An Introduction to the Logic of Marxism PDF
Preview An Introduction to the Logic of Marxism
An Introduction to the Logic of Marxism AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LOGIC OF MARXISM GEORGE NOVACK PATHFINDER PRESS, NEW YORK Copyright © 1971 by Pathfinder Press, Inc. Copyright © 1969 by Merit Publishers All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 76-8790~ ISBN: cloth 0-87348-019-8; paper 0-87348-018-X Fifth Edition First Printing, 1969 Second Printing, 1971 Third Printing, 1973 Fourth Printing, 1975 Pathfinder Press, Inc. 410 \Vest Street New York, N.Y. 10014 Preface to the Third Edition The kind of logic discussed in this book is so different from the logic presented in school courses that they may seem to be two virtually unconnected subjects. There is a profound reason for this contradiction. It is rooted in the opposite positions taken by the academic and the Marx ist schools of logic on the relations between thought and reality, more specifically, between logic and the external world. Formal logicians, despite other differences amongst themselves, assume or assert that logic is essentially sealed up in the mind and has no necessary and unbreakable connections with society and nature. At the very best they are ambiguous and evasive on this central philosophical question. Marxist logic on the other hand takes an unambiguous stand on the relations between the laws and the forms of thought and the rest of reality. It affirms that what goes on in the minds of men, both in substance and structure, is inseparable from what happens in their social relations and the physical world and that the evolution of thought is part of the total process of organic evolution. Thus a materialistic logic seems strange in its approach and con tent to anyone trained in the conceptions of a logic sup posedly divorced from roots in the world around us. Yet it is precisely this feature of Marxist logic, so alien and unacceptable to the prevailing currents of logical theory, 6 The Logic of Marxism which gives exceptional value, power, and usefulness to the dialectical method of materialist thought. What value has a logic which does not have its roots in the continually developing material world, does not remain in constant communion with it, and cannot be applied to the processes and problems in which we are involved? As against the insulated logic of the professors, the logic of Marxism endeavors to come to grips with the realities we face and succeeds better than any other in providing a rational guide to practical action. These lectures were originally given in New York City during 1942 shortly after the opposition headed by James Burnham and Max Shachtman had split from the Social ist Workers Party. During that inner-party controversy, Burnham had denied the validity of dialectical logic while Shachtman questioned its usefulness in solving sociological and political problems. In the last year of his life, Trotsky conducted a sharp polemic, recorded in his In Defense of Marxism, against these anti-dialecticians. He urged the party members, es pecially the youth, to spurn the skepticism regarding dialectics inculcated by the pragmatists and logical posi tivists and to undertake serious study of the theoretical method of scientific socialism. The subsequent evolution of Burnham and Shachtman has involuntarily testified to the pertinence of the dialectic they so lightly discarded. They represent two stages of switching sides in the class struggle. Upon rejecting Trot skyism, Burnham swung rapidly to the far right and is today in the front rank of the anti-Communist cold war riors. After a fruitless experiment with his own political group, Shachtman now sojourns in that wing of the So cialist Party which seeks a realignment of forces within the Democratic Party. The one went all the way over to capitalist reaction; the other shifted from revolutionary Marxism to a reformism indistinguishable from liberal ism. Total or partial, their change from onepolitical posi tion into its opposite illustrates what is meant by a dialec tical transformation. Preface 7 Still more startling reversals have taken place in inter national affairs over these same twenty years. Consider the alliances among the Great Powers. Hitler hadjust torn up his pact with Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union. Germany, Italy and Japan were beating back the United States, England and the Soviet Union. Three years later the Axis lay shattered. The victorious Allies had talked of extending their col laboration into the postwar world. But no sooner were their common opponents smashed than the temporary coalition of contradictory social forces in the Allied camp fell apart. In the ensuing Cold War yesterday's partners became adversaries while the former Axis enemies were realigned in the anti-Soviet front. These turnabouts demonstrated that the dialectic oper ated as strongly in the arena of world politics as within American radicalism. Now the logic implicit in the Sino Soviet breach indicates that more drastic reshufflings in state relations are in the cards. These shifts are linked with the mighty resurgence of world revolution since the end of the Second World War. At the beginning of the twentieth century, ascending capi talism had the whole planet securely in its grip. Already in the second half of this century one-third of humanity has moved beyond it. This erosion of international capitalism by the forces of socialism is the most momentous overturn of social rela tions in modern times. Its material basis is in the class struggle between capital and labor. Its logical explanation will be found in the laws of dialectics which assert that everything changes because of the contention of opposites within itself and keeps on changing until, by way of a qualitative leap of an essentially revolutionary character, the old formation is shattered and a new one steps forth in the proving of its superior power. As developments in this age of permanent revolution proceed in accordance with the laws of dialectics, defenders of the status quo belittle Marxist logic in order to quar antine its ideas. They say dialectics is mystical nonsense 8 The Logic of Marxism that no sensible person can comprehend or apply. This hardly explains why so many keen minds over the past century have accepted Marxist philosophy as valid nor why it is taken as a guide by entire peoples with brilliant achievements to their credit in science, technology, educa tion and industry. Unable to dismiss these facts, the Sovietologists seek to discredit dialectics in another way by coupling it with Stalinism. It is, they contend, one of the prime sources and ideological supports of totalitarianism and thought control. To be sure, Stalin's regime did claim to be disseminat ing Marxism, just as it misrepresented itself as "socialist." There is nothing beneficial, from fire to nuclear energy, and nothing progressive, from democracy to socialism, which has not been perverted for reactionary purposes. Imperialism often uses the slogans of democracy to cover its villainies. So Stalinism debased the teachings of mater ialist dialectics into scholasticism and sophistry to serve the needs of the Soviet bureaucracy. But genuine dialectics has taken ironic revenge upon the dictator who abused it. The very disciples who officially idolized him for thirty years were driven to expose his pretensions and crimes after his death. But his successors have started a process of de-Stalinization which they dare not carry through because that involves the surrender of their own bureaucratic domination. This means that, in the next stages of the struggle for workers' democracy, the Khrushchev tendency will also feel the whip of the dialectic. Only the total eradication of the heritage of Stalinism in all fields, from philosophy and art to eco nomics and politics, can restore an emancipated and un falsified Marxist dialectic to Soviet thought. Nowhere is dialectics held in so little esteem as in the United States, the homeland of pragmatism. It shares the same unpopularity here as do the other ideas of socialism. The majestic rulers of America scorn the dialectics of history. They confidently expect to enjoy the riches ac quired through the work of others and occupy the seats Preface 9 of sovereignty forever. The multi-millionaires and their minions cannot conceive that they might some day follow the earlier master classes, the British overlords and Southern slaveholders, who were deposed by the revolu tionary upthrust of the American people once their useful ness was outlived. Even the abolition of capitalist property and power in countries ranging from Russia to Cuba since 1917 has not upset this complacency. They view the anti capitalist movement as a purely external threat that will never rise up and find a broad base within their private domain. It is true that presently the foreign problems besetting the U.S. imperialists are more acute and troublesome than domestic ones. However, the upsurge of the Freedom Now movement of the American Negroes signifies that even this strongest sector of capitalism is not immune to the virus of revolt. And although this has not yet spread to the mass of white workers, it can be infectious. The multiple contradictions of American capitalism are too deep-seated and potentially explosive to be indefinitely repressed or evaded. Their further unfolding must lead to some surprising consequences. Who, twenty years ago, could have foreseen the current stalemate in the "strategy of terror"? As these talks were being delivered in the New York of 1942, the first tests of atomic fission were being performed in Chicago. The perfecting of nuclear warheads and guided missiles has since revolutionized military technology and the whole world outlook. Bristling with "overkill" capabilities, the White House and Pentagon today face the following dilem ma: What is the worth of a war that will not only anni hilate the enemy but oneself and all mankind as well? Such a "victory" would be the most catastrophic of defeats. This most excruciating of contradictions concerns the American people even more than the militarists. Washing ton was ready to launch the H-bombs during the October 1962 confrontation with Moscow. The question still stands: Will the atomaniacs in high places be permitted to menace our lives with these death-dealing devices - or will an
The list of books you might like
