Marx in Studying Society and Nature - Article Example

Research Method and Marxism on Nature McLellan (1979) identified that the social thinkers who have adopted the Marxist method include Friedrich Engels1, Rosa Luxemburg, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Leon Trotsky, Karl Korsch, George Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Mao Zedong, and Regis Debray. In addition, modern Marxists have been responsible for the creation of the Frankfurt School, existentialist Marxism, the Della Volpe School, structural Marxism, British Marxism, and the brand of Marxism in the United States. The list indicates that the Marxist perspective is a useful framework in sociology, social sciences, political science, and philosophy. The list suggests that Marxism can be used to develop the research perspective, framework, and research methodology of several disciplines. I. The method of Marx in studying society and nature The basic method of analysis of Marx is known as dialectical materialism. It is sometimes called materialism or dialectics for short. Applied to the study of society or history, the method is also known as dialectical historical materialism. We review some of the work of Marx, Engels, and Foster with regard to the Marxist viewpoint on nature and derive principles that may be useful for research methodology. II. Marx’s on Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature Marx’s “Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature” is his first complete work and his doctoral thesis (Foster 2000, 32). Yet at the same time, when Marx submitted the work to the press for publication, Marx declared his work to be unfinished. In his doctoral thesis, Marx argued that he had solved an important problem in the history of Greek philosophy (Marx 1841, 6). Marx pointed out that that the Democritus and Epicururus teach exactly the same science but they are diametrically opposed in all that concern truth (Marx 1841, 16). Marx criticized Aristotle for defending Democritus in his position that the soul and mind are one and the same. He noted that Aristotle also defended Democritus for asserting that “nothing is true or is concealed from us” (Marx 1841, 16). Marx said that Democritus had many self-contradictions and a self-contradiction can be found in the way that Democritus articulated the relationship between the atom and the world (Marx 1841, 16). For Marx, “sensuous appearance” does not belong to the atom themselves” and that “the true principles are the atoms and the void, everything else is opinion semblance” (Marx 1841, 17). In his passages related on these topics, Marx asserted the materialism of nature. All notions of nature that nature belongs to the mind are outside of the objective selves of the atom. People develop notions or impressions on the atom that is apart or distinct from the objective existence of the atom. Marx stresses on the primacy of material existence and people’s opinions or notions of the material is distinct but secondary and apart from what is objective. Focusing on Democritus’ emphasis on necessity versus Epicurus’ stress on chance, Marx sided2 with Democritus and argued that “if somebody is thirsty and drinks and feels better,” Democritus will not attribute to chance the cause of the situation but to thirst (Marx 1841, 22). Marx also agreed with Democritus that chance is not the cause of events but other causes. On the debate between Democritus and Epicurus on the movement of the atom, Marx generalized that the repulsion of many atoms is the necessary realization of the law of the atom (Marx 1841). Marx argued that, in the same way, man ceases to be a mere product of nature when he is able to crush within himself his relative being or the power over himself of mere desires and natures (Marx 1841, 39-40). Marx argued that man realizes his humanity through consciousness and repulsion by man of himself is the first form of that self-consciousness (Marx 1841, 40). On the debate between Democritus and Epicurus on the how the properties of the atom can be categorized, Marx highlights the difference between existence and essence, between matter and form, and between composition and appearances (Marx 1841, 47-61, 62-63). Marx argued that composition is not the only form of appearance (Marx 1841, 62). He pointed out that appearance does not show by itself that it is appearance and, further, appearance must be considered in terms of its existence even as essence is totally separated from existence (Marx 1814, 62). Despite the hullabaloo, this simply means that our analysis of things must go beyond what is apparent. Marx highlights that “human sensuousness is therefore embodied time, the existing reflection of the sensuous world in itself” (Marx 1841, 63). One meaning that we can make out of the statement is that human initiative and response have a time context. Men can react differently to a particular act, depending on the historical or time context of the act. In other words, we have a historical man whose initiatives and responses to acts vary in history. In other words, human specific responses and initiatives are bounded in time. III. Marxist method as applied by Engels on nature Engels’ “Dialectics of Nature” on the www.marxist.org website has the date 1883 which is the death year of Karl Marx on 14 March. According to the International Publishers (1980), however, Engels wrote the article during 1875-76 but it was first published in 1925 or so many years after the demise of Marx.3 Marx and Engels were collaborator in many works. The Communist Manifesto of 1848, for example, which is the basic document of communists all over the world, was the joint opus of Marx and Engels. Together, they fathered several other works, sometimes alternating as main and preface/introduction writer for each other’s works. Based on Lenin (1895), Marx and Engels have been close collaborators for at least 39 years since 1844. They were closer from 1870 to 1883 when Engels moved to London until Marx died and buried in London. Marx died before he could “put the finishing touches” to Das Kapital (Lenin 1895, 20). Thus, it can be assumed that Engels edited the first volume of Das Kapital. At the same time, it was Engels who prepared the second and third volumes of Das Kapital but his death in 1894 prevented Engels from finishing volume 4 of the opus (Lenin 1895, 20). Thus, the body of work, Das Kapital included, which is considered Marxist, is actually the joint work of Marx and Engels. It is in this spirit, that this work treats Engels’ “Dialectics of Nature” as a Marxist work and the methodology or approach described therein as a Marxist method. Engels (1883) asserts that both society and nature follow three laws developed by Hegel in an idealist framework: 1. Quantity to quality 2. Interpenetration of opposites 3. Negation of negation According to Engels, Hegels’s mistake lie in that the three laws are “foisted on nature and history as laws of thought and not deduced from them” (Engels 1883, Chapter 2.1). In the first, qualitative changes in nature takes place via quantitative changes or that qualitative changes takes place because of a series of quantitative changes. This can also be described as the law of transformation of quantity into quality. Engels asserted that “it is impossible to alter the quality of a body without the quantitative alternation” (Engels 1883, Chapter 2.1). For example, it is through quantitative changes in temperature that water is transformed to a new quality or from liquid to gas. At first, no qualitative change is involved as the temperature of the water is raised. The qualitative change takes place when the quantitative changes increase water temperature to 100 degrees centigrade. Similarly, two atoms of oxygen will combine to form the usual oxygen molecule. However, three oxygen atoms will form an ozone molecule (Engels 1883, Chapter 2.3). The law of quantity transforming into qualitative change also applies to society (Engels 1883, Chapter 2.4). The interpenetration of opposites or action of opposites with each other is at work in nature. It is demonstrated, for example, in friction. Interpenetration of opposites is also at work in force in that to every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Interpenetration of opposites is also illustrated in “tidal friction”. It is also demonstrated in electricity in that two opposite charges are at work and their interaction gives rise to energy. In illustrating how the law of negation of negation is at work, Engels relied on operations on chemistry. IV. Foster (2000) on Marx and ecology For Foster (2000), Marx exhibited a deep ecological awareness in his works (Foster 2000, vi). Marx had dealt with the problems of agriculture, circulation of soil nutrients, and other ecological concerns (Foster 2000, vi). Although there is a long history of denouncing Marx for a lack of concern for ecology, the view is not supported by evidence: on the contrary, Marx has denounced the spoliation of nature and ecology of the bourgeoisie (Foster 2000, 9). Marx has even maintained the stance that it is not only labour that is the source of wealth but also nature (Foster 2000, 10). More importantly, Marx’s combination of dialectics and materialism advanced the emphasis of the interdependence of human beings with each other and with the earth over the entire course of material evolution (Foster 2000, 13). According to Foster (2000, 14), it was the materialism promoted by Marx that facilitated ecology’s adoption of “four informal laws of ecology”: 1) everything is connected; 2) everything has an end; 3) nature is supreme; and 4) nothing comes from nothing. Nevertheless, despite a commitment to ecology, Marx defended “wood thieves” when he became editor of a major Rhineland newpaper, the Rheinische Zeitung. With the privatization of the forests, landowners have increasingly denied the poor the right to collect deadwood in the forest for use to heat up their homes and cooking (Forster 2000, 66). Thus, thefts and poaching intensified which were respondent to with extreme severity (Forster 2000, 66). In his analysis of the problem, Marx noted that the forest owners turned into a value things which were earlier not considered valuable (Forster 2000, 67). In short, for Foster, Marx provided a framework to consider in analyzing environmental issues: the roots of the problem can be found in the capitalist greed for profit. V. Conclusion: Elements of Marxist methodology useful for research Several lessons useful for research methodology can be learned from Marxist ideas on nature. The first lesson that can be learned from Marx’s discourse on nature is that things do not happen because of chance but takes place because of a chain of causes and effects. Discovering the chain of causes and effects of events, therefore, is a task of research methodology. The second lesson that we can derive from Marx’s discussions on nature is that humanity is best studied in terms of consciousness because it is consciousness that distinguish man from the rest of nature even as man is part of nature. The third lesson from Marx treatise on nature, in his work on Democritus and Epicurus for example, is that our analysis of phenomenon, both social and natural, must go beyond what is obvious and that we have go deeper and go beyond from what is apparent. The fourth lesson that we can gather from Marx treatise on nature, particularly from his work on Democritus and Epicurus, is that man is in a historical setting and therefore we can only study societies better in a historical context. The fifth lesson that we can gather from Marxist methodology, particularly from Engel’s Dialectics of Nature, is that research methodology must be cognizant of the quantitative aspect of qualitative changes and must be similarly cognizant that quantitative changes can lead to qualitative change. Votes, for example, can add up such that a minority can become the majority. At the same time, every quality can be considered associated with quantity or has a quantitative dimension. Governments may be democratic or fascists and a matter that is related to the nature of that government essentially refer to the quantitative size or the critical mass of citizens who adhere to either democracy or fascism. The sixth lesson that we can gather from Marxist methodology, particularly from Engel’s Dialectics of Nature, is that research methodology must be cognizant of the social forces that are conflict with each other as we study societies. The law of interpenetration of opposites work in societies not only in nature. The seventh lesson that we can gather from Marxist methodology, particularly from Engel’s Dialectics of Nature, is that research methodology must be cognizant that societies are in constant development: each novelty is always replaced by newer novelty. Each new idea will be replaced by a new idea. Social forces today may play a progressive role but in the future they may be the new conservatives and they will be challenged by the new progressives. The status of being progressive is not eternal and non-immutable but always subject to the law of the negation of the negation. The eighth lesson that we can gather from Marxist methodology in developing our research methodology is to investigate the possible link between society and nature as relevant to our study and adopt the perspective of sustainable development whenever the adoption of the perspective is useful for our research problem. Development, for example, must not simply be analyzed from a development perspective but from the perspective of sustainable development. Further, what can be gathered from Marx is that everything is interrelated. Thus, following from this interrelation of everything, man and nature are symbiotic. Finally, the ninth lesson that we can obtain from Marxist methodology for research methodology is a framework for analyzing environmental issues. The data that we can gather for our research can be interpreted best or better from the perspective of Marxist analysis: private property and commercialization of the forest, ecology, and the forest as the possible roots for the environmental degradation that we experience today. In sum, the lessons that can be obtained from Marxian discourse on nature in relation to research methods are that our research method must be cognizant of the interrelatedness of phenomena, the human consciousness involved in a phenomenon, the deeper meanings of what are apparent, the historicity involved in the subject of study, the need to adopt the perspective of sustainable development and ecology so long as the two concerns or framework are relevant to the study, and the need to consider the Marxism as a possible option for analysis. Bibliography Engels, Frederick. Dialectics of Nature. 1883. Available in http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/don/index.htm (accessed 8 April 2010). Foster, John Bellamy. Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2000. Lenin, Vladimir. Frederick Engels. 1895. In Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: Selected Works. New York: International Publishers, 1980. McLellan, David. Marxism After Marx. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1979. Marx, Karl. The Difference the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature. 1841. Reprint, New York: Rowland Classics, 2009. Marx, Karl. Introduction to A Contribution to the Critiques of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. 1844. Available in http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm (accessed 8 April 2010). Read More