On this page: Question about form and content here ♦ Another question here ♦ Dialectical vs mechanical negation here ♦
Question About Dialectical Materialism
Comrades, in one of the virtual meetings, someone spoke about the importance of writing articles in dialectical terms. Specifically, about form and content. I kept thinking about the recent events of police brutality and the killing of George Floyd.
What is the form and what is the content in this process? I asked a friend with whom I frequently discussed politics.
At first, I thought the content was George Floyd’s death. He thought it was police brutality. Until we concluded that the content was racism. And the form is the political technique in which the process is handled.
My question is this: does the form change the content? I hope the experts help me understand more about this point.
—A Comrade
Another Question
I think the first question to ask is “form or content of what?”
Specifically, what is the aspect of the murder of George Floyd that provoked mass outrage? I think that Floyd’s murder was another in a long series of racist murders by police. This would agree with the person who said it was a case of police brutality. But before we talk specifically about form and content, we still need to say content of what specifically?
The form of the presentation of the murder by the press was video and television with announcements and commentary. The content of the video showed deliberate, sustained suffocation of a nearly helpless Black man by a cop surrounded by other cops who all belonged to a department with a long record of racist killings. We can also talk about the form and content of the Black Lives Matter protests, which is a related, but different issue.
—Another comrade
Dialectical vs. Mechanical Negation
“Collectivity reigned in human society for hundreds and thousands of years before class society. We’re bringing it back! The negation of the negation!” Rafael exclaimed.
“Does everyone understand this ‘negation of negation’ idea?” asked Marcia.
“Googling it now,” said Vilma. “Give us your breakdown of it, though.”
“Negation in formal logic is ‘not,’” Marcia responded. “It is raining. Negation: It is not raining. Negation of negation: It is NOT not raining (i.e., it is raining). Mechanical negation.
“But in the material world, the negation of negation often does NOT get you back where you started. Ginny is a baby. Look at Ginny – she’s not a baby anymore — she’s a little girl. Look at Ginny now — she’s not a little girl [that is, NOT not a baby] — she’s grown. Obviously, she’s not a baby again. Dialectical negation.
“Class society negated pre-class societies. Our job is to negate capitalism (and with it, all of class society) in a way that allows for further development (communism). Not to ‘negate capitalism’ by bombing the planet to smithereens! That would put major obstacles in the way of further human social development.
“Classless communist society (negation of negation of pre-class society) will not be the same as early pre-class societies because it will be informed and shaped by everything that has happened since.”
Vilma had her own example: “Trump is not not amoral.” She asked, “And you’re saying that a new vision and a classless society would be informed by experiences and knowledge from past successes/failures. Yes?”
“Yes,” Marcia responded. “That’s why we have to learn a lot from past successes/failures.” And you are correct: He is not not amoral. He is amoral. Mechanical negation. Or dialectical negation: He is beyond amoral.”
Los Angeles Comrades
Front page of this issue
