are supernatural beings (so we are led to believe), but are eminently physical objects?
In that case, if all the above are natural processes, then it can truly be said that no grain is an island. Anything that happens to grain anywhere inside the universe must be natural.
Hence, even if barley is dropped into the sea, crushed by a falling tree, genetically modified, or hit by American 'friendly fire', all these (and many more) are natural events and must, one presumes, be governed by DM-'Laws'. In that case, there doesn't seem to be a single thing that could constitute, or which could act as, the 'natural negation' of a grain of barley. So, does it have one? On the contrary, given the supposed universal dominion of the 'Laws' of dialectics (DM-fans tell us that they are the most general laws there are), there must be countless 'natural negations' of anything and everything.
Indeed, it now seems that anything and everything could be the natural opposite of grain -- especially, if according to Lenin "every determination, quality, feature, side, property [changes] into every other…." If so, and if we apply this overly-generously open-ended 'Law' to Capitalism, once again, it should be possible for the latter, too, to change into a grain of barley, and vice versa. And it is little use saying that this sort of change has never been observed, since, according to the above, anything could be the opposite of grain and/or of Capitalism.
So, since barley is "not-Capitalism", and Capitalism can only change into what it "is not", profligate 'logic' of this sort means that revolutionaries should consider radically re-configuring their aims. Instead of the struggle for socialism, they should perhaps struggle for…, well, er, sowing. Clearly this suggests, too, that our slogans will need to be revised somewhat --, perhaps to: "Capitalism digs its own garden", or "You have nothing to lose but your daisy chains", or "There is a tractor haunting Europe". Or maybe even "From each according to his ability, to each according to his seed".
Now, any who object to the above off-the-wall conclusions should direct their ire rather at this 'Law', and at those Hermetic 'Law'-givers, not at this piss-taker.
Either that, or they should say clearly, and for the first time ever, what NON-sense there is to this 'Law'.
Socialism Brought From Without -- Perhaps By Aliens?
Nevertheless, and despite the above, as far as the descendants of barley plants are concerned, little development seems to take place; barley stays barley for countless generations -- unless change is externally induced (on this, see below).
More interesting, however, is the fact that based on such botanical stasis --, and if the NON is to be used as the DM-model for social change (as dialecticians often so enlist it) --, Marxists should now become staunch conservatives, since, in the majority of cases, the NON is itself impressively conservative.
So, the NON as applied to barley (and everything else in the living world, it seems), implies universal stasis (unless, once again, change is introduced from the outside). Hence, anyone foolish enough to use this 'Law' as a metaphor for social change should be committed to the idea that society must develop peaceably, naturally, slowly -- possibly cyclically -- with no overall change at the end (unless, again, this is induced from the outside).
However, since organisms develop as a result of mutations (mostly in response to violent, externally-induced interruptions to the 'natural' order of growth and reproduction), this process cannot, it seems, be reconciled with the above NON-inspired, internally-generated but staid view of change (or indeed lack of it).
If, on the other hand, the superior, 'externalist' model of change is adopted (wherein the facts of nature are allowed to speak to us for a change, and speciation is recognised as largely externally-motivated), then the revolution, if and when it does occur, should result from the intervention of Aliens, or other NON-humans (as external causes) -- if, that is, we insist on using the NON as a metaphor for revolutionary change.
In that case, it thus looks like the 'internal contradictions' of Capitalism are not enough to bring about its end -- since they are far too conservative -- if Engels's analogy drawn against barley seeds is to be believed.
Some might object to the above on the grounds that it confuses classical materialist dialectics with Second International Marxism, where the NON was interpreted in deterministic terms. Since, Capitalism is governed by the actions of human beings, this leaves room for human decision, choice and intervention. Or, so the objection might go.
However, given the 'law'-like nature of the NON, its effects seem to be no more easy to escape than those of the law of gravity. Of course, DM-theorists get around this by arguing that 'freedom' somehow 'emerges' from 'necessity', as the first 'Law' above (i.e., Q«Q) kicks into gear at some level of complexity. But, as we have seen, that particular 'Law' is far too weak to sustain this miraculous defence; as we have seen, it cannot even account for baldness or melting butter!
Anyway, this topic will be taken up in detail in Essay Three Part Five. There we will see that, unless dialecticians can come up with new evidence/argument, the NON (whether or not it is interpreted along the lines of Second International theorists) is eminently 'deterministic', eminently NON-Marxist.
It could also be argued that some mutations are internally-generated. Perhaps so, but these are errors of replication and can in no way be seen as negations (they are more like random spelling mistakes). Moreover, the random nature of these internal copying errors is difficult to square with a law-governed process. Not only are most mutations highly lethal (whether they are internally-, or externally-caused), they are not the least bit directional. Hence, at any particular point in its history a particular mutation might be of no use to an organism, or population (in terms of natural selection); at another, it could be a species-saver. There does not, therefore, appear to be much here that can be squeezed even into this NON-boot.
Same Tune -- Different Words
Finally, with respect to each of these three 'Laws', it is worth pointing out yet again that DM-theorists have been quite happy to derive acres of Superscience from a few square millimetres of obscure terminology -- only this time such Supertruths have been obtained from badly garbled, less than half-formed musings and seriously botched 'thought experiments'.
Word Count: 3,870
© Rosa Lichtenstein 2008
Hits Since December 21st 2007: