Le texte qui suit a été écrit en un anglais approximatif, et dans un format et un site (FB) tout à fait inadéquat. Je le reproduis ici, sans traduction - pas le temps et pas sûr qu'il y aura des lecteurs!- car il reprend certaines thématiques essentielles, aussi bien vis-à-vis de la vision téléologique de l'histoire que des conditions d'utilisations de la dialectique hégelienne pour interpréter celle-ci. Il aborde sommairement certaines réserves importantes vis-à-vis du marxisme, tel qu'il existe jusqu'ici, c'est-à-dire aspirant à être un matérialisme historique, mais ne l'étant pas encore.

Il s'agit d'un commentaire à un article, "Dialectical materialism", signalé par un de mes contacts. Voir aussi le début d'un article sur mon blog Imaginales. Ou deux articles sur un autre blog en déshérence, Divergence: Les lois de l'histoire 1 et les Lois de l'histoire 2

Je reprends juste, pour aider à la compréhension de quelque improbable lecteur, l'énoncé des "trois lois" de la dialectique contenu dans l'article anglais:

1) The law of the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa;
2) The law of the interpenetration of opposites, and
3) The law of the negation of the negation.

Commentaire paru sur Fb:

Very good text, clear and complete. Certainly as far as it concerned examples of the « first law » (quantity into quality) with the great works of James Gleick, Per Bak or Stephen Jay Gould, f.e.. (or the wonderful quote of Trotstky about the fox). It shows that dialectic is a effective « movement of knowledge, » as Paul Anderson says, because it is a effective movement of reality itself.

But no so convincing for the two others, because, to my opinion, in the second lays a problem of marxism itself, and the third is still used in a idealistic view.

For the second, the author gives as example the « two faces of value », use-value and exchange-value and, quite strangely says that exchange value is a invention of capitalism! As long as there is value, the two faces coexist, beacause as the author quotes Engels earlier, « all polar opposites in general are determined by the mutual action of the two opposite poles on each other » Every human act has use and exchange value. It comes from the charateristic of manhood created by evolution: man behaviour is individually and socially determined. The same for langage. Even thought. You can think for yourself, but you thhinkt always with a potential interlocuteur. So the communist society will no more banished exchange value than you can expect banish north pole just to have south pole, (which you would like to do if all workers were in the south and capitalist in the north!)

The same with surplus value. There was always « unpaid labour »: it is the fondation of society: a part of the value created by labour goes to the individual, the other goes to the group. The « problem » with capitalism is that a great deal of the « social part » of the value doesn't go to the society as a whole, but to a special class of individuals, the capitalist (and before them, priests, warriors, merchants, etc), and doing so gives the dialectic interaction of capital and labour a conflictual and lethal face, which shapes history of societies from neolithic.

Before using this second law, you must first identify the good opposites: labour and capital are, worker's and capitalist's class aren't. You must weth this law before using it. If not, it will only be used, as it were with stalinism, to justify all and his opposite.

For the third law: it is poisoned with the idealistic view of progress, so characteristic of XVIII and XIX century, from which derived the idea that evolution and history has a direction, goes somewhere, with teleological flavour. For evolution, it is showed in the text with « the great evolutionary advantages of sexual reproduction », as if evolutionary advantages, who naturally appears after the appeareance of sexual reproduction where the causes of his appeareance! The changes that shape evolution are aleatory. The « advantages » are in fact a way for a conservative system to deal with an involuntary change. The perturbation negates the equilibrium (negation) and the system responses by creating a new equilibrium, f.e. a new specie. (negation of negation) So the third law is useful, but only if you give out his teleological direction. For evolution, Stephen Jay Gould often emphasizes that it doesn't have any direction, that it is not there for human to appear. The most effective, the most present forms of live lies in the simpliest forms, as bacteria, without any sexual reproduction.

 

 

Bibliographie, en français, des auteurs cités:

Per Bak: "Quand la nature s'organise : avalanches et tremblements de terre"  (16 avril 1999), Flammarion


James Gleick: La Théorie du Chaos [« Chaos: Making a New Science »], Paris, Flammarion, coll. « Champs », 1988 (réimpr. 1999),

431 p.

Stephen Jay Gould: tout est à lire, et d'une lecture aisée! (en poche, collection Points-Science au Seuil, par exemple "Quand les poules auront des dents") Ou en livre de poche, collection Biblio: Le Pouce du Panda

 

Et aussi:

Friedrich Engels, Dialectique de la nature, édition électronique

Karl Marx, Le Capital I édition électronique