Prepared for a socialist theoretical seminar,

proposed and led by Fractal Vortex, organized by A. A., in October 2002, Ukraine

Forward: it was proposed that we organize a seminar for Marxists (as opposed to seminars for those who have to be taught the ABC's of Marxism). It was suggested that we start with a simple work of Marxism (as opposed to the most complex, such as "Capital"). The logic was: if we can work through a simple work, we can take up more complex works.

We took up "Ludwig Feuerbach and the close of the German philosophy", by Engels. I like this work for its simplicity and for its subject: philosophy. Previously, I have attempted to organize a Marxist seminar on the subject of the French revolution (about which I was writing at the time, 1997); the seminar on political event revealed that we have had disagreements on the most abstract issues. Hence, it is good to start with the abstract, i.e. philosophy, and proceed to more concrete issues, such as evaluation of historical events.

I have attempted to prepare for this seminar theses open for discussion. These theses had to be "as clear as the day" because I knew would have to defend them in front of a hostile audience (this was not my first encounter with Anshakov and his crew). In particular, I knew they would be hostile because I would argue that proletariat is no longer the leading class of the modern society, so to say "a savior of mankind". This is in clear contradiction to the orthodox Marxism which my opponents (Anshakov is a manual worker) preach. So you see, from beginning we were different elements, and hence it is not surprising that we didn't mix well.

We met only once, on a rainy day one Saturday, in an office I was renting, to teach English. The picture below was taken at the conclusion of that session. I should now note that only 4 people were present. Two of them were very late, and so we had to waste hours before starting. This is a manifestation that internally we're not yet organized for independent and free study groups. At least that's true for my partners. (In the picture, I am the shortest, on the right, with glasses; Anshakov is in the middle.) After the session, I remember the guys went for a beer, to chat, while I felt it would be a waste of time for me, and so I rode off into the distance on my bike under the rain...

Theses

1. In exploring something, we should go from what is “known” to what is unknown (a thought from Dewey's "Democracy and Education). That is why we have chosen to review “Ludwig Feuerbach” of Engels.
2. It should be evident that Engels does a poor job of presenting the wealth of Hegel’s system. However, since none of the participants of our seminar has had the ambition to understand that system for himself, Engels’ presentation is perceived with reverence. So what should be done, in the future, is to discuss the entire philosophy of Hegel in a comprehensive way. This will form the “ground”, a “primer” for a more comprehensive views on knowing (or knowledge). If abstract notion of “dialectics”  is perceived as the highest (as a kind of God for Marxists), and not rather as the synthesis of entire knowledge as it was known at the end of XVIII century, no next step is possible. Since Hegel, no philosopher has attempted such a comprehensive synthesis (maybe with exception of Engels in "Anti-Duhring", and that is a rather poor performance). Some scientists, such as Einstein, went further in separate spheres, but they presented no comprehensive world view. So: analysis of the entire philosophical system of Hegel is the next step for Marxists. If they want to have a comprehensive view of knowledge, a review of the best previous attempts is a conditio sine qua none (absolutely necessary). In other words, if one wants to go beyond Marxism, or extend Marxism to modern times (which is the same thing), and not treat Marxism as a dogma, and hence dead, we need to go back to Hegel. (Hence, I suggested Hegel's system as the topic of the next seminar. Immediately, I got a hostile reception from Anshakov, who felt that Engels treated Hegel fairly enough, and proletariat doesn't need to know more about dialectics. This was a point of contention throughout the entire seminar, and we didn't advance further. To their honor, other participants agreed with me that we should find out more about Hegel's system, especially as I offered to try to give a simple account of it. However, as Anshakov, the leader, didn't want to, others who came with him, followed him into drinking beer after the seminar. No further discussion took place.)

To the reader I can say that I studied philosophy at Columbia University in New York City. There, I got myself a personal seminar with Sydney Morgenbesser, after I did such fine work on my moral philosophy essay that a conservative professor (Mary Mothersill) was about to fail me. I assaulted moral philosophy which was taught to us (undergraduates) on Marxists grounds. So, Morgenbesser offered me to meet with him once every two weeks to discuss Marx. This we did. However, after initial discussions around Marx's essays (such as "On the Jewish question"), I insisted on turning to Hegel, in which my interest was sparked by his "Phenomenology of Spirit". Morgenbesser was not too interested in Hegel's dialectics, i.e. a comprehensive view of knowledge, and so the seminar didn't come to much. However, I remember carrying off one thing from it: I learned to read, i.e. to read much more carefully than an undergraduate trying to go through 20 pages of historical/philosophical text in an hour.

I should say to myself and to the reader honestly: my study of Hegel is incomplete, due to the fact that I didn't manage to go through the "big" "Logic"; I only went through the smaller version (in "Encyclopedia"), and found that terribly boring. Maybe, if our discussion in a group continued, I would have found strength to go through the "big" "Logic", and consequently Lenin's notes on the book.

5. Engels clearly states that first there is a revolution in thought, and then there is a social revolution. Now, this clearly goes against the “materialist” conception of history, whereby “matter is primary, and thought is secondary”. Rather, in line with modern physics, we should perceive that “matter” and “thought” are 2 different aspects of the same thing (just like energy and matter). They continuously influence each other. Moreover, as rude force dominates at early stages of civilization, delicate information technologies dominate today. That is not to deny that rude force is necessary to “finish” the job, but that plays a secondary or tertiary role.
6. More important than "information" in determining the outcome of a struggle is the moral conviction of one's rightness. Some call it "enthusiasm", some (Muslims) label it as "jihad". Moral conviction of oppressed Arabs proved stronger than defenses of the United States in destroying the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. Such moral conviction manifests everyday today in Iraq, in "Allied" casualties, and deaths of those Iraqis who collaborate with the invaders.
7. In this changing relationship between “thought” and “matter”, force of the mind and force of the muscle, we see hope for women, for their emergence from the position of servitude, weakness and oppression. 
8. It should be understood that logical development = historical development. These two (logical and historical) are different aspects of the same process. Hence, if we are interested in a comprehensive development of knowledge, we should observe the historical development of the Universe, from its creation (in the Big Bang) to the present state of society (i.e. its social problems and problems of knowledge). This, properly, is the next stage to understanding (and what's even better: presenting) the Hegelian system. Here, we shall have a chance to examine the latest theories on the structure of the Universe (Grand Unification Theories). On the way, we will have to address (again!) the question of existence of “a Creator” and “lawgiver to the Universe”, and hence battle with religion, as it is creeping anew (in former "socialist" countries). We shall have a chance to examine various "hard" sciences (such as astronomy, geology and biology) and proceed to take an overview of social theory (since Marx), and hence theories of knowledge (for knowledge is uniquely social production).
9. Thus, if the seminar developed along the lines suggested above, we would have proceeded from examination of Marx to examination of Hegel's system, and then would have gone into developing a new comprehensive system of knowledge which would replace Marxism. The diagram below represents a program of development. An advanced student can abstain from presenting the doctrine of Marxism to others in order to make clear for himself the doctrine of Hegel, and then go on develop, and present to others, still higher view of knowledge.
10. A doctrine of knowledge should consist of: 1) a doctrine of development of the Universe; 2) a doctrine of development of human society; 3) a doctrine of development of knowledge. The first part should include various theories of creation of the Universe. The second part should include various theories of revolution and progress of human civilizations. The third part should include various theories of logic and various modes of inquiring into knowledge. An approximate view of various spheres of knowledge is given below.
11. Ultimately, we're attempting to survey various facts and laws now existing in various branches of learning, and generalize these into laws. When I am talking about "various branches of learning", I mean not only science, but also actual experience, art, etc. Such general laws represent the next stage in learning, a truly unified doctrine (as opposed to "Grand Unification Theory" of physics, which attempts to combine into one set of laws only the known physical forces). This theory should make up better learners, and hence help us to live more prosperously, be stonger and more happy.
12. Engels writes (in "Ludwig Feuerbach"): "The Middle Ages had attached to theology all the other forms of ideology — philosophy, politics, jurisprudence — and made them subdivision of theology. It thereby constrained every social and political movement to take on a theological form". Today, the same is true in regard to science. Everything is “science”, i.e. learning which is spread out into branches seemingly not connected with each other (the image of “the tree of knowledge”). "Science" was perceived in the Industrial epoch as the form of knowledge par excellence. Leonardo attempted to make art into science (in the picture on the right we see his attempt to inscribe a man into basic geometric forms). Spinoza attempted to make ethics a science, by presenting his system of ethics in a form of geometric proofs. Hegel wrote that his ambition is to take philosophy from being merely "a love of wisdom" ("philosophy") to actually being wisdom, knowledge. In other words, he was proposing to make philosophy into science. Thus we see that while in the Middle Ages the unifying doctrine was that of theology, in the epoch of the Industrial revolution the unifying doctrine was that of a science.
13. Science is essentially a study of separate things and processes, through the methods of observation, thinking (analysis + synthesis) and experiment. But it is possible to study all the process together, in their interconnection. “Philosophy” may not be the name for this approach, for philosophy often substitutes mental creations for gaps in knowledge (thus being a transitional stage between religion and science). Philosophy has shown itself in history as a progressive force when it acted as a stepping stone on the way to science. The term "science-philosophy" comes close to describe the future mode of knowledge. Thus, for example, Einstein is treated by the scientific community as a “scientist-philosopher”, due to his advanced research on physics as well as to his dabbling in other spheres of human inquiry. Another example of a modern universal man would be Isaac Asimov – a writer, a scientist, an educator. While a young person begins to know Asimov the science fiction writer (e.g. the "Foundation" series), a more mature student is interested in his scientific and humanitarian views (a story "Profession", a speech to the students at Rutgers university on the future of humanity, a collection of articles "Frontiers").

14. Another way of seeing these “new people” is to see them as all-around Renaissance men and women (it is Chernishevsky who coined the term "new people" in his socialist novel "What's to be done?"). These are people trained both in physical and mental labor, and hence continuously alive to the joy of living. It is people who approach knowledge not with a view to specialization, but rather in a way that combines the opposites. These people partially overcame limitations of a class-based society in their own lives, and hence attempt to help others to free themselves as well. It is from this group of people, gradually forming today, that we can expect a new doctrine of knowledge.

15. For a beginner, it is better to commit a mistake of seeing the “savior” in proletariat rather than in bourgeoisie. This way, at least, s/he is honest about Marxist theory, and is not selling oneself to national capital. It is only from the standpoint of Marxism that one can advance further, even though this advance implies abandoning the notion of proletariat as the most advanced class of our society and going back to Hegel.

16. In parallel with theoretical program outlined above, we should pursue our struggle in the practical sphere of winning our material existence. Essentially, this struggle is the same as that of trying to obtain greater knowledge, systematizing it, and applying it to some specific task. All modern production relies on advanced forms of technology and knowledge, such as computers, languages, creativity, etc. A modern person should strive towards being the best in one of these fields. Achieving this, s/he gains power to lead others. For example, as a successful teacher s/he can teach other students, as well as other teachers. This power can be used to preach to others principles which go against the established society. It can also be used to try to organize production in a manner that is sharply different - opposed both to capitalist motives and to the power of bureaucracy. This is truly the meaning of the slogan “power to the people”. It is people taking power in society due to their superior knowledge.

17. We should remember that in the same manner the bourgeoisie “dissolved” the power of the feudal lords. Isolated "pockets of resistance" upon the body of feudal relations eventually grew into capitalist economic system worldwide. Essentially, I propose “practical democracy”, which involves both producers and users, working together, without the intermediary of “an entrepreneur” or “administration”. Strategic problems of planning should be performed at first by “a leader”, then by the leader together  with the most advanced "users", gradually passing into the hands of a body composed of the rank-and-file "users".

18. Thus, practical activity of “revolutionaries” is not demonstrations or pickets or printing of magazines and newspapers, etc. but rather application of advanced knowledge to the actual needs of the society. For example, we see Goethe's Faust going out into the crowd of villagers and helping them as a doctor, even though he is learned in many other fields.
19. In Goethe and in Hegel we find the idea that the moving force of history is "evil" or "the negative". One more time, we see the truth of this in the new round of imperialism. Present-day imperialism pursues two basic goals: a) the traditional one is to obtain free hand with the scarce raw materials, oil first of all; b) the modern goal of crushing the remnants of socialism; c) the global goal of achieving a global supremacy, "the United States of the World". Hence, an understanding of our times requires an examination of the history of this tendency of capital to expand and conquer (which we really see from its dawn). It also requires examining in great detail the struggles going on currently. An understanding of our times is essential to propose a serious program.

20. Moreover, if we accept the view that “all political struggles are class struggles”, we should be ready to say what social classes are now playing the dominant role in the political struggles on the arena of former Soviet Union, and all former “socialist” and “communist” countries. The principal parties that we see leading the people are the bureaucrats who want to return to the status quo (for example, the slogan of recreating the USSR), and the bureaucracy-capitalist symbiosis who wants to drive the former "socialist" societies towards capitalism. Between these 2 major parites, we notice various small parties, trying to form political blocks (for example “the block of Yulia Timoshenko” in Ukraine allied itself with the Socialist and Communist parties). The workers and ordinary people are mostly involved in economic struggles, individually or in trade unions. In the process, they undergo a kind of political education, but in a very slow manner – too slow to expect any revolutionary change. So, questions emerge: What is happening in former “socialist” countries? Are they all going down the Yugoslav path? Once again, it appears that the clash of two “evils” (“nostalgia” party and the party of “reformers”), together with the negative force exerted by the international capital, may in the end lead to a revolution.

21. Socialist revolution is a series of revolutions, gradually achieving its goal. Let’s notice that the bourgeoisie was attempting to rise to power continually, over the period of centuries! For example, Engels notes the Reformation in Germany, led by Luther, in the XVI century – this led to disappearance of Germany from the map of European nations. Hence, this was a dismal failure for German bourgeoisie. In XVII century, we have the English revolution, led by Puritans. This was one of the first cases where bourgeoisie successfully took the reigns of power, although also after a prolonged struggle, which included Restoration of Stuarts, and then again a new revolution to get rid of them. In XVIII century we have the French revolution. In XX century, the German feudal system was finally overthrown, thanks to the revolutionary enthusiasm of proletariat and counter-revolutionary tendency of bourgeoisie. Perhaps we can project similar set of upheavals against capitalist system. First such upheaval took place in France, in 1871, and ended in dismal failure – murder of Parisian Communards. Second anti-capitalist upheaval took place in Russia – in 1905 and 1917. (Right now we have Restoration in the former USSR.) Following WWII, other similar upheavals achieved success – in Yugoslavia in 1945, in China in 1949, in Cuba in 1959, in Vietnam in 1975. We should notice that most of the successful anti-capitalist revolutions took place in the course of wars started by ruling capitalist circles, e.g. Napoleon III of France started war against Bismark's Prussia in 1870. Hence, it is possible to think that the future anti-capitalist revolution will also take place in the course of a war started by the imperialist powers. Another possibility is a global war between Russia and the USA, leading to a global revolution against both the bureaucracy and imperialists, in the course of a nuclear holocaust.

Written October 2nd, 2002

Revised February 14th, 2004

other materials related to working with people from "Workers' Resistance"