Бесплатный фрагмент - Noosphere Project as Ordering

Alexander F. Lopin
NOOSPHERE PROJECT AS ORDERING

PREDICTION

Dedicated to the true inspiration of my intellectual pursuits, my wife Catherine.

We live in the developing universe. The development manifests itself not only in the form of calm evolution, but also in the form of crises and in the form of revolutions. Therefore, cognition of the laws of development is necessary for the successful development of human society and human personality. The modern globalization of human activity forces us to look at society from above as if from the developing world in order to develop the most general theoretical positions, which are so necessary for a new worldview. A new vision of the world requires a search for new knowledge, which in turn requires a new cognition, which will be based on a new paradigm. The theory of development in the form of a method of cognition should serve as such the paradigm.

The crisis of human society manifests itself in the spiritual sphere in the form of consumerism, fundamentalism and obscurantism. Society is caught in a deadlock of consumption, it has lost reference points of development, and without development it is doomed to rot and ruin. The crisis state of any society is overcome due to self-activity of enthusiasts, who have realized their destiny for the development of society and acting in that direction in accordance with the new knowledge. Society in its development has come to a point where its development can no longer be carried out without the conscious activity of enthusiasts who have realized the importance of their existence for the development of society and who act in this direction in accordance with new knowledge. The scattered actions of enthusiasts who have not yet realized their purpose are extinguished and lost in the depths of society. The time has come for enthusiasts to realize their predestination, to realize their activity as a necessary and sufficient condition for the development of society. It is time for enthusiasts to realize the main condition for the existence of society and to join forces on the basis of a theory of development. Enthusiasts hold the key to the future, because they are not afraid of novelty, are able to think freely and have free will. Enthusiasts must fulfill their destiny.

Marx’s principle, which goes back to Plato, is the conscious transformation of society on the basis of cognition. The practice of cognition, by virtue of this principle, should become the driving force behind the development of society. Consequently, we move to the primacy of cognition in relation to production, to the primacy of cognition in relation to the production of society itself. In line with this notion we come to the noosphere, a new form of organization predicted by V.I. Vernadsky and de Chardin. The noosphere is a future new form of Matter development, which will emerge after the biological and social forms of Matter development. It will be formed as a result of the reasonable development of society on the basis of cognition and will be a synthesis of biological and social forms of Matter development, interacting with them within Alive Matter. From the position of Alive Matter, the essence of the biosphere is the spontaneous extraction of information in the form of heredity, and the essence of the sociosphere is the conscious transfer of information in the form of culture and heredity of the human biological species, while the essence of the noosphere will be the primacy of cognition relative to the conscious transfer of information in the process of production of society. In the noosphere, information extraction will revert to primacy over information transfer.

The worldview of development presupposes a worldview that consciously holds the primacy of development over the relationship of everything to everything, over universal interdependence. Dialectics or dialectical logic reflects development, while dogmatism or formal logic has as its origin the universal connection. Dialectical logic does not reject formal logic, but uses it as a tool, just as all science uses mathematics as a tool.

Development is the creation of a new order that forms a contradiction with the old order. Consequently, the conscious management of development consists in the conscious creation of a new order.

What is consciousness? Consciousness is a product of worldview. What is worldview? A worldview is the product of human relations through (or with) abstract thinking. Therefore, an abstract picture of the developing world is required. Abstractions, ideas, concepts arise in the course of social practice within the order vs disorder contradiction.

This abstract picture of the developing world is the result of cognition on the basis of a new theory of cognition, in which the theory of development is the method of cognition. Conscious development requires the understanding of the theory of development, after which there will be a transition to the subjectivity of the practice of cognition over social practice. Conscious development will not proceed without free will. Freedom of will can only be freedom of thinking, but not any thinking, but thinking for the development of social relations.

Ordering completes the stage of development.

The ordering of dominance relations (instinct of domination) ended with absolutism within feudalism, the ordering of exchange relations (instinct of consumption) ended with imperialism within capitalism, the ordering of labor relations (instinct of collectivism) will end with communism within communist system, the ordering of cognitive relations (instinct of curiosity) will end with noosphere within Alive Matter.

CONTENTS

— The «theory of development» gives a method of cognition. Truth in development. Every method is nothing more than the preconceived (anticipated) essence of the subject of study. The theory of development is abstracted when considering the evolutionary series of forms of development of matter, as well as the history of their development, and describes the interaction of opposites of contradiction. The way of development of an isolated abstract contradiction leads to an abstract network of contradictions, and from the latter a leap is made to a concrete network of contradictions — a theoretical model of the developing world.

— «The worldview of development» considers the history of human society as the history of the production of worldviews and the change of one worldview by another: the mythological worldview by the religious worldview, and the latter by the proletarian worldview. The change of worldviews occurred in concert with the development of society’s driving contradiction — the contradiction of consumption and production, subject to the primacy of production. An analysis of this contradiction for the communist social order, which concentrated the contradictions of the whole society, made it possible to arrive at a critique of socialism, to predict its transition to communism within the framework of communist social order, and to reveal the contradictions of communism, which would consist in the exploitation of enthusiasm by consumers. A worldview of development would emerge as the result of the generalization of the emotions and aspirations of enthusiasts for the development of society in the course of the development of labor relations. Enthusiasts will have to turn to cognition for the development of society. As a result, cognition will become the meaning of life for reasonable enthusiasts.

— «The theory of abstract thinking and perspectives on cognition» critically examines the comprehension of the theory of cognition by abstract thinking, depicted by Hegel in «The Phenomenology of Spirit». In contrast to Hegel’s system, sense perception stands as the primacy of the driving contradiction of cognition: sense perception — abstract thinking. The history of cognition must culminate in the synthesis of concrete knowledge. The synthesis of knowledge is possible only on the basis of the theory of development and involves the need to think by contradictions. In order to achieve this goal, the regularities of formation of concepts are discovered and the way of elaboration of concepts of new cognition using the theory of development as a method of cognition is indicated. «The synthesis of knowledge» will give a theoretical basis for the worldview of development, and the emergence of the latter will make possible the existence of a new worldview form of development Matter, predicted by Vernadsky and de Chardin under the name of noosphere. Cognition in the noosphere will govern production, and the worldview of development will take the position of primacy in contradiction with the worldview of consumption. In the noosphere, cognition will control production, and the worldview of development will take the position of primacy in contradiction with the worldview of consumption.

— «State and Society». For the victory of the worldview of development, it is necessary to overcome the contradiction between society and the state.

— «PRACTICE OF COGNITION» considers the problems of development from all sides.

— «Ordering theory» explains the development of a particular network of contradictions from the position of ordering, that is, from the position of the emergence of a new order. Therefore, the theory of ordering is a theory of cognition necessary for revolutionary practice.

— «The problem of communism» examines the problem of free labor.

— «The struggle of hierarchies as a struggle of instincts» examines the biological background to the development of human society.

— «Manage of synthesis» explains the development of harmony of contradiction.

— «The development of Matter» provides a framework for synthesizing knowledge about the development of Matter and gives a prediction of further development.

— «Convergence causes divergence» shows that the development should be understood as the development of a network of contradictions.

— «Exploitation is necessary for development» discusses the bifurcation of labor.

— «The theory of development of everything». The theory of everything for the developing contradictory world can be constructed as a contradictory interaction of the theory of development and the theory of ordering. This theory of everything is the result of generalization of the course of development of human cognition.

— AFTERWORD

THEORY of DEVELOPMENT

The theory of development is abstracted in the course of considering the evolutionary series formed by the actual forms of motion of matter, and the history of these forms. The theory of development reveals the way opposites of contradiction interact. The mode of development of an isolated abstract contradiction leads to an abstract network of contradictions. From the abstract network of contradictions, the transition is made to a concrete network of driving contradictions, which is a theoretical model of the developing world. The theory of development is a method of cognition.

Man must cognize the truth.

Blaise Pascal

Introduction

Cognition is guided by social practice, although it is broader than that. To the extent that cognition is guided by practice, to the same extent it meets the demands of society and thus becomes social cognition. However, social practice itself, that is, human activity, becomes truly human only after the assimilation and conscious application of theories. Human activity is always carried out according to a plan. However, theories tend to become outdated and lag behind reality. Therefore, the developing society needs the improvement of human cognition itself, which produces theories, in the conscious application of the theory of cognition.

Modern cognition relies consciously or unconsciously on the dialectical theory of cognition, the foundations of which were laid by Hegel, Marx, Engels and Lenin. The deepest essence of this theory of cognition, its starting point, is the following position: the truth in development — it is impossible to cognize an object without learning how it develops. Reliance on development in cognition does not reject consideration of the universal connection of everything to everything, but allows us to isolate in the chaos of interrelations the main line — the line of world development.

Development is contradictory. Marx, unlike Hegel, began to see contradiction as a concrete contradiction, such as proletariat and bourgeoisie, and not as the identity of opposites, but as their struggle. Engels proposed the ingenious notion of the «form of motion of matter» and tried to create dialectic of nature. Lenin completed the basis of the dialectical theory of cognition by the fact that he approached the understanding of development as «a bifurcation of the singular into mutually exclusive opposites and the relationship between them» (V.I. Lenin. Complete Works, Vol. 29, p. 317) and put forward certain requirements of a specific historical approach in cognition.

This theory of development represents a direct logical continuation of the above-mentioned foundations of the theory of cognition. It reveals the way of interaction of opposites in the course of contradiction development. But in reality between the foundations of the theory of cognition and the proposed theory of development there was a whole historical epoch, during which dialectical-materialistic theory of cognition was forced to take the path of materialistic processing of the entire preceding human culture and history of human thought. The fulfillment of this task forced the theory of cognition to elevate itself above scientific cognition and to acquire the form of a rigid logical system of fixed notions serving the communist ideology, which led the theory of cognition to a detachment from cognition. The highest theoretical achievement of the so-called dialectical-materialist philosophy was recognizing the need for a theory of development. But the construction of the theory of development requires a break with the established system of indirect notions. This is why the theory of development emerged outside of it.

Lenin distinguished three phases in the process of cognition: «From living contemplation to abstract thinking and from it to practice — this is the dialectical path of cognition of the truth, cognition of objective reality» (Ibid., p.152—153). Cognition of the developing world, following the specified way, from sensual perception descends to the theory of development, and then, with its help, ascends to concrete knowledge, which becomes part of practice.

Lenin also indicated the method of expounding the theory of development, which consists in finding «the simplest, most ordinary, basic, most mass-like, most commonplace, billions of times encountered, attitude» (Ibid., p.318), which would contain «all the contradictions» of the object under study, phenomenon — in our case, development. Such a simple, ordinary, basic relation for development is undoubtedly the «bifurcation of the singular» and the subsequent interaction of opposites.

Evolutionary picture of the world

Development from the outside appears as a change of evolutionary forms. If the picture of the world of the 19th century began with the hypothesis of the origin of the planets and the Sun, the modern ideas go back to the Big Bang theory. In the second half of the twentieth century, stable ideas were formed about an evolutionary series of self-developing material systems: galaxies, stars, planets, biosphere and society. They are forms of development of matter (FDM). These FDM, already by virtue of the fact that they evolve and develop, did not always exist and did not arise simultaneously — they were formed sequentially and interconnectedly. There was a time when there was the biosphere without society, planet Earth without the biosphere, etc. This correlation of evolutionary forms, which can be easily traced in the history of society and the biosphere, confirms Lenin’s formulation of development: «the bifurcation of the one…". A new form emerges from a previously unified form, and that form thereby becomes the old form; further development is determined by the «relationship» of the new and old forms (Fig. 1).

Only the fact of new FDM emergence from inside the old form reveals the contradictory nature of the old form and contradictory further coexistence of both. New FDM could arise only on condition of appearance of qualitatively new type of interaction, which emerged from the old type and entered into contradiction with it. Thus, the notion of FDM is also contradictory — on the one hand, it is a material system, and on the other hand, it is a way or type of interaction, by means of which the new material system settles down from the old one.

Although the new FDM could not help but emerge, it must prove its vitality in interaction with the old FDM. This interaction leads to improvement of the new FDM. Consequently, cognition of the way of development is possible only by joint consideration of the emergence of the new form and its interaction with the old one, as well as the relationship of the new and old types of interaction within the new form.

The principle of joint consideration can be shown on the example of the emergence of social FDM and its interaction with biological FDM. The essence of the biological FDM is the change of biological species under the conditions of its interaction with the geological environment. The change of species leads to the accumulation of heredity. The emergence of a qualitatively new type of interaction — collective labor — interrupted the change of biological species, making one biological species the king of nature. Later, as labor formed, society became separated from the biosphere. At the first phase, labour activity, acting as the new, played a direct dominating role in relation to the preservation of the human species and the whole complex of biological relations, acting as the old. At the same time, human biological properties were modified, humanized in conformity with labor relations and acquired social form. When society reached a level at which the task of preserving the biological species of man was solved, labor relations were sidelined by biological, although socialized, relations. This is the second phase. Labor relations controlled social life indirectly, through the exchange of goods. At the same time, society at the second phase managed to transform the biological FDM in its interests, creating an artificial biosphere, which provided in principle the possibility of the normal development of the biological prerequisites of all individuals. This is why the transition to the third phase, characterized by the return to the explicit primacy of labor relations over biological ones, became possible. This is the scheme of society’s development, which serves only as an illustration of the emergence of the abstractions of the theory of development — new, old, primacy — from history, as well as the relationship of these concepts in the course of development.

The theory of development of isolated contradiction

Development as such becomes intelligible in its purest and simplest form when we consider the interaction with each other, the transitions into each other, the interpenetration of the concepts new and old into each other. Whatever old was previously new, just as the new will eventually become old. The emergence of the new occurs through the bifurcation of the previous unity into new and old, in which the internal contradiction of the previous unity finds its final resolution.

The development of the isolated contradiction under consideration is determined by the interaction of the new and the old, with the leading role of the new (Fig. 2). The new comes into contradiction at first with almost the same previous unity, which lost only the new that separated from it. Further interaction should prove the stability of the new, thus transforming the previous unity into the old one. The richness of the previous unity compared to the new one is that it contains more possibilities, whereas the new one has the advantage that it is more organized, includes more possibilities that have become reality. The organization of the new acquires stability, immunity against the chaotic impact of the old only in the course of the contradiction’s development.

Every contradiction passes through three phases of development: the first is the formative phase with the direct primacy of the new over the old, the second is the antagonistic phase with the indirect primacy of the new over the old, and the third phase is the harmonious one with the mature primacy of the new over the old.

The emerged new has certain advantages over the previous unity, otherwise it would not have emerged. The essence of the first phase is transformation of the new previous unity into the old one with the help of the mentioned advantages. By the end of the first phase all advantages of the new, which are not unlimited, are exhausted. However, they are always enough to transform the previous unity into the old one and to give the content of the old one the form of the new one. The form of the previous unity is transformed in accordance with the requirements and influences of the new, but its content remains unchanged. Changing the content of the old unity would lead to its destruction and with it the destruction of the new one because the old one serves as a necessary basis for the new one.

By the end of the first phase the new had exhausted its advantages; it had lost the initiative it had possessed from the moment of its emergence, so the new has to pass to defense at the second phase. Underlying, immanent laws of self-movement of the old, but, very significantly, having the form of the new, break free, taking advantage of the limited advantages of the new. The old tends to play a defining role at odds with the new, thereby putting the new at risk of degradation and trying to absorb it, reducing it to its own level. The old plays the role of an unrestrained element in relation to the new; the latter must oppose it with its own improvement. Only in this way can the new retain its defining role in contradiction, saving contradiction itself from disintegration and death. Moreover, it saves the old from destruction because the very appearance of the new reveals the inability of the old to self-development, reveals its transition to decay.

The perfection of the new lies in the reflection of the way of self-movement of the old. The improvement of the new as a progressive phenomenon is caused by the degradation of the old. This is the essence of the antagonism of the second phase and the explanation of the impossibility of a smooth, gradual, without a leap, transition to the third — harmonious — phase. In response to the old’s pretensions the new improves its structure, becomes more complicated, which ensures its successful resistance to any attempts of the old to surpass the new within the framework of contradiction.

Interaction of the new and the old at the second phase leads them to the final and inseparable fusion. Any influence of the old finds new counteraction. It would seem that the contradiction has reached harmony. However, the imperfection and contradiction of the antagonistic phase is that the new has lost the initiative and the determining role of the new, the primacy of the new is manifested indirectly, indirectly, as a reaction to random impulses from the point of view of the new, the impact of the old. The transition to the third phase by virtue of the above feature of the interaction of opposites occurs by leaps and bounds, revolutionary, by bifurcation.

In the depths of antagonistic contradiction, in response to the old one’s pretensions to take over the primacy, a harmonious contradiction is born, repeating the phase of formation by the way opposites interact, but also taking into account the improvements achieved at the second phase. The new reflected in itself the content of the old in the second phase, so it affects the latter in accordance with the laws of its self-movement, thus preventing its negative impact. Thus, we have come to harmony and, at first sight, development as such has exhausted itself. But in fact, the perfected new has inherited from the second phase a chaotic, unbridled old, so the development of the third phase consists in taming the old by the new, carried out by complicating the interaction of opposites and spreading harmonic interaction, that is, the mature primacy of new, to the whole diversity of relations between new and old.

Since the transition to the third phase occurs by bifurcation, there is a contradiction of two types of interaction between the old and the new — a contradiction of antagonistic and harmonious ways of interaction of opposites of contradiction or, in other words, a contradiction of antagonistic and harmonious types of contradictions. The development of the third phase of the contradiction of the new and the old takes place already within the framework of the latter contradiction.

In the first phase of the harmonic phase, the apparent primacy of the new, extending to the old within the harmonic contradiction, thereby promotes the primacy of the harmonic contradiction over the antagonistic contradiction. At the second phase, the liberation of the old from the explicit primacy of the new within the harmonic contradiction leads to an attack on the latter by the antagonistic contradiction. Under these conditions, the perfection of the harmonic contradiction is caused not so much by its internal developmental potency, as by the external destructive influence of the antagonistic contradiction. The forced perfection of the way the new influences the old within the harmonic contradiction until a qualitatively new — newest — type of interaction emerges, whose appearance is caused not by the development of the original contradiction, but by the driving contradiction of a higher order. A great event occurs, but the more grandiose it is, the more hidden its emergence is.

The subsequent development of the third phase of the harmonic phase proceeds under the latent influence of the interaction of the newest type. As the latter is singled out and fought against, the most harmonious contradiction approaches perfection, followed by the contradiction of the harmonious and antagonistic types of interaction between the new and the old. Eventually, the newest interaction bursts to the surface and forms the NEWEST, which enters into a contradiction with the new, which is the driving force for a qualitatively new formation. Only then will the driving force of the development of the considered contradiction between the new and the old be exhausted. It is remarkable that the achievement of harmony of the third phase of the initial contradiction is due to the influence of the newest type of interaction, as well as the corresponding achievement of the primacy of the harmonious contradiction over the antagonistic one, and the explanation of the appearance of the newest type of interaction forces us to go beyond the isolated contradiction.

The theory of the development of the abstract form of the motion of matter

Let us consider how the principle of development outlined above works on a more complex example of some form of development of matter. new FDM appeared as a result of formation of new interaction in the depths of old FDM and bifurcation of the latter. The new FDM was able to stand out due to the formation of new content, which inherited by necessity the old form. Hence the contradiction of the new content and the old form, which is the internal contradiction of the new FDM. The contradiction of the material systems of the new and old FDM serves as an external contradiction of the new FDM. The internal and external contradictions in their turn form an integral contradiction, whose role is to order the development of its constituent opposites under the conditions of the primacy of the internal contradiction. Consequently, the development of the new FDM is reflected in the coordinated development of internal, external and integral contradictions, which are only sides, moments of interaction between the old and the new.

The internal contradiction reveals the contradiction of the new and the old in terms of the interaction of form and content. The new content is a qualitatively new type of interaction inherent in the new FDM; it serves as the deepest, sufficient, basis for the development of the new. Form, inherited from the old FDM, is the umbilical cord linking the new with the previous development; it serves as the necessary basis for the development of the new.

In the beginning, the form serves the old content as it is inherited by the new interaction from the old FDM. At the first phase, it is transformed in accordance with the requirements of the new content. At the second phase, the transformed form, we could say the renewed form, breaks free from the rigid guardianship of the new content. It strives to take the place of the new content in the contradiction, which manifests the desire of the old to break free from the power of the new. It fails to do so because the impact of the old is clothed in an updated form.

The new content in the process of antagonistic interaction assimilates the laws of development of the old, which are refracted through the updated form. By the end of the second phase, the new content, having adjusted to the renewed form, has improved enough to successfully resist the latter’s harassment, i.e. attempts to assert the primacy of the renewed form. But the new content was so closely fused with the renewed form on the basis of implicit, indirect, mediated primacy that the transition to explicit, mature primacy is only possible through revolutionary bifurcation. The bifurcation of perfected content leads to a bifurcation of internal contradiction. This bifurcated inner contradiction is the driving contradiction of the third phase.

The external contradiction — the contradiction of the material systems of the new and old FDM — develops differently. The first phase is the transformation of the old FDM system under the influence of the new FDM system. The evolution of the material system of the new FDM is determined by the internal contradiction discussed above, and the system of the old FDM continues to evolve according to the immanent laws, but with the determining influence of the material system of the new FDM on it. The latter cannot yet use the laws of development of the old system to satisfy its growing demands. The system of the old FDM, from which the new FDM system emerged, begins to disintegrate and degrade under the influence of alien, foreign influence of the material system of the new FDM.

At the second phase the new system is forced to create for itself the basis of existence, to adapt the system of the old to its needs by creating an artificial system of the old, using the laws of development of the latter. During the second phase all the new and new sides, parts of the material system of the old FDM are included in the artificial system of the old. The latter, finally, is able to fully meet the needs of free development of the material system of the new FDM. In this case the material system of the new FDM exercises obvious primacy over the system of the old FDM with the help of the artificial system of the old FDM, organically included into the new FDM. Since the old FDM interacts with the earlier FDM and this interaction provides a necessary basis for the new FDM’s existence, the latter at the third phase is forced to protect the old FDM from degradation caused by the continuous destructive influence of the new FDM on the old one.

Integral contradiction synchronizes, arranges the interaction of internal and external contradictions with the first of them determining importance. Transformation of the old form with new content at the first phase inevitably causes, as a necessary consequence, the emergence of the material system of new FDM and the impact of the latter on the material system of the old FDM.

At the second phase, the indicated impact leads to the emergence of the artificial system of the old FDM. The material system of the new FDM is forced to follow the laws of self-motion of the artificial system of the old one. Therefore the external contradiction acquires relative independence, and the internal contradiction has to improve. By the end of the second phase the artificial system of the old in the bosom of the new FDM will fully satisfy the needs of its growth. The external contradiction will recede into the background, and all contradictory development will focus on the antagonism within the perfected internal contradiction.

At the third phase, after the bifurcation of internal contradiction, the new FDM is bifurcated into two material systems, which form the external contradiction, and the place of internal contradiction is taken, as mentioned above, by the contradiction of harmonious and antagonistic types of interaction between the new and old. As a result, the contradiction of the old and the new at the third phase becomes an order of magnitude more complicated. It can be argued that there is nothing more contradictory than harmony.

The theory of development of an abstract network of contradictions

The discovery of the theory of the development of isolated contradiction occurred when considering the development of the sensuously perceived evolutionary series of forms of motion of matter and the application to it of the idea of development. The application to a series of forms of motion of matter of the abstract method of development of contradiction leads to a theory of the development of interrelated contradictions.

Any thing or phenomenon is multifaceted and manifold insofar as the «great universal connection», the «universal interaction» operates. Hence, a thing or phenomenon serves as a point of application of many contradictions. Among these, we distinguish between contradictions that are harmonious and those that have not reached harmony. In the course of development, some contradictions come to the fore, while others recede, but there is always a main or driving contradiction, which determines the development of a given object in its present state. The network of contradictions is formed by driving contradictions.

According to the theory of the development of an isolated contradiction, each contradiction is divided into three phases. The development of each phase, in turn, is also reflected by its specific driving contradiction. The new contradiction arises in the process of bifurcation of the defining opposite of the old contradiction. Hence, a successive series of one-order contradictions and a hierarchy of contradictions follow, forming a network of contradictions (Fig. 3).

The network of contradictions is arranged in such a way that the development of contradiction A corresponds to one of the three phases of development of higher-order contradiction B and simultaneously corresponds to the three lower-order contradictions C, D, E, which are the three phases of development of contradiction A. In the figure 3 the network of contradictions for clarity is unfolded in a plane, but it is more correct to represent it as a single line of development, having the structure of a matryoshka toy: each contradiction encompasses three contradictions of lower order and together with two other one-order contradictions is covered by a contradiction of higher order.

Low-order contradictions reach harmony earlier than higher-order contradictions, although they appeared later than the latter. This circumstance testifies to the existence of a tipping point in the development of the network of contradictions. Indeed, the network of contradictions has a descending branch, when lower-order contradictions are born, and an ascending branch, when higher-order contradictions reach harmony.

The analysis of the network of contradictions leads to the idea of a natural change in the very mode of interaction of contradictory opposites in accordance with its position in the network of contradictions. Hence the requirement of specific consideration of the object of research, which alone ensures that all the diversity of its internal and external relations are taken into account.

Abstract scheme of inversions of contradiction opposites

The way of development appears in two ways: as a bifurcation of developing material objects, which reveals the development from the side of phenomena (Fig. 1), and in the mutual transitions and contradictory interaction of opposites of driving contradiction, which reflects the essential side of development.

The interaction of opposites of the driving contradiction in the course of its three-phase development causes such changes in these opposites that they can become their mirror reflections. In other words, there is an inversion of the contradiction’s opposite. In the inversion of the opposite manifests its own contradiction, which goes back to the contradiction of a higher order. The opposites of a higher contradiction are themselves contradictory. For example, the new opposite is bifurcated into new content and new form, and the old opposite is bifurcated into old content and old form. These forms and contents manifest themselves in lower-order opposites.

Consideration of the inversions of opposites is conveniently conducted by analyzing the mutual transitions of the concepts of content and form. Usually content governs form, but form also has a transformative effect on content.

The following presentation only shows the way of abstracting the schemes of inversion on the example of interaction of the social and biological in the history of human society, where the social acts as new and the biological as old. For the sake of certainty, we will assume that the initial contradiction of new and old corresponds to the antagonistic phase of a higher contradiction.

Development in the formative phase begins with the primacy of new content subordinating the old form over the old content governed by the new form. During the first phase, the new content, exercising its primacy, changes the new form so much that it forces it to fall under the shadow of the old content. This causes, in the transition to the second phase, the loss of primacy of the new content along with the old form and the transition of primacy to the old content, which has escaped the control of the new form. In the course of this interaction, the new content squanders its advantages and loses its primacy relative to the new form and the old content. During the transition to the second phase of the formation phase there is an inversion of the opposition: the new form vs. old content turns into the old content vs. new form. Therefore, in the second phase, the old content controls the new form. The old content, exercising its primacy, so alters the new content that it does not allow it to control the old form. This causes the inversion of this opposition in the third phase and the transition to it of primacy relative to the old content controlling the new form. The antagonistic phase also has two inversions, and the harmonious phase has four (Fig. 4).

The proposed scheme of inversions is abstracted from the history of human society. At the formative phase, at the first phase, labor played the role of new content, and the primitive community, inherited from the herd, played the role of the old form. The new form was the biological specialization of man, and the old content was the biological reproduction of the species. In the second phase, the reproduction of the newly formed human species took precedence over labor and community. In the third phase, the community controlled the labor relationship and thereby ensured primacy over the preservation of the species.

In the first phase of antagonism (slavery), the community lost primacy, and the state, relying on blood relations and assuming the function of preservation of the species, took the leading position in the contradiction. In the second phase (feudalism), after the inversion, labor began to control the community and seized the primacy over the state. It should be noted that the feudal racket was ultimately controlled by the community. In the third phase (capitalism), after the inversion, the state came under the power of exchange relations and together with them it exercises primacy relative to labor and community.

In the first phase of harmony (military communism), labor relations controlled the community (labor collectives) and exercised primacy over the distribution system of commodities and the state. In the second phase, the state began to control the distribution system of the objects of consumption and therefore exercised primacy over the labor collectives and their labor relations. For the future third phase (communism), labor relations are supposed to return to control over labor collectives and return to primacy over the state.

The given schemes of inversion of opposites are only reliable for the initial antagonistic contradiction, because the schemes of inversions are abstracted from the development of the corresponding actual formations (table). The table shows a two-phase structure of contradictions on the basis of a higher-order antagonistic contradiction — the result is nine main types of contradictions.

Similarly, we can get nine more types of contradictions for the other two contradictions of a higher order — for becoming (biosphere) and harmony (matter). The development of each contradiction is unique because of its unique position in the network of contradictions, but taking into account its position in the network of contradictions and taking into account the inversions of opposites should allow reflecting by concepts in the first (second, etc.) approximation the regularities of development of concrete formations.

The theory of development of a concrete network of specific contradictions

The theory of development of interrelated contradictions allows cognition to rely on the universal connection, thus freeing the universal connection in the sphere of cognition from the rigid control of development. Here there is an antagonistic relationship between development and universal connection in cognition, where development loses its direct primacy with respect to interconnection. Overcoming this antagonism, that is, the revolutionary leap of cognition to the synthesis of knowledge, consists in cognition of the actual history of the development of concrete objects.

The theory of development of an isolated contradiction, after taking into account the universal interrelation, has become the theory of development of an abstract network of contradictions, hence, the abstract statement of the theory of development in the main outlines is finished. Now it is necessary to ascend from the abstract scheme to the concrete one, to fill the abstract form with concrete content. In other words, it is necessary to return to sensual perception, but this return will take place at a qualitatively new level of abstract thinking. Thus, abstract thinking will return to the starting point of the theory of development, the evolutionary series of forms of motion of matter, after which the theory of development as a method of cognition will be completed.

In the evolutionary series of forms of development of matter the social form of development of matter is at the edge of development (Fig. 5). The driving contradiction of the latter is the contradiction of labour activity and the activity of preservation of human species under the condition of primacy of labour activity or, in other words, the contradiction of social and biological under the determining role of the social. Labor activity ensures the preservation of the biological species, but by the same society puts a limit to the development of the biological FDM, because the essence of the latter is the replacement of some biological species by others, leading to the accumulation of heredity in the process of interaction with the geological environment, changed in turn by the biosphere. The formation of a new biological species is obliged to the extraction of information in the course of life activity; the latter is ultimately a chemical interaction with the geological environment. The contradiction between the accumulation of heredity and chemical interaction is therefore the driving contradiction of biological FDM, with the first contradiction playing the determining role.

The accumulation of heredity of biological FDM has passed into the preservation of the biological human species of social FDM. But information extraction has not disappeared. It has become a necessary condition of labor activity, as cognition, although the information extraction has not become sufficient condition for labor activity. Cognition is subordinated to labor activity, it is carried out for labor activity, so information extraction acts as an indirect primacy.

Information extraction under conditions of social FDM occurs indirectly, covertly, contrary to the transmission of information, contrary to the dominant worldview. On the other hand, the existence of the human biological species depends on chemical interaction. Thus, both considered FDMs are two phases of the driving contradiction of Alive Matter — the contradiction of information extraction and chemical interaction, with the social one corresponding to the antagonistic phase and the biological one — to the formation phase. The third, harmonious phase of the above-mentioned contradiction will correspond to the coming worldview MBF or noosphere with the driving contradiction: cognitive activity — production activity under the condition of cognition supremacy.

Planetary FDM, the precursor of biological FDM, developed as a result of gravitational differentiation of formed chemical compounds (minerals). Gravitational differentiation began as early as the protoplanetary cloud phase and continues to this day in the bowels of the planets. The density of the formed compounds is determined by the nature of chemical bonds of atoms, so in the driving contradiction of the planetary FDM — chemical interaction of atoms and gravitational differentiation of their compounds — the chemical interaction has the primacy.

In stars, gravitational collapse is opposed by nuclear fusion, which proceeds through electromagnetic interaction. A subordinate role in this contradiction is played by nuclear fusion, which can arise only after the formation of stars due to gravity. Nuclear fusion is becoming more and more complicated. Nuclear fusion under favorable conditions can escape from the oppression of the gravitational collapse, opposing it to the explosion of the star. Therefore in stellar FDM the antagonistic phase of the driving contradiction of the Lifeless Matter — gravitational and electromagnetic interaction under the condition of the primacy of the latter is manifested.

The chemical interaction of atoms in the planetary FDM is a special case of electromagnetic interaction, so the contradiction of the planetary FDM corresponds to the harmonious phase of the driving contradiction of Lifeless Matter. The phase of formation of the latter contradiction belongs to the protogalactic FDM with the driving contradiction: electromagnetic interaction of elementary particles — their gravitational attraction.

Both existing forms of Matter — Lifeless and Alive — correspond to the first two phases of higher order contradiction, which is the driving contradiction of Matter, the contradiction of ideal and actual under the condition of the latter’s primacy. Matter or Reality has not yet been finally created, it is not exhausted by the existing, for it is developing, but a concept reflecting its essence — the actual — has already been worked out. The opposite concept — the possible — is closest to the concept of the ideal. The ideal is the law of development of Matter. In Alive Matter on the antagonistic phase of Matter the ideal in the form of information tends to undermine the primacy of the real, but the extraction of information cannot do without the real.

In the formation of the third phase of contradiction, there is a revolutionary leap with a clear bifurcation. Matter resulting from the Big Bang belongs to the third phase of BEING, while the first two phases correspond to Chaos and Virtuality. The main essence of Virtuality is the regularity, which controls the contradictory random. Virtuality is on the other side of the vacuum. In Virtuality the ideal laws derived from the universal interconnection have been transformed under the influence of chance into statistical laws; the latter in Matter become laws of development (Fig. 6).

The first form of BEING — Chaos — served as a basis for the emergence of Virtuality; it is reflected by the contradiction: chaotic motion — interaction. The emergence of the regularity in the second phase, in Virtuality, when chaotic motion has exhausted its developmental potential, indicates that the interconnection is a subordinate opposite of the driving contradiction of BEING, while the leading opposite is undoubtedly development.

The three forms of BEING — Chaos, Virtuality, Matter — correspond to the three phases of the driving contradiction — the contradiction of development and interrelationship subject to the primacy of development. The nature of development changes from chaotic to ideal, and from the latter to actual. Matter belongs to the harmonious phase of this contradiction, hence, the reliance of cognition on development receives theoretical justification in the framework of the outlined theory of development. The theory of development has completed its logical circle here, returning to the original theoretical premise about the leading role of development, abstractly reworking the history of BEING along the way.

BEING is preceded by STILLNESS (REST), the main essence of which is a systemic quality opposing motion. BEING and STILLNESS are united by the concept of ordering or striving to order, because development in BEING, despite its rejection of universal interconnection and opposition to it, inevitably leads to even more complex and durable organization. The picture of the developing world is limited to the framework of BEING, while from the point of view of striving for orderliness, development appears as a necessary but not sufficient condition of BEING. It is in this point that the epistemological limitation of development can be seen, and at the same time the insufficiency of the theory of development for cognition of BEING, that is, the impossibility of absolutization of the theory of development as a universal theory of cognition is revealed.

In STILLNESS we come to Aristotle’s motionless prime mover (first push) with the difference that STILLNESS is not monolithic but is internally bifurcated into systemic quality and motion. It is this contradiction that produced Chaos in the end, opening with it the development of BEING. After the completion of the development of BEING, there will be a stepwise transition to the ORDER, in which there will be a return to the STILLNESS (REST) on the basis of BEING. These three forms are united by the concept of COSMOS.

Ordering takes precedence over freedom in COSMOS. In BEING, in the antagonistic phase of COSMOS, the primacy of ordering takes an indirect form, but freedom in the form of growing disorder, growing entropy, seeks to assert its primacy. Therefore, ordering in BEING happens at the expense of colossal growth of disorder, growth of entropy. A concrete network of contradictions shows that BEING is the antagonism of COSMOS, Matter is the harmony of BEING, and Alive Matter is the antagonism of Matter.

Development is a manifestation of ordering, which disrupts the old ordering. The slogan of all development is freedom, although development is aimed at establishing a new order.

As if everyone is raving about liberation,

And their eternal dispute, to be more precise, —

Enslavement disputes with enslavement.

J.F. Goethe. Faust.

The theory of development will become in the future one of the sides of the more general theory of ordering (theory of creation or ordering). If the theory of development gives an answer to the question — how emerges, then the theory of creation can answer the question — what emerges. Development from the point of view of the ordering theory is an irreversible process of transition of a system from more probable to less probable, less free states. Ordering or arrangement finds in development a counterbalance to entropy, for development creating more ordered systems is an anti-entropic process, although this ordering occurs due to the growth of entropy outside the developing system. In this respect, cognition, being an anti-entropic process, is necessary for development.

The question arises whether human thinking can embrace, comprehend, cognize the above mentioned forms of the Universe. Since Matter belongs to the harmonious phase of development-relationship contradiction, it can be cognized only by a developing human personality with the help of the theory of development. There is a hypothesis that thinking takes place within the contradiction of order — disorder. If this is so, then BEING can be cognized with the help of the theory of ordering, which also includes the theory of development. In this case thinking is above BEING, because ordering takes an indirect primacy in BEING and a direct primacy in thinking. Thinking, therefore, is capable of comprehending both STILLNESS (REST) and ORDER.

Now it is necessary to return from the depths of the previous state of the universe to the current moment, tracing in history the concrete course of the bifurcation and relationship of opposites.

BEING had arisen from STILLNESS as result of the emergence of development. The development has captured a primate relatively worldwide dependence. This primacy took the form of the primacy of chaotic movement relative to interaction in Chaos. Chaotic motion created Space. In Virtuality, development, which acquired the form of chance, came under the control of interconnection in the form of law. This is the second phase, the antagonistic phase, the contradiction of development and interrelationship. In Chaos, proto-inertia first manifested itself as a reflection of its connection with STILLNESS. Chaotic motion generating Space led to an inflation of Chaos out of STILLNESS; this inflation was limited by proto-inertia. In the Virtuality the proto-inertia turned into its opposite — into repulsion from STILLNESS, which led to the so called inflationary inflation of the Virtuality and almost complete absorption of Chaos by the Virtuality.

When a certain critical state was reached, the Big Bang occurred with separation of Matter from Virtuality, which meant to a certain extent a return to Chaos. At the same time repulsion bifurcated into gravitational attraction and inertia. Since gravitation and inertia are the two sides of Matter’s connection to STILLNESS, they are equivalent. Material mass is a measure of inertia and gravitation, hence mass is a property of Matter’s connection with STILLNESS.

Overcoming the antagonistic contradiction of law and chance within the framework of the driving contradiction of BEING (development and interrelation) entailed the revolutionary bifurcation of Virtuality. Subsequently, Matter interacts with Virtuality. In Matter, the regular evolution reached the mature primacy with respect to the universal interconnection, which found its expression in the emergence of Time.

After the Big Bang electromagnetic interaction took over the role of primacy in relation to gravitational attraction. This contradiction turned out to be the driving contradiction of Lifeless Matter. In it, the real possesses direct primacy relative to the ideal. Proto-galactic FDM was transformed into galactic FDM after stellar FDM emerged. The emergence of planetary FDM from stellar FDM resulted in a revolutionary bifurcation of Lifeless Matter. The planetary system changed the processes in the interior of a star through gravitational interaction in such a way that it turned it into a solar FDM.

In Alive Matter, in the second phase of the contradiction between the real and the ideal, information, representing the real form of the ideal, has taken over the primacy relative to chemistry as one aspect of electromagnetic interaction. In biological FDM this primacy is manifested in the form of information mining primacy relative to chemistry. The biological FDM that emerged on our planet has changed the chemical composition of the atmosphere and constantly maintains it. It transformed the planetary FDM into the geological FDM by constantly recreating the gradient of chemical element potentials between the surface and the interior of the Earth.

In the social FDM, chemistry, taking the informational form of labor, emotion and worldview, threatens the primacy of information extraction. At the third phase of Alive Matter, in the worldview FDM or noosphere, cognitive activity will become determinant in contradiction with productive activity. Then information extraction will achieve a clear primacy relative to chemistry.

From the social form of matter movement (more precisely, from feudalism), development begins an ascending path through a network of contradictions. Subsequent development will consist in the fact that overcoming one antagonistic contradiction leads to the necessity of overcoming an antagonistic contradiction of a higher order. This is the greatest tragedy of the development of Alive Matter. At the same time, it must be remembered that Matter as harmony arose as a result of the Big Bang from the antagonism of BEING.

Conclusion

The theory of development is a method of knowledge, a tool or rather a machine for extracting knowledge, just as, say, a bulldozer is a machine for extracting gold. The point is to master it. For all its abstractness, the theory of development contains an inherent requirement for concrete cognition. The application of the theory of development as a method of cognition is possible because any object of research can be contradictively reflected by concepts new and old, hence it can be presented as a necessary part of the history of the developing world. The historical approach in cognition implies the development of concepts that have a direct connection with sense perception and reflect the opposites of the driving contradictions. It should be clearly understood that the world around us and our reflected inner world are the result of previous development and the basis for further development. Therefore, any research should be subordinated to the knowledge of the history of objects, and from history is a direct path to practice, to the future.

WORLDVIEW of DEVELOPMENT

The history of human society is reflected in the successive change of worldviews: mythological by religious, and the latter by scientific. The change of worldviews occurs in concert with the development of the driving contradiction of society — the contradiction of consumption and production under the condition of the primacy of production. Consideration of the contradictory development of the communist social system led to criticism of socialism and prediction of the transition to communism with the contradiction of enthusiasm against consumerism. The worldview of development arises as a result of the aspirations of enthusiasts for the development of society. It opens the way to a worldview form of the movement of matter or the noosphere, which will replace the social form of the movement of matter at the edge of development.

With the «principle of development» in the twentieth century…«everyone agrees,» but it’s superficial…«consent» is that kind of consent, by which the truth is stifled and trivialized.

Lenin

What is a worldview

At first glance, a worldview, as such, appears before our mental gaze as a system of concepts reflecting people’s views of the world and the place of society and the individual in it. But the system of concepts, which is usually taken as a worldview, is only the conceptual basis on which human emotions are communalized (socialized), whereas it is the communalized (socialized) emotions, the united worldview of people that is a worldview. «My universal consciousness,» Marx wrote in 1844, «is only the theoretical form of what is the living form of the real collectivity, the social essence… " (K.Marx and F. Engels. Opus, vol. 42, p.118).

The unification of human efforts on the basis of the communalization (socialization) of human feelings is the main condition for the existence of human society. Feelings can be perceived by another individual only through awareness of them, that is, they must be reflected in concepts, must pass through the stage of abstractions. But also concepts do not arise in an empty place, from nothing; they are always emotionally colored, they reflect human emotions in the first place, and then other sides of the world. So, worldview is generalized human feelings, human aspirations, human relationships to the surrounding world and to oneself, and this generalization occurs on the basis of a generally recognized system of notions.

The conceptual basis of the worldview is developed by science, which itself depends on the dominant worldview, because the latter provides it with a theory of knowledge. Therefore, science can only justify the dominant worldview, but cannot even theoretically overthrow it and when the worldview has outlived itself and leads society to ruin — the worldview dies along with the ruin of the social formation which gave birth to it. The latter may escape destruction if it finds in its depths sufficient strength to create a new worldview capable of maintaining the viability of society, despite the resistance of the outdated worldview. The question should be more pressing, namely whether it is necessary to create a worldview that keeps pace with changing conditions. We cannot transform reality without changing our attitude towards it. Such a worldview must organically incorporate the theory of development and cognition.

The crisis of socialism has revealed the degradation of the proletarian worldview that dominates the communist social system. This degradation is accompanied by a rejection of the idea of development, so that it turns into a consumerist worldview. But on the ruins of the proletarian worldview another worldview is also formed — a worldview of development. There is as yet no conceptual basis for its formation, but a theory of development has already emerged. With its help, science will be able to create the corresponding conceptual base, namely that new science which will accept the theory of development as a method of cognition. But first, the worldview of development must theoretically separate itself from the dominant worldview of consumption on the basis of the theory of development.

Consumption and production

The development of human society is described by the development of a driving contradiction — the contradiction of production and consumption. This contradiction is a concrete expression of the contradiction of the social form of motion of matter — the contradiction of the social and the biological. Society is a system of relationships between people, which includes both biological, but humanized, relationships and purely social, labor relationships.

Society emerged along with production. Nevertheless, there is a theoretical dilemma — production for consumption or consumption for production. Unlike animals, whose activity consists in simply satisfying biological needs, human beings can only act in a human way, without lowering themselves to the level of animals, after their basic biological needs have been met. Consequently, to produce one must first consume. In other words, in order to be human, you must feed the beast that lurks within every human being. But it is precisely this latter process of feeding the beast that requires the production of human conditions, requires the production of human relationships, the production of society. The decisive argument for the primacy of production over consumption in terms of development is the main difference between production and consumption — consumption can only take what is already there, while production creates what has not yet been, always creates the new.

Consumption always precedes production, so it serves production, is meant for production. Indeed, the result of consumption must be production, for otherwise human activity degenerates into animal existence. But, on the other hand, the result of production is not consumption itself, but only the possibility of consumption. It is thanks to this circumstance that production controls consumption. The existence of the possibility of consumption provides the necessary freedom for the development of society and is a condition for the primacy of production over consumption.

Production as such is ambivalent. Marx first realized this in 1841. He understood the bifurcation of production as «the relation of the worker to the product of labor,» on the one hand, and «the relation of the worker to his own activity,» on the other (K.Marx and F. Engels. Opus, vol. 42, p. 90,91). Thus production breaks down into the production of commodities and the production of labor relationships. Following production, by analogy, consumption is also bifurcated: into the consumption of labor relationships and the consumption of the products of production.

The production of labor relationships is due to the consumption of products of production, the production of objects of consumption is due to the consumption of labor relationships, the consumption of products of production is due to the production of objects of consumption, and the consumption of labor relationships is due to the production of labor relationships. Consequently, production and consumption are so closely intertwined that they can only be separated in the abstract (Fig. 1).

The production-consumption contradiction is a concrete expression of the social-biological contradiction. Each of these two abstract spheres of human practice is contradictory; its contradictory nature goes back to a higher contradiction of Alive Matter — the contradiction of informational and chemical interaction. The production of labor relationships and the production of consumer goods reflect the leading opposite of this contradiction — the transmission of information in the form of worldview, while the consumption of labor relationships and the consumption of products of production correspond to a subordinate opposite — the chemical interaction aimed at the preservation of the human species.

The development of the contradiction between consumption and production in the history of society

At the phase of the primitive communal system, society consumed only what was in nature — the resources of the biosphere and the biological relationships in the herd. Productive activities consisted mainly in transforming the biological nature of great apes in the interests of society, in transforming biological relationships into labor relationships. The consumption of the latter ensured a more efficient exploitation of the biosphere. Thus, labor activity as a result produced human society (Fig. 2).

The driving contradiction of society at the first phase takes this form: labor collective — its social organization. In the labor collective the production of the products of consumption and labor relationships was carried out, while the social organization controlled the consumption of the products of production and labor relationships, hence, the social organization managed the separation of production from consumption.

Three stages can be distinguished in the development of the primitive communal system — human herd, matriarchy, patriarchy. In the first stage, the unformed production of society played the role of direct primacy. In the second stage, the production of society was subordinated to consumption, with the consumption of labor relationships, specific to the sphere of human production, coming to the fore. Finally, in the third stage, after the Neolithic Revolution, the creation of an artificial biosphere (farming, cattle breeding), production regained primacy by bringing consumer goods to the fore. The task of preserving the human species was accomplished.

At the phase of the exploitative social system, production loses its direct primacy over consumption, shifts to an indirect primacy. Consumption came to the forefront of labor relationships and the products of production within the framework of production relationships. Consumption governed production through the exchange of goods. The production of labor relationships and the products of consumption are in the sphere of «productive forces. In it, production of labor relationships occupies a position of primacy. The proletariat realized the leading role of production of labor relationships in social life, which enabled it to form a proletarian worldview and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. In the communist order, production of labor relationships loses its leading position within production, although the latter occupies a position of primacy in contradiction with consumption.

At the phase of the communist social system there is a return to the phase of the primitive communal system, taking into account the experience of the second phase of human society. Therefore, the exchange of goods, as it turned out, was impossible to eliminate and the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat was forced to take it under its control. This is why the state was forced to assume the functions of the exchange of goods and to act according to the laws of the market, representing a contradictory unity of the systems of distribution and production.

The self-management of labor collectives goes back to the primitive community, and since the main result of self-management is the production of labor relationships, it is in this that the driving force for the development of society is rooted. So, the concrete contradiction of the communist order is the contradiction of the self-government of labor collectives and the bureaucratic system of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Production takes place in the labor collectives, while the bureaucratic system controls consumption. This contradiction, evolving, reveals its three stages of communist order phase — military communism, socialism, and, as yet to come, communism. In the first stage, the self-government of the labor collectives modified the state, giving it the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In the second stage, the state, which perceived and enforced the interests of the labor collectives, seized the primacy in contradiction and exercised control over the labor collectives by obfuscating them.

In the end, there was a complete, perfect bureaucratization of labor collectives (councils of labor collectives, etc.), and the bureaucratic system created within the collectives is ultimately locked into the state. The labor collective thus forms the lowest level of the state. As a result, the dictatorship of the proletariat became the dictatorship of the bureaucracy. Left to its own devices and left to its own devices, bureaucracy tends to degrade openly and visibly, and is no longer capable of carrying out the functions entrusted to it by society.

But the bureaucratized labor collectives, for their part, acquire the ability to use the bureaucratic structure created within them, wresting it from — control of the state, to pursue their own interests, in order to take over the state again in the third stage and make the bureaucratic system faithfully serve the interests of all society. In this way the transition will be made to the third stage, to communism, in which united self-governing labor collectives exercise clear primacy over the state.

The Evolution of Worldviews in Human History

The organization of labor activity requires the unification of human actions, and the latter is realized through the unification or generalization of human feelings. But since the generalization of human feelings takes place by means of their awareness on the basis of a generally accepted system of notions, it becomes necessary for this very system of notions to emerge from human practice.

At the phase of the primitive communal system, people’s abstract thinking had not yet grown to self-consciousness. That is why the role of the system of notions was played by the system of symbols and images, directly connected with certain material objects or actions (rites). This system of symbols, images, objects and actions was nothing else but mythology. It evoked in people a response in the form of a certain emotional mood and corresponding to it certain mental associations, which later, at the stage of the exploitative social system, rose to the level of concepts. Mythology is the primitive worldview, under the control of which the production of society, the consumption of nature, and the separation of consumption from production took place.

At the phase of the exploitative social system a religious worldview emerged. Under its control, the labor relationships of the primitive community were adapted to the social system of exploitation. The latter is already a state system of separating consumption from production. Under capitalism, a bourgeois worldview is a form of religious worldview. It absolutes the human relationship derived from the exchange of goods and includes an exchange relationship with God himself.

The realization of the non-absolute nature of exchange relationships between people and their inhumanity under capitalism caused the collapse of the religious worldview and the emergence of the proletarian worldview; thus there was a return to the mythological worldview, but on the basis of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The proletarian worldview contains a denial of exchange relationships as anti-human. But this position is erroneous, for the exchange of goods is ultimately governed by use-value, which has a frankly humanistic, human character. Therefore, the proletarian worldview was forced to include them, albeit in a negative form.

Historically, the proletarian worldview emerged in Western Europe in the 19th century as a negation of the bourgeois worldview. And as such it could not lead to a positive result — the dictatorship of the proletariat. However, it is precisely this, in a contradictory interaction with the bourgeois worldview, that has created the society that now flourishes in the developed capitalist countries. In the Russian Empire, the proletarian worldview was able to take root at a time when the collapse of the social system of exploitation and the collapse of the primitive community; the latter had previously been conserved by the exploitative social system. The country was transformed into a wild horde:

«Yes, the Scythians are us! Yes, the Asians are us!

With slanting and greedy eyes!» (A. Block. Scythians.)

It was only possible to organize and streamline Russia by introducing a proletarian worldview and establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat.

The main task of Marxism and the proletarian worldview is to subordinate exchange relationships to labor relationships. Marx assumed to regulate the element of exchange relationships with the help of the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is what happened, but the problem of curbing the element of the bureaucratic system arose. Marxism-Leninism, as the state ideology, actually sanctified state property, denying exchange relationships as anti-human, and carried out an ideological forgery by identifying society and the state.

The proletarian worldview has undergone a certain evolution. In the beginning it was naïve communism — the belief in a bright future that would come as soon as universal social justice without the market was established. All that was needed was to divide the wealth of society equally. This belief has been replaced by the belief that such social justice will be established by the bureaucratic system of the dictatorship of the proletariat — one need only submit to it, surrender to it, become a conscious slave to it. This is the answer to society’s tolerant attitude toward state terror. (During the repressions of the 1930s, it happened that convicted «enemies of the people» welcomed their own death sentence. A slave of the system was happy to sacrifice himself to strengthen that same system. This behavior is reminiscent of the Aztec attitude toward the human sacrifices of those victims themselves).

In a socialist society the proletarian is a slave of society from the beginning, he is a slave of the dictatorship of the proletariat. After the general proletarianization of the population, which was done from below, as a result of the autonomy of the labor collectives, everyone became a slave to the bureaucratic system of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Dissenters were constantly destroyed. Man recognizes himself as a slave of society and for this society constantly supports him. Under socialism, the slave-master relationshipship has reached the level of the person-state relationshipship, while a person can remain a person only within the person-society relationshipship. This is the socialist worldview — the belief in justice and the miraculousness of the bureaucracy. It sanctifies the consumption of products of production and labor relationships under the leadership of bureaucracy. But the bottleneck in this scheme is labor relationships, which the bureaucracy cannot manage.

In the socialism, the bureaucratic system of the dictatorship of the proletariat assimilated market relationships, relationships of exchange of goods and thus substituted market relationships with relationships of power. As a result, money was identified with power (Money = Power). The exchange of goods (G) proceeds in the information field of the dominant worldview: in the first stage of socialism according to the formula G — P — G1, and in the second stage: P — G — P1. Finally, now, in the third stage of socialism, the labor force (LF) has been relegated to the level of a commodity and the exchange of goods takes place according to the formula P — LF — P.

This degradation of labor Force was a natural consequence of the producers’ orientation toward consumption. Although it should be noted that the domination of the bureaucratic system in society, which prevents any self-determination within labor collectives is possible only with the approval of consumers. Thus, consumers and bureaucracy are two sides of the same coin. This is why socialist society (unlike capitalist society) deifies, acts as a fetish, the power of the state, not the power of money.

Market relationships, internalized by the bureaucratic system, degrade it from within. Power itself becomes a commodity: first, P — M — P and then, in our time, M — P — M. This exchange is limited to the framework of the bureaucratic system, the framework of the state, one might say, the framework of the state budget. The discovery of the parasitism of the bureaucratic system at the expense of society should lead to an erosion of faith in the need for state domination, should cause the collapse of the socialist worldview and force a way out of the impasse of consumption that has been created. The main condition for this process will be the freedom of exchange of information, just as the freedom of exchange of goods was the main condition for the emergence of the proletarian worldview.

Under these social conditions, the socialist worldview will be replaced by a worldview of consumption, based on the belief that the consumption of labor relationships leads to the consumption of the products of production (labor is the first necessity of life). This is the mature proletarian or communist worldview. This is when the basis of the proletarian worldview — the instinct of consumption — manifests itself. The proletariat will realize itself as a consumer of labor relationships and break with its slavish dependence on the bureaucratic system, which is incapable of ensuring the consumption of labor relationships. As a consequence, the bureaucracy, which has proven itself incapable of solving the problems of social development, must lose its leading position in relation to the labor collectives.

The consumption of labor relationships must be ensured by their production. The difficulty is that the production of labor relationships is bifurcated into their reproduction and their development. The first process consists in the repetition of already known, achieved earlier, and the second involves the creation of something new, unexplored. Consumers participate only in the reproduction of labor relationships, while the development of labor relationships can only be carried out by enthusiasts, and this happens in spite of the bureaucracy. Up to now, enthusiasts have unconsciously developed labor relationships. The transition to the conscious development of labor relationships is a revolution within the framework of enthusiasm. The conscious development of labor relationships requires cognition independent of the bureaucratic system. The development of labor relationships presupposes the development of the human personality, and the latter can exist only in the bosom of the worldview of development. Therefore, the result of the activity of enthusiasts will be a worldview of development.

The worldview of development cannot be evaluated from the outside, cannot be looked at from above, because it is the crown of development at this time. It can only be recognized from within, by entering it and perceiving it.

Enthusiasm and development of society

The history of human society is the history of the struggle between consumerism and enthusiasm, the struggle between two tendencies: the desire for conservation of the social system and the desire for its development. If the history of the exploitative social system was the history of class struggle, which was waged in order to overthrow the social system of exploitation, the history of the communist social system is the history of the struggle of stagnation and the development of society, the struggle of enthusiasm and consumerism, the struggle of the development of labor relationships and their reproduction.

The development of labor relationships consists in the fact that new forms of interaction between people in the course of labor activity are formed, this interaction becomes more complex, penetrates farther into the depths of human nature, new possibilities of human personality are involved in the labor process. It makes man richer, more versatile, it fills him with new social content, which allows him to successfully manage his biological form and overcome it in order to escape the deadlock of consumption that awaits each individual and, having achieved harmony with society, to become happy.

Every person is objectively interested in the development of labor relationships, as well as society as a whole, but not everyone can participate in the development of labor relationships; this, however, does not prevent them from enjoying the fruits of such development. At this point there is an obstacle in the form of consumption. Although society owes its existence to production, all production, including the development of labor relationships, is at the same time consumption; moreover, production is ultimately due to prior consumption, while the highest meaning of human life is production. Man can escape from the captivity of consumerism only through development; only in development can the deepest tragedy of the bifurcation of the human person into consumption and production be overcome.

Every human person becomes a developing person as a result of the consumption of new labor relationships (which have arisen through the development of labor relationships) and, therefore, reaches harmony with the labor collective, which makes him happy. In the end, this harmony will be the material (emotional) factor that outweighs naked material interest. The latter is a mere consumption of the products of production and, in general, does not prevent the de-socialization of the individual, while the consumption of developing labor relationships, on the contrary, makes a person a social individual. Freedom of consumption of labor relationships is a necessary condition for the development of the individual and his free participation in labor activity. Forced labor, spurred on by naked material interest, servile labor is not a source of joy. But labor free from immediate needs is purely human labor. The human joy of the consumption of labor relationships surpasses the animal joy of the consumption of the products of production, becomes the meaning of human life and its guarantor.

The consumer is consumption-oriented: he participates in production only for the sake of consumption, both of labor relationships and of the products of production. The enthusiast is oriented toward production; he consumes in order to produce. Both extremes are flawed, limited, and only their unity and harmony are human, which is not to say, however, that both sides neutralize each other — one or the other always prevails. Even for one person, they change places in the course of his life, for a person begins and ends his life with consumption. If we take large masses of people, consumerism prevails decisively, and this corresponds to human nature. But at the same time, this same majority needs enthusiasm insofar as it remains consumerism.

Man is always faced with a dilemma, regardless of his awareness of it — either to consume labor relationships without changing them, or to develop them. Society is forced to solve both problems at the same time, that is why enthusiasts always emerge from the depths of society and any labor collective at the spearhead of the social struggle as social necessity arises. Enthusiasts bear the brunt of the struggle for development, for the new, they overcome the deadlock of consumption, while the social system itself always seeks to preserve itself unchanged.

Enthusiasm is the consequence of people’s deep desire for the good, for the new, for development, for which they sacrifice their consumption. Only enthusiasm makes possible the existence and development of human society. Enthusiasts strive to carry labor collectives and society forward, to the new, strive to consciously guide the development of society, to lead the rest of the producers. In developing social relationships, enthusiasts cannot help but develop themselves as human beings. This is the only way left for them to take their place in labor collectives, as they have neglected to orient themselves toward consumption. Enthusiasm is the open, direct manifestation of the primacy of the social over the biological in man, the primacy of production over consumption, development over stagnation. Enthusiasm and development are inseparable.

Enthusiasm arises at the junction of individual and social interests in labor collectives as an individual’s desire for harmony with the collective and as the realization of some possibility of development inherent in the collective. Enthusiasm for the individual is possible only at the stage of personal development, and personal development can occur only under the condition of disharmony of the individual and society. After a person has reached his own, unique place in society, he merges with the social system and personal development follows the development of society, i.e. enthusiasm disappears; consequently, enthusiasm is not something inexhaustible.

The role of enthusiasm in the development of society is to ensure the advancement of production. All production is preceded by consumption. Ensuring consumption that precedes production can be called an advance of production or simply an advance. At the phase of primitive communal system, the biosphere provided the advance in the form of gifts of nature and herd organization. After the settlement of the Earth by man and the exhaustion of the primary advance, society was forced to begin self-avantage — it switched to farming and cattle breeding, began to create social organization through mythology, i.e. began to advance production in a purely human way. This leap corresponds to the so-called Neolithic Revolution. The era of self-avantage put forward primitive enthusiasts, heroes enshrined in mythology and epic. The custom of sacrifice enshrines the human capacity to sacrifice oneself or one’s consumption for the development of society. Society always overcomes the deadlock of consumption, when production lags behind consumption, by the self-avoidance of production by enthusiasts.

So, at the becoming phase of society, the advancement of production took place at the expense of the biosphere — first, at the first stage, at the expense of the external biosphere, then, at the second stage (matriarchy), at the expense of the biosphere’s intrasocial resources. At the third stage, heroic self-avantage was carried out at the expense of primitive enthusiasm.

In the conditions of the exploitative social system, the advancement of the unconscious production of labor relationships came to the fore, first at the expense of social organization and productive forces achieved by the primitive communal system, then at the expense of their transformation under the control of the religious worldview. After the exhaustion of this source of development, society turned again to self-avantage, already under capitalism, by beginning to produce labor relationships within the system of commodity exchange. The proletariat advances production with its labor time and thus produces labor relationships. The understanding of this circumstance manifests itself in strikes. Capitalism can exist only through the constant reproduction of the proletariat, which is forced to be the bearer of enthusiasm and inevitably produces a proletarian worldview that carries the seeds of capitalism’s demise.

Hence, in the antagonistic phase of society, the production of labor relationships was advanced first by absorbing primitive communities, then by transforming them, and finally, under capitalism, in the conditions of completely disintegrated communities, there was a forced self-avoidance by the proletariat.

Under the communist order, the advancement of the development of labor relationships came to the fore. In the beginning, the transformation of the productive forces and the proletarian mode of production of labor relationships created by the exploiting social system under the control of the proletarian worldview was used as an advance. Afterwards, already at the stage of socialism, this advancement took place on the basis of adaptation of the mode of production of labor relationships of the exploitative social system to the socialist worldview, successively, to the mode of production of labor relationships of the slave-holding, feudal and, in the current moment, capitalist mode. After the completion of the latter, there will be nothing left to adapt and, in order to preserve itself, the communist social system will be forced to shift to self-avoidance — to the conscious development of labor relationships by enthusiasts.

Up to now, the unconscious development of labor relationships has consisted in adapting the pre-existing mode of production of labor relationships to the bureaucratic system of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Consequently, the transition to the conscious development of labor relationships by enthusiasts allows the bureaucracy to be sidelined due to its inability to participate in development, in other words, since the need to adapt labor relationships to the dictatorship of the proletariat would disappear, the state would lose its former importance.

The transition of the communist order to self-avantage is at the same time its jump to the stage of communism. Just as self-advantage under capitalism requires freedom of exchange of goods, so self-advantage under communism requires freedom of exchange of information, freedom of knowledge. The worldview of development that emerges will be, first, a necessary condition for the activity of enthusiasts and, second, a sufficient condition for the leap to a worldview form of the movement of matter that is higher than the social form of the movement of matter.

A Critique of the Communist social system

The communist order is a return to the primitive communal system, but on the basis of the achievements of the exploitative order, that is, a synthesis of them under the condition of the primacy of the former. The fundamental regularity of the development of the communist order, the main pivot around which all its problems revolve, is, in Lenin’s words, the question of power, namely, the necessity of conquering and strengthening the primacy of the bureaucratic system of the dictatorship of the proletariat over the self-government of the labor collectives.

Marx predicted as early as 1844 that communism would first take the path of the abolition of private property, although this is in reality impossible; therefore, «the relation of private property remains the relation of all society to the world of things. The impossibility of abolishing private property follows from the fact that the production of labor relationships can only take place within the exchange of goods. Marx goes on to characterize the so-called crude communism in more detail: «For this kind of communism, commonality is only the commonality of labor and the equality of wages paid by communal capital, by the community as the general capitalist.» (K.Marx and F. Engels. Opus, vol. 42, pp. 114—115).

Marx characterized the second stage of the communist order (socialism) as follows: since communism «has not yet grasped the positive essence of private property and has not yet grasped the human nature of need, it too is still captive to private property and infected by it» (K.Marx and F. Engels. Opus, vol. 42, p. 116). Marx admits for such communism the «abolition of the state,» which seems to belong to the realm of utopia, since the second stage of the communist social system is not separable from the state in its very essence. It is arranged in the same way as the first stage of the communist social system, with the difference that in the role of «community as a general capitalist» acts not society, but the state. Although, we must admit, the classicist was wrong only in details, because the abolition of the dictatorship of the proletariat has indeed already happened, and the third stage of the communist order must be marked by the loss of the leading position of the state in its contradiction with the labor collectives.

Finally, the third stage of the communist order for Marx is «communism as the positive abolition of private property — this self- alienation of man — and in virtue of this as the genuine appropriation of human essence by and for man; and therefore as the complete, conscious return of man to himself as a public man, i.e., human being, which takes place with all the richness of previous development.» (K.Marx and F. Engels. Opus, vol. 42, p. 116). Apparently, Marx was suggesting the blurring of the lines between private and public property.

Let us consider in more detail the opposites of the driving contradiction of the communist order (Fig. 3). Self-managed labor collectives experience an internal bifurcation into consumers and enthusiasts: the former are oriented toward the consumption of the products of production and labor relationships, the latter toward the production of both and the development of labor relationships, with no need for bureaucracy. At the same time, every human person acts both as a consumer and as a producer. The bureaucratic system of the dictatorship of the proletariat is bifurcated into a distribution system (a system for the management of the consumption of the products of production) and a production system (a system for the management of the consumption of labor relationships).

Self-government of labor collectives is the source of social development, but without bureaucracy, it is lost and becomes chaotic. At the same time, the domination of the bureaucratic system performs public functions of conserving established social relationships only. It is inherently incapable of self-development. It makes possible only the reproduction of labor relationships by the bureaucratized self-government of labor collectives and prevents their development.

Based on the analysis of the opposites of the driving contradiction, the actual history of the communist social system is revealed as follows. At the stage of wartime communism we have three steps of development: civil war, the NEP (new economic policy) and collectivization (in China the third step took the form of the cultural revolution — collectivization of the worldview). In the first step enthusiasts, relying on consumers, seized state power and rebuilt the bureaucratic system in a new, proletarian way, with the distribution system (consumption of the products of production) in the foreground. During the second step, since there was nothing left to distribute, the primacy of the enthusiasts over the consumers in the work collectives became irrelevant, and the system of consumerism was brought to the fore (the transition from wage labor to free labor was impossible).

Therefore, the system of production in the form of state capital was forced to be admitted. As a consequence, it became possible to consume labor relationships and the subsequent production of consumer goods. Under the conditions of the NEP, the enthusiasts lost their leading position in labor collectives because of the collapse of the distribution system of military communism. In the third step, however, the enthusiasts consolidated their primacy over consumers within labor collectives, relying on the bureaucracy of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Their brief, spontaneous and unconscious domination led to a general proletarization of the population and undermined the economy so that the primacy of the labor collectives over the state fell spontaneously, like an overripe fruit, into the hands of a socialist bureaucracy supported by consumers, while enthusiasm degenerated into the enthusiastic enthusiasm of state slaves equalized before the state. Collectivization was carried out by the population under the leadership of enthusiasts who had become consumers of state power.

After the rampant element of self-government of labor collectives in the stage of wartime communism, the society of the communist social system was forced in the stage of socialism (the second stage of the communist social system) to surrender itself to the power of the state. The dictatorship of the socialist state caused the collapse of the bureaucratic system and the internal strife, which was the main reason for the state terror of 1937—1938 in the USSR, which mainly affected the elite. It should be noted that similar processes were in many socialist countries, and in China they completed the so-called cultural revolution (fire on the staffs) of the 60s of the 20th century.

In order to consolidate its primacy, the bureaucracy turned people into conscious slaves of the state. The primacy of society over the individual under socialism has been elevated to the primacy of the state over the individual. The free development of the individual was the price to be paid for the so-called social justice advocated by consumers.

Thus, we found ourselves in the second stage of the communist social system, socialism. Since bureaucratized labor collectives, in which consumers suppressed enthusiasts with the help of bureaucracy, are not capable of self-development, therefore, the bureaucratic system was forced to take the path of transformation of labor relationships of exploitative social system to the conditions of socialism. As a result, the second stage of the communist social system (socialism) passes through its three steps of development — quasi-slavery, quasi-feudal and quasi-capitalist (Fig. 4).

In the first step (quasi-slavery), the bureaucracy proved its undeniable superiority over the labor collectives by a system of terror. State terror was justified by the really existing threat of the restoration of the exploitative social system by imperialism. The bureaucratic system of the dictatorship of the proletariat was modeled on the feudal pyramid where all members of society occupied a certain position. In the first step of socialism, consumers and enthusiasts managed to adapt to the bureaucratic system in such a way that the system of terror in the second step became ineffective — as a result of which the bureaucracy lost its explicit primacy and moved to an indirect primacy. Thus we entered the second step of socialism (quasi-feudal). Enthusiasm has been replaced by personal worship of power, personal dependence on superiors; consumers have succeeded in this, and thus they have taken over the bureaucracy (the method of soft embrace turning into strangulation). The bureaucracy continued to be dominated by the production system rather than the distribution system. In labor collectives, enthusiasts were dominated by consumers, supported by the bureaucratic system, so that enthusiasts could only produce labor relationships that would satisfy consumers and the bureaucratic system, which led to social stagnation, since any bureaucracy is interested in conserving society.

In the third step of socialism, the management of production within the bureaucratic system under the influence of consumerism receded into the background, and its place was taken by the management of distribution. Consumption became the leading social principle, but since it was not underpinned by production, the dominance of distribution and consumption in society carried the threat of economic collapse.

The bureaucratic system of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the conditions of economic collapse has freed itself from the soft embrace of the consumer, throwing aside the ideological junk of the dictatorship of the proletariat, although it rests on the socialist worldview — on the slave faith in the state as the guarantor of social justice, whereas such guarantor is, ultimately, society. This is the situation of current events, the third step of socialism (quasi-capitalist). The bureaucratic system of the dictatorship of the proletariat has turned into a dictatorship of the bureaucracy, a dictatorship of the state, sucking the juices out of society with the help of market mechanisms.

Under the new social conditions, consumers within labor collectives dominate enthusiasts, and the latter are forced to seek, unsuccessfully, the freedom to operate within the freedom to exchange goods.

The bureaucracy relies on market relationships in the hope of consolidating its primacy over labor collectives. The state is mainly engaged in the distribution of public property within the bureaucratic system, and the bureaucracy is incapable of managing production under conditions of free exchange of goods. Hence the conclusion that the state, exercising diktat over society, does not and, in principle, cannot fulfill its functions in relation to society. In the case of a clear transition of the economy to the free exchange of goods, it will be obvious that the dictatorship of the bureaucracy is too expensive for society. That is why the state is stalling market reforms by stopping them at the level of state capitalism, when bureaucrats are the owners of property. At this point, society approached imperialism in the Leninist sense, although this approach occurred not on the part of private property but on the part of the state. As a result, the economy continues to collapse and society degrades. Consequently, the rotting of society that is now being observed is because the bureaucratic system has usurped power over the society from which it emerged. We must return to the primacy of labor collectives over bureaucracy.

Thus, the last attempt of self-government of labor collectives to escape from the oppression of bureaucracy (while remaining within the framework of socialism) was associated with the transition to the reproduction of capitalist labor relationships. Market relationships were to be a form that would contain the freedom of self-government of labor collectives. But in fact the bureaucracy still controls the self-government of the labor collectives and at the same time has the initiative to adapt the capitalist mode of production of labor relationships to socialism. Under conditions in which the self-management of labor relationships is reduced to the reproduction of capitalist labor relationships, the development of society is excluded, which suits the bureaucratic system, but not society, because in a developing world stagnation is tantamount to regression. Thus, the critique of socialism from the perspective of development is identical with the critique of the primacy of bureaucracy over self-government of labor collectives.

After all, the contradiction between society and the state arises when a part pretends to be the whole. The state is the part of society that produces nothing, the surface part of the iceberg, the social superstructure, formed by formalized human relationships. Whereas the underwater part of the iceberg, the producing part of society, is made up of informalized human relationships, sanctified by custom and worldview, which result in all kinds of production, from fellow human beings to all kinds of material and spiritual goods.

The return to the primacy of self-government of labor collectives must take place on the basis of the achieved level of development of the communist social system under socialism and will include, on the one hand, liberation of labor collectives from bureaucratic fetters and, on the other hand, the socialization of the bureaucratic system and its subordination to the interests of social development. The leading role in this process belongs to enthusiasts who, in addition to the production of consumer goods and the production of labor relationships, are able to develop labor relationships. The latter circumstance will prove decisive, for the bureaucratic system can only manage the distribution of pre-existing products of production and labor relationships.

Enthusiasts are capable of consciously creating labor relationships and the conditions for their consumption. The latter function has so far been performed only by bureaucracy. The bureaucracy creates the conditions for the consumption of labor relationships by means of violence, while enthusiasts will provide an effective alternative to bureaucracy — by creating a worldview of development. Involving people in its sphere, this worldview simultaneously creates conditions for the consumption of developing labor relationships, i.e., it promotes personal development. People will work because it is interesting for them. The highest form of humanism is personal development.

Consequently, the need for the bureaucratic threat of direct violence will recede into the background. These processes will allow labor collectives to break free from the oppression of bureaucracy and establish a mature primacy over it.

Further development in the third step of the communist order, under communism, will be determined by the struggle between enthusiasts and consumers within labor collectives.

Self-government of labor collectives will experience a bifurcation because a qualitatively new process emerges in the bosom of labor collectives — the conscious development of labor relationships. The bifurcation of self-government will cause the proletarian worldview to split into a worldview of consumption and a worldview of development. Therefore, the center of gravity of the contradictory nature of development will shift to the contradiction between consumerism and enthusiasm. The main reason for separating enthusiasm from consumerism will be the desire for personal development, contrary to the conservatism of labor collectives, which will meet the need for the development of society as a whole. If consumers strive to achieve harmony with a stable society, submitting to the consumption imposed by society and thus forming a stable basis of society, enthusiasts find harmony with the developing society by means of developing their own personality and refusing blind submission to the consumption established by society. Enthusiasts are always ahead of society and, therefore, need cognition independent of society.

The free consumption of labor relationships needs their excessive production. Reproduction is incapable of ensuring this, because needs are constantly changing and their satisfaction is impossible without the development of labor relationships. Communism is impossible without the development of labor relationships, and since their development occurs through enthusiasm, communism is a social system that advances itself through enthusiasm. The essence of communism is the creation of conditions for the development of the individual, which is the purpose of enthusiasm. Because consumers need personal development, society, dominated by a consumerist worldview, will be forced to allow enthusiasts to create the conditions for their activity, that is, to create a worldview of development. Thus, the very transition from socialism to communism will be a consequence of the intelligent activity of enthusiasts.

Intelligent enthusiasts must become the subject of society’s development. This requires the primacy of cognition over production. The sphere of human cognition is the destiny of enthusiasts, where enthusiasm has the primacy, the priority over consumerism. Consequently, the practice of the intelligent development of human society has as its consequence the primacy of cognition over the production of society, which will be a necessary and sufficient condition for the formation of the noosphere.

A critique of the third step of the communist order from the point of view of the development of human society and from the point of view of society is impossible. Since communism is the highest stage in the development of society itself, the critique of communism is identical with the critique of society in general. This critique is justified from the position of a contradiction of a higher order — the driving contradiction of Alive Matter. The latter includes the biosphere, the social form of matter movement (sociosphere) and the coming noosphere or worldview form of matter movement. Communism’s critique will be positive only from the position of the contradiction of informational and chemical interaction, with informational interaction playing the leading role.

In human society, i.e. in the second phase of the mentioned contradiction, informational interaction in the form of information extraction (human cognition) and transmission of heredity has taken a subordinate position, while chemical interaction in the form of the dominant worldview, which united people’s emotions for labor activity, has taken the primacy. Worldview strives to achieve a leading role in contradiction to cognition, but since controlled cognition degenerates into repetition of what has passed, ceases to be cognition, this striving is not feasible. Although this aspiration of the dominant worldview to achieve a leading role in contradiction with cognition and to force cognition to follow the dominant worldview cannot in principle prevent the development of cognition in a direction not yet covered by the dominant worldview.

Under communism, the results of cognition cannot always be used by society, since the reproduction of labor relationships for consumers is always more important than their development. Cognition generally undermines the worldview of consumerism. Therefore, the latter will seek to control cognition, which will cause the departure of new cognition enthusiasts into the bosom of the worldview of development. Nor will this cognition be free within the sociosphere, because the consumerist worldview will seek to suppress the developmental worldview. Therefore, the very existence of communism is impossible without the influence of the noosphere. With such a ratio of opposites of the antagonism of Alive Matter, the overcoming of this antagonism and the leap of Alive Matter to the third phase of development into the noosphere is possible as a consequence of a socialist revolution in some imperialist country.

So, in human society, cognition is always in opposition to the dominant worldview, including the worldview of consumerism. The transition to the noosphere consists in freeing cognition from the influence of the consumer worldview. The worldview of development, with the help of a new cognition, must establish primacy over the worldview of consumption.

Unlike previous worldviews, the developmental worldview will be a generalized system of views and feelings that recognizes development as a defining aspect of reality. In this respect, it will coincide with the system of concepts generated by the new cognition on the basis of the theory of development it has adopted as a method of cognition. Moreover, the generalization of the development worldview’s system of views can take place only on the basis of the developing notions generated by new cognition, and this cognition will be based on the development worldview in the future. Thus, the development worldview will be both the result of a new cognition and its means. Since all cognition is the production of new information, contrary to the old ideas, true cognition, as opposed to the transmission of information, will be the lot of enthusiasts who speak from the position of the worldview of development. Therefore, dogmatism is for consumers, and dialectics is for enthusiasts.

Production is higher than science, because production transforms reality, creates a new reality, while science only discovers the connections that exist. But new cognition, based on a theory of development, comprehends ideally the future reality not yet created by practice, future interrelationships, creates ideally, plans future reality, and, therefore, it must manage production as far as it correctly predicts future reality. I argue that the supreme goal, the supra-task, of humanity is cognition.

The domination of the worldview of development over the worldview of consumerism will make it possible to create a worldview form of the movement of matter or the noosphere. The labor activity of the sociosphere in the noosphere will split into cognition and production. Cognition will exercise primacy over production, also over the production of society itself and determine the further development of Alive Matter, while enthusiasm will govern consumerism on the basis of the primacy of the worldview of development.

By analogy with the leap to a communist social system (from feudal absolutism through capitalism to socialism) the real leap to a worldview form of matter movement, to the apparent primacy of information production over its transmission, to the primacy of the worldview of development over the worldview of consumption is assumed in the leap from imperialism through socialism to the noosphere. This leap can only take place during the transition to a communist order in the special conditions of the collapse of the bureaucratic system of the dictatorship of the proletariat, coinciding with the disintegration of the still preserved labor relationships of wage labor.

This leap in noosphere will take place by replacing the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat with a dictatorship of enthusiasts against the background of the introduction into the proletarian worldview of development. Socialist countries will by then be on the threshold of the third stage of the communist order. In this connection, the abolition of the state in the second stage of the communist order, predicted by Marx, turns from a seeming utopia into a foresight of the conditions of transition from a social to a higher form of movement of matter. Finally, the sustained existence of the third stage of the communist order, communism, will owe the necessity of counteracting the sociosphere to the newly formed noosphere.

THEORY of ABSTRACT THINKING and PERSPECTIVES of COGNITION

The theory of development is applied as a method of cognition to the ordering of the logic of abstract thinking. In this way the comprehension by abstract thinking of the theory of cognition, depicted by Hegel in The Phenomenology of Spirit, is critically examined. On the basis of the primacy of sensory perception in relation to abstract thinking, the history of human cognition, which must culminate in the synthesis of knowledge, is analyzed. The discovered regularities of the formation of concepts will serve to achieve this goal. The way of development of the concepts of new cognition, leading to the synthesis of knowledge and the formation of the worldview of development is indicated. The latter will make cognition a driving force in the noosphere, which will replace society at the edge of development.

All people naturally strive for knowledge.

Aristotle

Introduction

The human personality and it worldview are determined by the public (social) relationships (relations), in which it is involved. But the same personality is forced to participate in their development. The division between the new and the old runs through every human personality. There is a deadlock, the way to overcome which Marx called as the revolutionary practice.

Cognition inherently pervades human practice and every person is forced to constantly learn the new in order to become and remain a member of society. The development of society is impossible without awareness of the laws of the development of society and nature; it is impossible without the involvement, in one way or another, of every human person in the process of cognition. Consequently, the problem of cognition and, in particular, the problem of ordering abstract thinking has always been relevant, regardless of society’s awareness of it. Nowadays, when human society is experiencing the loss of developmental landmarks in connection with the crisis of the communist social system, and when consumerism and opportunism, which reduce man to the level of an animal, are being implanted in the public consciousness, the problem of knowing the laws of social development has acquired crucial importance for the reasonable development of society.

The need for a rational development of society has arisen. We come to the need for revolutionary practice, which was proclaimed by Marx in his theses on Feuerbach. Philosophers must know the world in order to transform it. Cognition must become the subject of the development of the world.

Two tendencies are always struggling in public consciousness: conservatism and aspiration for development. Conservatism is a fear of change and development and, as a reaction to this conservatism, there is a desire to limit one’s knowledge of the world, to stick one’s head in the sand; as A.S. Pushkin said: «The deception that elevates us dearer to me than the multitude of low truths». On the other hand, the very crisis of the communist social system and the entire sociosphere evokes a desire, still hidden, an unconscious desire to make sense of reality and transform it.

This work is devoted to developing the logic of abstract thinking on the basis of the theory of development in order to introduce historicity and development into logic. The use of the theory of development to transform notions should result in such notions, which will be, in Lenin’s words, "...sharpened, chipped, flexible, mobile, relational, interrelated, united in opposites, so as to embrace the world» [Lenin. Complete Works. Vol. 29, p. 131]. Now concepts bear the imprint of metaphysical, dogmatic, cognition that ignores development. Therefore in the whole volume of science there is a need for dialectical notions, reflecting with sufficient accuracy the specific sides of living reality in development, reflecting the history of objects.

A theory of concept formation is needed. Cognition, therefore, returns to Hegel, to the theory of abstract thinking. But, unlike Hegel, cognition approaches abstractions by drawing on the grand building of modern cognition, descending to the concept from cognition, rather than ascending from the concept to cognition. Hegel’s system ended the era of scholasticism, and Marx proclaimed in his theses on Feuerbach the transition from the abstract to the technological stage of cognition. The desire for cognition forces the subject of cognition to assume the position of the object, for the desire for cognition itself arises under the pressure of necessity. The transition of cognition to subjectivity is carried out by means of revolutionary practice.

Instead of a critical analysis of the modern logic of scientific cognition, it is enough to point to one knotty problem with which modern cognition faces and which generates confusion and confusion in the sphere of concepts. Cognition has already revealed the contradictory nature of the objects of research, came close to the reflection by the concepts of the opposites of the driving contradictions, but has not yet coped with the way of interaction of the opposites of contradiction. The point is to consciously manage the formation of specific concepts with the help of the theory of development, which will then be able to successfully reflect the developing reality.

Abstract Thinking and Cognition

The opposition of abstract thinking and sensory perception was interpreted by Hegel in the form of the identity of thinking and being, but in fact abstract thinking was given the role of primacy. Hegel’s theory of abstract thinking included as an integral element the dialectical law of the self-movement of consciousness-the negation of negation.

Hegel explained his method in the introduction to the Science of Logic thus: «The impenetrability of logical forms is obtained solely as a consequence of the way in which they are considered and interpreted. Since they are as fixed definitions, are deprived of connection with one another and are not held together in organic unity, they are dead forms and the spirit which constitutes their concrete unity does not dwell in them. Consequently, it is all about the way of considering and treating logical forms, which must bind them into an organic unity and in this form will be spirit or logical reason: "...the logical reason itself is that substantive or real which binds together all abstract definitions…"[Hegel. Op. V. M., 1937, p.25—26.].

Below Hegel explains his Phenomenology: «In the Phenomenology of Spirit I have depicted consciousness in its progressive movement from the first immediate contradiction between it and the object to absolute knowledge. This way passes all forms of the relationship of consciousness to the object, and has as its result the concept of science» [Ibid., p.26.].

Then we move on to a critical analysis of the method of self-movement of abstract thinking in the «Phenomenology of Spirit», which represents, according to Marx, «the true origin and mystery of Hegelian philosophy». The Phenomenology of Spirit can be considered a doctrine of the phenomenon of worldview.

«Phenomenology of Spirit» can be divided into three parts and this division is essential to understanding Hegel’s abstract system. The preface gives the theoretical foundation of the system, the introduction substantiates and reveals the principle of dialectical self-movement of abstract thought, and the main sections examine this self-development, from which the actual history of the human spirit supposedly follows.

In the preface Hegel struggles with the metaphysics of public opinion: "...the essence of the case is exhausted not by its purpose, but by its realization, and not the result is the actual whole, but the result together with its foundation…"[Hegel. Op. cit. vol. IV, part 1. M.,1959, p.2]. Hegel considers cognition historically, but in isolation from the actual history of mankind, so the history of cognition is reduced to the history of abstract thinking, imprinted by the history of philosophical ideas. Hegel distinguished three stages in this kind of history:

— «In former times men endowed the sky with a vast wealth of thoughts and images;

— "...it took a long time to bring that clarity which only the superterrestrial, possessed into the vagueness and chaos in which the meaning of the otherworldly lay, and to give interest and meaning to that attention to reality as such which was called experience.»

— «now it seems as if the need is otherwise — the sense is so rooted in the mundane that it requires an equally great power to elevate it above the mundane» [Ibid., p.11.].

Hegel sees the purpose of his teaching in the transition to the third stage, he calls for active activity in the sphere of abstract thinking: "...philosophy must beware of the desire to be edifying» [Ibid., p.5.].

Hegel then approaches for the first time an exposition of dialectical intertransition on the example of the identity of being and thinking. But he limits this identity to the process of cognition, in the sphere of which abstract thinking takes precedence: «…only this restoring equality or reflection in itself in otherness, and not some initial unity as such or immediate unity as such, is that which is true. It is the foundation of itself…"[Ibid., p.9].

«The reconstructing equality or reflection into itself in otherness» is the origin of Hegel’s system. The desire to squeeze dialectics into the identity of being and thinking led to the passivity of being and the activity of thinking, and the latter has only to reflect itself in the other-being. So, in the beginning of the system there was an identity, which was developed by the dialectic of abstract thinking until it was exhausted.

Hegel explains the dialectics of concepts from the position of goal setting: «Reason is expedient action» [Ibid., p. 11], at that he relies on Aristotle’s understanding of the goal. Hence the theoretical basis of dialectics is deduced: «The result is identical with the beginning only because the beginning is the goal» or as applied to thinking: «The real is identical with its notion only because the immediate in it has the identity or pure reality as the goal» [Ibid., p. 11]. In fact, if the immediate in the actual has as its goal pure reality, then it is not surprising that the latent concept develops into a pure concept, and goal-forming serves as the force forcing the initial one-sided form of the concept of only «immediate being or goal» into the negative form of «pure reality» by simply holding positively its own insufficiency, which is postulated by the presence of the goal. This is the first negation.

The theoretical path to the second negation is tortuous and thorny. On this path lush abstract flowers blossom: "...the content is already erased to the possibility of reality, curbed immediacy…"[Ibid., p.15—16.], etc. Hegel connects purposefulness and cognition with the concept of «world spirit». The separate individual should pass all the forms «already left by the spirit», which «in every form exhibited all its content that it is able to contain…"[Ibid., p.15.]. Thereafter, there is a transition to singular consciousness, and according to Hegel, the existence of humanity «consists only in the realized generality of consciousness» [Ibid., p.38.].

In the introduction Hegel again returns to the first negation, but on the basis of the notion of consciousness: "...conscious penetration into the non-truthfulness of revealed knowledge…"[Ibid., p.44.]. Next, applying the procedure of the first negation to conscious knowledge, that is, to self-consciousness, Hegel makes the second negation: «But consciousness for itself is the notion of itself; thanks to this it is directly an exit beyond the limited and, inasmuch as the limited belongs to it, also beyond itself» [Ibid., pp. 45—46]. A remarkable event takes place — the second negation produces nothing else but a theory of cognition, which is quite understandable, because any logical system is doomed to constantly stumble upon its own initial premises: cognition, taken as an abstract process, has come to an abstract theory of cognition.

The theory of cognition and cognition belong, according to Hegel, to the sphere of abstract thought, so their relationship is simple:

— «Consciousness in itself gives its criterion, and thereby research will be a comparison of consciousness with itself…»

— «The main point, however, is ...that both of these moments, concept and object, being for the other and being in itself, are included in the knowledge we investigate and, therefore, we need not resort to a criterion…»

-"...the concept and the object, the criterion and the thing to be tested are in consciousness itself… we are left with mere observation, as consciousness checks itself.»

— «…but with the change of knowledge for it actually changes the object itself… Together with knowledge and the object becomes different, for it essentially belongs to this knowledge» [Ibid., p.47—48.].

The last quote reveals the fact that cognition and the theory of cognition are constantly interacting, enriching each other. The super task of Hegel’s philosophy is to reveal this interaction.

The main sections of the Phenomenology of Spirit are devoted to the logical development of the process of cognition, from which the historical process of cognition supposedly follows. Hegel begins by considering how the abstract thinking of the savage recycles his «sensual reliability. The said process takes place, one might say, from scratch for sensory perception, but with developed abstract thinking. Here is the root of Hegel’s main mistake, which, in essence, is explained by the fact that he did not know about the origin of man from an ape.

Consciousness. At this stage of consciousness «… it is only necessary to consider it (the subject — A. L.) as it is in sensuous authenticity» [Ibid., p. 52], and «… sensuous authenticity shows in itself the universal as the truth of its subject…"[Ibid., p. 53.]. It turns out that sensory authenticity supposedly directs cognition itself, protruding the universal by order of some entity, namely, the theory of cognition, and communicates it in this cunning way to consciousness, so that it, passing through a series of stages, reaches the level of absolute knowledge, that is, a content-filled theory of cognition.

Hegel explains consciousness in this way: «In the dialectic of sensuous certitude for consciousness, hearing, seeing, etc., have disappeared, and as perception it has come to thoughts, which, however, it first connects in an unconditional universal… This unconditional universal, which is already now the true object of consciousness, still remains its subject; it has not yet mastered its concept. An essential distinction must be drawn between the one and the other; for consciousness the object has left the relation to the other back into itself and has therefore become in itself a concept; but consciousness for itself is not yet a concept, and therefore in the said reflexed object it does not recognize itself… But since consciousness in this movement had as its content only an object essence and not consciousness as such, the result for it must be seen in the meaning of the object, and consciousness is still a step back from that which was obtained in foundation, and therefore the latter as an object is for it an essence» [Ibid., p.71. «The object is for him the essence» is a true characteristic of the mythological stage of cognition and the consciousness corresponding to it.

Self-consciousness. «If we consider this new form of knowledge — knowledge of the self in relation to the preceding one — to knowledge of some ’other,» this latter knowledge, it is true, has disappeared, but its moments at the same time are just as preserved; and the loss is that they are here as they are in themselves… lost, it seems, is only the main moment itself, i.e., the simple independent existence for consciousness. But in fact, self-consciousness is reflection from the being of the sensory and perceived world and is essentially a return from other-being» [Ibid., p.93—94.].

Self-consciousness appears bifurcated: one component, the «true essence», which is the return from other-being, is the theory of cognition, which, however, «exists only in opposition to» the second component, the «being of the sensory and perceived world». The latter circumstance prevents the theory of cognition from being freely separated, but Hegel solves the problem very simply with the help of identity: «Consciousness as self-consciousness has from now on a double subject: one — immediate, the subject of sensory reliability and perception, which, however, for self-consciousness has a negative character, and the second — exactly the self, which is the true essence and above all, is present only in opposition to the first. Self-consciousness acts here as a movement in which this contradiction is removed and becomes for him the equality of himself with himself» [Ibid., p.94.]. So, self-consciousness at the end of its formation coincides with the theory of cognition. Hegel clearly saw that the theory of cognition is rooted not in the sphere of abstract thinking, therefore he makes the process of abstract thinking a means of its extraction in order to plunge it back into the absolute, for so commanded the dialectics of negation discovered by him.

Whereas the section on consciousness discussed the perception of the primitive savage, Hegel relates to self-consciousness the higher historical forms of consciousness of the slave-owning formation, using the ideas of ancient Greek philosophy as an example, as well as the religious consciousness of the feudal formation. However, Hegel only illustrates with historical forms of consciousness the logical forms of the abstract development of abstract thought.

Reason. The transition to the third stage of consciousness is made without a leap. Both sides of self-consciousness in motion become convinced of the identity of each other and the theory of cognition, so that the true side of self-consciousness becomes the unconscious theory of cognition: «This unhappy, bifurcated within itself consciousness… must always, therefore, have in one consciousness the other, and thus, as soon as it thinks it has attained the victory and the peace of unity, it must again be expelled from every consciousness. But its true return to itself, that is, its reconciliation with itself, will express the notion of the spirit becoming alive and beginning to exist… But for itself it is not yet given to itself as this essence itself, not yet given as the unity of both» [Ibid., p.112.]. A further movement of self-consciousness leads to the emergence of the concept of reason: «But in this subject, in which for him the action and being as «this» unit consciousness is the being and action in itself, for him arose the concept of reason, the reliability of consciousness, the reliability that in its singularity it is absolutely in itself or is all reality» [Ibid., p. 123.]. Once this happens, self-consciousness turns into reason, a universal theory of knowledge: «Reason is the reliability of consciousness, that it is reality…"[Ibid., p.125.].

The third stage, entitled «The Absolute Subject» by Hegel, shows the development of reason and its subsequent replacement by spirit, religion and absolute knowledge. The development of reason in its individuality consists in its reworking of self-consciousness: «With the thought comprehended by it that the singular consciousness in itself is the absolute essence, consciousness goes back into itself. There it reaches the realization of itself by the theory of cognition: «Thereby, that self-consciousness is reason, its hitherto negative attitude to otherness is converted into a positive attitude» [Ibid., p.124.].

Spirit without leap replaces reason: «Reason is spirit, since the certainty that it is all reality is elevated to truth; and reason is conscious of itself as its world, and the world as itself. The truth of spirit is that "...the object of consciousness, a pure category, is elevated to the concept of reason» [Ibid., p.233.], in other words, consciousness, comprehending reason, is spirit. Hence, spirit is a conscious theory of cognition. The latent theory of cognition has become manifest.

By spirit the actual development of the theory of cognition is revealed. The further real history will be, according to Hegel’s thought, a successive change of forms of spirit: spirit, religion, absolute knowledge. Hegel outlined the logical plan of this path, and all his subsequent theoretical activity directed to the fact that people realize the spirit as a way of being and go to the beautiful realm of absolute knowledge.

Hegel’s system, having completed the first logical circle: consciousness — self-consciousness — reason as singular cognition passes to the second logical circle of social cognition: spirit-religion-absolute knowledge (Fig. 1).

The development of the second circle has a historical analogy in the form of a real change of mythological worldview by religious worldview and the latter by scientific worldview. Nevertheless, spirit remains an abstract essence, an abstract worldview, i.e. a pure theory of cognition, which constructs reality for itself according to its own laws: «Spirit is thus a self-sustaining absolute real essence.

All the forms of existence of consciousness considered so far are abstractions of it; they consist in the fact that spirit analyzes itself, distinguishes its moments and stops at each» [Ibid., p.234.]. The development of the spirit takes place by being conscious of itself: «The spirit, since it is the immediate truth, is the moral life of the people; it is an individual who is some world. It must pass to the consciousness of what it directly is, remove the beautiful moral life, and, passing through a series of formations, attain knowledge of itself. But these formations differ from the former ones in that they are real spirits, realities in the proper sense, formations of some world, not formations of consciousness alone» [Ibid., p.235.]. Spirit, thus, becomes an abstract worldview.

In conclusion of the review of «Phenomenology» it should be noted that the rational grain of Hegel’s system in the form of dialectics of negation turned out to be buried under the Egyptian pyramid of identity of thinking and being, which in fact turned out to be the identity of the theory of cognition itself; the abstract equivocation is aimed at limiting the dialectics he found to the sphere of abstract thinking.

The existence of an «unconditionally universal» is the only indisputable argument in favor of Hegel’s system. It can serve as the abstract basis of both a theory of cognition and a generalized theory of cognition, or an abstract worldview. Reason is the realized theory of cognition, whereas Spirit is the result of the generalization of Reason. Hegel’s system itself is the result of the singular realization of Reason; it is a singular breakthrough into the realm of pure thinking. The next step, in Hegel’s mind, was to have a collective Reason which created Spirit, which created a particular abstract world outlook and had, in correspondence with the initial premise, a world-creating potentiality. The Spirit, comprehending itself, creates the world.

Thus, Hegel’s system is an abstract theory of cognition of abstract thinking itself. The latter created the theory of cognition for itself in order to satisfy its own needs. Abstract thinking creates reality through the creation of an abstract worldview, which goes through three stages of development: Spirit, Religion, Absolute Knowledge. Hegel’s system, albeit in a perverted abstract form, anticipated the development of cognition in human society and in the coming noosphere. Singular cognition (consciousness, self-consciousness, reason) corresponds to cognition in human society, and collective cognition (Spirit, Religion, Absolute Knowledge) corresponds to cognition in the noosphere. The world-creating potency of Spirit will manifest itself in the leading role of cognition relative to production in the noosphere.

Hegel absolutized abstract thinking because he neglected the sensory underpinnings of emergent ideas. Moreover, Hegel’s very scholastic way of emergence of concepts, as the highest achievement of the abstract stage of human cognition, was already obsolete in Hegel’s time. Now it is clear why this system as a whole was not in demand — it was just the result of the game of abstract thinking, which went according to pre-established rules — the thinker himself established the rules of thinking. But it is these rules, and not the result of their application, that turned out to be necessary for the further development of human cognition.

Feuerbach’s attempt to replace abstract thinking as a self-developing formation with sensory perception led to the degeneration of the social relation of man to man into a purely biological sensory relation. Following in the footsteps of Hegel and Feuerbach, Marx relied on both sensuality and spirituality, in consequence of which he distanced himself from the absolutization of both abstract thinking and sensory perception, proposing the diversity of human practice as the criterion of truth and bringing the dialectic of negation into living reality. Therefore, Hegel’s cognition of absolute truth turned into a cognition of human truth and, more concretely, into a cognition of proletarian truth. Marx later summarized his own experience of research, distinguishing within the framework of abstract thinking a descending path, "...from the concrete given in representation to more and more lean abstractions,» and an ascending path "...to a rich totality, with numerous definitions and relations… On the first way the complete representation evaporates to the degree of abstract definition, on the second way abstract definitions lead to the reproduction of the concrete by means of thinking» [K.Marx and F. Engels. Op. vol. 12, p. 726,727]. As a generalization of the Marxian approach, Lenin distinguished three stages in the process of cognition: «From living contemplation to abstract thinking and from it to practice — such is the dialectical way of knowing the truth, of knowing objective reality» [V.I.Lenin. Complete Works, Vol. 29, p. 152].

Living contemplation is human sensory perception, it follows from practice; in the same way, any research becomes complete only after it has been assimilated by human practice. Cognition is thus pushed away from practice and dissolved in it again. Since in human practice sensory perception ultimately governs abstract thinking, the development of cognition (which is an integral part of practice) must be considered within the framework of the contradiction sensory perception — abstract thinking, subject to the primacy of sensuality.

Cognition and Worldview (world outlook or mindset)

Cognition is a natural-historical process that is a necessary part of the social form of matter movement. The course of cognition is guided by the practical tasks that society is solving at the moment, so after the social practice, cognition passes its three stages of development of the driving contradiction of cognition.

The first stage, mythological, is confined to the primitive communal system. Sensory perception as human perception of the primitive community transformed the animal psyche with the formation of abstract thinking. The latter was not yet conscious and through mythology subordinated to sensory perception (Fig. 2).

The second stage of cognition, abstract, corresponds to the exploitative social system. Concepts, which emerged gradually, are finally realized, but from the very beginning they bear the indelible stamp of sensory perception, emotional coloring, traces of mythology. Abstract thinking is given the opportunity to develop freely according to its own laws, according to its own will, abstracting for its purposes some aspects of sensory perception, although its freedom is relative. Abstract thinking, changing spontaneously, tends to get out of the control of sensory perception. However, the latter, being derived from human practice, becomes more complicated and perfected, turning into sensory perception of exploitative society — religious worldview — which is based on abstract thinking, covered by sensory form.

The primacy of practice in the second stage of cognition is mediated, since sensory perception is now forced to modify itself in response to the spontaneous changes of abstract thinking, in order to maintain primacy. In this way sensory perception in its reflected form incorporates the laws of self-movement of abstract thinking, which is what enables it to retain indirect primacy. Awareness of concepts leads eventually to awareness of the logic of abstract thinking. Abstract thinking can now develop in its own sphere isolated from sensory perception, but as a consequence of this same self-moving abstract thinking leaves the sphere of cognition — it leaves, leaving cognition with a way of self-moving concepts. This is what happened to Hegel’s abstract system.

The difficulty of the transition to the third stage of cognition consisted in the fact that it was necessary, realizing the requirements of practice, to consciously subordinate abstract thinking to sensory perception, rejecting the logic of abstract thinking as a criterion of truth. From a situation where the clash of theory with sensuality destroys theory, we should have moved to a situation where sensory perception directly subordinates abstract thinking from the very beginning of the investigation. The third stage of cognition can be called technological. As a result of the leap to the third stage, cognition was opposed to the theory of cognition of the religious worldview, in which the explicit priority of sensory perception over abstract thinking found expression. The essence of the third stage of cognition is the achievement of concrete knowledge, which inevitably leads to the synthesis of knowledge.

The technological stage of cognition is characterized by a clear primacy of sensory perception over abstract thinking. In a sense, it is a return of cognition to the mythological stage — «the subject is for him the essence». Scientific cognition emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries from the depths of religious worldview as a result of the denial of the primacy of the logic of abstract thinking in cognition, which reached its absolute in Hegel’s system. Hegel created a dialectical system of logic, as a counterbalance to the dogmatic logic of cognition, when the explicit primacy of abstract thinking was discarded by cognition, although the latter, which became scientific cognition, remained encumbered in a hidden form by the same dogmatic logic derived from the religious worldview.

Scientific cognition subordinated itself to sensory perception in the form of scientific fact, obtaining in nineteenth-century positivism a theoretical justification for this approach (the method of the blind kitten). Empiricism claimed complete freedom from any theory of cognition, but in reality it found a theory of cognition in the religious worldview. This fact was already discovered by Engels in «Anti-Dühring. Scientific cognition did not pay attention to the fact that the original object of research — a scientific fact — is a living perception, transformed by abstract thinking; therefore, it was forced in the process of isolating facts to refer to abstractions that were outside cognition, and their only source was the dominant religious worldview. After the transition of scientific cognition from the empiricism of the first step to the classification of the second step, its dependence on the theory of cognition of the religious worldview became apparent due to the loss of the explicit primacy of scientific cognition relative to the theory of cognition and the transition to an indirect primacy. In the early twentieth century this gave rise to a critique of neo-positivism undertaken by Lenin, which has not been refuted to this day.

The core of the religious worldview is the idea of law. Development is illegitimate in the sense that it takes place at the junction of law and chance, as the result of a clash between god and the devil. Since the synthesis of knowledge must pass through the cognition of development, it is impossible for such cognition, which openly rejects the dependence on the theory of cognition, secretly uses the theory of cognition of the religious worldview, hostile to development, to move independently to the synthesis of knowledge without ideological influence from the outside. So, cognition at the technological stage is stuck before the leap to the third step. Apparently, the exploitative order does not need a synthesis of knowledge.

The proletarian worldview arose as a rejection of the religious worldview at the end of the second stage of knowledge (No one will give us deliverance/ Neither God, nor the king nor the hero/ Shall we achieve liberation/ by Our own hand). While the old worldview (religious) remained with the old cognition, the new worldview was at the beginning devoid of cognition — it was created anew as a separate branch of human cognition within the proletarian worldview.

This branch of cognition represents the third step of technological stage of human cognition, step of knowledge synthesis. The technological stage in its harmony becomes the driving force of development because it is not worldview that creates cognition, but, on the contrary, new cognition produces a new worldview and directs revolutionary practice. However, in the beginning there is no new cognition yet, but there is the dialectical theory of cognition of Marxism-Leninism.

In the beginning the third step of the technological stage of cognition developed in the form of mythology (utopia). In this case, the proletarian worldview supplied for cognition a qualitatively new dialectical theory of cognition, containing in its germ the idea of development and, therefore, not needing a god. Then under the conditions of the dictate of the theory of cognition, this branch of cognition, having become the theory of the proletarian worldview or its ideology, acquired the properties of a rigid abstract dogma and subordinated scientific cognition, practically liquidating cognition and turning it into an ideology of the dictatorship of the bureaucracy.

Both branches of cognition (the second and third steps of the technological stage) interact and develop in a coordinated manner due to the exchange of information, although each of them is under the oppression of its own specific theory of cognition, proceeding either from the dogmas of the religious or from the dogmas of the proletarian worldview. The second branch of cognition (the second step of the technological stage) is also experiencing a crisis, because it has reached the dead end of determinism, being in the captivity of the dogmatic theory of cognition, which only formally recognizes development.

The dogmatic theory of knowledge of the second step of the technological stage uses the existing social need for the synthesis of knowledge for complete control over cognition, which leads to the emasculation of cognition. Cognition seeks, therefore, to throw off the oppression of the theory of cognition, to merge with the abstract stage of cognition, and plunge into the boundless sea of empiricism and classification. But at the same time, it must say goodbye to the desire to synthesize knowledge and fall under the influence of an equally dogmatic theory of cognition of the religious worldview. In this situation, the negative impact of the dogmatic theory of cognition also produced a positive result in the form of the appearance of the theory of development. Consequently, both branches of cognition of the technological stage (the second and third steps) need each other — the first as a supplier of empiricism and analytics, and the second for synthesizing knowledge and building a picture of the developing world (Fig. 3).

Cognition can overcome this impasse with the help of developmental theory as a method of cognition. But the theory of development is a rejection of the previous dogmatic theory of cognition, with which existing cognition has fused, so that the latter is unable to perceive the theory of development as a method of cognition. Hence, it is necessary to split the existing cognition with the emergence of new cognition, based on the theory of development.

The revolutionary transition of cognition to the synthesis of knowledge will not occur spontaneously; it will require the conscious introduction of the theory of development into abstract thinking with the conscious holding of the primacy of the synthesis of knowledge relative to the theory of cognition. The abstract thinking will be ordered with the help of the theory of development, and eventually the latter will dissolve in it, having fulfilled its purpose. New abstract thinking needs a corresponding sensory perception; hence new cognition is possible only within the framework of a new worldview. So, the synthesis of knowledge needs a new worldview (worldview of development), and the latter needs the synthesis of knowledge.

The specified impasse is overcome, according to Marx, by «revolutionary practice». Man can do what he considers necessary and is able to change his way of thinking in order to improve his life. The synthesis of knowledge implies a conscious transformation of the conceptual base of cognition, and the latter requires cognition of the laws of formation of concepts.

Formation of Concepts and Synthesis of Knowledge

The theory of the formation of concepts can be stated on the basis of the history of cognition. But the historical must not replace the logical, because the method must be presented so as to be perceived abstractly. Because the further course of cognition, from the moment the method is discovered, consists in ascending from the abstract to the concrete.

Concepts at the first stage of cognition are not yet realized, so the movement of concepts can be considered starting from the second stage. So, concepts arise before their cognition. The source of concepts is in the subconscious, intuitive, sensual. Hegel explored the conscious; Schelling attempted to go further, delving into the maze of the subconscious, the intuitive. However, it should be noted that cognition is not intuitive; cognition is always conscious — only the emergence of concepts is intuitive.

What is intuition? Consider the history of BEING: Chaos — Virtuality — Reality. In Virtuality, law governs chance. Concepts arise from Chaos due to bifurcation of chaotic motion into law and chance in Virtuality. That component of chaotic motion which has fallen under the oppression of universal interconnectedness represents law and supplies concepts, while the other component of chaotic motion appears in the guise of chance. Concepts emerge from the sensuous multiplicity by discarding the contingent and leaving behind that which is subject to universal interconnectedness. In this «discarding» and «abandoning,» occurring at the sensuous level, lies intuition. The universal interconnection can be abstractly reproduced by the concepts themselves, since they are the result of a universal interconnection. This is the basis of determinism, which denies development.

In the second stage of cognition, with the relative freedom of abstract thinking, the fund of concepts that is necessary for the transition to the third stage was created. The theory of cognition was the logic of abstract thinking, that is, the spontaneously formed relationship of concepts. It should be noted that the nodal point of the problem of the formation of concepts is the interaction of concepts and the theory of cognition, both in the history of cognition and in each individual case, which is also history. The degree of abstractness of concepts corresponds to the general level of abstractness of cognition and concepts are equated in this respect by the theory of cognition. In general, the main problem of the process of cognition, the process of philosophical awareness of being, was the comprehension of the theory of cognition. The theory of cognition was first realized as such by Aristotle as the thinking itself, or God.

Concepts arise from social needs. As long as needs were not realized, the sides or moments of reality affect the senses of people, bypassing consciousness, are not separated from each other and remain in the sphere of sensory perception. But as soon as needs have forced to distinguish these or those sides of reality, corresponding notions inevitably arise.

At the mythological stage of cognition they are not yet realized in the form of free concepts, isolated from sensually perceived things. Only at the abstract stage of cognition do concepts gain apparent freedom. This became possible only when consciousness turned out to be the consciousness of a materially isolated man, hence the precondition for the awareness of concepts is the disintegration of the primitive community. Man could dispose of concepts at his whim, although the latter always turned out to be an unconscious material interest.

The concept of some thing or phenomenon first appears as SEPARATE, which still preserves a direct connection with unrepeatable moments or sides of reality (the subjective is taken as the essence).

So, at the first step of the abstract stage of cognition concepts are not realized, so the reflection of their connection with reality by consciousness occurs indirectly through practice. The labor interaction of people was accompanied by the involvement in the process of reflection of more and more sides or moments of reality, as a result, in the second step of the abstract stage of cognition, SEPARATE passes into SIMILAR. That’s the first negation. But at the same time, SEPARATE degenerates into SPECIAL; as a result, it turns out that SEPARATE has been bifurcated into SPECIAL and SIMILAR, with SIMILAR playing the role of primacy.

In the second step of the abstract stage of cognition SPECIAL, having emerged from SEPARATE as a result of the first negation, tries to subdue and absorb SEPARATE, but does not succeed in it completely because SEPARATE is directly related to reality and transforms into SPECIAL. However, SPECIAL is only formally opposed to SIMILAR, without which SPECIAL is not possible. Thus, SIMILAR plays the role of primacy over SPECIAL, which corresponds to abstract thinking’s tendency to primacy over sensory perception (Fig. 4).

In the third step, as a result of the second negatio, GENERAL emerged from SIMILAR. GENERAL finally lost touch with the sensuality with which SIMILAR was weighed down, forced to control SPECIAL. GENERAL is opposed to SINGULAR, which turns out to be just the reverse side or the formal opposite of GENERAL. So, in the course of the second negation, SIMILAR was bifurcated into GENERAL and SINGULAR. Thus, after the second negation in the third step of the abstract stage of cognition, it got rid of the control of sensory perception.

Abstract thinking has reached the highest degree of abstractness. It can now revolve within its own limits and turns to itself, resulting in a theory of the self-movement of abstract thinking (Hegel’s system), which is a specific theory of cognition of abstract thinking itself and is valuable as a theory of knowledge insofar as concepts reflect sensory perception. The self-movement theory of abstract thinking leaves the sphere of cognition, but the dialectic contained in it is somehow assimilated by cognition.

In the third stage of cognition, the technological stage, abstract thinking moves in the sphere of scientific cognition under the conditions of the primacy of sensory perception. Therefore, scientific cognition takes as its starting point not SEPARATE, but separate moments, sides of the object of research, which are wrenched by abstract thinking from the universal connection of everything with everything and which are thus to some extent abstract essences. They are nothing other than so-called scientific facts. Therefore, the first step of the third stage of cognition should be called empirical. The attitude that scientific facts inseparably combine both abstract thinking and sensory perception determines the dependence of scientific cognition on the theory of cognition (Fig. 5).

In the first (empirical) step of the third stage cognition scientific facts confront and subordinate SEPARATE.

In the second step in the course of scientific research, a separate scientific fact passes into the category of a special scientific fact, because any scientific fact is unique, which follows from its direct and conscious connection with sensory perception («you cannot enter the same river twice»). A special fact is so by virtue of the existence of SIMILAR, so SPECIAL is controlled by the opposing SIMILAR. As a result of the first negation, SIMILAR derives its origin from scientific fact; there is a derivative of it, and not from the abstract SEPARATE, as it was in the second stage of cognition.

This is the modern step, the second, within the technological stage of cognition, the analytical step of classification and differentiation of knowledge. The concepts have stopped at the level of SPECIAL and SIMILAR. The transition to SINGULAR and GENERAL, i.e. to the synthesis of knowledge, is impossible because knowledge is fragmented into similar fields, phenomena, facts, etc., which prevents the jump from SPECIAL to SINGULAR. SIMILAR is satisfied by the fact that it has primacy in cognition and can pretend to be GENERAL with impunity.

The theory of development, applied as a method of cognition, does not affect the formation of concepts at the first two steps of the technological stage of cognition. It only manages the transition of concepts to the third step by conscious formation of the singular, by selecting from the mass of special facts a singular fact related to other facts and phenomena in the same way as the concepts of the theory of development. Simultaneously, SINGULAR receives its own opposite in the form of GENERAL. Thus, as a result of the second negation, SIMILAR is bifurcated into SINGULAR and GENERAL. SIMILAR is turns into its opposite, into SINGULAR in the third step of third stage of cognition. SINGULAR should be a synthesis of scientific facts and SIMILAR, while GENERAL is perverted (degenerated) SIMILAR after departure from it a SINGULAR.

The introducing developmental theory into abstract thinking consists in the formation of SINGULAR (fact, phenomenon) by isolating it out from the mass of special facts so that this SINGULAR would contain, in Lenin’s words, all contradictions, the germ of all contradictions of the object under study. At the same time, the GENERAL, which occupies a subordinate position in the contradiction with the SINGULAR, becomes one of the opposites of the driving contradiction of a higher level. From the driving contradictions follows the transition to the network of concrete contradictions, hence the transition to the synthesis of knowledge is carried out through development.

The main difference between the new cognition and the old cognition is that the practice of cognition selects those aspects of reality, considering them as facts, which are necessary for the development of cognition, rather than passively satisfied with the facts imposed on cognition by social needs. And in this respect, the new cognition goes beyond human society, rises above it, and is ahead of public practice.

Since concepts are generated by a worldwide interconnection, they are hostile to development and incapable of expressing it. Only a certain interrelationship of concepts can reflect a mode of development in the form of a worldview of development. But the latter can so reorganize man’s sensory perception and, consequently, the perception of world-relationship, that the intuitive will provide cognition with concepts that are not antithetical to development. This is one of the functions of the worldview of development for cognition. Cognition is the super task of humanity.

Cognition and Worldview of Development

According to the well-known pattern of social development, noted by Marx, the realization of social need indicates that the conditions for its satisfaction have matured. This social need consists in the creation of a worldview of development in the sphere of which there will be cognition and the development of labor relations. The developmental worldview emerges as a result of the transformation of sensory perception by abstract thinking, which assimilates the theory of development in the process of knowledge synthesis. But, on the other hand, the synthesis of knowledge itself is possible only in the bosom of the developmental worldview. The revolutionary practice of overcoming this deadlock consists in the synthesis of knowledge on the basis of the theory of development, taken as a method of cognition.

New cognition is qualitatively different from old cognition in that it itself forms a developmental worldview as its sufficient basis. The theory of development as a method of cognition can transform abstract thinking so that it acquires the content of the theory of cognition: Abstract thinking + Theory of development = Theory of cognition

Sensory perception, interacting with new abstract thinking, which has risen to the theory of cognition, will reach the content of sensory perception of the developmental worldview: Sensory perception> Theory of cognition> Worldview of development. In other words, feelings realized with the help of abstract thinking transformed by the theory of development will turn into emotions, whose socialization will lead to the developmental worldview. Then, any abstract thinking refracted by sensory perception of the developmental worldview will turn into a theory of cognition: Abstract thinking> Worldview of development> Theory of cognition.

Thanks to the exchange of information, the synthesized knowledge will be able to be perceived by the old scientific cognition, which will allow it to reach a clear primacy relative to the old theory of cognition, moving to the third step of the technological stage of cognition. In this way human cognition will reach harmony-but through the emergence of a new cognition and worldview of development. Then, finally, the antagonistic limitation of human cognition will become apparent. It consists in the fact that the extraction of information is subordinated to its transmission in the form of the domination of worldview over cognition (Galileo’s story is an example of this). But even when scientific cognition has clear primacy over cognitive theory, cognition is governed by the dominant worldview due to the primacy of sensory perception over abstract thinking.

The Synthesis of Knowledge and the Theory of Cognition

The new cognition, based on the worldview of development, will be able to manage production, which takes place in the bosom of the worldview of consumption, thanks to the primacy of the worldview of development over the worldview of consumption. Thus, a qualitatively new state of society will emerge, the development of which will be determined by cognition. It was ideally anticipated by Hegel with his system of dialectical logic as an abstract cognition, and Vernadsky predicted a new form of society called the noosphere, the leading characteristic of which would be the primacy of cognition over production.

In the new form of motion of matter, which will replace the social form at the edge of development, the contradictory nature will increase to the degree of contradiction of worldviews, so it can be called the worldview form of motion of matter. It will correspond, after the biological and social forms of motion of matter, to the third stage of development of Alive Matter.

Let’s consider the development of Alive Matter in more detail. It occurs under the control of the driving contradiction: informational interaction — chemical interaction (Fig. 6). At the first stage — in the biosphere — the information extraction had a clear primacy with respect to the organisms’ chemistry, so the accumulation of heredity was accompanied by the change of biological species. The extracted information was accumulated in the genetic code.

At the second stage — in the sociosphere — informational interaction shifted to indirect primacy, the accumulation of heredity turned into its preservation, while chemistry in the form of communal emotions, i.e. worldview, ruling social life, tries to assert primacy within cognition. But as soon as it succeeds, as soon as worldview completely subdues cognition, the latter ceases to be cognition. Cognition constantly escapes from the power of the worldview, although the latter still exerts an indirect influence on it through the theory of cognition provided. This latter in the process of cognition has been constantly modified by the dominant worldview in accordance with the formula: Abstract Thinking> Sensory Perception> New Abstract Thinking.

The whole history of society from the point of view of the development of Living Matter is the history of the hidden production of the theory of cognition.

The transition to the synthesis of knowledge has now become possible. However, in reality, this transition to the primacy of the synthesis of knowledge in cognition will occur when the noosphere arises (Fig. 7).

At the third stage of Alive Matter, in the noosphere, it will come true supremacy of production of information above the chemical interaction or, other words, the primacy of cognition over social practice and production. Production will pass in interior worldview of consumption. Synthesis of cognition will pass in interior worldview of development under the formula: Sensory perception> Theory of cognition> Synthesis of Knowledge.

At the second stage of the noosphere worldview of consumption will seek to assert its supremacy due to the fact that the worldview of development loses the immediate supremacy because of the cognition theory will become dogmatic: Theory of cognition> Synthesis of Knowledge> Theory of cognition. The theory of cognition turns into a dogma.

At the third stage of the noosphere after the jump and bifurcation the worldview of development will return the obvious supremacy due to the transition to the self-advances cognition by giving the synthesis of knowledge creative function: Synthesis of knowledge> Theory of cognition and the construction of Reasonable Matter> Reasonable Matter. Then the development of noosphere will cause a splitting noosphere and the emergence of Reasonable Matter as the third stage of Matter’s development.

THE SYNTHESIS OF KNOWLEDGE

The practice of cognition exist, whether one is aware of it or not. Everyone is engaged in it, from diapers to old age. For cognition is the main condition of humanity. People usually look at new knowledge like a sheep at a new gate. The new is always frightening. What if the new gate leads to the slaughterhouse? For rams have found a way to overcome their instinctive fear — they let the provocateur goat in front. Therefore, the fear of new knowledge in principle cannot protect people from the fate of rams led to the slaughter. The only human way for people to avoid the fate of rams is free knowledge. This requires consciously overcoming, surpassing one’s biological essence for the sake of one’s social essence.

Cognition becomes a material force, and the leading process along the way is the synthesis of knowledge. The first known example of such a synthesis, albeit from the position of the primacy of abstract thinking relative to sensory perception, is Hegel’s system. We find an attempt to synthesize knowledge from a materialist position in Engels’ Dialectics of Nature. The latter saw the light of day only in the twentieth century and by this time had become obsolete, but nevertheless it still contains the actual principle of isolating the forms of motion of matter. We find a closer approximation to the actual picture of the historical development of the object of research in Marx’s Capital. Such a picture allows us to predict future development.

The synthesis of knowledge is the creation of concrete knowledge reflecting the development of objects as an integral part of the developing world. Combining knowledge and experience into a coherent ordered picture of the world is the original goal of human cognition. Marx’s method consists in the fact that from the available information ideally, with the help of abstract thinking, a picture of reality is formed, in other words, ascent from the abstract to the concrete is carried out. But the ascent from the abstract to the concrete is preceded by the opposite process. The process of working out abstractions is a descent from sensory perception to concepts. It is at the stage of development of concepts that a general system of concepts or principles is required, which guides the process of cognition of the developing world — the theory of development.

So, the synthesis of knowledge consists of 1) descending from sensory perception to abstract thinking and 2) ascending with the help of a system of concepts to a concrete picture of reality created ideally and imprinted by our perceptions. In other words, concrete reality becomes part of our sensibility and in this way knowledge is incorporated into sensibility. Then the communalized (socialized) senses, enriched with knowledge, guide people’s joint actions. Thus cognition becomes practice. Human practice includes cognition as its integral component. Sensuality, enriched by concrete knowledge of the developing world, becomes the basis of a new worldview — the worldview of development.

Human cognition now stands at the threshold of the synthesis of knowledge. Also the sociosphere has reached the limit of its development and is moving toward degradation, so overcoming the global crisis requires a common approach to solving global problems through intelligent development. The solution of global problems requires reasonable solutions, that is, solutions based on knowledge, and cannot be the unreasonable result of a compromise of opposing interests, as is usually the case in society. In particular, majority opinion in a democracy usually reflects some averaged viewpoint drawn from an outdated dominant worldview. The opinion of the majority cannot serve as a criterion of truth precisely when truth is especially needed — in times of crisis. Achieving the right solution to the difficulties of development is not only to bring the truth to the majority, but to help the majority come to the truth on its own and create a new worldview.

Thus, the global task of mankind is defined — the need to create conditions for the reasonable development of society as an alternative to its decay and death in the course of unreasonable resolution of contradictions. The theory of development acts as a fundamental theory for the synthesis of knowledge as a method of cognition.

The need for a theory of development was recognized within the framework of official Marxist-Leninist philosophy back in the 1980s. And this realization was its highest theoretical achievement. However, this realization did not go further than that, since the theory of development was to undermine the whole system of the existing system of rigid notions of decaying socialism. That is why the theory of development could and did not arise from this system of such rigid notions (abstracts), as a direct continuation of Marxist ideas in the part of rational development.

Cognition goes through three stages — empirical, analytical (classification), and synthetic. At the first stage, information is accumulated in the form of disparate facts. But the facts do not represent reality itself, but the reflected sides, moments of it, and this process is governed by a common system of concepts or principles (paradigm), imposed on the cognizing head by the dominant worldview. Therefore, the so-called scientific facts are in fact ideal entities, although they retain a direct connection with reality. At the second stage of cognition, the analysis of facts and their classification take place. This process is guided implicitly by the initial paradigm (general system of concepts), dissolved in the scientific facts at the first stage.

The leap to the third stage — to the synthesis of knowledge — is the moment of truth for the initial general system of concepts (paradigm). If a concrete picture of reality corresponds to this very reality (and practice will reveal it), then the initial paradigm is justified and correct. Otherwise, the incorrect paradigm must be replaced.

The process of knowledge synthesis is divided into three stages. The first stage involves assimilation of emergent knowledge, that is, we treat knowledge the same way we treat phenomena. The second stage involves a critique of knowledge in terms of developmental theory. Finally, in the third stage, after the leap, concrete knowledge emerges, involving development and leading to direct human perceptions. In the synthesis of knowledge, criticism and creativity merge in harmony.

It must be recognized that any scientific information, any new knowledge born in one’s head, is the result of the progressive development of cognition, the result of the development of humanity, and, therefore, must belong to all humanity. At present, the dominant consumerist worldview prevents even the raising of the problem of knowledge synthesis, for such an attempt would make obvious the insufficiency of the old paradigm and, therefore, of the old worldview. Only people’s changed feelings (under the pressure of new circumstances, new living conditions) will force a transition to a new paradigm and a new worldview.

A prerequisite for the synthesis of knowledge is the free exchange of information. And above all, the free exchange of scientific information (the free exchange of technology is not necessary). Free human cognition cannot be restricted by anyone or anything except man himself, his ability to cognize. Free cognition is necessary for the development of the human personality, which is the supreme mission of man.

Cognition is the supreme task of humanity.

The observed current crisis of society, is expressed not only in economic decline, but also in spiritual, including ideological, decline. The ideological vacuum that arose after the collapse of the proletarian worldview and its transformation into a consumerist worldview is being filled with old ideas found in the back of history. But new ideas are required for an effective, decisive overcoming of society’s crisis. This new idea is the idea of rational development. Development based on the reason of man is a reasonable conscious development based on cognition. Cognizing man becomes the creator of history, becomes the demiurge. The practice of cognition will separate itself from human practice and govern it. The prospect of the development of cognition is as follows — the emergence of the noosphere from the depths of society.

STATE AND SOCIETY

Human society is formed by a set of people’s relations. The spectrum of people’s social relations is extremely wide. At one end of it are labor relations, and at the other end are biological relations. Labor relations form the basis of human society, while biological relations are oriented toward the continuation of the human species. People enter into labor relations for different reasons. It is necessary to outline the main, root, reason, which is the threat of starvation, hence the threat of the death of the human species.

The state is created by society to suppress social evil, to stabilize and conserve the conditions of social life. Due to the latter requirement, the development of society is accomplished not thanks to the state, but in spite of it. Since evil is the reverse side of good, the state will always be necessary for society’s existence, and no abolition of the state predicted by the classics of Marxism-Leninism is possible.

Marxism-Leninism usually associates the emergence of the state with the emergence of a class society. As if after the creation of a classless society, the state would dissolve into the society that gave birth to it. However, as Engels argued against the anarchists, the principle of one-man rule derives from the need to unite the individual labor efforts of people. Since communism is conceived as a synthesis of the primitive communal system and the exploitative social system, given the primitive communal system’s primacy, the state will remain as a mechanism for maintaining primacy, for the permanent expropriation of the expropriators.

In a class society, we observe both class contradictions and contradictions between state and society. Lermontov expressed this system very clearly in his famous verse: «Farewell, unwashed Russia, land of slaves, land of lords, and you, blue uniforms, and you, their loyal people».

On the one hand, the country is divided into lords and slaves; on the other hand, a division is given to the uniforms (the state) and the people (society). In a classless society, the division between the uniforms and the people remains. Therefore, always substituting the concept of society for the concept of state is a fundamental mistake.

According to Lenin, the state is a group of armed men in the service of a class society. The state is a system of formalized human relations built on the basis of the power relations of slave-slave. On the same relations, but expressed in the form of ideas, rests all religion. Therefore, the state and religion always find a common language, always compatible with each other. The state acquired its final form by inheriting the structure of the feudal pyramid. In a classless socialist society, the state in the form of a bureaucratic system was ideologically accompanied by faith in Marxism-Leninism and a bright communist future.

The problem of the relation of the state and society consists in the question which of them is supreme. It would seem that as soon as society created the state, the latter must have a subordinate role, serving society’s interests and must not suppress or suffocate society.

But the state in the form of a bureaucratic system has its own system qualities and regularities of functioning, which are peculiar only to it, and are far from coinciding with those of society. A bureaucratic system operates according to immanent laws (Parkinson’s laws), the main of which are the instinct of self-preservation and desire to expand within society. Therefore, society is forced to constantly rein in the state. This is how developed bourgeois democracies are structured, in which capital (the system of exchange of goods) controls the state.

Otherwise, when society has no social institutions, institutions or institutions capable of controlling and restraining the state machine, it falls under the undivided power of the state, finds itself a plaything within the bureaucratic system, and in the public consciousness there is an identification of society and the state. This situation can be observed in the socialist countries during the second stage of the development of the communist social system. The transition of the dictatorship of the proletariat into the dictatorship of the bureaucracy is accompanied by state terror against opponents of the dictatorship. The need for terror was officially explained by the aggravation of class contradictions, although in reality it was an aggravation of the contradiction between society and the state (bureaucratic system). This explains the anomalously large number of death sentences handed down in the Soviet Union in 1937—1938 against dissenters and, at the same time, random people. (The number of death sentences in two years was about 700,000. In the later history of the USSR, the number of such sentences did not exceed the first tens of thousands, even in the WWII).

Under socialism and the dictatorship of the bureaucracy, wage earners of the state turned into consumers. Bureaucratic socialism underwent an economic collapse and was forced to replace the bureaucracy in production with market relations, i.e., to move to state capitalism (while remaining within the framework of the communist social system by control of market relations by the state). As a consequence of the changes in the economy, a disintegration of the proletarian worldview followed. Whereas previously a certain control of the state by the dictatorship of the proletariat and its limitation was exercised by the Communist Party as a public institution, expressing the interests of consumers, nowadays the bureaucratic system (but not the individual bureaucrats) has gained full freedom of action and seeks to arrange its system at the expense of society. In other words, the post-Soviet state is parasitic on society-the bureaucratic system of the dictatorship of the proletariat has degenerated into the dictatorship of a bureaucratic system that relies on consumers. In essence, the post-Soviet bureaucrats have realized the dream of every consumer — to take away public property and divide it among themselves. Therefore, the mystery of the collapse of the USSR and the transition from bureaucratic management of the economy to bureaucratic control of the market (capitalist) economy is explained by the transformation of the proletariat (hired state workers) into state consumers.

The main activity of the post-Soviet bureaucratic system is aimed at maintaining a stationary process of privatization of public property. At the moment, when almost all public property is divided among bureaucrats of all stripes and levels, the privatization of the state budget has become their main area of interest. The bureaucracy is unable to develop production; it can only take what is badly in public property. Even if a bureaucrat becomes the head of production as an owner, he is unable to develop production and has to turn to the state budget for material assistance in the form of privileges and relaxations or sell production to global capital. Therefore, a symbiosis of the bureaucratic system and big business owners (who also came out of the bureaucracy) parasitic on public property arose in the ruins of the USSR. In this situation, the bureaucrats’ loss of their dictatorship is tantamount to their loss of control over the permanent process of privatization. Consequently, they will never voluntarily surrender their power even to world capital, that is, they are incapable of joining classical imperialism.

Here is Andrei Koryakovtsev’s opinion (https://newdaynews.ru/revolution-1917/618804.html).

«If we talk about post-Soviet Russia, the bourgeoisie there has never become the dominant class. Big capital became part of the nomenclature, but the nomenclature did not become part of the bourgeoisie as a civil class. Why would it do this? The bureaucracy can convert power into capital, and this process went on in Russia throughout perestroika and into the 1990s, but did not lead to the „normal“ capitalist capitalism idealized by liberals. Nobody needed it, except the numerically insignificant civil bourgeoisie and the intellectuals, who were selflessly in love with capitalism. Why the grassroots do not need him is clear (he robbed and plundered them), but why did the bureaucracy not need him? The fact is that the social situation of the bourgeoisie, especially the petty and middle classes, is one of constant risk. The position of the bureaucracy is more stable than that of the bourgeoisie. Its prosperity rests on what it always has under its control. It is not the occasional profit, but the taxes it collects with the help of the bureaucratic system. It is bureaucratic rent. Officially a bureaucrat is not legally allowed to do business, but he doesn’t need to, he will find a thousand ways to be involved in it. This is why the bureaucracy as a political subject is more maneuverable, more stable than the civilian bourgeoisie, and why the late Soviet elite, after playing capitalism with civil society and conducting large-scale privatization, ultimately chose to keep capitalism under its control. They incorporated some loyal capitalists into their hierarchy, using them as cash cows, while ostracizing others who were not loyal. It is calmer, more stable. And the people supported this policy, because they too wanted stability. So when contemporary Russian entrepreneurs call themselves „the most oppressed class,“ this is fair enough. Only I would add that, contrary to what the Western liberals say, this situation is universal. It is exactly the same situation in the West. The civil bourgeoisie in the West was already pushed out of power at the very beginning of the epoch of imperialism in the course of the merger of big capital with the bourgeois-bureaucratic corporation and put under its control. This was accompanied by a profound social reform through which the grassroots supported the new system. A „social state“ is emerging everywhere, the core of which is a system of socially oriented redistribution. The socio-economic basis of this system is the solvent individual.»

All true. We should only note that in the post-Soviet RF the state (dictatorship of the bureaucracy) retained primacy over capital (the system of exchange of goods), while in the countries of imperialism there is the primacy of capital over the state.

Symbiosis of the post-Soviet bureaucratic system and capitalists in Russia is experiencing increasing pressure on the world stage from global capital. In the early 2000s the Russian bureaucracy dreamed of becoming part of imperialism. But the world capital could only accept Russia if the bureaucracy’s dictatorship was completely subjugated to the capital and completely disarmed, i.e. if Russia was turned into an explicit colony. Since this option failed, global capital has staked on the gradual transformation of Russia into a cryptocolony of imperialism. Judging by the current events of 2017, this plan succeeded. Russia is now a raw materials appendage of developed countries, exporting oil, raw metal, and grain, while science has been virtually eliminated as unnecessary.

Bureaucrats have become large proprietors-capitalists, having taken the stolen means out of limits of the Russian Federation and, therefore, have appeared in power of the world capital. They were left with one desire: to retain their property at any cost. Thus, the post-Soviet capitalist bureaucrats became slaves of their property and slaves of imperialism. Imperialism has no choice but to consistently escalate the sanctions against the kleptocratic bureaucrats. Therefore, the dictatorship of the bureaucracy is faced with the alternative of either surrendering at the mercy of imperialism, or deciding on the supremacy of the Russian Federation and confrontation with imperialism with the loss of exported capital. In either case, global capital remains at an advantage. It should also be noted that the main opponent of imperialism now is not the RF, but communist China. Therefore, for imperialism, the RF is only an intermediate problem.

The division between society and the state permeates every human personality. On the one hand, the individual gravitates toward the formalized relations of the state system and, on the other hand, is primarily oriented toward the informalized relations of society. Accordingly, the dictatorship of bureaucracy is favorable for some, and unbearable for others. If a person is focused on formalized relations, she is not capable of self-development and, therefore, is forced to surrender herself to the dictatorship of the state, that is, develops insofar as it is required for the functioning of the state machine. As a result, the individual is reduced to an appendage of the state machine, loses his human content and becomes a mechanism. Thus, the subordination of the individual to the state system, incapable of development in its inner essence, enslaves the individual and prevents his development.

Fortunately, the human person is much broader and more complex than any state system-it has free will. Therefore, any dictatorship of the state is transient. The only way out of the vicious circle of human personality’s dependence on bureaucracy, on the state system, is cognition. Man is able to learn and understand that the system he supports limits him both spiritually and materially, and is able to find a way to curb the element of the state. Thus, society must learn to control the state in order to curb the element of market relations.

Under the domination of the bureaucratic system, which permeates labor collectives and extends its influence to the very last workplace, the attitude of consumption will always prevail, because the bureaucracy cultivates the consumer as its support. Therefore, the coming struggle against the domination of bureaucrats will begin with the struggle against the consumerist attitude toward society from the lowest level, from the level of the primary labor collective, will begin with the struggle against the dominant consumerist worldview.

There is always enthusiasm in the labor collective, as the flip side of consumerism and as the embodiment of the possibility of society’s development. Only enthusiasts can help consumers put an end to the slave existence of wage labor and achieve the human condition of free labor. It is necessary to achieve a situation in which the attitude to consumption would yield priority to the desire to develop production, because without the development of production there is no increase in the level of consumption.

Radical changes in labor collectives are necessary — there must be a polarization of producers into enthusiasts and consumers due to the enthusiasts’ awareness of their role in labor collectives. Enthusiasts participate in the development of society through the development of labor relations, while consumers are forced to become aware of the need to develop production and society as a whole and the consequent need for enthusiasm. In other words, a new labor order must be established in labor collectives, based not on thoughtless, slavish subordination to the bureaucracy, but on conscious participation in the development of production with the leading role of enthusiasts. As a result, cognition will take a leading position in contradiction to production.

As a result of these processes, a developmental worldview must be established as a worldview that unites enthusiasts. The developmental worldview asserts a new positive demand — the demand for free cognition, independent of the state. It is in the bosom of cognition and the development of labor relations that the individual and society will reach harmony. The bureaucratic system will be controlled by labor collectives.

Conclusions.

The state (bureaucratic system) is necessary for society to suppress social evil, to stabilize and conserve the conditions of social life. But it also hinders the development of society, so society is forced to constantly update the social system to remove obstacles to development.

In the class society of imperialism, the state functions in the interests of the exploiters and is under the control of capital (the commodity exchange system). Capital relies on consumers representing the consumer society.

In the classless society of socialism, the state expresses the interests of consumers, but in return it exercises control over the consumers who represent society. As a result, consumer society finds itself under the oppression of the dictatorship of the bureaucracy.

Labor relations are a necessary basis for the existence of society. There is always enthusiasm in the labor collective, as the flip side of consumerism and as the embodiment of the possibility of society’s development. Only enthusiasts can help consumers to put an end to the slave existence of wage labor and achieve the human condition of free labor. It is necessary to achieve a situation in which the attitude to consumption would give way to the desire to develop production, because without the development of production there is no increase in the level of consumption, and without the development of knowledge there will be no development of production.

As a result, cognition would take a leading position at contradiction with social production. Consequently, the need arose for a dictatorship of reasonable enthusiasm.

PRACTICE OF COGNITION

1. Dialog — equal with equal (p2p)

Feb. 1st, 2010 at 9:49 PM

The purpose of dialogue is to create a sphere of communication, the most human essence of humanity.

The form of communication determines the content of communication. Usually the content determines the form. This paradox is related to the fact that communication takes place in the sphere of ideas, there is an exchange of ideas, which are also the form of a certain content.

Monologue — one or many listen to one — is characteristic of a hierarchy. Polylogue — everyone communicates chaotically — it is a crowd or herd. Communicating through monologue leads to social hierarchies (I am the boss, you are the fool, and vice versa), where the exchange of ideas is excluded by default.

Dialogue — the exchange of ideas as peer to peer — is a property of networked human information interaction. Normal people in normal human circumstances communicate through dialogue. This is called social networking relations. Dialog has as its content knowledge — knowledge of oneself through the interlocutor. And the dialog results in new knowledge. Therefore, the purpose of dialog is cognition.

Socrates was the first to discover and understand dialogue and its necessity for personal development. Dialogue leaves an indelible mark on thinking — new ideas and thoughts emerge from the collision of ideas and thoughts, like sparks. Thoughts arise from thoughts, there is no other way. In this process, frozen thoughts, ideas, and wooden thinking in general, become elastic. Once the first thoughts appeared, which coincided with the emergence of language, but it is not languages that divide people, but their thoughts. Dialogue overcomes this division.

The form of communication in the forums is usually a monologue. It is necessary to pass to dialogue. But it should be noted that dialogue can arise only on the basis of both polylogue and monologue. Therefore, dialogue is a development of the existing forms of communication on the Internet. The deep initial motive is the desire to exchange ideas, the desire to develop one’s own personality, and the desire to build a new worldview.

We are free men. Only man can be free while he is at the height of his development, for he is the crown of creation. But man is free only insofar as he is aware of his dependence on society. Free will is inseparable from knowledge. Freedom of will is freedom as long as man acts in the interests of society’s development. He decides for himself how to act, otherwise it is already nonfreedom. If he/she has not guessed, not learned, made a mistake, and his/her actions lead to destruction or stagnation and degradation of society, then this is not free will — this is dependent will, slave will, i.e. slavery. Where this dependence comes from, from the outside or from within, does not matter.

How do you get out of the potential pit of the slave-master relationship? If you become free, the others take you for a master, and you actually become their master. They mold you into a master and themselves into slaves. In a system of slave-master relations, that is, in any hierarchical system, a free human person is impossible. What is required is to get out of such a system and create a new system of human interaction — peer to peer — (p2p). The new system will be separate from and opposed to the old system.

Such a new system of human interaction — peer to peer (p2p) — should be a system of network dialogue. It follows from human experience that everyone can have a meaningful, informal dialogue with eight people. The human brain can serve up to eight processes. So, there will be no more than 9 people in a cluster. A cluster is a circle of informal, meaningful communication in the form of a dialogue. These clusters are connected to each other in a random way and form a network structure of society. They should be created in the process of p2p-dialogue based on the primacy of personal development and benevolence with a share of humor. This will inevitably lead to the development of society on the basis of cognition and the synthesis of knowledge. Cognition has no boundaries, so mutual interest will arise again on another topic and with other participants.

The result of the network intellectual action will be a new worldview — the worldview of development. It will play the role of the basis for a new hierarchy of enthusiast. This new hierarchy will be created by a network of exchange of ideas in order to manage the development of society. The new hierarchy and the new network will create the noosphere.

2. STATE AND SOCIETY

Nov. 9th, 2010 at 10:39 PM

The topic is always relevant.

Many people don’t have a clear understanding of what the difference is. And without understanding, it is not clear what to do with oneself and with society. This is the nodal point of the worldview that divides people into two camps or two classes — the class of state and the class of social activists.

People often identify society and the state, but in this identification they mean society by the state. But not vice versa. Society is much wider than the state.

Lenin said that the state is a group or troop of armed men hired by a ruling class to suppress it. More generally, when there are no ruling classes, the state will still be necessary, though less centralized, to suppress anti-social animal tendencies, to prevent degradation.

Human society is formed by a set of human relations. The spectrum of human social relations is extremely wide. At one end of it are labor relations, and at the other end are biological relations. Labor relations form the basis of human society, while biological relations are oriented toward the continuation of the human species. People enter into labor relations for different reasons. It is necessary to outline the main, root, reason — the threat of starvation, hence the threat of the death of the human species.

The state was created by society to suppress social evil, to stabilize and preserve the conditions of social life. Because of the latter requirement, society develops not thanks to the state, but in spite of it. Since evil is the flip side of good, the state will always be necessary for the existence of society and no abolition of the state, predicted by the classics of Marxism-Leninism, is possible.

The state is a system of formalized human relations built on the basis of the slave-slave relationship. All religion rests on the same relationship. Therefore, the state and religion always find a common language, always compatible with each other. The state acquired its final form by inheriting the structure of the feudal pyramid.

The problem of the relation of the state and society lies in the question of which of them is supreme. It would seem that as soon as society created the state, the latter should have a subordinate role, it should serve the interests of society and should not suppress or stifle society.

Nevertheless, the state in the form of a bureaucratic system has its own, inherently systemic qualities and regularities of functioning, which are far from coinciding with those inherent in society. The bureaucratic system operates according to immanent laws, the main ones being the instinct for self-preservation and the desire to expand within society. Therefore, society is constantly forced to rein in the state. This is how developed bourgeois democracies are structured.

Otherwise, when society has no social institutions, institutions or agencies capable of controlling and restricting the state machine, it falls under the undivided power of the state, becomes a plaything within the bureaucratic system, and society and the state are identified in the public consciousness. This situation can be observed in those socialist countries that experienced economic collapse due to the transition to state capitalism (while remaining within the framework of the communist social system) and due to the consequent collapse of the proletarian worldview. Whereas previously a certain control and limitation of the state dictatorship of the proletariat had been exercised by the Communist Party as a social institution, now the bureaucratic system (but not the individual bureaucrats) has been given full freedom of action and seeks to arrange its system at the expense of society. In other words, now the state is parasitizing on society — the bureaucratic system of the dictatorship of the proletariat has degenerated into the dictatorship of the bureaucratic system.

The decisive role in the clash of interests of society and the state system belongs to the human person, for the contradiction between society and the state permeates every human person. Thus, the human person is internally bifurcated into a public person and a state person. For some, the primacy belongs to the state component; for others, to the public one. In the first case, personality gravitates toward the formalized relations of the state system, while in the second, it is primarily oriented toward non-formalized social relations. Accordingly, the dictatorship of the bureaucracy is favorable for some, while for others it is unbearable.

Moreover, if a person is oriented toward formalized relations, he is incapable of self-development and, therefore, develops involuntarily under the dictate of the state, that is, develops insofar as it is required for the functioning of the state machine. As a result, the individual is relegated to the status of an appendage of the state machine, loses his human content and becomes a mechanism. The subordination of the individual to the state system, incapable of development in its inner essence, enslaves the individual and prevents his development.

Fortunately, the human personality is much broader and more complex than any state system-it is not predictable. Therefore, any dictatorship of the state is transient. The only way out of the vicious circle for man, the only way out of the rigid dependence of the human personality on the bureaucracy, on the state system, is cognition. Man is able to learn and understand that the system that he supports, fools him, stupid, stealing from him both spiritually and materially.

Under socialism, the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat absorbed society. The last bastion of society — the labor collectives — was bureaucratized when the councils of labor collectives were formed. These councils of labor collectives were not engaged in production, but in distribution under the control of the bureaucracy.

The dissolution of society into the state is a consequence of a profound process — the process of crystallization of the consumer under socialism. Producers have become consumers. The state of the dictatorship of the proletariat serves the demands of the consumer and finds its support in it. Therefore the state cultivates the consumer. Simultaneously, the proletarian worldview degenerates into a consumerist worldview which reveals its previously concealed ambivalence. The other side of the proletarian worldview is the desire for development, characteristic of enthusiasts.

As a result of the domination of consumerism in social life, society experienced an economic collapse and moved to the stage of state capitalism, which corresponds to the third stage of socialism and which completes the development of socialism as the second stage of the communist social system.

Today, all consumers, oriented to the formalized relations of the bureaucratic system, are abandoned to the fate of the latter. If previously the bureaucracy distributed and provided for the consumer, now it is engaged in self-sufficiency through the plundering of public property. Against the backdrop of the economic crisis, the bureaucracy privatized public property, instead allowing consumers to enter into exchange relations under its strict control. The state system together with the big proprietors who emerged from its bowels parasitize and get fat at the expense of both public property and the property of small entrepreneurs. On the whole, the state system, busy with the wrong activity for which it was intended, neglects its direct duties to society. The bureaucratic system, left unchecked, experiences degradation (as does society as a whole). It merges with the criminal world in such a way that the line between the state system and the system of organized crime is lost.

The consumer desperately demands help from the state and does not find it. In desperation, he tries to protest and, under the threat of starvation, decides to engage in acts of civil disobedience. But this protest has no positive content, because it is aimed at the preservation of the old order. The consumer has become a slave of the bureaucratic system, a slave of the state. But by the same token, the bureaucratic system has forced him to become a willy-nilly enthusiast, because he works practically for nothing on the verge of starvation under the threat of layoffs and unemployment. As a result, the upper part of society gets fat at the expense of the rest of society, and the transfer of surplus product from the majority to the minority is carried out through the state budget.

But on the whole the socialist social system has survived precisely because of this stratification, for under the existing social system most consumers are only able to work productively under threat of starvation and, in its absence, indulge in drunkenness or grovel before their superiors. The consumer pays an exorbitant price for the right to live thoughtlessly, as the state machine takes from him the very possibility to consume. This situation suits the state system and the people who serve it. So what is left for consumers to do?

The main problem of consumers is a lack of reason due to a lack of reliable knowledge about themselves and the world around them. The latter is explained both by the blockage of consciousness under the oppression of prejudice and by the inability to think dialectically, taking into account the contradictory nature of the developing world. The main prejudice is the belief in the leading role of the state or in the identity of society and the state. A person is subordinated to society from the very beginning, and this subordination is perceived organically, while a person’s subordination to the state is achieved by terror in one form or another. To begin with, it should be understood that the state is ultimately governed by society, not vice versa.

The time has come to move from negative protest to positive action, from civil disobedience to social activism. There is always enthusiasm in society as the flip side of consumerism. Only enthusiasts can help consumers end slavery and achieve a human condition. It is necessary to achieve a situation in which the consumerist attitude would give way to the desire to develop production, because without production there is no consumption.

Under the domination of the bureaucratic system, which permeates labor collectives and extends its influence to the very last workplace, the consumer attitude will always prevail, because the bureaucracy cultivates the consumer as its support. Therefore, the coming struggle against the domination of bureaucrats will begin with the struggle against the consumer attitude toward society from the lowest level, from the level of the primary labor collective.

Bureaucracy must be controlled from below by labor collectives. To implement this control (which, moreover, should pursue the goals of production development) requires a radical change in labor collectives — there should be a polarization of producers into enthusiasts and consumers, and, accordingly, it will be necessary for enthusiasts to realize their role in labor collectives. Enthusiasts participate in the development of society through the development of labor relations, while consumers are aware of the need to develop production and society as a whole and the consequent need for enthusiasm. In other words, a new labor order should be established in labor collectives, based not on thoughtless, slavish subordination to the bureaucracy, but on conscious participation in the development of production with the leading role of enthusiasts. As a result of these processes, a worldview of development, as a worldview uniting enthusiasts, must be established.

Before, any society was built on the basis of a ramified system of prohibitions and taboos (not to kill, not to steal, etc.), which had a negative content. Only one positive, creative requirement — to eat one’s daily bread in the sweat of one’s face, i.e. to earn one’s living by labor — also had a negative form, as a requirement of forced necessity. In this system of values, the only humanly acceptable way out was to strive for paradise. The notion of paradise reflects the apologetics of animal life and man’s aspiration to an animal state; it is believed that all misfortunes have fallen on man allegedly from the tree of knowledge.

The developmental worldview asserts a new positive demand: the demand for free cognition, independent of the state. It is in the bosom of cognition and the development of labor relations following cognition that both individual and society will reach harmony. A new, internally bifurcated society will emerge in which the position of the individual within the society-state contradiction will be reversed. State personality will be subordinated to the bureaucratic system and society will be able to influence him/her through this system. Public personality will be directly subordinated to society and society’s development interests, exercising together with it the primacy in relation to the state.

3. EXPROPRIATORS WILL BE EXPROPRIATED

Dec. 24th, 2011 at 10:37 PM

This conclusion of Marx is almost universally misunderstood.

Although he devoted much of Capital to explaining what this very expropriation was.

Namely, expropriators transfer property into their own hands legally and with the consent of society by virtue of the social contract or the dominant worldview, or by formal legislative norms. Property is not necessarily theft and the presumption of innocence is the basis of society.

Expropriation of expropriators does not necessarily mean the taking of property from owners, for unattended property leads to the collapse of the economy and poverty. Therefore, property must always find its owner. In the USSR, the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat became that master. Thus, the dictatorship of the proletariat carried out the expropriation of the expropriators, seizing property entirely because of the need to deprive them of the possibility of counter-revolution. But in doing so, the state itself became the expropriator, albeit in the interest of society as a whole.

Ownership implies both its management and disposal. If its management and disposal are in the interests of society, in the interests of personal development, then the difference between private and public property disappears. Marx spoke of the positive overcoming of private property, that is, when private property in form becomes public property in content.

Consequently, in general, the wording expropriation of expropriators means the creation of such social conditions, the development of such a worldview in which the private owner will act only in the interests of the development of society, in which society will exploit the inherent private initiative and the desire for profits. Otherwise, public censure and sanctions. Conclusion: For society to be able to expropriate expropriators, it must rise above property, overcome the consumerist worldview and develop a new worldview based on the development of the individual and the priority of knowledge over production.

4. HUMANISM VS. LIBERALISM

Feb. 6th, 2012 at 11:01 PM

The notion of humanism is constantly renewed and filled with new meanings as society develops. Whereas in the 19th century humanism meant feeding the hungry, in the 20th century it meant providing jobs, in the 21st century humanism means providing interesting work, enabling human beings to develop and participate in the development of society.

Liberals and other bourgeois people limit humanism to consumerism. Humanism is supposedly about helping the suffering, feeding the hungry, etc. With this understanding of humanism, man is likened to an animal, equated at best with livestock. Charity always smacks of a guilt complex. Thus, liberalism proclaims freedom of consumption as the main goal of humankind, leading it into a consumerist dead-end.

True humanism proclaims the free development of man and society on the basis of knowledge. For knowledge is the supreme task of humankind.

The dictatorship of the proletariat understands humanism in the scope of the consumption of labor relations — the socialist state provided work for all. This is what the state does under socialism. True humanism is not to give the hungry a fish according to the method of Jesus Christ, but to allow them to fish for themselves. For with one hand the state distributes the fish and with the other it closes off all opportunity for free fishing — for free creative labor. Moreover, the question is more acute. No one will give us deliverance until the hungry themselves want to make their own tackle and fish for themselves. Only then will they be able to assert their right to free labor. Until now, the hungry and the vast majority of the producers in society are still in the position of animals, performing labor under the threat of starvation and unaware of the benefits of free labor.

True humanism is the humanism of free labor. Labor itself is violence against the animal essence of man, for man is forced in the sweat of his brow to eat his daily bread. The true humanism, therefore, is to create for man an environment in which he can feel human and fulfill his human destiny. This predestination is the development of one’s own personality through the development of society.

The main condition for this is free labor. This means work not from under the stick, not slave labor, work not performed under the threat of starvation, but work in which the human person finds his self-expression as a human person and finds his self-affirmation as a unique member of society.

So, free labor requires the development of the human personality. But, on the other hand, the development of the human person is only possible under conditions of free labor. This closed logical circle must be broken consciously with the help of revolutionary practices of enthusiasts aimed at the development of labor relations in labor collectives.

The time has come for man to realize his slave position, his animal position in the existing society, and for man to transition to free, truly human, labor. People, if they wish to be human and not resemble animals in a stable, must themselves create the conditions for their labor, must themselves overcome their animal basis for the sake of the development of labor relations on the basis of new knowledge.

New knowledge can be obtained as a result of new cognition, relying on the theory of development, taken as a method of cognition. New cognition is the essence of the future noosphere. The rational will of the cognizing person is always opposed to any prevailing rigid social system. Man is an unpredictable animal from the point of view of the animal world, for man is a cognizing animal.

The slavish position of the human person in modern society consists not in his subordination to the laws of society, for this subordination is the original condition of all humanity, but in the subordination of society itself to the element of market relations in the sphere of economy and the element of bureaucratic relations in the sphere of state, which prevents the free development of society. But as soon as society has generated these two spheres, it also should be able to restrain them. The way to solve this problem is conscious enthusiasm.

5. THE POWER OF REASONABLE ENUSIASM

Jul. 22nd, 2012 at 9:55 AM

«There is only a moment between the past and the future.»

We live in a developing world, and we develop ourselves, whether we agree to develop or not. The ancient Greeks used to say that fate leads the one who agrees and fate drags the one who disagrees.

Every person is immersed in the realm of cognition and acts according to a plan to the extent of his understanding of his interests and the world around him. The difficulty lies in knowing the direction of development and in acting accordingly to the learned necessity, which is free activity.

Spontaneous enthusiasm arises at the level of feeling. It has ensured the development of society so far. Enthusiasts are few and far between. If society removes them as violators of the foundations, it soon finds itself in crisis and then new enthusiasts appear.

The consumer is consumption-oriented: he participates in production only for the sake of consumption, both of labor relations and of the products of production. The enthusiast is oriented toward production; he consumes in order to produce. Both extremes are flawed, limited, and only their unity and harmony are human, which is not to say, however, that both sides neutralize each other — one or the other always prevails. Even for a single individual, they change places during his life, for the individual begins and ends his life with the priority of consumption over production. If we take large masses of people, then consumerism strongly prevails — and this corresponds to human nature. But at the same time, this same majority needs enthusiasm insofar as it remains consumerism.

In this era of universal crisis of humanity, of consumerism, of overproduction and loss of purpose, enthusiasts must recognize their place in society and create their own worldview, a worldview of development.

Conscious enthusiasm is a product of the development of society. Knowledge is only powerful if it is followed by conscious action. However, circumstances are constantly changing and knowledge is constantly becoming obsolete, so conscious enthusiasm must be a direct consequence of cognition and, conversely, true cognition can only be accomplished by conscious enthusiasts aimed at development (as opposed to consumers).

Knowledge is separate from action. In the biblical legend of Cain and Abel, action triumphed. But rational enthusiasm combines cognition and action into free activity.

6. ON PERSONALITY DEVELOPMENT

Oct. 20th, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Hegel discovered the mode of formation of human consciousness — consciousness, self-consciousness, and reason. His dialectic provides the key to development as such and the development of the individual.

First, consciousness appears — the first stage, but its appearance still goes unnoticed by the possessor of consciousness.

Then comes the stage of awareness of this circumstance-the stage of self-consciousness. The individual gains the ability to control consciousness at his whim, which is ultimately determined by his physical needs.

Only after the realization of this dependence of self-consciousness on needs and only after the knowledge of the contradictory nature of needs and only after the knowledge of the truly human side of needs, which is consciously opposed by man to the biological side of needs, does the stage of reason begin.

Exactly the same way in history passes the human worldview — generalized emotions on the basis of the collective mind. The first stage is dominated by the mythological worldview, the second by the religious worldview, and the third by the technological worldview.

Man, after being born as a small humanoid monkey, passes this way from consciousness through self-consciousness to reason or does not pass, stopping at the level of consciousness or self-consciousness. If a society is dominated by a religious worldview, personal development stops at the stage of self-consciousness and the ascent to the stage of reason is impossible. If a society is dominated by a technological worldview, it does not mean that all people will reach the level of reason.

So, the development of one’s own personality is required for a person to get into the circle of ideas and emotions of the dominant worldview, to achieve a position of a full member of society.

The technological worldview currently dominates the earth, but there is also a religious worldview. The first is responsible for the production of consumer goods, while the second is responsible for the production of society itself.

The technological worldview was introduced into the sphere of production of society itself at the creation of socialism. But the development of the personality of most people has not reached the stage of reason. For from self-consciousness to reason the transition takes place by leaps and bounds, in a revolutionary way. Since the development of the personality occurs as a result of consumption, the personality finds himself in a consumption dead-end, from which there is only a conscious choice of what to consume as a result of the realization of free will as a learned necessity. Therefore, the leap to the stage of reason is possible only in the course of cognition.

Consumption always precedes production, so it serves production, is meant for production. Indeed, the result of consumption must be production, for otherwise human activity degenerates into animal existence. But, on the other hand, the result of production is not consumption itself, but only the possibility of consumption. It is thanks to this circumstance that production controls consumption. The existence of the possibility of consumption provides the necessary freedom for the development of society and is a condition for the primacy of production over consumption.

If personal development comes from consumption and consumption is strictly individual, then personal development undermines collectivism and only at the stage of reason comes the realization that personal development is impossible without the development of society and must serve the development of society.

The vast majority of people remain at the stage of self-consciousness. That is why a religious worldview suits their mentality better. This is why the cult of personality is so important in socialist countries, replacing the cult of the main person responsible for everything, which is so necessary for self-consciousness. This is why, in the transition to bourgeois democracy, a religious worldview is so successfully imposed.

Humanity is now experiencing a global crisis of overproduction and a deadlock of consumption, which came during the third stage of imperialism. The way out of the impasse — the transition to the production of society itself on the basis of a technological worldview — requires a leap of self-consciousness to the stage of reason. But this appeal of the rational minority to the majority has no power for the latter.

The way out of the impasse is the creation of a new system of intelligent people — the noosphere, within which cognition will have primacy over production. Historical development has brought to the forefront, at the spearhead of development, reasonable enthusiasts, who, unlike consumers, are able, in the course of cognition, to rise to the level of reason and create a new worldview — a worldview of development. But before uniting, the enthusiasts, as Lenin teaches, must separate themselves from the consumers. It is necessary to impose an inferiority complex on consumers, which corresponds to reality, because they, by virtue of their accepted priority of the biological over the social, have entered an inclined plane of degradation.

7. CONSUMPTION DEAD ENDS

Oct. 28th, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Fundamental principle of enthusiasm: No good deed goes unpunished for those who do it.

Enthusiasts act (spontaneously or consciously) in the name of development. The success of their activities means that society is ripe for change, that is, the social system has reached a certain level of decay. Currently, human society has reached the level of a global consumer society and has passed to the stage of degradation. Degradation is also evident in the field of culture: there are no artistic works that elevate the human being. Consumers prefer something simpler. They are frightened of the terrible future that mad scientists can bring, which does not prevent them from shamelessly taking advantage of the results of scientific discoveries.

A consumerist paradise is the goal of both bourgeois and proletarian worldviews. The survival and development of society requires the creation of a new worldview — a worldview of development. It is necessary to indicate to consumers their true place in the history of society’s development.

In its time, human society emerged from the biosphere. Man became the king of nature. Society’s relationship with the biosphere is based on the principle of using the biosphere in the interests of society’s development. In other words, society initially, from the moment of its separation from the biosphere, began to consume the biosphere. It is this consumption that allowed the production of human relations and then, all other production. Society’s consumptive attitude towards the biosphere led to the first ecological crisis back in prehistoric times. In society, too, a social crisis arose, which can be called a consumption dead end, because the consumption of the biosphere was not compensated by its production.

The first social crisis was overcome during the so-called Neolithic Revolution. Mankind moved to patriarchy and introduced new technologies — farming and cattle breeding. The ecological crisis was overcome by creating an artificial biosphere, moving from consumption of the biosphere to its production.

At the stage of civilization, that is, the existence of legalized private property, production was bifurcated into the production of objects of consumption and the production of labor relations. Similarly, consumption was bifurcated into consumption of products of production and consumption of labor relations. Consumption once again took a leading position in relation to production. In its most complete form, developed civilized society has taken the form of a consumer society, for which the unrestrained growth of consumption is ensured by the enormous possibilities of production (motto: production for consumption).

As a result of this deadlock of consumption, the communist order was established. Consumption for production is the motto of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and in production the priority is not the production of consumer goods, but the production of society itself. However, at the core of the proletarian worldview remains the same instinct of consumption (to take away and divide).

The collapse of the USSR and the disintegration of socialism was not the result of intrigue. It was beneficial to the majority! All received the freedom of market relations and the majority — the opportunity to steal public property with impunity. This plundering has been practiced before, but under the threat of sanctions. Finally, the majority was finally able to legally divide all public property. This is when the instinct of consumption, which is the basis of the proletarian worldview (take away and divide), manifested itself openly. In justification of consumers we should emphasize that the so-called public property was in fact state property, i.e. belonging to the bureaucratic system. Therefore, as a result of privatization, the majority was left with nothing.

At present, a global consumption deadlock and ecological crisis has reappeared, in which the needs of the developed capitalist countries are being met at the expense of the resources of the entire planet. We have established an order in which the developed capitalist countries are responsible for most of the production, and consequently most of the planet’s resources are involved in their own production. For other countries, which still have low levels of consumption, there are no resources left on the planet that can be brought into additional production in order to raise the level of consumption in the countries that are lagging behind. To solve the latter problem, therefore, new technologies must be found and introduced to prevent an ecological crisis. Both the development of backward countries and the introduction of new ecological technologies are hindered by the established world order. First, the clogging and backwardness of the loser countries, second, the hegemony of the production capacities of the developed capitalist countries, and third, the general orientation toward consumption (production for consumption).

Humanity is threatened by ecological catastrophe — under the conditions of a consumer society, the resources of the planet, the resources of the biosphere impose limits on the development of society, and without development, society is doomed to decay, decay, and death.

Fortunately, the civilized world has found itself bifurcated into an exploitative social system and a communist social system. Socialism is more alive than dead. Now we are witnessing the decay of socialism. But not the communist order! The communist social system goes through three stages in its development: war communism, socialism and communism. Socialism must pass through three stages — quasi-slavery, quasi-feudal and quasi-capitalist. At the moment in the countries of the former Soviet Union established the third stage of socialism.

Socialism brought up the consumer and discouraged people from working productively. This is why now the political struggle in society is reduced to a struggle for the consumer vote, while there is an urgent need to create conditions for the development of production. Consumers set the tone in labor collectives, but in order to overcome the crisis the leading role in labor collectives must belong to enthusiasts. Enthusiasts are focused on the development of production, only they are able to lead production and the whole society out of the crisis.

Socialism has outlived its usefulness, has exhausted its positive potential, and must be replaced by communism, in which self-government of labor collectives will control the state, controlling the bureaucratic system. Communism is not a paradise with stores instead of chickens. The struggle for existence no one can cancel, but the latter will be overcome by the struggle for the development of society. So, down with socialism, long live communism.

The consumption attitude will be opposed by enthusiasts to the development attitude. The deadlock of consumption will be overcome, as before, by the activity of enthusiasts. Once again, as before, the ecological crisis will merge with the social crisis. The social crisis of the communist social system will end with the transition to the stage of communism. Then, and only then, will the old attitude (production for consumption) be done away with, and a new attitude will emerge — consumption for production. (We must stress once again that production includes not only the production of consumer goods, but also the production of people and the production of labor relations, that is, the production of society itself.) The new paradigm will be valid only under the condition of conscious production or, in other words, under the condition of the primacy of cognition in relation to production.

8. WAGE LABOR CRISIS

Dec. 1st, 2012 at 10:55 PM

The hunt is more than a hunt.

Free labor is labor for the purpose of personal development. Therefore, next to wage labor is now always labor as a hobby, which is a relic (or rudiment) of free labor. Free labor remains only in the family in the process of producing people, although there is a tendency to replace it with wage labor.

Free labor is not an arbitrary activity; it is a reasonable activity because freedom is a learned necessity. True freedom is reasonable and purposeful. Human necessity consists in the development of the human person. Therefore, the goal of human relations is the development of the individual. The means to this end is free labor.

Marx already in 1841 discovered the bifurcation of labor activity: «the relation of the worker to the product of labor», on the one hand, and «the relation of the worker to his own activity», on the other (K. Marx and F. Engels. Opus.42,p.90,91). If the attitude to the product of labor is the basis of wage labor, the attitude of the worker to his own activity is the basis of free labor.

Hired labor is unfree labor, labor under the pressure of human biological needs, which, however, are realized first, while social needs are relegated to the background (lentil soup for the right of primogeniture). Hired labor uses man as a means and free labor as an end, because since man is a social animal, the individual needs the development of the individuals around him in order to develop. Labor created man, wage labor makes man an animal. More precisely, wage labor reveals man from his animal, biological side, while the social side is forced to catch up, developing the social side of man to prevent the animal degradation of society.

In history, free labor has been replaced by wage labor. Indeed, wage labor has advantages. Hired labor created civilization. But he did not invent it. Hired labor is done to satisfy people’s needs, but it cannot in principle invent ways and means of creating new things and new human relations that contribute to that satisfaction. You cannot create new things by compulsion, just as you cannot force a horse to drink unless it wants to. So civilization is created by wage labor, but it is invented by free labor.

The division of labor became the engine of progress only after the division of labor into free labor and wage labor, when wage labor, separated from human labor, began to fight for its primacy over free labor. But as soon as it defeated it, regression set in. This is how the Roman Empire collapsed. The domination of wage labor caused the degradation of civilization — the Romans stopped reproducing, whereas it was as usual in free labor societies.

The era of supposedly free labor, the Dark Ages of the Middle Ages, was upon us. Free labor was put under the control of the state, which engaged in racketeering of supposedly free producers. Wage labor changed form. This form became globally widespread. And it is still extremely widespread — it is free producers forced to pay in one form or another to the state for their right to free labor.

Finally, wage labor took on a private (private) form when a system of private capital was formed between the state and the producer. Free labor was placed in such social conditions that it had to sell its working time. Wage labor is a civilized form of slavery, or, if you like, slavery is an uncivilized form of wage labor.

It may be said that wage labor under capitalism presupposes a free owner of labor. But there is a widespread logical fallacy that has taken the form of prejudice. There is no such thing as a free owner of labor, free from the society that created him. People are always dependent on people. People are, in principle, not free. This dependence does not exclude freedom of choice, so even the last slave has the right to choose insofar as he is endowed with reason. Furthermore, wage labor, from the point of view of the master, not the slave, is simply the use of labor power (slave or free man) for one’s own purposes.

The absence of private property excludes wage labor. This fact is glossed over by Marxists. Under socialism, it is not private capital but the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat (hired laborers) that acts as an employer. Therefore, the collapse of the USSR and the transition of so-called developed socialism to the capitalist phase of socialism occurred spontaneously by splitting the bureaucracy and turning one part of it into the bourgeoisie, which became a layer between the producers and the state.

In hired labor, free labor itself gained expediency. At one time the masses of brooding humans were used by wage labor to build megalithic structures, pyramids, all over the world. And now we owe it all the achievements of civilization.

What is the crisis of wage labor?

The advantages of wage labor turn out to be disadvantages for the producers themselves. The increase in productivity in the context of globalization makes some producers superfluous. The crisis of wage labor has accompanied capitalism throughout its history, especially in the stage of imperialism. Hence the wars over markets. The two world wars were caused by these very problems. With the advent of atomic weapons in the mid-20th century and the takeover of the entire Earth as a market at the end of the 20th century, the crisis of wage labor has become global and, therefore, inescapable. It is not only a crisis of overproduction, but a crisis of all human society, a crisis of human labor. After the satisfaction of his biological needs, the human consumer loses the purpose of life. The consumer has consumption as his goal. In the crisis of overproduction, this goal is exhausted. But since, on the other hand, capitalism exists because of the presence of consumption, it contributes to the formation of a consumerist worldview and consumer society.

There is no way to solve the crisis of wage labor, because there is no customer, because the customer understands that the solution is connected to the elimination of the hegemony of wage labor. The way to overcome the crisis of wage labor should be developed and implemented only by free labor.

Some suggest Marxism. But this is the way, if we go further than Marx. Marx stopped at the dictatorship of the proletariat, the dictatorship of wage laborers. But wage laborers are nothing without a master. As it has become known, the proletariat under its dictatorship has turned into consumers. A dictatorship of free labor is therefore required.

Marx assumed that the division of labor could be overcome by changing occupations (fishing today, hunting tomorrow). But the division of labor is a necessary condition for development. Since free labor is an expedient activity, it will be the lot of intelligent enthusiasts, and wage labor will be the lot of consumers. Purposeful activity requires the primacy of knowledge relative to production. It is therefore necessary to create a noosphere that will be a sufficient condition for communism as a synthesis of wage labor and free labor, with the hegemony of the latter.

Few sufficiently intelligent liberals are able to rise above the level of the consumer, unlike the notorious Marxists, who are neither intelligent nor intelligent. But these few intelligent enough libertarians are unable to grasp the depth of humanity’s crisis and see isolated, fragmented details. As productivity increases, most people are no longer needed in the production of consumer goods. From a humanistic standpoint, it is necessary to make the supposedly superfluous population necessary for the development of society. Turning them into consumers will lead society to degradation. Fortunately there is the field of knowledge, personal development on the basis of knowledge and the field of free labor.

9. ON THE ALIENATION OF LABOR

Jan. 20th, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Alienation of labor was analyzed by Marx, although the problem of alienation of labor can be found in Ecclesiastes. Before Marx, Smith introduced the division of labor. The exploitation of labor was a consequence of these two processes. Marx showed the way and the way to overcome the exploitation of labor — the expropriators would be expropriated by the dictatorship of wage laborers. Which is what actually happened. Practice confirmed Marx’s theory.

But the alienation of labor and the division of labor have not gone anywhere, have not evaporated like the morning fog. Consequently, these phenomena are inherent in labor and society. The exploitation of labor is a consequence of the alienation of labor, but the alienation of labor, if it is a necessary condition for the exploitation of labor, is not a sufficient condition for the exploitation of labor, nor does it necessarily and inevitably have as its consequence the exploitation of labor.

Alienation of labor is the essence of human labor, because social labor is the result of human participation in the system of human labor relations. Labor is a social process, so the alienation of labor is a property of labor itself. At the same time, the alienation of labor creates conditions for the appropriation of labor.

An individual consumes labor relations and produces objects of consumption. Since labor relations are social relations, the objects of consumption produced are originally public goods. Private property is only part of the public domain. Therefore, expropriation of expropriators does not mean taking property away from them, but it means establishing public control over private owners, it means transferring private owners into the category of public property. This is the only way to interpret Marx’s famous conclusion from Capital: expropriators are expropriated.

Alienation of labor is presented to society as a gift of nature and it consumes it thoughtlessly. Therefore, the alienation of labor inevitably entails the appropriation of labor, just as previously the appropriation of the gifts of nature did. The invention of the wheel or atomic energy seems to be simply a gift of nature, but in fact it is alienated labor. For example, if a skilled hunter provided the tribe with food, others, instead of working, engaged in a more pleasant pastime (dancing around a campfire), because the main reason for working disappeared. At the same time, the necessity of developing society disappeared, and society without development degraded or became mothballed. Therefore, the appropriation of labor became the main condition of society’s development.

The appropriation of labor (ownership) eventually led to the reclassification of all producers as wage laborers. And then came the crisis of wage labor. This crisis must be resolved by realizing the necessity of alienating labor and moving to conscious free labor subject to the dictatorship of enthusiasm.

Initially, social labor in the transition from the primitive communal system to the exploitative social system was divided into wage labor and free labor, wage labor took the position of primacy in contradiction to free labor. Then this primacy turned into indirect primacy at the stage of feudalism; wage labor regained primacy at the stage of capitalism.

During the transition to communism, wage labor was abolished and replaced by free labor — as a result, the economy collapsed due to the transition to a subsistence economy. Free labor was not yet free in the sense of freedom as a perceived necessity. The consciousness of social necessity was only possible within the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is why wage labor was restored, but the employer was the state. Wage labor underwent its evolution in contradiction to free labor, repeating in form its evolution in the interval of the exploitative social system, but under the condition of the indirect primacy of wage labor over free labor. By now, both the direct primacy of wage labor within the framework of the exploitative social system and the indirect primacy within the framework of the communist social system have exhausted themselves, exhausted their potential for the development of society, due to the complete proletarianization of the population (the global domination of wage labor) and the crisis of overproduction.

The way out of humanity’s global crisis is the transition to the direct primacy of free labor over wage labor. Free labor implies the conscious alienation of labor. But this will be possible only after the formation of the worldview of development and the noosphere.

Development is carried out by reasonable enthusiasts in the exercise of free will.

More on the alienation of labor

Mar. 17th, 2013 at 2:45 PM

The subject is complex because it reveals the interaction of opposites of contradiction and, accordingly, requires dialectical thinking. If labor made man out of a monkey, then wage labor makes man into an animal.

The whole complexity of the problem of labor is that labor as such is violence against the animal basis of man. And, accordingly, the animal basis wishes to free itself from labor, i.e., in the end, it seeks its own destruction. The only way out is transition to free labor, in which social and biological coexist in a harmonious unity, but with the primacy of the social. Freedom is a conscious necessity. The difficulty lies in realizing a truly human necessity, which has always been and will always be in the development of the human person and in the development of society. A transition to rational development is required.

Production as such is ambivalent. Marx first realized this in 1841. He understood the bifurcation of production as «the relation of the worker to the product of labor,» on the one hand, and «the relation of the worker to his own activity,» on the other (K. Marx and F. Engels. Op.42,pp.90,91). Thus, production breaks up into the production of commodities and the production of labor relations. Following production, by analogy, the consumption of labor relations is also bifurcated: into the consumption of labor relations in the process of production and into the consumption of the products of production, the latter may have as its consequence the production of labor relations.

Alienation should be understood as the transition of the object of study into its opposite. In this its contradictory nature manifests itself. For example, labor for its own benefit is transformed into labor to produce chains for the worker himself. The alienation of labor is bifurcated into the alienation of the products of labor from the producer and the alienation of the process of labor itself from the producer. While the dictatorship of the proletariat has coped with the first alienation, albeit in so far as it has not undermined the authority of the dictatorship, the second alienation forms the deepest basis of this very system of the dictatorship of the proletariat and cannot be overcome within the dictatorship of the proletariat or the successor dictatorship of state capitalism bureaucracy within socialism.

Marx wrote: «The result is that man (the worker) feels free to act only in the performance of his animal functions — in eating, drinking, intercourse, in the best case still settling in his dwelling, decorating himself, etc. — and in his human functions he feels only an animal. What is inherent in an animal becomes a human destiny, and what is human turns into what is inherent in an animal? True, eating, drinking, sexual intercourse, etc. are also truly human functions. But in the abstraction that detaches them from the circle of other human activities and turns them into the last and only final goals, they have an animal character.

So, in his human (labor) functions, he (man) only feels like an animal (a talking tool) if he becomes a participant in wage labor.

But is labor activity free if it is done for personal gain at the expense of the general benefit of society? No, because it does not pursue the goal of personal and social development, because, on the one hand, the priority for the individual is the mercenary base instincts of consumption, and, on the other, these instincts of consumption, accepted as priorities, undermine the very foundations of humanity.

The history of human society is the history of the struggle between consumerism and enthusiasm, the struggle between two tendencies: the desire for conservation of the social system and the desire for its development. If the history of the exploitative social system was the history of class struggle, which was waged in order to overthrow the system of exploitation, then the history of the communist social system is the history of the struggle of stagnation and development of society, the struggle of enthusiasm and consumerism, the struggle of the development of labor relations and their reproduction.

Enthusiasm arises at the junction of individual and social interests in labor collectives as an individual’s desire for harmony with the collective and as the realization of some possibility of development inherent in the collective. Enthusiasm for the individual is possible only at the stage of personal development, and personal development can occur only under the condition of disharmony of the individual and society. After a person has reached his own, unique place in society, he merges with the social system and personal development follows the development of society, i.e. enthusiasm disappears; consequently, enthusiasm is not something inexhaustible.

The role of enthusiasm in the development of society is to ensure the advancement of production. All production is preceded by consumption. Ensuring that consumption precedes production can be called an advance of production or simply an advance.

However, enthusiasm is perceived by society as a gift of nature and its attitude is purely consumerist. On the other hand, the support of enthusiasm relegates it to the category of hired labor. All organized masses of spontaneous enthusiasts are transformed into the tools of the customers.

The way out is a transition to rational enthusiasm on the theoretical basis of the theory of development. Reasonable enthusiasts must create a worldview of development and, in parallel, create the noosphere.

10. HIERARCHY AND NETWORK

28 Apr, 2013 at 22:51

Society is a system of networks:

1. A network of personal or familial relationships.

2. Labor Relations Network.

3. A network of market relationships.

4. The information network is public consciousness or opinion.

5. Administrative network (bureaucracy or state).

These networks permeate each other.

The most important is the network of labor relations

Any network is by definition chaotic, devoid of an initial vector, but this does not exclude the fact that the network is capable of creating a vector of development. To fix this vector of development a network creates a hierarchy. Thus, the hierarchy is designed to preserve this vector of development, which can only be a formalized, i.e. unchanging, constant vector of development. At the next moment the network creates a new vector of development, which will be different from the previously formalized vector. In this way a contradiction emerges between the network and the hierarchy created by the network itself.

In society, the informalized network of human relations can only be organized in its own human way. This way is legitimized by public opinion and nothing else. Any formalization of unwritten rules transfers them into the category of obligatory rules and, therefore, the previously informalized network of social relations becomes formalized and moves into the category of hierarchy.

Therefore, a developing society, if it is worthy of such a state, must strike a certain balance between hierarchy and an unorganized network of human relations, under the indispensable condition of the primacy of the network.

Hierarchy in society is an organized ordered network that unites people, it is a pyramidal network, it is a formalized network. At the limit, hierarchy tends to extend to the whole society. The closer it is to this ideal, the less society is capable of self-development.

Hierarchy, the subordination of the lower level to the upper level, gives the system directionality and rigidity — a vector of development and concentration, giving ideally the required result. This is in the ideal, but in fact the hierarchy is incapable of self-development, it is unable to work out a vector of development inside itself and has to look for it outside itself in society only under the pressure of the network. As a rule, it does not do this. Rotting within its own boundaries, it decays and decomposes, because it functions according to its own, inherently unique, laws, dragging the whole society along with it.

It would seem that since a person is simultaneously a participant of both hierarchy and an informalized network of social relations, the hierarchy can be controlled by the dominant worldview, but bureaucracy very quickly forms its own worldview, which opposes hierarchy and network and is built on the idea of the primacy of hierarchy over network. Eventually this bureaucratic worldview becomes the dominant worldview and society falls apart.

Society must find a way to manage hierarchy. Democracy is believed to be such a way. Democracy is a way of forming a hierarchy. The unformalized network of human relations from time to time finds out its vector of social development and transfers it to the hierarchical network. At this point, society’s influence on the hierarchy ends until the next election. So, democracy has two shortcomings — 1) the vector of social development is determined by the majority, which is inevitably guided by the immediate needs of the consumer, not imagining their true common good (for they do not know what they do) and 2) there is no possibility to constantly control and manage the hierarchy from the society, which develops.

Any network of human relations that sets itself the goal of overcoming these shortcomings will thereby formalize itself and turn itself into a hierarchy. It will be either a religion, an academy of sciences, or a Bolshevik party, but the result is the same — the dominance of bureaucracy and the end of development (that is why in the USSR, as a response to the development of society, the CPSU divided into a party of liberals and a party of socialists-conservatives).

Is there a solution to the problem of reasonable primacy of the network over the hierarchy?

The development of society is based on human cognition. Therefore, it is necessary to consciously instill in public opinion a vector of development and consciously form a worldview of development in the course of cognition.

As a result, an informalized network of social relations will emerge, initially possessing a vector of development — the noosphere. Thus, two informal networks will coexist in society, one of which is chaotic and united by the worldview of consumption. It will be the necessary basis or ground for the second, united by the worldview of development, will possess a vector of development, which is constantly updated in the practice of knowledge. Naturally, an organized network from within will manage the chaotic network and, through it, manage the hierarchy.

The driving impetus for this transformation will be the conscious development of the human personality. The need for personal development stems from the fact that the individual has to operate in a constantly changing social environment and is constantly learning new things. It is necessary to be aware of this desire for development and to use it to build a developing network. The realization of oneself as a developing person in a developing society is the highest form of humanism.

Man is condemned to act consciously by virtue of his belonging to society. The emergence of a new phenomenon, although it occurs as if by itself, can acquire social significance and become part of social practice only after its awareness.

11. INITIATIVE IS MORE WILLFUL THEN COERCION

Oct. 6th, 2013 at 2:02 PM

Work to live or live to work?

This dilemma arises in the development of the human personality.

Labor is a necessary and sufficient condition for humanity. But all work, all labor involves overcoming difficulties. All work is violence against the animal basis of man. Therefore, man must learn to overcome the resistance of his animal basis for the sake of his humanity, for the sake of his survival as a species.

So, in order to survive as a biological species, it is necessary to work in order to live. But it is not enough for the survival of society, which is impossible without the development of society itself. For in a stable society, due to the second principle of thermodynamics, degradation processes occur, and the system tends to the energy minimum, which is ideologically observed in modern society as all kinds of fundamentalist ideas flourish in public consciousness.

Therefore, one must also live to work, live to work. Communist ideology was supposed to make labor the first necessity in life, that is, it was supposed to make everyone enthusiastic. Now it has become clear that this is utopia.

Consumers work to live, while enthusiasts live to work. Consumers, consuming the products of production, reproduce labor relations and, consuming the latter, produce objects of consumption. Enthusiasts in all this also produce qualitatively new labor relations, which has as its consequence the development of society. From the point of view of the theory of development, the main contradiction of society is the confrontation between consumers and enthusiasts.

The contradiction of capitalism — wage laborers vs. bourgeoisie — in socialism takes the form of a contradiction of wage slaves of the state vs. bureaucrats expressing the interests of a social state producing consumers. The leap from the bourgeois state to the social state took place under the leading role of enthusiasts who enticed consumers with the myth of paradise (communism). The proletarian worldview is based on the instinct of consumption.

The leap from socialism to capitalism is a natural stage of development of the contradiction of hired state slaves against bureaucrats — hired state slaves turned into consumers, and to preserve its power the bureaucracy gave free rein to market relations. As a result, the bureaucracy, with the help of market relations, achieved absolute dictatorship over consumers, something it could not do in the USSR with the help of communist ideology.

In this way the convergence of capitalism and socialism into a consumer society took place. Due to the globalization of the world economy and the filling of markets, a crisis of overproduction in the consumer society has occurred. Consumers are tired of consuming, while producers are not tired of producing. Within the framework of capital, producers become superfluous. Unemployment is a natural consequence of imperialism. Wage laborers (free slaves of the wage-labor system) become superfluous.

Consequently, human society has exhausted its potential for development — ideologically, this is manifested in the flowering of fundamentalism. The ideology of fundamentalism must be contrasted with the ideology of development.

The Good in man is mixed up with the Evil. The conscious pursuit of the Good was the main condition for entering the Kingdom of God by Jesus Christ. But then it turned out that Good and Evil had swapped places. The belief in a rational God collapsed and it was time to believe in a rational state of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Today, this belief has also collapsed. Human society has lost its landmarks of development, and without development it is doomed to death. Therefore the time comes to believe in a rational worldview in the bosom of which the conscious striving of men for the Good, that is, for the development of society, is possible. Consequently, development becomes identical with the Good.

In the conditions of the ideological vacuum and spiritual crisis experienced by humanity, Marx’s famous thesis that philosophers should not only explain the world, but also consciously transform it, has become relevant again. Philosophers, from an object, must become a subject of development. Marxism contains, in a dry residue, the foundations of the theory of development.

The disintegration of the proletarian worldview is in fact the result of its bifurcation into two worldviews. In the depths of decaying society, as a counterbalance to the worldview of consumption, a worldview of development, whose bearers are enthusiasts, inevitably emerges as its opposite.

Enthusiasts have the ability to go against the dominant social system for the sake of the Good and the prevention of Evil. The point is the conscious application of this ability, the only human application of which can only be the conscious development of society. This requires, in turn, the development of a cognition independent of the dominant social system. To cognize a rational perspective on the development of society, enthusiasts will have to turn to the cognition of the developing world and create a worldview of development.

The theory of development gives the method, understood as the anticipated essence of the subject of research. The theory of development is abstracted when considering the evolutionary series of forms of motion of Matter, as well as the history of their development, and reveals the way of interaction of opposites of contradiction. The way of development of an isolated abstract contradiction leads to an abstract network of contradictions, and from the latter a jump is made to a concrete network of contradictions — a theoretical model of the developing world.

Human society must bifurcate with the separation of the noosphere — a new form of movement of Matter, the essence of which will be cognition, exercising primacy over production, including production and society itself. Cognition presupposes the extraction of new knowledge. It can be carried out only by enthusiasts, because consumers are unable to produce qualitatively new ideas.

The noosphere will have as much to do with the sociosphere as capitalism has to do with feudalism.

12. ON THE NATURE OF ACTIVISM

Dec. 22nd, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Dostoevsky drew the line of the Russian literary hero from Pushkin’s Aleko. This hero committed a crime in the name of his own justice. He came into another world with his own ideas of good and evil and did not change them in accordance with his surroundings, but began to change this world for himself, began to bring his own justice.

It should be noted that Zemfira and Carmen are sisters in spirit, but if Pushkin in 1824 focused on Aleko and raised the situation to the level of a tragedy, Bizet in 1874 made Carmen and a woman’s right to freedom of choice the focus of the growing suffragette and feminist movement. By the way, the desire for equality of the sexes in fact led to the displacement of human production by the production of consumer goods. The consumer society is abolishing itself.

Since the Decembrists came to Russia with republican ideas alien to it at the time, they were forced to act under the guise of monarchist ideas and naturally failed.

A succession of heroes followed — Eugene Onegin, Pechorin, and finally came the Nihilists with a desire to break completely with the dominant worldview.

1. But what to replace it with?

2. And what is the reason for this nihilistic desire?

Dostoevsky answered the second question with his character Raskolnikov. Whether I am a trembling creature or have a right is the question of the developing personality.

Therefore, the source of activism and the development of society is the desire to develop one’s own personality. From the object of social development, the human person tries to become a subject of development. But the difficulty is that the development of the individual is possible through the development of society, possible only in the practice of society’s development, in the process of this very development, in the course of revolutionary practice, according to Marx.

So Aleko killed Zemfira, the Decembrist Kakhovsky killed General Miloradovich, Onegin killed Lensky, Pechorin killed Grushnitsky, Bazarov killed himself (through carelessness), and Raskolnikov killed old women.

Raskolnikov committed a practical act with irreversible consequences by murdering old ladies in the name of his idea-the right to overcome social prohibitions or taboos, the right to become a criminal. Unlike most criminals, Raskolnikov became a criminal for ideological reasons, out of the need to develop his own personality. It is possible to call him the first terrorist. He did not hesitate to rob old ladies and in the same way his followers are already demanding an advance payment. Later, this activism was put into service by capital: if there is financing, there is terrorism; if the financing is over, the terrorism is over. Activists degenerated into mere mercenaries.

But theoretically, the rights of irrevocable individual actions were not challenged by Dostoyevsky in Crime and Punishment, for Raskolnikov did not repent of his right even in hard labor, although it was not good to kill old ladies. Theoretically, this problem is unsolvable.

Dostoevsky then raised this theme to the height of «a child’s tear. And then, in the words of the Grand Inquisitor, he brought it down to the level of consumers. For people demand bread and do not need the truth. They do not understand that bread follows the truth, not the other way around. And so they demand bread, whereas they should prioritize knowledge.

And cognition compromises the dominant worldview. The ideological deadlock was expressed by the absence of heroes in subsequent Russian literature. Alyosha Karamazov is not a hero, but a monk. Chekhov’s characters are not heroes, but objects of ridicule or mockery. The author has kept the role of the hero to himself, squeezing the slave out of himself drop by drop. Tolstoy’s supposedly heroes act within the framework of the dominant worldview and do not question whether I am a quivering creature. Non-resistance to evil with violence is the justification of slavery — I do not know why the church did not make Tolstoy a saint, perhaps from the consideration — crush the competition. The Russian people acted in mirroring Tolstoy’s teachings (Lenin said so), ending feudalism and, by inertia, capitalism. Now the Russian Federation is either social capitalism or bourgeois socialism.

Russian literature was rescued from its ideological deadlock by Gorky and his Stormy Storm — Let the Storm Rise Stronger. In Soviet literature, the hero has again disappeared, for in Soviet reality the subject is the state, and «the unit is zero.

The USSR collapsed by consumer activists because the dictatorship of the proletariat limited the level of consumption. The consumer activists were mostly communist bureaucrats themselves. Such is the irony of development. Communist functionaries turned into liberal capitalists, and whoever did not repaint in time lost. However, some of the Komsomol functionaries-liberals got carried away with capitalism, forgot who was boss and went to jail. For the abolition of the state dictatorship of the proletariat does not mean the abolition of the dictatorship of the social state.

The driving force behind activism is the human person’s desire for his or her own development, and this desire goes through the necessary stage of realizing that development is impossible without an increase in consumption. This is why people die for metal. As a result, the spontaneous desire for personal development is replaced by a conscious desire for consumption and personal development stops, falling into a consumption dead end. The next stage must be the conscious development of the individual on the basis of cognition. Conscious personal development as the realization of free will, provided that freedom is a cognizable necessity.

Contemporary activism in a consumer society takes the form of a protest against the existing state system, but not a protest against the dominant consumerist worldview on which this state system is based. Therefore, it takes the form of chaotic spontaneous movements in the absence of positive ideas. The consumerist worldview is based on the absolutization of human rights, without the necessary addition of human duties. Human rights in this approach inevitably turn into consumer rights. As a result, man is relegated to the level of an animal. We have already experienced this in Ancient Rome — bread and circuses — and it ended in universal degradation.

What today’s activist-consumers want is the same thing. Let the authorities or someone smart make us a better life, but let nothing change, because we ourselves do not agree to change, do not agree to change our own dead-end consumerist worldview. Everybody lives this way. Everyone ran, and so did I.

When one starts talking about human rights without mentioning one’s duties to society, then a consumerist worldview begins. Man is given rights to fulfill his duty to develop society and his personality by exercising his free will. Consumer society is an atomic society consisting of individual consumers, because consumption is individual (this is a medical fact). Only production unites society.

On Earth, consumer society began to take shape in the 1960s of the 20th century. The dead-end of consumer society for personal development was keenly felt by the youth of the prosperous West, and as a result a spontaneous hippie movement and a series of spontaneous youth riots without any ideological basis emerged. The anarchist slogan «Down with you» cannot be considered as such. Since then, activism has had no positive ideas to this day.

In China, the Hunweibins replaced them with a citation of Mao’s ideas, the basis of which was the idea of «Fire on the Staffs. Mao used the activists in his inner-party squabbles. Since then, the idea of «Fire on the HQs» has been used by all consumer activists. For to break is not to build. It is enough to tear down a monument to Dzerzhinsky or Lenin, and the result is obvious.

A series of recent demonstrations by activists in the FSU and Arab countries confirms their futility, at best. Therefore, the conclusion is that the time of spontaneous enthusiasm is over, and an era of reasonable enthusiasm is dawning.

According to some estimates, 20% of people are capable of developing their own concepts and abstractions based on sensory perception. In contrast to the rest, who are only able to memorize them and mindlessly repeat them. In other words, only one fifth of people can see the forest for the trees and not get lost in three pines — less than 20% of people have good conceptual thinking, more than 70% of adults think like children, they generalize from special to special, but not by the main feature, they don’t see the cause-and-effect relation. Four out of five people act on the basis of a sensual situation, and do not appeal to their mind — all ran and I ran.

It would seem that human society in a democracy, a dictatorship of the majority, is doomed to return to the animal state. This has happened sometimes, but fortunately, the dictatorship of the majority is always opposed by the dictatorship of the minority in one form or another (the House of Lords or the Central Committee of the Communist Party). It is no coincidence that activism requires change in this minority, which has real, not mythical, power. In addition, both poles of society are in a single information field, and this is crucial. Tiny son can always learn what is good and what is bad and, accordingly, act on the instruction. The difficulty is, is the instruction correct? In practice, the instruction is almost always wrong for most. There are crooks all around. Smart people have to create an information field, but are they honest or are they bought by a minority. In practice, all the smart incorruptible ones are eradicated and poverty stricken, leaving only the corrupt smart ones, smart enough to become crooks, but not smart enough to realize their fatal mistake of selling their own personalities into slavery.

Undoubtedly, the two sets — smart people and honest people — overlap. It is necessary to unite them in an information network. The task is to answer the first question, what to replace the worldview of consumption and to do this by creating a worldview of human and social development.

13. ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Feb. 8th, 2014 at 9:42 PM

Systemic quality, the quality of the system or systemicity, is the highest concept or, in Latin, the highest abstraction today. It emerges at the stage of knowledge synthesis and marks the transition to the noosphere. Its origins can be found in Marx’s Capital, as well as the rudiments of the theory of development. It is impossible to do without a systemic approach when considering the development of human society.

When they speak of human rights, they mean consumer rights; when they speak of consumer rights, they mean the rights of the animal in man. But man is a contradiction of the biological and the social, subject to the primacy of the social. Therefore, man’s rights are a consequence of his social obligations to society.

When they talk about human rights, they forget about human responsibilities. Man cannot live without society. By birth he is a little beast with human potential. Without society he grows up to be a beast — this is a medical fact. Only in society can he discover and develop his human potential. Therefore, it is impossible to talk about a person’s freedom from society, just as it is impossible to talk about the freedom of the sociosphere from the biosphere, and the biosphere from planet Earth.

Man owes society by the very fact of his existence. Therefore, man’s duties are superior to his rights. Man’s rights derive from his social duties. A person’s duties to society are not formalized and cannot be formalized in principle, because society is an evolving system. Unlike formal duties to the state. And unlike rights, which are formalized both by the state and society. Therefore, in public consciousness, human duties to society are blurred, have an indefinite form of customs, wishes or commandments of a negative character (not to murder, not to steal, not to covet, not to create…). A person may imagine that he owes nothing to society. What exactly do I owe and to whom? And what is society? I am a free person.

Man’s obligations to society are a consequence of the fact that man is a developing person in a developing society. Society without development is doomed to death. Since development is not the repetition of the traversed path, but the creation of a new one, it can be realized only in the course of a person’s exercise of free will. In short, a person is obliged to exercise free will. Otherwise, he is relegated to the level of a slave or a pet.

Free will is a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of society. Free will requires the priority of cognition, the priority of the practice of cognition over social practice. For social practice, taken as a criterion of truth, is limited to the present. Yes, but at the same time, it contains the sprouts of the new, and cognition is aimed at the future, at these sprouts of the new. Freedom is a conscious necessity, so the true manifestation of human freedom is systematic activity, not chaotic thrashing under the influence of current needs or instincts.

Man has a duty to know the truth in order to exercise his free will. Ignorance of laws does not exempt from responsibility. For example, ignorance of the law of universal gravitation does not save one from falling from a height. Free will requires that a person plan his own goals and actions according to his knowledge of the world and take full responsibility for the consequences of his actions.

The instinctive desire to manifest free will is the leading cause of all anti-social actions of the individual. The individual cannot endure the oppression of social laws and regulations, and as a spontaneous protest slips into an animal state — the biological side of man overcomes the social beginning. This inevitable evil is a consequence of the possibility of human development. If we turn people into obedient robots, development will stop, because any closed system tends to a minimum of energy, tends to the potential pit.

Development turns the sociosphere into an open system. Development of society is also an anti-social activity from the point of view of the dominant system of social relations, but this activity is directed toward progress, not degradation.

Thus, the spontaneous manifestation of free will seems to inevitably lead society to degradation. Society develops in spite of this, because it finds ways to curb the spontaneous manifestation of free will and allows for intelligent development, because the spontaneous manifestation of free will contains, as an integral part, the elements of a new organization.

What is primary: rights or duties? A person owes a duty to society because he became a person, became a personality, thanks to life in this society. The duty is simple — to develop one’s personality. The development of personality can be realized only by practice, by the activity of man’s free will. Society gives man freedom of choice within the limits defined by that society. Hence, the fundamental right of man is the right of choice. And it follows from his duty to develop his personality. Man has the right to choose whether to obey the old hierarchy or to create a new hierarchy. But this right is valid only under the condition of personality development, but not under its degradation. From the duty of personal development follows the duty of the individual to participate in one way or another in labor relations, for outside of labor relations there is degradation of the individual. A person has the right to choose, but within the framework of labor relations. Leaving the system of labor relations, he quickly turns into an animal.

The right to choose requires knowledge. The spontaneous activity of exercising free will inevitably turns into an animal activity. Therefore, the fundamental duty of man is knowledge. Only the rational will becomes a truly free will, a will that recognizes the necessity of development, that chooses from the sea of possibilities the necessary path of development. Therefore, cognition comes to the forefront of social practice. Cognition becomes the driving force of production, including the production of society itself. Learning, learning, learning, learning, Lenin bequeathed.

Obligations to society for the development of one’s personality force a person to develop society itself, and for this purpose, a developing personality must rise above society as a subject of development and create a new form of Matter movement — the noosphere. This is the logic of development — having become a consumer society, the sociosphere leaves the edge of development. The sociosphere’s further existence will be obliged to interact with the noosphere.

In history, society arose as a result of the social organization of the process of consuming the gifts of nature that existed earlier in the biosphere. The production of society itself facilitated more efficient consumption. Thus, production has primacy over consumption. But consumption is a vital factor. Moreover, human socialization occurs through the consumption of both objects and social relations. The universe is woven of contradictions.

The strategy of human rights, or in fact, the strategy of consumer rights, pursued by capitalist society against socialist society, was supposedly successful — supposedly the victory of capitalism over socialism. In reality there has been a convergence of capitalism and socialism on the basis of the consumer society. The last program of the CPSU, called the program for building communism, was essentially a program for building a consumer society. It has been implemented.

At present in the world there is on the one hand a social state controlled by capital, and on the other hand a social state controlled by capital. In both cases the state relies on the consumer.

The task of cognition, the task of the practice of cognition in fulfillment of its obligations to the sociosphere, is to create a worldview of development as a counterbalance to the dominant worldview of consumption through the realization of free will. The worldview of development will be the medium of cognition and a necessary and sufficient condition for the formation of the noosphere.

14. THE VENALITY OF INTELLECTUALS

Mar. 8th, 2014 at 10:27 PM

Smart people should create an information field, but are they honest or are they bought?

Practice shows that all the smart incorruptible ones are eradicated and become poor, only the corrupt smart guys remain afloat, smart enough to become ideological crooks, but not smart enough to realize their fatal mistake of selling their own personalities into slavery.

Undoubtedly, the two sets — smart people and honest people — overlap. It is necessary to unite them in an information network. The task is to create a worldview of human and social development.

So, intelligence and human qualities (=humanism) do not always overlap.

It is a well-known truth that to whom much is given, much is required of him.

If we compare a hired assassin and a hired intellectual, the former may kill a few people, while the latter kills society as a whole, undermining humanity, providing information cover and justifying the very fact of buying a hired assassin. The corrupt intellectuals justify everything by absolutizing the freedom of the market. They are liberals. At the core of their activities is not only the fact of selling their intelligence to imperialism, but also the support of consumers within the framework of the now dominant consumerist worldview. Only reasonable enthusiasts can break this vicious circle.

Wage labor is a kind of slave labor. Nothing human is alien to intellectuals, which is why they are forced to participate in the wage labor system. But because they are burdened with intelligence, they are burdened with a sense of responsibility and a guilt complex. The inner struggle with a guilt complex due to their irresponsibility leads the individual to the rejection of responsibility to society, to the degradation of the individual and the degradation of the intellect.

The history of dissidence is inseparable from human history. The very emergence of dissent is determined by the need to develop society. But then the laws of exchange of goods come into play (ideas are also goods) — as a result, paid ideas get an advantage in the dissemination in the public consciousness. Under the conditions of restricted market freedom under socialism, ideas were paid for by the state of the proletariat dictatorship, while Soviet dissidents were maintained by imperialism and carried out capitalist ideas under the guise of defending human rights, but in fact — consumers’ rights. After the proletariat’s transition to a consumerist state, socialism became a consumer society, and the former Soviet human rights activists became liberals, imperialism’s fifth column. Imperialism’s main task is to transform the supremacy of the social state over capital into the supremacy of capital over state power, as in the West.

«Marx already in 1841 discovered the bifurcation of labor activity: «the relation of the worker to the product of labor», on the one hand, and «the relation of the worker to his own activity», on the other (K. Marx and F. Engels. Op.42,pp.90,91). If the attitude to the product of labor is the basis of wage labor, the attitude of the worker to his own activity is the basis of free labor.

Hired labor is unfree labor, labor under the pressure of human biological needs, which, however, are realized first, while social needs are relegated to the background (lentil soup for the right of primogeniture). Hired labor uses man as a means and free labor as an end, because since man is a social animal, the individual needs the development of the individuals around him in order to develop. Labor created man, wage labor makes man an animal. More precisely, wage labor reveals man from his animal, biological side, while the social side is forced to catch up, developing the social side of man, in order to prevent the animal degeneration of society.»

In these «attitudes of the worker toward the product of labor,» on the one hand, and «attitudes of the worker toward his own activity,» on the other, are the cause of the guilt complex of the corrupt intellectuals and the cause of their social inferiority complex. They have not justified the trust of society, and there is no excuse for their criminal irresponsibility to human society, for their venality to world capital.

THE PUBLIC FATE OF INTELLECTUALS

Apr. 13th, 2014 at 8:57 PM

To whom much is given, much is required.

The role of intellectuals in society is knowledge. Reason becomes the subject of social development. This line can be traced back to Socrates and Plato — philosophers are meant to govern society. Now, in the era of consumer society and, as a consequence, the general degradation of social relations, intellectuals should be enthusiasts, should become the subject of the development of society through the conscious creation of a third form of Alive Matter — the noosphere — following the spontaneously emerged biosphere and sociosphere.

Human society must bifurcate into the noosphere and sociosphere, just as the biological form of motion of Matter was previously bifurcated into society and the biosphere. Consumer society needs the noosphere for its survival.

The human being begins his life with cognition of the society into which he is brought by the occasion of his birth. Cognition serves him as a means of adapting to his environment, just as an animal does. Man acts in this process as an object of cognition — from a huge volume of information, he learns those concepts and ideas that are necessary for social practice. This is enough to adapt to the external social environment in stable social conditions. Since the world develops and society without development dies, it is not enough for man to be an object of cognition.

The role of intellectuals in society is to be the subject of cognition — to develop new ideas, to produce new knowledge. However, man begins his life as an object of cognition, which is the essence of the process of educating man. But if society develops, it means there are people who have moved into a new quality — the subject of cognition. These people are enthusiasts. The basis of any enthusiasm is new knowledge. And if people are not able to become a subject of knowledge, they remain consumers. But all is not so hopeless. These consumers are able to recognize the need for new ideas and become consumers, becoming spontaneous enthusiasts. Only reasonable enthusiasts can learn new things. All others, that is, consumers, only repeat or pervert the already known truths. Reasonable enthusiasts must not only learn new things, but from empiricism and classification they must rise to a synthesis of knowledge in order to build a scientific picture of the world.

With the help of new ideas and new knowledge, intellectuals should become subjects of social development, but only after the new ideas resonate in the public consciousness. Intellectuals must create, form and constantly renew the worldview of development as a necessary and sufficient environment for the reasonable development of society. Intellectuals must become the subject of social development. This requirement follows from the laws of cognition — the process of cognition is rooted in the biological basis of man as an instinct of curiosity, which in the sociosphere turns into a conscious desire for new knowledge. New knowledge inevitably creates the conditions for the transformation of the subject of cognition into a subject of social development. The sociosphere is bifurcated by the emergence of the noosphere. Sociosphere in the contradiction with the noosphere will play a subordinate role (by analogy with the contradiction between feudalism and capitalism).

Until now, intellectuals, with few exceptions, have been the object of social development. In the early stages of human history, intellectuals created castes of priests who acted on the wings of social authorities. The priests’ attempts to seize power with the help of ideas never succeeded, since the power of ideas is ideal and there are always practical people who recognize practice as the criterion of truth. Today’s intellectuals are the same priests, acting at the behest of the state or capital and existing insofar as they are necessary for the social system. Intellectuals are merely employees of the state or capital. For example, after the collapse of the USSR, the state threw Soviet intellectuals on the street and they were forced to sell their brains to capital, just as prostitutes sell their bodies to the first person with money. Even today, the situation of intellectuals in society has not changed.

According to Lenin, the Russian intelligentsia was g… (scum) of the nation. It is well said, but subsequent history has shown that intellectuals are incapable of playing a leading role in the development of society — they always lag behind, chewing up old ideas, and are ahead only at the stage of degradation of society, when these old ideas become relevant. What is worse, they take these old ideas to their logical absurdity and a complete break with humanism. Intellectuals on the panel lose their shame and with it the rest of their intellect. It was necessary to choose as an idol a man with a speaking surname Solzhenitsyn! The irony of history…

Understandably, modern intellectuals act under the conditions of consumer society as befits respectable consumers. But intellectuals, by virtue of their natural abilities, can and should realize the perniciousness of consumer society as a dead end of development and work out ways to develop society intelligently.

Intellectuals are deprived of the right to be good consumers, and good consumers cannot be intellectuals by definition. So, intellectuals must become reasonable enthusiasts. Intellectuals will be bifurcated into reasonable enthusiasts and good-hearted consumers who pretend to be intellectuals.

The contradiction between reasonable enthusiasts and consumers becomes the driving contradiction of social development.

Cognition is initially subjective, comes from the inner impulses of the human personality and has an animal basis — to adapt. But there is also a basis for cognition in the form of curiosity — if this impulse appears. Otherwise, when there is no such need for new knowledge, cognition is impossible. You can’t get a horse drunk unless it wants to.

Philosophers have influenced social development for centuries. First in the form of mythology (shamans and priests), then in the form of religion. At the religious stage of cognition, a slavish worldview of people’s subordination to a higher power was cultivated, which in fact turned out to be the power of the corresponding society. The preaching of original sin gave people an inferiority complex and indoctrinated the sinfulness of cognition.

The idea of original sin, in essence, requires the rejection of knowledge. All religion is anti-human because it cultivates spiritual slavery, which impedes personal development. Jesus made the ideological breakthrough by calling for the conscious pursuit of the good, which later, under favorable social conditions of developing capitalism, led to freedom of thought, the development of knowledge and the development of civilization.

As a result, cognition was enabled to become a subject of social development. The biblical Abel-Cain collision reveals the contradiction between brute irrational force and rational will. If in the sociosphere Cain kills Abel, then in the noosphere Abel will control Cain.

15. THE DRIVING CONTRADICTION OF OUR TIME

Apr. 2nd, 2014 at 10:40 PM

The contradiction between labor and capital is the main contradiction that gave rise to socialism.

Socialism has now won in one way or another on a global scale. It sounds strange or paradoxical, but the proletariat (wage-earners) achieved in the world historical turmoil of the 20th century capital’s respect for its basic human rights to the extent of consumer rights. And paradoxically, this was proven by the very fact of the collapse of the USSR, when the proletarians — wage-workers of the state dictatorship of the proletariat, who had become consumer-consumers went to abolish the dictatorship of the proletariat and voluntarily surrendered to capital, which created more favorable conditions for consumption. Thus, the question — who won in the cold wave, socialism or capitalism — remains open, since in fact the consumers won.

After the formation of the countries of socialism, the original contradiction of labor — capital lost its relevance. It has changed to a contradiction of hired workers — employers, because the employer is not only the bourgeoisie, but also the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the hired worker makes no difference who pays him for his working time — the difference is the amount of pay. Society is caught in a consumerist impasse, sanctified by the myth of free market relations. Indeed, the freedom of the exchange of goods rests on the freedom of the consumer to consume, which inevitably turns into a priority of consumption over production. (In the sphere of market relations, in the contradiction between use-value and exchange-value, use-value takes precedence.) Consumers in a consumer society do not reproduce, they are doomed to biological extinction. If man has adopted consumption as his goal, will he engage in the production of people in his free time?

The collapse of the USSR and all subsequent political processes and social unrest take place under consumer slogans. Coups and revolts in post-Soviet countries, in Arab countries, are revolts of angry consumers, who are simply used by capital and the local bourgeoisie for their own purposes. Consumers bring no new ideas, cannot by definition create anything new, but simply destroy.

In the consumer society, capital has become the hostage of the consumer. So, the alleged victory of capital over socialism was a pyrrhic victory. Capital rests on the instinct of consumption, since exchange relations begin with consumer value. Capital must expand its sphere by virtue of its internal laws. After globalization, there are no markets left on earth that are not covered by it. There is a permanent crisis of overproduction. So the problems for capital begin when consumers run out or their needs are completely met. Therefore, capital is forced to cultivate the consumer.

The division of the Earth’s consumers has arisen historically. Capital uses this division of consumers into two varieties for its own purposes and feeds the first sort at the expense of the second sort. Capital is forced to force society and the state to act in its own interests. That is why capital uses exchange relations for anti-social and anti-human purposes, bribes consumers and turns them into hired killers, bribes the state to act with imperialist force and bribes the media to distort the meaning of reality. Capital has become imperialism.

At the stage of imperialism, the driving contradiction of humanity becomes the contradiction of the enthusiasts-consumers. Enthusiasts used consumers to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and build socialism. Socialist consumers contributed to the degradation of the dictatorship of the proletariat into the dictatorship of the bureaucracy and the transition of the bureaucracy to the power of capital.

However, the internal contradictions of imperialism prevented this process of surrendering the socialist bureaucracy to the mercy of victorious capital from being completed. Moreover, the exchange of power for a position in the system of capital is unequal in principle. It is analogous to the biblical sale of birthright for lentil chowder. In Maslow’s pyramid of needs, social needs are placed above biological needs. The point is that the selection of people into the bureaucracy is based on the principle of the priority of biological needs over social needs (people go to the top for material benefits), but within this bureaucratic system, these selected people are selected in the opposite direction, based on the priority of social needs, which in this case are the needs of the bureaucratic system (the bureaucratic system becomes an enclosed society with its own special rules and customs).

Therefore, at the current moment in history, there is a contradiction between imperialism (the social state run by capital) and the social state that controls capital (this is the Russian Federation). In both cases the state relies on consumers, because the worldview of consumption prevails. China stands apart, remaining a state of dictatorship of the proletariat, but on the same side of the contradiction as the Russian Federation.

Socialism continues to exist in the form of state capitalism. The state cannot manage the economy in the interests of the consumer, unlike capital (the commodity exchange system). Therefore, it must manage capital in the interests of the development of society, and already capital according to its internal laws will satisfy the consumer. This would be communism, not a primitive communal system, not a commune and society’s suppression of the human person, but a developing society.

But this control of capital by the state is not possible under the prevailing worldview of consumption, since capital always buys and dehumanizes consumers directly or indirectly, through the media. What is required is an alternative worldview — a worldview of development and the recognition as a priority of the truly human need to develop the human person. Consumer society is the evolutionary dead end of humanity. It is possible to move forward only after a split into reasonable enthusiasts and consumers and the conscious formation of the noosphere by reasonable enthusiasts.

Marx, in Capital, proved the inhumanity, the anti-sociality of the domination of the system of market relations. But he did not call for the destruction of exchange relations (as the communists and the bourgeois allegedly attributed to him), he did not call for the struggle against windmills. The conclusion of Capital is that expropriation of expropriators is not the taking of property from owners. Expropriation of expropriators is the control of society by the owners (through the state). The owners, along with their property, will become public property.

Marx predicted as early as 1844 that communism would first take the path of the abolition of private property, although this is in reality impossible; therefore, «the relation of private property remains the relation of all society to the world of things. The impossibility of abolishing private property follows from the fact that the production of labor relations can only take place within the exchange of goods. Marx goes on to characterize the so-called crude communism in more detail: «For this kind of communism, commonality is only the commonality of labor and the equality of wages paid by communal capital, by the community as the general capitalist.

Marx characterized the second stage of the communist order (our socialism) as follows: since communism «has not yet grasped the positive essence of private property and has not yet grasped the human nature of need, it too is still captive to private property and infected by it. Marx allows for such communism «the abolition of the state,» which seems to belong to the realm of utopia, since the second stage of the communist order is not separable from the state in its very essence. It is arranged in the same way as the first stage of the communist social system, with the difference that in the role of «community as a general capitalist» acts not society, but the state. Although, we must admit, the classicist was wrong only in details, because the abolition of the dictatorship of the proletariat has indeed already happened (its transformation into the dictatorship of the bureaucracy), and the third stage of the communist order must be marked by the loss of the leading position for the state in its contradiction with the labor collectives.

The third stage of the communist order for Marx is «communism as the positive abolition of private property — this self- alienation of man — and in virtue of this as the genuine appropriation of human essence by and for man; and therefore as the complete, conscious return of man to himself as a social man, i.e., human, which takes place with the preservation of all the richness of the preceding development. (K. Marx and F. Engels, Op., vol. 42, p.114—116). Apparently, in the third stage, Marx envisioned the erasure of the lines between private and public property = the positive abolition of private property.

Consequently, we are experiencing the end of the second stage of communism. But the transition to the third stage requires a qualitative leap in consciousness and the creation of a qualitatively new worldview — a worldview of development. The conscious pursuit of development requires the priority of cognition over production — requires the creation of the noosphere. Communism is possible only after the emergence of the noosphere. The noosphere can be created only as a result of the conscious formation of the worldview of development on the basis of cognition due to the realization of free will.

The intellect functions within the realm of humanism. Since abstract thinking is a product of society, outside of humanism the intellect decays. Abstract thinking is opposed to, and controlled by, human sense perception. The contradiction of sense perception versus abstract thinking passes through three stages in its development, as does human cognition — mythological, religious and technological. At present, at the technological stage, the opportunity and social necessity to create in the course of reasonable planned activity the noosphere as the third form of Alive Matter with the driving contradiction of cognition — production under the condition of the primacy of cognition.

16. ON THE PRODUCTION OF A WORLDVIEW

May. 24th, 2014 at 10:09 AM

What is the meaning of communist ideology? The state manages capital on behalf of the wage-earners, that is, the state becomes both the capitalist and the controller of the capitalists. This is why the state is bifurcated, the bureaucrats flailing between capital and wage laborers, trying to please both, and literally torn apart — themselves in Russia, and their children and grandchildren in the West.

But global capital does not accept alien bureaucrat-capitalists. That is why global capital did not accept Russia into the EU and NATO in 2000 and after, despite insistent requests until 2007.

What is the meaning of bourgeois ideology? Capital runs the state (through the buying and selling of democrat bureaucrats). The demands of wage-earners reach capital through the state through democratic procedures. Workers demand that the state limit capital’s power, and the state asks capital for permission to make reforms, lest it get worse. It has gone as far as extremism, to the point of demanding a tax on banking transactions.

We must recognize that the consumer society is the direct result and merit of imperialism. World capital in the form of imperialism (capital + state) seeks to meet the demands of its own wage-earners and consumers through the global expansion of its hegemony. By and large only Russia and China remain unconquered.

Capital itself is merely an international system of people involved in the exchange of goods. Commodities have no nationality, and their only ideology is the desire to find a solvent consumer. The same, but an animate commodity, are also people — workers for hire — who possess a commodity in the form of their ability to produce goods, including a potential commodity of their own.

At the stage of imperialism, capital bifurcated into industrial capital and finance capital. Fincap has now won primacy relative to industrial capital. Indeed, its position in society has the advantage of relying on consumers who need a universal commodity (currency). Whereas industrial capital has to deal directly with wage laborers. So far, the Russian state and the state of China, where oligarchs walk under state power, have opposed fincap on a global scale.

These events are taking place against the backdrop of a permanent crisis of overproduction, which has resulted in a mass of surplus population — surplus people cannot continue to be producers and are moving into the category of consumers. In fact, capital has reached a state of economy in which the next step should be the transition to communism as Marx envisaged: expropriation of expropriators, that is, not taking away their property (as vulgar Marxists interpret it) but making the expropriators themselves the property of society. Thus, not the sphere of exchange of goods will rule society, as under capitalism and against which Marx wrote Capital, but society will rule capital (the sphere of exchange of goods) — people will not die for metal.

Under imperialism the class struggle takes the form of a cold war between states. So far, imperialism has beaten the communist social system with high labor productivity and high levels of consumption. But it is a Pyrrhic victory. Its consequence is a global crisis of overproduction and unemployment — the producers become a surplus population and must go into oblivion. In this way imperialism eats away at its core — society.

Current events are forcing imperialism to escalate the Cold War to a hot one. How is this done? Through the production of a worldview.

The process of production is not limited to the production of goods; people are also produced. A person must be born, nurtured, educated, and indoctrinated into the meaning of his existence. A worldview is mainly concerned with this indoctrination. It gives man a sensual picture of the world according to the principle of what is good and what is bad. And already on the basis of this sensual picture an abstract paradigm or theory of knowledge is given, with the help of which the man comprehends the flow of information. The information itself is the bricks, the building material. It is only through comprehension and understanding that these bricks are stacked into a more or less stable system.

The vast majority of people are unable to create a theory of knowledge and are forced to use the one given by the media. What is good and what is bad is decided for the individual and he, knowing that life is complicated and dangerous, is forced to trust the public opinion that is created by these media. Thus, a worldview produces people in the full sense of the word. The production of a worldview is the production of people.

So, worldviews are created by the media. And whoever pays for these media forms the worldview and makes the final fine-tuning of people for their own purposes.

Conclusions.

The bourgeois worldview is that of wage laborers. And wage labor is only a civilized form of slave labor. The basis of the bourgeois worldview is always the slave-slave relationship, just as it is the basis of all religion. But society develops only through free labor, that is, free labor, which takes the form of private initiative. Even though wage labor is highly productive.

The socialist worldview was transformed into a bourgeois one during the collapse of the USSR also by the will of the ruling class, but not by the proletariat, which evolved into a class of socialist consumers, but by the will of the class of communist bureaucracy. For labor in the USSR remained wage labor, and the employer was the state.

What to do? To create a new worldview — a worldview of personal and social development — as an alternative to the dominant consumerist worldview. This is the business of intelligent enthusiasts, their free labor for nothing. Intellectuals will split into consumers and intelligent enthusiasts. The leading process is cognition and the synthesis of knowledge based on the theory of development. Reasonable enthusiasts will have to organize the spontaneous enthusiasm of producers. Where there is reason, there is victory. The prudent Abel will control the instinct-driven Cain. The result should be the creation of the noosphere. In the noosphere, the driving contradiction will be the contradiction between the worldview of development and the worldview of consumption, subject to the primacy of the worldview of development.

17. THE LAST PHASE OF GLOBALIZATION

Aug. 10th, 2014 at 11:40 AM

In the wake of current events — nationalist, religious and civil war clashes and other economic sanctions and all kinds of provocations — the idea of the end of globalization has been floated.

This is not true and quite the contrary. We live in the age of imperialism and the consumer society. The meaning and purpose of globalization, that is, the involvement of the entire world, the entire oikumen, in a system of market relations, is to divide all of humanity into two worlds.

Now this division is formalized by the demiurges of globalization — the Russian Federation was declared an enemy of the free world. (I wonder why they stopped funding the antiglobalists. They have performed the task of covering up?).

So, humanity is divided into a world of exploiters and a world of colonies. The first world thrives under the hood of financial capital, the second world is torn by all kinds of interstate, interethnic, interreligious and simply civil wars. In this regard the history of post-Soviet countries is very revealing. All of them including the Russian Federation aspired to the first world, from the world of colonies to the world of exploiters. But Russia was not accepted into the first world.

Why does the first world prosper and degrade (get greedy) even from excess consumption? Previously, this was achieved by robbing the rest of the peoples of the world. Now the mechanism, at the expense of which the economic robbery took place, gradually began to fail, because the boundaries of the market have been reached (the Earth is round) and a permanent crisis of overproduction has formed. So they have two options, to lower the standard of living to an adequate level, or go to a direct military robbery of the other nations. The first option undermines the power of the fincap (financial capital).

An indicator of economic robbery is the inflation rate. Developed capitals have very low inflation, while the rest of the world has inflation several times or even an order of magnitude higher. All inflation in the monetary system is a consequence of unequal exchange. According to Marx, during the exchange of goods, the unequal exchange is statistically averaged and reduced to zero, other conditions being equal. However, conditions are very different in the world, and the global financial system, managed by the first world, contributes to the dumping of unprofitable conditions of exchange in the second world. Let them say that this is a consequence of savagery of the second world and high corruption (i.e. collective theft), but stolen money always goes to the West and the first world is very happy with this state of affairs. Not only stolen money, but also brains flow out to the developed capitals. As a result, the second world is doomed to degradation and impoverishment.

The first world is under the umbrella of finance capital. The state runs the fincap with reliance on consumers, who are educated by bought media and sell-out brains in a spirit of worship of financial success. The state, in turn, guards the fincap and organizes consumers. A very stable system, as long as consumers get their allowance.

The second world is structured differently. Here we see various forms of state dictatorship, directly relying on consumers. In China and the Russian Federation the state controls the bourgeoisie. But the state cannot, in principle, control the global fincap. It can only to some extent influence the local money market. The dictatorship of the bureaucracy is internally bifurcated into local and comprador, because under state domination it is impossible to separate the bureaucrats from the bourgeoisie — they are one team. It is therefore an unstable system.

Although her volatility is the key to development.

For the domination of financial capital undermines humanity at its root and leads all of humanity to ruin.

Under the dictatorship of bureaucracy, the process of knowledge is impossible. This circumstance was the main reason for the collapse of the world socialist system. But the dictatorship of the fincap also limits cognition, financing only those areas that do not threaten its domination and directs cognition toward satisfying the demands of consumers within the framework of the dominant consumerist worldview.

Financial capital should be controlled by the state, but the state itself should be controlled by society through the social production of people and the worldview of development. This is how we will come to the social expropriation of the expropriators. Owners with their property will become the property of society.

Consumer society is not capable of this. It is necessary to create an intelligent society — the noosphere.

Communism is incapable of self-development because communism is a consumerist paradise.

The self-development of capitalism leads to communism. This is a vicious circle. It must be broken by the realization of free will on the basis of the process of cognition and the synthesis of knowledge through the theory of development…

Appendix.

On Freedom of the Will. The Dialectic of Freedom

Freedom is subjective by definition. Is a stone free in free fall?

Is the bird free? No!

Freedom is only for man, for a reasonable man. Is man free in a crowd? No.

But is a man who acts according to his own reason free?

Free, as long as that reasoning is developmentally appropriate.

So, freedom and development are interrelated. Freedom breaks the universal connection of everything to everything and creates a new connection.

Therefore, freedom needs cognition, and cognition must take development as its starting point, not universal connection.

Man has practically no freedom of choice, for he is immersed in a network of social relations, rather entangled in this network. If he tries to tear them apart, he risks losing his humanity. The development of society and the individual requires the creation of new social relations.

So, there is very little free will-that free will can only be gained through knowledge. The new knowledge of oneself and the world around us opens up new possibilities, which must be used for development through the realization of free will. Free will — only through knowledge!

Equal opportunities and different abilities will always antagonize one another. For opportunity limits ability, though ability creates new opportunity. Competition is not the law of communicating vessels (as liberals claim), but the law of communicating bubbles. One bubble deflates and disappears, while another inflates and bursts. So all competition needs a judge, a set of laws, and other taboos to create the public good.

18. WHO WAS NOTHING

Oct. 12th, 2014 at 10:56 PM

Out of nothing comes nothing (Shakespeare).

Who was nothing will become everything?

An analysis of the contemporary geopolitical state of humanity requires a class approach in the form of revealing the contradictory interaction of antagonistic classes. In reality, what is observed is an analysis from the perspective of a single class — the bourgeoisie, the wage-earners, or the bureaucracy. For he who pays, orders his priorities.

The system of wage labor remained essentially unchanged even after the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia and the domination of the dictatorship of the proletariat for three generations. The class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie has passed to the level of a struggle between states.

The wage-worker remains a consumer of the labor relations provided either by the bourgeoisie or by the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat. As a consumer, the wage-worker does not care who the employer is — he is only interested in the level of consumption he receives as a result of the sale of his working time. The possibility of human development depends directly on the level of consumption. Therefore, the wage-worker creates material conditions for the development of his personality by striving to increase his level of consumption.

In the system of market relations, in the exchange of goods, the seller is only interested in the buyer’s goods, but he should not be interested in what the buyer will do with his purchased goods, that is, with his already not his own, but sold, working time or with his already not his own money paid for the sold working time. Otherwise there is a transition from the system of market relations to another system of social relations. This is why the system of market relations cannot acquire primacy in the sphere of social relations, because society always has the question of what the purchaser will do with the purchased goods.

Here we discover the great secret of wage labor (that is, capitalism) — the bourgeoisie buys the future working time of the hired worker, but pays for it only after the realization of this working time, when it remains in the past. Consequently, wage-workers always advance the bourgeoisie, even with an equivalent exchange, and the bourgeoisie is always in permanent, constantly renewed debt to wage-workers and to society as a whole.

The buyer-bourgeois is forced (by the necessity of protecting his dominant position in society) to use his purchased labor time to produce material and spiritual chains (spiritual bonds) for hired workers. Therefore, the system of market relations is anti-social in nature, but remains a necessary component of the system of social relations. The fact is that market relations are as much an achievement of the human mind as the wheel, etc. If the wheel is used for anti-social purposes, then it is reasonable not to ban the wheel, but to limit its anti-social use.

Society faces the task of curbing the system of market relations, the task of establishing the primacy of labor relations over market relations. The state of the dictatorship of the proletariat curbed the system of market relations until the communist bureaucracy itself became bourgeois. For the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat had to substitute, and in fact conceal, within itself this very system of market relations. And the latter finally burst to the surface.

In a system of wage labor (market relations) without a buyer there is no seller, and vice versa — the system of market relations collapses. If a hired worker enters into an employment relationship without selling his working time, he has the right to act according to his own reason. And where does he get this reasoning? There is no employer. And that is the main advantage of wage labor. On the other hand, the worker needs objects of consumption, which he must obtain in some way from society. And in what way?

The free worker will act according to his own needs (and here we have a return to the consumption society) or act according to the social needs of which he will be informed by the worldview. He must know whether to make slippers or rockets. This is why the free labor system requires the primacy of cognition over production.

So, the proletariat, after its victory over the bourgeoisie, split into consumers and the communist bureaucracy. The latter eventually became bourgeois, so it split into the bureaucracy proper and the bourgeoisie proper, the contradiction between which is the driving force in RF. But in any case, both sides of the contradiction look to consumers for support.

There is a way out of this consumption impasse — society must create reasonable enthusiasts.

19. THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE BOURGEOISIE VERSUS THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE BUREAUCRACY

Dec. 23rd, 2014 at 11:54 PM

The essence of the modern age.

About Responsibility — How glorious it is to be guilt-free. (Song).

If you are not interested in politics, sooner or later politics will be interested in you. (Modern wisdom).

A person’s rights and duties overlap with his responsibilities.

Original sin is a substitute for responsibility for the unreasonable man.

Biblical original sin is the imposed guilt of human conscience over animal ignorance. It is allegedly not good to know the truth.

Real responsibility in the form of free will is necessary for the intelligent development of humanity. Free will is obtained after the realization of necessity in the course of cognition on the basis of the theory of development, taken as the theory of cognition. Responsibility in the negative form of original sin turns into a positive responsibility of the conscious development of the individual and society as a result of cognition. So, free will is action according to a plan that is the result of human cognition. Free will is action ahead of events according to the plan, and then man becomes a subject of development. The plan of development will be the product of the synthesis of knowledge.

The modern bifurcation into two worlds is a consequence of this contradiction between the dictatorship of the bureaucracy and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

The first world is under the umbrella of financial capital. Financial capital, with its reliance on consumers, governs the state within a consumerist worldview, which is reproduced by bought-in media and sold-out brains in the conditions of the domination of market relations over social relations, when social relations take on a market form. The state, in turn, protects the fincap and organizes consumers. A very stable system, as long as consumers get their allowance. At the same time, the domination of finance capital fundamentally undermines humanity and leads all of humanity to ruin.

V.I. Lenin: «The ’intellectual forces’ of the people are mixed up with the ’forces’ of the bourgeois intelligentsia. ...The intellectual forces of the workers and peasants grow and strengthen in the struggle to overthrow the bourgeoisie and its accomplices, the intellectuals, lackeys of capital, who imagine themselves the brain of the nation. In fact, they are not the brain, they are g…»

In the second world there is a dictatorship of the state in various forms, directly relying on consumers. But the state cannot, in principle, control the global fincap. It can only influence the local market to a certain extent. The dictatorship of the bureaucracy is internally bifurcated, because under the conditions of state domination it is impossible to separate the bureaucrats from the bourgeoisie, they are one team. The bureaucrats flow into the bourgeoisie and vice versa. The bourgeoisie itself is bifurcated into the local petty bourgeoisie and the comprador big bourgeoisie. Every petty bourgeoisie aspires to become a big comprador bourgeoisie. The comprador bourgeoisie wants to become part of world imperialism, but it is given the precondition to disarm. It is clear that the unarmed Russian bourgeoisie will then be dispossessed. So, the RF elite itself is bifurcated into the bureaucracy and the bourgeoisie, and the RF bourgeoisie wants the impossible: to enter the world imperialism and remain there unshackled. This situation has bored the West, and in connection with the world crisis of overproduction it has accelerated events. Its sanctions are aimed at isolating the Russian bourgeoisie from world finance, which should bring a split between the petty and big bourgeoisie. The petty bourgeoisie, together with consumers, can oppose the big bourgeoisie and the state. That is why the RF is an unstable system. But instability is the key to development.

In China and the Russian Federation, the state controls the bourgeoisie. But in the Russian Federation the adoption of bourgeois ideology is proclaimed.

So why the current aggravation of contradictions between Russia and the West? This is clearly not Russia’s fault, but the West’s initiative. At one time, Russia asked to join the EU and NATO, but was not accepted.

This is what the dialectic of development requires. An unipolar world is impossible in principle, so the world will always experience a bifurcation into opposites of the driving contradiction — in this case, the contradiction between the social and the biological. Capitalism is on the side of the biological. It needs an enemy to imitate development, at the expense of which the agony of imperialism can be prolonged. In essence, it is a continuation of the colonial takeover of socialism by imperialism with other methods — there were carrots and now the stick. The communists of the USSR, in fact, despite all the extraneous motives, sold socialism to imperialism. Instead of curbing the dictatorship of the communist bureaucracy, they allowed this bureaucracy to turn into the bourgeoisie. In doing so, they sent the CPSU to the dustbin of history. (The CPSU split into the party of consumers and the party of the bourgeoisie: the former is the CPRF, the latter is United Russia).

Good and evil need each other. Good in itself is nothing without evil and vice versa. At the antagonistic stage of contradiction, evil always plays the role of a developmental subject. The sociosphere belongs to the antagonistic stage of Alive Matter’s contradiction. The future noosphere will be a harmonious stage of this contradiction. In this case good will be the subject of development and, consequently, intelligent development will be possible.

Therefore, the development of mankind requires new ideas and new driving forces — intelligent enthusiasts.

Free will drives progress. Development is carried out by the conscious activity of the subject to realize freedom as a conscious necessity.

The difficulty is to be the subject of development.

The human person is immersed in a system of social relations. Therefore, the possibility of free will for the individual is limited to this system of human relations. In social life, the subjects of development are human associations, communities or classes. But these classes or strata of society act according to their own internal laws and pursue their own goals, which do not coincide with the line of development of society. Therefore, only the struggle of classes can result in such a line of society’s development. In this case, one class becomes primacy in contradiction with another class, in other words, one class becomes the subject of development and the other class becomes the object of development.

The modern confrontation between the bourgeoisie class and the consumer class (the class of wage laborers) is that the proletariat has lost primacy, satisfied with the position of consumer in the social state (for which there was a class struggle). The primacy has passed to the bourgeoisie. But the bourgeoisie acts in its own interests according to its inherent laws of development, which lead humanity into a dead end of consumption (and into a dead end of degradation and a dead end of fundamentalism).

The post-socialist bureaucratic class, which retains power over the bourgeoisie, which in turn spiritually dominates consumers, also pursues its own internal goals and leads society into a similar dead end.

In the current historical conditions there is a confrontation between the postsocialist bureaucracy, which is a social state, relying on consumers, and the world bourgeoisie, which has subjugated the state by bribing consumers at the expense of global super-profits, forming imperialism. In doing so, imperialism plays the role of primacy at odds with the post-socialist bureaucracy. The latter is burdened with the sins of betrayal of communism and its own internal bourgeoisie, which serves as a fifth column of global imperialism.

In fact, both worlds coexist in the sphere of exchange of goods. If under imperialism there are schemes of exchange commodity — money — commodity (this is distribution and consumption) or money — commodity — money (this is productio), under postsocialist states, along with the above schemes, the leading schemes are power — money — power or money — power — money. Power (the state) has fallen to the level of a commodity. And this is the end of the sanctity of the state and here emerges the possibility of control of the state machine by an intelligent society with the aid of new worldview. Whereas this state machine undoubtedly has the ability to control the elements of the market.

20. THE NETWORK CREATES A HIERARCHY

Dec. 27th, 2015 at 8:39 AM

It is only when the hierarchy is established that the network becomes capable of acting in a coordinated and directed manner.

The network of labor relations is society. Labor relations are aimed at production. But since all production is preceded by consumption, there is also a network of exchange of objects of consumption.

The network of labor relations creates the hierarchy of the state.

The state according to Lenin is an armed group of people who perform social functions. Thus, the state is a social service. The bureaucratic system grew out of ancestral labor relations and took shape as a separate system in opposition to other social relations only after the emergence of the exchange of goods, that is, together with the division of society (the primitive community) into classes. The state became an instrument in the hands of the ruling class of exploiters to stabilize society and prevent it from disintegrating. (The necessity of the state is obvious. For example, in the absence of a system of state in modern primitive communities, there is a high probability of their demise for internal reasons. During the Vietnam War, there were cases of entire primitive communities disappearing in the jungle due to the arrival of modern weapons.)

The network of exchange of objects of consumption is based on the instinct of consumption, so its hierarchy must have a biological nature. This hierarchy can function only in the sphere of commodity exchange and is actually represented by a community of rich people united by the laws of commodity exchange (buy-sell). Outside the sphere of exchange of goods they turn into ordinary people. Therefore, they seek, being at the top of the system of exchange of goods, to include and subordinate the system of labor relations. But in reality they have access only to the hierarchy of the system of labor relations — the state — which they can buy or hire to serve them. (The history of ancient Rome is the history of the struggle between two hierarchies — rich senators and bureaucrats — and the subject of the struggle, according to Marx, was land ownership.)

It was impossible to buy all people and turn them into slaves, but a way was found to use all people in the form of virtual slaves through religion. The spread of monotheism was a protest against slavery on earth by replacing it with virtual slavery in relation to God-no Hellenes or Jews, but slaves of God. The total slave worldview turned out to be the binding material (religion=religion) that united society at the stage of feudalism.

At the stage of capitalism, virtual slaves turned into wage laborers (voluntary slaves) — slaves with the ability to freely seek out slave-owners, who, in turn, use them only during working hours in accordance with the contract of sale and purchase. So, under capitalism, the system of exchange of goods finally subordinated the system of labor relations completely.

Marx did not like this and wrote Capital. As a means against slavery, Marx proposed the creation of a new hierarchy of labor relations, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and with it the expropriation of expropriators. However, expropriation of expropriators does not mean simply taking away property, since it would be a return to the starting point of development, but means using property together with the owners in the interests of the development of society.

In reality, the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat was forced by the resistance of the expropriators to carry out a total expropriation of their property and to collect all property into its own hands. The withering away of the state was assumed by Lenin following the liquidation of the social classes (see State and Revolution) as the result of the simple replacement of capitalism by communism. Then, figuring out that the state was seriously and permanently inseparable from the dictatorship of the proletariat, Lenin wrote How We Should Reorganize the Rabkrin, proposing a way to combat the bureaucratic element — to introduce the so-called conscious workers into its ranks. In fact, the latter were safely assimilated.

As the proletarian bureaucracy emerged as the actual owners of the social wealth of the USSR, their class interest was realized and the class of red bureaucrats was separated, who privatized and became the owners, dividing the public property among themselves. The wage earners of the socialist state turned overnight into mere free wage earners, free to starve to death. Similar processes take place in other socialist countries — red bureaucrats turned into red bourgeois.

Thus, the road to the expropriation of expropriators is not yet complete.

The transition from antithesis to synthesis (from the exploitative social system to the communist social system) is not a simple replacement of one social system by another, but the formation of a qualitatively new system, which is a synthesis of the thesis and antithesis, subject to the primacy of the thesis. Synthesis means their constant interaction. Whereas the mere taking away of property is a return to the primitive communal system (a return to the thesis), which is incapable of managing property. Therefore, communism would be a synthesis of public and private property, subject to the primacy of the development of society over its preservation.

Three stages are distinguished within the communist order — primitive communism, socialism and communism. These stages correspond to the stages of interaction between the thesis and antithesis (primitive communal and exploitative social systems). Socialism ends with the loss of the primacy of thesis over antithesis. A qualitatively new interaction is required for the primacy of the thesis to return — it will be an informational interaction in the sphere of cognition.

People’s informational interaction permeates all spheres of society. It is based on the second signal system, the system of «signals signals». — operations with concepts, which reflect people’s emotions. Emotions give rise to concepts, and concepts are transmitted through actions and perceived with the help of concepts. which, in turn, receive an emotional basis. As a result of this exchange of information, a system of communalized emotions is created, which is in fact a worldview. A system of notions corresponds to a worldview. The ability to operate and exchange systems of concepts will create the third signaling system. According to Igor Ilyich Geller, the third signal system is the subjective reality of man, in which the subjective experience of images of perception and signs of consciousness formed in the second signal system, takes place.

Cognition in its development has come to the third stage after empiricism and classification — the stage of knowledge synthesis. Therefore, the key concept for the third signal system is the subjective activity of man. Man becomes the subject of cognition.

Objective knowledge does not exist, for by definition it is the knowledge of the object about itself. Even if it is shared by all mankind. Truth is formed by the subject of knowledge in the reflection of the object. Absolute truth does not exist, as truth is always concrete — here and now and in practice. The rest is hypothesis, even if it has reached the level of a very strict theory.

Since the world is objectively developing, the subject must understand this and adjust his inner subjective world by means of cognition to the object, which is for him both the surrounding and the inner developing world, and participate consciously in its development to the extent of his level of cognitive development.

The emergence of the third signal system in the course of the development of the ability to operate systems of concepts will allow the formation of a new worldview of development, the transition to the synthesis of knowledge and the creation of the noosphere. Under the influence of the noosphere, communism will be able to move to harmony with capitalism under the condition of communism’s primacy.

But this requires free will, whose degree of freedom is determined by the degree of knowledge of necessity.

Mill John Stuart.1859. On liberty. «There is a boundary beyond which public opinion cannot legitimately interfere with individual independence; we must set that boundary, we must guard it against infringement — this is as necessary as guarding against political despotism.»

Free will must be a consequence of the knowledge of necessity.

The network of people’s information interaction should create an information hierarchy in the field of cognition based on the theory of development, adopted as a method of cognition.

But who are these people?

In the system of labor relations there is a sphere of free labor, which can be subordinated neither to the system of exchange of goods, nor to the system of power relations by definition. Free labor, that is, the labor of enthusiasts, ensures the development of society. The free labor of intelligent enthusiasts ensures the development of cognition. Therefore, the informational hierarchy in the sphere of cognition will be created by reasonable enthusiasts.

But there is a problem of putting theory into practice. Theories are developed when the subject of cognition moves into the position of the object. To become a subject of development he must act through revolutionary practice.

The information hierarchy will create a new worldview of development and will govern the state, and the latter the sphere of exchange of goods.

21. ON THE WORLD REVOLUTION, FREE LABOR, AND REVOLUTIONARY PRACTICES

Jan. 4th, 2016 at 11:45 PM

The idea of world revolution was expressed by Marx and Engels. Since capital has become global, its abolition must also be global. In a crisis of overproduction, capitalist production reached such a level of development that it could provide society with consumer goods without a system of exchange of goods. Wage labor must be abolished and replaced by free labor.

As Marx and Engels said about free labor — today I am a hunter, tomorrow I am a fisherman. Free labor, therefore, also rejects the division of labor. In essence, it was supposed to return to the social relations of the primitive community, but at the level of production achieved under capitalism — according to the Hegelian scheme of development — thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Although the level of production achieved under capitalism was due to wage labor. Therefore, the mere negation of the antithesis is a return to the original thesis, that is, degradation.

In fact, the transition from antithesis to synthesis is more complicated. Synthesis should become a harmony of thesis and antithesis, but with the primacy of the thesis.

Every contradiction passes through three stages in its development — the formation stage, the antagonistic stage and the harmony stage. The transition to the harmonic stage takes place in the form of a revolutionary leap with a bifurcation of the original contradiction.

Synthesis is not the mechanical connection of the thesis and antithesis, but a very complex interaction of them under the condition of the supremacy of the thesis. Thus, a communist order is now envisaged which will oppose external capitalism and within itself represent a synthesis of capitalism and communism under the condition of the primacy of communism. Thus, the transition of all mankind to communism will take place indirectly and only after the emergence of the noosphere.

The complexity of the construction of the synthesis was foreseen by Marx. As early as 1844, he predicted three stages in the construction of a communist society. In the beginning, communism would take the path of the abolition of private property, although in reality this is impossible; therefore, «the relation of private property remains the relation of all society to the world of things. The impossibility of abolishing private property follows from the fact that the production of labor relations can only take place within the exchange of goods. Marx goes on to characterize the so-called crude communism in more detail: «For this kind of communism, commonality is only the commonality of labor and the equality of wages paid by communal capital, by the community as the general capitalist.

Marx described the second stage of the communist order (socialism) as follows: Since communism «has not yet grasped the positive essence of private property and has not yet grasped the human nature of need, it too is still in captivity to private property and is infected by it. Marx allows for such communism «the abolition of the state,» which seems to belong to the realm of utopia, since the second stage of the communist order is not separable from the state in its very essence. It is arranged in the same way as the first stage of the communist social system, with the difference that in the role of «community as a general capitalist» acts not society, but the state. Although, we must admit, the classicist was wrong only in details, because the abolition of the dictatorship of the proletariat has indeed already happened by replacing it with the dictatorship of the bureaucracy.

The third stage of the communist order must be marked by the loss of the leading position of the state in its contradiction with the labor collectives. The third stage of the communist order for Marx is «communism as the positive abolition of private property — this self- alienation of man — and in virtue of this as the genuine appropriation of human essence by and for man; and therefore as the complete, conscious return of man to himself as a social, i.e. human man. Apparently, Marx envisioned the erasure of the lines between private and public property — the positive abolition of private property.

The world revolution implied a transition to free labor through the abolition of wage labor. But can this be realized? Practice during the socialist revolutions showed that the naked negation of the antithesis is a return to the thesis and leads society to stagnation. The simple abolition of the system of exchange of goods and wage labor proved impossible. The state dictatorship of the proletariat was forced to switch over to wage labor and the exchange of goods, but under state control (that is, under the direction of bureaucrats) first in the form of the NEP, and then within the framework of so-called socialist property, which in the end turned out to be the actual property of the bureaucrats. Wage labor under the control of the state (in a system of bureaucratic, i.e. power relations) turned out to be less productive than wage labor in a system of exchange of goods. The difference between these systems is that the exchange of goods is based on the instinct of consumption, while bureaucratic relations are based on violence or the threat of violence, that is, terror. Therefore, the system of terror under socialism had to eventually hide behind the system of commodity exchange, which is exactly what happened in the RF. Another circumstance became decisive — the dictatorship of bureaucracy prevents cognition and development of technology due to its inherent system laws (persecution of free labor) — unlike the dictatorship of market relations.

The free labor that existed in the primitive community was free from the system of exchange of goods, but it was always forced — for the sake of survival, that is, it was not free. It would seem that free labor is a speculative fiction. Labor is always violence against the biological basis of man. But this same labor becomes free for the subject after the realization of necessity. And since human society is created by labor relations, human society is essentially a system of labor relations, inasmuch as free labor, not yet realized, created society. At the stage of the exploitative social system, free labor ceded primacy to wage labor.

Free labor is a network phenomenon. As soon as hierarchy appears, free labor evaporates. Wage labor is only possible if there is a hierarchy. That is why wage labor is impossible without the state. Hierarchy ensures the connection of people’s efforts, but it also changes and disfigures the human person, adapting it to itself. Hierarchy is basically incapable of self-development, so society has to constantly revive free labor to protect itself from degradation.

In the end, the primacy of free labor over wage labor must be achieved at a harmonious stage in the development of human society. Free labor will have to create and control the hierarchy. This is possible within the framework of creating a worldview of development and after free labor has become conscious and, consequently, has passed into the realm of cognition. Free labor is above all cognition. It is cognition that does not tolerate hierarchy. Therefore, free labor, bouluchi pushed into the sphere of cognition, will create the noosphere by creating a worldview of development and its hierarchy.

Free labor will be a necessary and sufficient condition for the synthesis of communism and the exploitative social system, subject to the primacy of communism. The expropriators will be expropriated by society, as Marx predicted. They will not be dispossessed, but forced by society to act in the interests of society’s development during the struggle between the dominant consumerist worldview and the worldview of development, which will be the basis of the noosphere. In essence, society as the antagonism of the Alive Matter will oppose the noosphere, which will represent a harmonious stage of the Alive Matter.

The contradiction between communism and capitalism is now experiencing an antagonistic stage (antithesis stage). The transition to a harmonic stage (synthesis stage) will be possible as a reaction to the emerging noosphere. An analogy with capitalism — the transition to the harmony of the exploitative social system — the primacy of capitalism over feudalism within capitalism — occurred only after the emergence of the communist social system and as a protective reaction to it.

The contradiction in the development of society will reach the level of a contradiction in worldviews: the worldview of consumption (which is the final point in the evolution of the proletarian worldview) will be opposed by the worldview of development.

In 1845, Marx raised the question of cognition as a subject of development in his Theses on Feuerbach. According to Marx, the main shortcoming of all previous materialism-including Feuerbachian materialism-is that the object, reality, sensuality is taken only in the form of the object, or in the form of contemplation, rather than as human sensuous activity, practice, not subjectively. Such materialism therefore fails to understand the meaning of «revolutionary,» «practical-critical» activity. If people are the products of circumstances and upbringing, then it is people who change circumstances. The coincidence of changing circumstances and human activity can only be seen and rationally understood as revolutionary practice. Philosophers have only explained the world in various ways, but the point is to change it (through revolutionary practice).

The problem of the subjectivity of human cognition has not yet been solved. The fact is that in society, cognition proceeds under the control of the dominant worldview, which is formed in the process of information transfer. Cognition must create its own worldview in the course of the synthesis of knowledge on the basis of the theory of development, taken as a method of cognition.

22. EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS

Apr. 30th, 2016 at 2:42 PM

Labor is the basis of society. It is divided into free labor and bonded (in other words, hired) labor. Hired labor emerges under the pressure of necessity, which is always based on the animal instincts for survival of the human species. If we assume that this necessity disappears, then the need for hired labor disappears with it. People stop working, and society becomes part of the animal world. In this circumstance is the threat of the degradation of communism, when all the biological needs of man will be satisfied. That is why the slogan of communism should be not so much consumption as development of the human personality.

The last program of the CPSU, which is more than half a century old, emphasized the construction of a consumer society, which was built in the former Soviet Union. Built a consumer society, in which consumers have become the mainstay of state power.

It is necessary to designate a new goal — the development of the human person. But this is prevented by the dictatorship of the bureaucracy, while the CPSU and its remnants, as well as all kinds of communist epigones, do not imagine communism without dictatorship.

According to their ideas, which are based on a harsh reality, free labor is possible only within the bureaucracy, and at the level of wage labor must be controlled in order to preserve the very dictatorship of the bureaucracy. Any initiative from below is analyzed to see if it undermines the foundations of the social system, ultimately the foundations of the dictatorship of the bureaucracy. But in the system of bureaucratic relations there is even more rigid control — a common class interest of bureaucrats and internal hierarchy. Since free labor is driven out and persecuted at all levels, the society of the dictatorship of the bureaucracy is doomed to rot. In the history of the USSR, the dictatorship of bureaucracy was saved from the decay of society by consistent copying of the principles of exploitative social system, first slave-holding, then feudal and, at present, capitalistic society. (The collapse of the USSR was led by the bureaucracy). Further there is nothing to copy — a historical dead end for the dictatorship of the bureaucracy.

What is free labor? It is labor that is not servile by definition. However, all labor occurs out of necessity, and in the case of free labor, this necessity lies in the need for the development of the human person. And since all labor is an expedient activity, free labor requires cognition and the development of a goal and a plan. Freedom is a realized necessity. Therefore, free labor is a conscious and necessary work for the individual. Through his or her free labor, a developing person, who is a product of a given society, comes into conflict with the society that produced him or her, and in order to realize his or her own development he or she has to engage in the development of society. A personality alone is unable to work out a plan of action and develop society. Therefore, for its own development and the development of society, it has to enter an alliance with other similar personalities and to create a system of these personalities, i.e. to create a hierarchy. All hierarchy suppresses individual freedom, although no suppression is absolute and always leaves some amount of freedom. In the case of the hierarchy of the commodity-exchange system, this freedom is the freedom of consumption. In the case of the hierarchy of the bureaucratic system, it is the freedom to suppress those below. In the case of a hierarchy of information exchange, it is the freedom of cognition. So, developing individuals (in other words, reasonable enthusiasts) must unite in the sphere of information exchange in order to know and work out an action plan for the reasonable development of society. At this point we come to the necessity of the noosphere.

Production as such is ambivalent. Marx first realized this in 1841. He understood the bifurcation of production as «the relation of the worker to the product of labor,» on the one hand, and «the relation of the worker to his own activity,» on the other. Thus, production breaks down into the production of commodities and the production of labor relations. Following production, by analogy, consumption also appears bifurcated: into the consumption of labor relations and the consumption of the products of production.

The production of labor relations results from the consumption of products of production, the production of objects of consumption results from the consumption of labor relations, the consumption of products of production results from the production of objects of consumption, and the consumption of labor relations results from the production of labor relations. Consequently, production and consumption are so closely intertwined that they can only be separated in the abstract.

Therefore, when discussing alienation of labor, we must consider not only the alienation of the worker from the products of labor, but also from his labor activity itself, which, most importantly, is alien, unpleasant and unnatural for him under the existing conditions. Whereas in the consumer society the alienation of the worker from the products of labor is overcome, the alienation of the worker from his labor activity can be overcome neither under the dictatorship of the commodity-exchange system nor under the dictatorship of the bureaucratic system.

There is a weak link in the closed system of consumption and production. This is the production of labor relations. All production in the developing world is divided into simple reproduction and the development of production. If the production of labor relations in response to the consumption of the products of production is simple reproduction within the framework of wage labor, then the development of labor relations is produced by enthusiasts as a consequence of free labor. Therefore, free labor by enthusiasts will allow us to overcome the alienation of the worker from labor activity through the creation of new labor relations that will contribute to the development of the workers’ personality. In this case, the dictatorship of the market or the dictatorship of the bureaucracy becomes superfluous. Therefore, a new contradiction will arise — the dictatorship of enthusiasm against the dictatorship of the market or bureaucracy. Enthusiasts will become employers.

23. COGNITION MUST BECOME A SUBJECT OF DEVELOPMENT

Jul. 20th, 2016 at 7:47 PM

BEING and nothingness. Nothing-thing, up-down, right-left, warm-cold, joy-grief, punishment-reward, etc. Contradiction is inherent in the world. Therefore, along with being there should be non-existence. Formal logic does not accept the being of non-being, because it is built on inconsistency and the inherent negation of development. A is either equal or not equal to B, although B is therefore B because A exists. Thus, formal logic is not sufficient for cognition of a contradictory developing world.

From the point of view of the world’s development, there is being and previous being, as well as future being. From the point of view of development, previous being and future being are nonexistence. Consequently, being is the product of previous non-existence and is the source of future existence, which is non-existence for now.

Development is opposed to the universal connection or connection of everything with everything. The universal connection has been realized and recognized since antiquity. The primary elements of the world (atoms, etc.) existed in mutual connection. But the same connection makes the development of the world impossible. The problem of the development of the world was first realized and posed by Heraclitus. Epicurus was forced to add a new property to atoms — free will.

The contradictory nature of cognition lies in the opposition of abstract thinking to sensual perception. The predominance of emotion over reason is not a failure; it is a feature of the way our operating system works. At the scholastic stage, abstract thinking was abstracted from sensory perception and considered by itself by means of formal logic. Emerging concepts as if from nothing (from nothingness) became for scholasticism being. I think, therefore I exist,» said Descartes, believing that since the senses are conscious, abstract thinking has primacy in cognition.

The very emergence of concepts served Hegel as the basis for the development of abstract dialectics, the abstract theory of development. The development of concepts takes place through the negation of the old form by a new form, a double negation leading to the original form, but enriched by the new content obtained in the course of development. Here Hegel still has traces of formal logic, when one form completely superseded the old form — the thesis is replaced by the antithesis, and the latter by the synthesis.

The same formal scheme is used by primitive Marxists to interpret social development: feudalism is replaced by capitalism, and the latter is replaced by communism. In reality, the new form, having arisen from the old one, cannot fully replace it, because it will lose its foundation, its support. The interrelation and interaction of forms of development is much more complicated — the thesis is replaced by the antithesis, but not completely, and the antithesis is forced to preserve the thesis within itself. Similarly, but even more complicated, the second negation takes place with the formation of synthesis, the very name of which indicates the way of its formation.

After Hegel, the existence of scholasticism lost its cognitive meaning and it still exists in the form of philosophy to serve the class society, and performs a useful social function of developing people’s intellect. Philosophy (modern scholasticism) exists in the sphere of wage labor, so free philosophy as a result of free labor is extra-systemic.

Materialists usually say: being determines consciousness. But human consciousness must then be non-existence, although in fact consciousness is also being. Apparently, in this expression we must understand being as material being, that is, reality, as opposed to the ideal being of consciousness, although in reality there is their dialectical unity, which is realized by their struggle as contradictory opposites. The material being of man plays the role of primacy in contradiction with the ideal being of consciousness. It should be noted that the concept of reality does not correspond to English-speaking reality, but rather coincides with actuality, since the main quality of reality is action. Consciousness can act only indirectly through material being. Here we come to the problem of the subjectivity of human consciousness.

Marx called for the conscious development of society on the basis of cognition. The subjectivity of human consciousness can and must be realized through human cognition. In cognition, man must become an object of the world around him and form an abstract picture of the world, which is a reflection of reality. Then, on the basis of this abstract picture of the world, man must, under the pressure of social necessity, move into action, make a leap and become a subject of development. Marx called this process revolutionary practice. Revolutionary practice is revolutionary insofar as it anticipates social practice in the interests of society’s development. Since freedom is a deliberate necessity, in revolutionary practice we arrive at free will. Free will cannot be restricted completely, it will always find a way out of the system of any social prohibitions due to the presence of a systemic quality — society is a system embedded in a system of a higher order. A closed system does not develop and is doomed to stable degradation at best.

Cognition in this way (through the realization of free will through revolutionary practice) will occupy a position of primacy in contradiction with production. Cognition through the formation of the worldview of development will govern the production of society itself — this will already be the noosphere, the third form of Alive Matter after the biosphere and sociosphere. Marx is, therefore, the first harbinger of the noosphere. Although Plato’s idealistic philosophy still proposed a conscious arrangement of society, but only because of its idealism could not put forward the idea of revolutionary practice (normal realists eventually sold Plato into slavery).

Revolutionary practice in the current critical era of human development is supposed to take the form of a revolutionary practice of cognition. Cognition must create a worldview of development and the noosphere in order to govern society. The slogan of the revolutionary practice will be the development of the human personality.

24. ON FREEDOM AND REVOLUTIONARY PRACTICE

Nov. 2nd, 2016 at 9:27 PM

Freedom is a deliberate necessity. The necessity of what?

Here’s the question!

Logic distinguishes between necessary and sufficient conditions. A sufficient condition overrides a necessary condition, that is, in other words, a necessary condition is merely the basis for a sufficient condition. That is, in other words, the necessary condition is only the basis of logic. But a necessary condition does not determine, does not entail a sufficient condition.

The need to satisfy biological needs or to develop one’s own personality? In reality, the need to satisfy biological needs is the basis for the development of the human person. For example, if we have the development of human personality (a sufficient condition), then the need to satisfy biological needs has already been fulfilled.

On the other hand, the satisfaction of biological needs merely opens up the possibility of human development, but does not have it as an inevitable consequence.

Thus, freedom as a realized necessity requires an awareness also of the possible sufficient condition for which this necessity would be merely the basis.

Man arises in the network of social relations and, after realizing himself as a social individual, opposes himself to society in the form of free will. As he realizes necessity, he realizes his free will. In reality, his realized necessity turns out to be a necessity of current social relations, while his free will is determined (determined) by them, i.e. it turns out to be a fictitious or imaginary freedom. Nevertheless, the realization of such imagined freedom of will results in the socialization of a person in a new society.

Every social system in its development passes its progressive phase and then passes to decline or stable existence in the developing world, which is tantamount to degradation. Therefore, free will as a conscious social necessity can be progressive or regressive, depending on the current stage of society’s development.

At the current moment, human society (sociosphere) is moving to the stage of degradation. For development to continue, human cognition must rise above the sociosphere and reach an awareness of the need for intelligent development of society. The cognizing subject must realize its free will through revolutionary practice and create the noosphere as a third form of Alive Matter. In the noosphere, cognition will determine production, including the production of society itself.

By analogy, just as capitalism emerged as the third form of exploitative order following slavery and feudalism, just as communist order emerged as the third form of sociosphere following primitive communal order and exploitative order, so the noosphere will emerge as the third form of Alive Matter following biosphere and sociosphere. And just as capitalism coexists with feudalism, and communism coexists with the exploitative social system, so the noosphere will have to coexist and interact with the sociosphere.

So, freedom is the conscious necessity of development. And development is carried out through revolutionary practice.

Appendix.

Marx K. Theses on Feuerbach

3

The materialist doctrine that people are products of circumstances and upbringing, that consequently changed people are products of different circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is people who change circumstances and that the educator himself must be educated. It inevitably therefore comes to divide society into two parts, one of which is elevated above society (e.g., Robert Owen).

The coincidence of changing circumstances and human activity can only be seen and rationally understood as a revolutionary practice.

11

Philosophers have only explained the world in different ways, but the point is to change it.

25. SYNTHESIS PROBLEM

Feb. 28th, 2017 at 9:43 PM

Thesis — antithesis — synthesis or consciousness — self-consciousness — reason or becoming — antagonism — harmony. Reason is the synthesis of consciousness and self-consciousness, subject to the primacy of consciousness. Harmony is the synthesis of antagonism and becoming, subject to the primacy of the latter.

There are already examples of synthesis: 1) within the antagonism of society (=exploitative social system) — capitalism, which is the synthesis of slaveholding and feudalism under the condition of slavery primacy (wage labor is a civilized form of slave labor), 2) within the antagonism of Alive Matter (=sociosphere) — communist social system, which is the synthesis of primitive communal system and exploitative social system under the condition of communality primacy.

The transition to synthesis in the further course of the world’s development requires a conscious subject and ordering theory to consciously create synthesis. The task of transition is solved by synthesis of network interaction and hierarchy under condition of primacy of network interaction.

Even the transition to synthesis within the antagonism of the sociosphere (the transition to capitalism) took place with the participation of consciousness and under its control. But the third estate was not conscious of itself as a bourgeois class and sought to escape under the rule of the feudal hierarchy. This is also explained by the fact that the system of exchange of goods always needs the state and, therefore, the bourgeoisie saw its support in feudal absolutism.

The actual bourgeois state in the form of democracy could only emerge after the wage-earners had reached a level of self-consciousness, realizing themselves as a class. It was only in response that the bourgeoisie became conscious of itself as a class by virtue of its need to struggle against the proletariat and was able to seize power from the feudal hierarchy. Thus, with the help of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the bourgeoisie finally defeated the feudalists.

The modern development of society must solve the problem of synthesis consciously through cognition. The role of consciousness, which in its development has reached the level of self-consciousness, is evident in the transition to synthesis within the antagonism of Alive Matter = the transition to the third form of sociosphere. This transition to the communist social system took place through the conscious establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The development of consciousness into self-consciousness took place under the control of a higher order antagonism of information transmission vs. information mining (Alive Matter antagonism = sociosphere in which information mining has indirect, indirect, primacy over information transmission). See network of contradictions.

Self-consciousness is the antagonistic stage in the development of thought (consciousness-self-consciousness-mind). Therefore, the transition to a communist order through self-consciousness required a class struggle and civil war with a bifurcation of society into old and new, when the self-consciousness of opposing classes denies each other (although without each other, these classes lose their footing and cannot exist).

And an even greater role for consciousness, which must reach the level of reason, is required for the transition to synthesis within the antagonism of Matter (the transition to the noosphere, which will be the third form of Alive Matter). Synthesis within consciousness requires that self-consciousness put itself under the control of consciousness, which would be mind. However, self-consciousness is not capable of making such a self-sacrifice on its own, but will be accomplished under the pressure of a higher order antagonism (the antagonism of Matter) — the ideal versus the actual, subject to the indirect primacy of the actual versus the ideal.

Conscious development of thinking itself

At this stage of the sociosphere’s development, consciousness has reached the level of self-consciousness. Therefore, the human personality is aware of itself as such and inevitably seeks to develop its own personality and move to the level of reason. The knotty problem of personality development is the definition of a goal or the production of an incentive for such development. The personality does not find such goals in the dominant consumerist worldview, which determines the observed crisis of humanity. And the same crisis forces the personality to seek ways to overcome it, and above all, a theory is required to develop a plan of action. But the search for this theory requires the conscious development of thinking itself.

Self-consciousness does not reject consciousness, but uses it as its basis and as its opposite. Formal logic does not allow us to imagine the bifurcation of the one and the interaction of the resulting opposites. Therefore the perception of Hegel’s triad thesis-antithesis-synthesis from the position of formal logic makes us imagine negation as the destruction of the old form and its replacement by the new form. But in reality the antithesis is the bifurcation of the thesis into antithesis and what remains of the thesis after the antithesis is separated from it. Similarly, synthesis is not the annihilation of the antithesis, but synthesis arises from the bifurcation of the antithesis into synthesis and the remains of the antithesis.

Formal logic rejects in principle the contradictory nature of being, it can say: the end justifies the means or the means determine the end. But the end generates the means, which form a contradiction with the end. Here the means are the antithesis of the end. The transition (leap) to synthesis will be made after the bifurcation of the means into corresponding to the end and not corresponding to the end.

Formal logic cannot in principle, that is, in its essence and in its initial principles, solve Zeno’s notorious aporia. In Zeno’s aporia, the goal (say, to catch up with the turtle) becomes obsolete as soon as the movement begins, because it is set incorrectly in the sense that it does not take into account extraneous circumstances (the movement of the turtle). The goal to reach a certain point is substituted for the goal to catch up with the turtle. Thus, the attempts of formal logic to reproduce an ideally evolving reality force it to follow the path of substitution and confusion of concepts.

Formal logic is always straightforward and, since it is based on the denial of development, there is no concept of time. In mathematics, which has to use formal logic (because there is no other, and all other forms of logic are the same eggs, only in profile), these shortcomings of formal logic are overcome by a formal method by going to infinity, by infinite iterations, by infinitely repeating operations of formal logic. This appeal to infinity is only a way to overcome the inability of formal logic to describe an evolving world by means of a formal method, which gives a positive result and allows us to approach an understanding of the world with the help of new concepts. This appeal to infinity is a formal way out of the limits of formal logic.

It should be realized that every concept, new or old, is a frozen cast (reflection) of a constantly changing reality. Therefore, the shortcomings of formal logic come from the intrinsic properties of consciousness and emergent concepts. Therefore it is not the fault but the misfortune of formal logic that it is forced to operate with indirect notions, since the intrinsic properties of notions determine formal logic.

So, formal logic gives primacy to abstract thinking relative to sense perception, although sense perception resists, saying, «I believe because it is absurd. Zeno’s aporia with the arrow is indicative in this sense. The arrow, before reaching its goal, must travel halfway, etc. But the arrow owes nothing to anyone. This point introduces the primacy of abstract thinking over sense perception. Formal logic is thus the origin of all idealism.

Hegel could not overcome formal logic. He tried to adapt it to dialectics, whereas it should be the other way around. His antithesis replaces, i.e. replaces the thesis (the first negation), and the antithesis is replaced by the synthesis (the second negation). Hegel’s initial consciousness appears initially as internally bifurcated as a contradiction — consciousness in itself and for itself, but in the subsequent development this bifurcation is traced only in order to prove the identity of these opposites, which allegedly allows them to pass to the next stage of development.

In reality, the so-called negation is a bifurcation, and a new contradiction arises, in which the new opposite becomes the leading one and is opposed by the old opposite, which is what is left of the original form after the emergence of the new. Lenin put it this way: the bifurcation of the one and the interaction of the opposites that emerged. Let us say that society emerged from the biosphere and is forced to interact with it both internally and externally, and capitalism emerged from feudalism, but it did not completely reject feudal relations, but adapted them to the new system, and the same applies to socialism, which is forced to interact with capitalism, and is forced to use wage labor.

The dialectical logic derived from Hegel has to deal with concepts at its own discretion and aims to reflect not only particular sides of reality, but also development. Whereas formal logic, following concepts, relies on universal connection (and therefore neglects development), dialectical logic, in contradiction with universal connection, gives priority to development (universal connection for development). Development takes place on the basis of the universal connection and allows this connection to be renewed, while the dictatorship of the universal connection ceases all development. Thus, dialectical logic allows concepts to develop in the sense that it ensures their constant renewal in the course of reflecting an evolving reality. Dialectical logic operates on concepts, not vice versa, as in formal logic. It operates not with separate concepts, but with their systems, and dialectical logic is based on thinking by contradictions. For example, man is not only a social phenomenon, but also a biological one, man is the unity and struggle of these two opposites, which form the driving contradiction of every man and society as a whole, For thinking by opposites and systems of contradictions, dialectical logic must reach a theory of development.

The developing world can be described as a network of contradictions. In a hidden form, the theory of development is contained in Marx’s Capital. Engels suggested that it be stated formally, that is, abstractly, but Marx replied that it would be something like the Hegelian system, which is incapable of development and would turn into dogma, whereas the point is to cognize reality. At that time, cognition was still just beginning to create a picture of the evolving world. But now there is a need for a theory of development as the leading method of the theory of cognition to create a picture of the world and the danger of dogmatizing it as an abstract scheme has disappeared because of the established primacy of sense perception over abstract thinking in cognition. Lenin openly proclaimed this leap from self-consciousness to reason back in 1908, proposing the theory of the reflection of reality by consciousness and human practice as the criterion of truth. As one witticism said, if consciousness is a mirror, it is a rear-view mirror. Indeed, consciousness of an event occurs only after the event has occurred-according to Marx and Engels, after a feast, like a hangover.

Philosophy after Hegel exhausted its progressive potential and turned into a sanctuary of abstract thinking, in which formal logic, i.e. dogmatism, dominates and dialectics is not allowed. In this state, philosophy is used by society to preserve existing social systems.

Reason is forced to interact with self-consciousness, from which it has emerged. In the end, at the antagonistic stage of this contradiction, reason came under the power of self-consciousness, retaining over self-consciousness only an indirect primacy mediated by the social system (practice is the criterion of truth). At the present moment, there is a disintegration of dialectical logic under the pressure of formal logic, which causes the dogmatization of cognition, in other words, causes the liquidation of cognition. The crisis of social development requires cognition not only to reflect reality, but also to anticipate the ways of development in order to plan social activity. Reason, in principle, can have a heuristic potential, but for this, dialectical logic must govern formal logic.

So, the problem of synthesis within reason has arisen. It can be solved by a higher contradiction (contradiction of Alive Matter) as a consequence of its transition to synthesis, i.e. to the harmony of information extraction primacy relative to information transmission. In this case, after and as a consequence of the formation of the third signal system. Only after that mind will conquer self-consciousness.

A signaling system is a way of transmitting information. All information transfer takes place by means of electromagnetic interaction — be it chemical influence, light, sound or tactile (i.e., simply put, physical influence). In the biosphere we observe exactly such — the first signaling system — information transfer by direct direct impact. However, information transmission in the biosphere is only a means of extraction, and the goal is accumulation of information by a hereditary code. In Living Nature, which combines the biosphere, sociosphere, and future noosphere, information extraction takes precedence over information transmission.

In the sociosphere, along with the first, inherited from the biosphere, a second signaling system has formed — information transmission via concepts, although concepts are forced to take the form of material objects — sounds, images, etc. The sociosphere is the antagonism of Alive Matter, and so the primacy of information extraction over information transmission has turned into an indirect primacy.

In the noosphere, this primacy should become direct and move to the level of harmony, with the inclusion of the second signaling system. The system of concepts should transform sensual perception in such a way that the received worldview (which is always a generalized emotion) will be capable of information extraction and, as a consequence, will be ahead of information transmission, both by direct direct direct influence and mediated through concepts. This new worldview will become a developmental worldview, and it will carry out information extraction, i.e. cognition. So, the third signaling system that emerged through the worldview of development will exercise the primacy of information extraction over information transmission.

The second signal system develops along with the development of thinking — consciousness (mythological stage), self-consciousness (religious stage), reason (technological stage). The third signal system will be a synthesis of the first and second signal systems. It will emerge as a result of mind bifurcation and the transition of cognition from empiricism and classification to the synthesis of knowledge.

The socialization of the individual requires cognition. Therefore, a person is forced to cognize. A person outside the information field is not a person. But being in the information field without cognition is impossible. People form an information network, the meaning of which is cognition. Cognition makes it possible to act according to a plan.

Only enthusiasts are capable of knowledge, while consumers can only impart information. Modern society is bifurcated into consumers and enthusiasts. We must admit that this quality is not a stigma for a person and is subject to change depending on social relations and other circumstances. Man begins his life and ends it as a consumer. In some social conditions, a person may act as a consumer, in others, he may be an enthusiast.

In the course of cognition for the conscious development of society, enthusiasts will become reasonable enthusiasts. Reasonable enthusiasts will come into conflict with spontaneous (unreasonable) enthusiasts. As a result, there will be a bifurcation of the mind with the emergence of the third signal system and the noosphere. Only after this event will the communist social system be able to defeat the exploitative social system.

Any network is chaotic, the hierarchy gives it a vector of development. Therefore, the conscious development of society requires the conscious creation of hierarchy in the information network on the basis of the theory of development as the leading method of cognition.

The driving contradiction of the communist social system is the contradiction between the network of labor relations and the hierarchy of the state. The network of labor relations can regain primacy over the hierarchy of the state and defeat the exploitative order only after the emergence of the dictatorship of enthusiasm, which will happen together with the bifurcation of the mind, the emergence of the third signaling system and the noosphere. This conclusion follows by analogy from the actual emergence of the dictatorship of the proletariat during the contradictory development of capitalism during its transition to the stage of imperialism. In that era, the network of commodity-money relations organized its hierarchy and brought the hierarchy of the state under its control. Similarly, the network of labor relations will, through its hierarchy, control the hierarchy of the state, which, in turn, controls market relations within the communist order (this will be the withering away of the state according to Lenin). Also under the influence of the third signal system of the noosphere, as a reaction to it, wage labor will acquire the form of free labor.

The fate of the notorious slogan — freedom, equality, fraternity — is interesting. Freedom in fact turned out to be the freedom of exchange of goods and the freedom of wage labor under capitalism. It is clear that absolute freedom is impossible, and the pursuit of absolute freedom destroys any system, turning it into chaos. Moreover, even freedom of trade is constantly limited in practice. Freedom must therefore be understood as a reasonable necessity.

Equality turned out to be the equality of hired state workers before the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat under socialism. Universal equality, as it turned out, becomes a brake on development, although without equality, hierarchy becomes unnecessary.

The slogan brotherhood will be used in the emergence of the noosphere and will mean giving social relations of people the form of blood relations (all people are brothers). Actually, in the sociosphere this process has already been launched under the name of tolerance, i.e. tolerance. Just tolerance to various forms of humanity creates the necessary background for the development of human personality. But at the same time it is necessary to answer the question: tolerance for humanity or humanity for tolerance — for example, whether tolerance in relation to the exploitation of man by man, etc., does not contradict humanity.

Freedom-Equality-Fraternity!

26. FUNDAMENTALISM, COGNITION AND REVOLUTIONARY PRACTICE

Mar. 27th, 2017 at 8:54 PM

The acceleration of society’s development comes into contradiction with the sluggishness of people’s thinking. Thinking becomes a brake on development, because during a person’s lifetime there is a paradigm shift and a change in social relations. This is the essence of humanity’s modern crisis.

A crisis in social development is essentially a stalemate, which is reflected in public consciousness in the form of «this is no way to live. In a crisis society there is a demand for new ideas, which, however, at first is satisfied by the propaganda of old ideas, a return to the roots. Consequently, the crisis era is reflected in the public consciousness by the revival of old ideas. At the same time, old ideas appear in a renewed, altered form, adapted to the current state of society. As a result, society sinks even deeper into the abyss of crisis. Therefore, a new level of human cognition is needed, which modern science is unable to achieve. Achieving this new level of human cognition requires revolutionary practice.

Marx wrote in 1845: Philosophers have only explained the world in various ways, but the point is to change it.

The coincidence of changing circumstances and human activity can only be seen and rationally understood as a revolutionary practice.

On Fundamentalism

Epochs of crisis in the sociosphere, therefore, manifest themselves in the spread of old ideas — a desire to return to the past, to return to ideological foundations, which should be called fundamentalism. It is clear that this desire is underpinned by an underlying desire not to change anything. Therefore, fundamentalism is widely supported and understood in society. But it should be noted in justification of this desire that everything new rests on the old, and a return to the old, its revision and criticism facilitates the search for the new.

The contradiction between the desire to live better and the unwillingness to change, that is, the unwillingness for the new, eventually reaches a state, as a particular society degenerates, where the grassroots do not want to live the old way and are not against change. Accordingly, the top can no longer govern the old way, and a revolutionary situation arises, which is overcome by the revolutionary formation of a new social system based on new ideas. New ideas require revolutionary practices for their dissemination and introduction into the public consciousness. Thus, fundamentalism is accompanied by the emergence, or rather serves as a harbinger, of revolutionary practices.

In the course of society’s development, a deadlock, one way or another, is overcome with the formation of a new form, or it is not overcome and society degrades. Crisis epochs, epochs of ideological fermentation are well manifested in the history of Europe — in the epoch of transition from slaveholding to feudalism, from feudalism to capitalism and, in the second half of the 19th century — early 20th century, in the epoch of transition from exploitative social system to communist social system. The modern era of humanity’s crisis since the 1990s of the 20th century can be defined as the era of transition from the sociosphere to the noosphere.

In the modern society of the 21st century ideological quest or fermentation is obviously most widespread in the countries of the former Soviet Union. Here, against the background of the disintegration of the proletarian worldview, there is the dominance of obscurantism, a return to the religious worldview, various forms of which become the state ideology. Here, too, socialist ideology, the ideology of the social state, is dressed up in a bourgeois form of nationalism. The ideas of the Orthodox Communists in the Russian Federation, in essence, have the same basis as the ideas of radical Islamists in the Middle East or anti-Russian and anti-Chinese ideas in the West (the ideas of the Cold War). Their basis is the same — the desire to return to the past. This common background of striving for the past is a consumerist worldview. Fundamentalist ideas in the former USSR countries naturally end with bourgeois ideas of restitution (return of nationalized property to former owners) or feudal ideas of monarchism (striving to return to slavery, but not of oneself, but of the people).

Fundamentalism includes the social upheavals (called revolutions) in Iran in 1979, the modern coups in Libya, the civil war in Syria. All these coups were held under different slogans, which concealed the true background — to stop the development of society or to slow it down. It can be said that these revolutions were carried out by frenzied consumers, who fulfilled the social order to preserve social relations. Fundamentalism is supported by imperialism, because the latter is also based on the primacy of consumption, because the system of exchange of goods is based on consumer value. The civil war in Iraq, the coups in Libya, the civil war in Syria are the consequences of the military aggression of imperialism.

The consumer is afraid of change; he wants to live better, but so that nothing changes. Hence the practice of dowsing, when a person loses interest in social life, loses interest in the development of his own personality, and turns into an absolute consumer, i.e. a social animal. The same manifestation of fundamentalism is the spread of anti-scientific pictures of the world and the rejection of scientific theories that have already been tested by social practice. And we must be aware that the state propaganda imposes these false ideas, because it meets the needs of a degrading society.

Fundamentalism as a social phenomenon is a reaction of social consciousness to the increasing complexity of the social system, when it does not keep up with the accelerating development of being due to the lag of cognition from the accelerating social development. People’s thinking cannot keep up with the accelerating development of society. In this situation, there are two ways out — either to hinder the development of society with fundamentalism, or to change the way of thinking itself, moving to dialectical logic and the theory of development.

On cognition.

We must distinguish between human cognition as a network interaction of people and science as a hierarchy of human relations in the sphere of cognition, which is always controlled by society. Einstein had a low opinion of science as a hierarchy. «Science, on the other hand, is incapable of creating goals. even less of nurturing them in man. At best, science can provide the means to achieve certain ends. But the goals themselves are generated by people with high ethical ideals. And, if these goals are not stillborn, but have vitality, they are accepted and carried out by those masses of people who semi-consciously determine the slow evolution of society. This is why we should be careful not to exaggerate the importance of science and scientific methods when it comes to human problems. And we should not assume that only experts have the right to judge issues affecting the organization of society.» Why socialism? Albert Einstein (1949)

Cognition always comes after the event, in Marx’s words after the feast (like a hangover). Because cognition in society in the form of the hierarchy of science is controlled and limited by the dominant worldview, in our case the consumer worldview, so this cognition cannot in principle develop a new picture of the world. Because of a lack of new ideas or an instinctive aversion to the new, social consciousness follows the path of simplification or reduction, that is, the reduction of complex phenomena to simple ones. Consequently, modern fundamentalism as a social phenomenon reflects the crisis of the consumer worldview and, consequently, the global crisis of the sociosphere. In other words, society is aware that it is losing an adequate picture of the world and yet it tries to correct it within the old worldview instead of creating a new worldview, a worldview that will allow cognition to construct a new adequate picture of the evolving world.

Marx noted that new ideas appear in society when they become necessary. In the modern era of the transition from the sociosphere to the noosphere, the transition to the intelligent development of society, such a new worldview, namely the worldview of development, must be created for itself by the practice of cognition. Cognition will become the subject of social development. As cognition becomes aware of its dependence on the dominant worldview, it will have to create for itself its own worldview of development as an environment in which it will no longer depend on the dominant worldview of consumption and will therefore exercise primacy over production, and primacy over production of society itself. The theory of development, taken as a method of cognition, will serve as the basis for a new worldview of development, since it has heuristic potential. The theory of development will allow cognition to move from the empirical and classification stages to the synthesis stage of knowledge. As a result, the worldview of development will also govern the worldview of consumption, anticipating, preempting, and curbing its element (preemptive development — prevention, warning, anticipation and transformation — if the element of consumption cannot be prevented, it must be directed in an acceptable direction by imposing a social form).

So, modern revolutionary practice is transferred to the sphere of cognition, for the practice of cognition becomes the subject of development. Therefore, Marx’s eleventh thesis of Feuerbach, «The philosophers have only explained the world in various ways, but the point is to change it,» remains relevant.

But how can philosophers engage in practice if they remain in the realm of abstract thinking? Apparently, this call of Marx does not apply to philosophers, since they are only capable of explaining the world, albeit in different ways, that is, comprehensively. Explanation is only the ideal basis of revolutionary practice.

On Revolutionary Practices.

Subjectivity vs. subjectivity. Subjectivity is free will (that is, conscious necessity) = revolutionary practice. To become a subject of development, the cognitive subject must act by means of revolutionary practice.

The problem of the transition from theory to practice, that is, the problem of putting theory into practice, remains unsolved. Theories are developed when the subject of cognition puts himself in the position of the object. Cognition first descends to more and more abstract notions (the stages of empiricism and classification), and then at the stage of synthesis it ascends to reality, constructing a picture of the world. So, the cognizing subject at the descending stage of cognition consciously accepts the position of the object, while remaining an indirect subject of cognition, for he presented himself as an object consciously in order to work out concepts. At the ascending stage of cognition (synthesis of knowledge) he regains his subjectivity. The result of the synthesis of knowledge gives a new picture of reality, which is included in the worldview, and in this way social relations are transformed. As a result, society develops. Consequently, revolutionary practice begins at the stage of knowledge synthesis.

Objective concepts, objective truth is nonsense. Objectivity is usually understood in the sense of conformity with generally accepted concepts and the prevailing worldview. It is believed that the objective world supposedly informs the subject of knowledge so-called objective truth. And after that they inevitably slip into idealism.

Truth is subjective because it exists in the form of a system of subjective concepts. The latter arise due to the fact that the cognizing subject consciously accepts the posture of the object in relation to the sensual world, locking himself in the sphere of consciousness, that is, in the sphere of abstract thinking. Therefore concepts are a reflection by thinking of some part of reality, which was subjectively dissected by the subject of cognition beforehand at his own discretion and acquired the quality of so called scientific facts. Such a ratio of abstract thinking and sensual perception is determined by the primacy of sensual perception in cognition — the practice is a criterion of truth. The primacy of sensory perception in cognition with respect to abstract thinking is at the same time the primacy of the subject of cognition with respect to the object of cognition, that is the surrounding world. But at the same time the subject of cognition becomes such under the influence of society’s request, so for him society is the subject, and he is just an object in the service of the developing society. Developing society is a subject. But degrading society loses its subjectivity and becomes an object of cognition. Society’s crisis transforms it into a conservative society, which is content with simple transmission of information, while cognition, i.e. information extraction, acquires primacy in relation to society.

The cognizing object, that is, the cognizing subject in the posture of the object, can transform its objectivity into subjectivity through the synthesis of knowledge, which is revolutionary practice, and create, theoretically to begin with, a new reality. But since the cognizing subject has initially placed itself in the posture of the object, it is also under pressure from the surrounding social reality and falls under its power. And only when this social reality in the course of development begins to bifurcate with the separation of the new, the cognitive subject can free itself from the posture of the object, once again acquiring a subjectivity independent of society and make a leap (by synthesis) to a new knowledge.

A person who studies the life of an ant colony moves from the posture of object to subjectivity when he conducts an experiment on ants. But if man studies his society, his subjectivity, that is, his experiment on society, will also affect himself. In this way, he will be split into subject and object, that is, he will be experimenting on himself, and his consciousness will experience a bifurcation. This will be the bifurcation of the mind, which should lead to the primacy of the synthesis of knowledge.

In the biosphere, information extraction played the role of primacy in contradiction to information transmission (change of species with the accumulation of the hereditary code). In the sociosphere, information extraction was dominated by information transmission (preservation of culture). In the noosphere, information extraction will regain primacy in contradiction with information transmission, but it will no longer be direct primacy, but harmonic, which will include the indirect primacy that exists in the sociosphere.

The return of cognition (information extraction) to subjectivity will occur when cognition moves to knowledge synthesis. This does not mean that empiricism and classification will be abolished, but that synthesis will use them to create a picture of the world and intelligent activity to produce human society itself. The sociosphere will produce the noosphere. Just as the communist order cannot abolish the exploitative order and, moreover, cannot exist without it, for it uses it both as an unacceptable alternative and as a reservoir of scientific and technological progress, so the noosphere cannot exist without the sociosphere.

So, revolutionary practice has now moved into the sphere of cognition and represents the transition of human cognition to the synthesis of knowledge on the basis of dialectical logic and the theory of development and the construction of a worldview of development on the basis of this synthesis of knowledge. At the same time, on the basis of the worldview of development, a third signal system is formed as a synthesis of the first and second, the essence of which will be cognition (information extraction). Therefore the revolutionary practice consists in consciously, i.e. with the help of reason, creating the third signal system in which the transfer of information will be carried out not so much by means of notions as by means of systems of notions, based on systems of contradictions, based on thinking with the consideration of contradictions, thinking by contradictions, and the aim of such information transfer will be cognition. In the third signal system, cognition (information extraction) will regain its primacy with respect to information transfer.

Cognition, that is, the extraction of information, can only be accomplished by enthusiasts, since new knowledge always undermines the level of knowledge achieved. Consumers, by definition, are not capable of such feats. But to meet the need for personal development, a person will have to turn to knowledge and turn into an enthusiast. Consumer society is forced to generate a social demand for personal development in order to avoid degradation and to continue to be a developing society. Thus, the development of consumption gives rise to such a need as personal development, which causes the need for cognition and, consequently, limits consumption, directing it in a new direction, in the direction of cognition. The very need for personal development will be the determining element of sensory perception, which, within the framework of cognition, has primacy over abstract thinking.

The third signaling system is already emerging as a free exchange of information. Out of the multitude of information clusters, those in which cognition, i.e. information extraction and knowledge synthesis, takes precedence must emerge. As a result, a hierarchy of cognition should be formed, which alone can unite reasonable enthusiasts. Any other hierarchy is aimed at the elimination of enthusiasm, although it is forced to use it.

27. THE WEAKEST LINK

Jun. 24th, 2017 at 9:19 PM

On the noosphere revolution

The bifurcation with the transition to harmony occurs in the weakest link of antagonism. The weakest link condenses, gathers, attracts all the contradictory nature of antagonism. As antagonism develops, in the transition from its lowest to highest stage, the role of the indirect primacy of contradiction of a higher order (which includes the formation stage, the considered antagonism and the future harmony stage) increases, which causes the considered antagonism to split with the formation of harmony. Within the sociosphere, as an antagonism of Alive Matter, there is an indirect primacy of knowledge production under the explicit primacy of information transmission (the latter being expressed in society’s reliance on a worldview). The importance of this indirect primacy increases from feudalism (reliance on religiosity), to capitalism (commercial calculation) and to communism (class struggle theory).

We have the stages of development of antagonism of ascending orders:

feudal front-absolutism (antagonism-harmony within feudalism),

feudalism-capitalism (antagonism-harmony within an exploitative social system),

exploitative social system-communist social system (antagonism-harmony within the communist social system),

sociosphere-noosphere (antagonism-harmony within Alive Matter).

At the bifurcation of the weakest link of antagonism, harmony emerges. but the contradictory nature of higher-order antagonism makes it slip to the harmony of that higher order. This is how capitalism arose in the transition from feudal front through absolutism and on to capitalism (capitalist front). This is how the communist order (socialism) emerged in the transition from feudal absolutism through capitalism and on to socialism (social absolutism). The communist social system has existed for 100 years.

Finally, the noosphere must arise during the transition of imperialism to comstroi, skipping the comstroi, which requires the subordination of the system of exchange of goods to the state. And since this system is rooted in the consumer instinct, it will also result in the subordination of society to the state within the framework of the dominant consumerist worldview. At the core of the system of commodity exchange is the contradiction of use value and exchange value, and the consumer value is the priority — what is not consumed is not a commodity. The social role of the state (dictatorship of bureaucracy) is to smooth over and prevent anti-social spontaneous processes, including those in the sphere of exchange of goods. But the result in the communist social system is the dictatorship of the state. The so-called democracy (literally consumer power) is based on the instinct of consumption and therefore cannot go beyond the system of exchange of goods, the spontaneous development of which dooms them and the whole society to degradation, slide into the biosphere and become de-socialized. We must clearly understand that the consumer consumes not only the products of production, but also labor relations. Therefore, in order to produce objects of consumption it is necessary to produce labor relations. Labor relations are produced by enthusiasts without remuneration, that is, for free. Under the dictatorship of the state, the activity of enthusiasts is not used and is suppressed by the bureaucracy, and the role of enthusiasts to produce labor relations is taken over by the dictatorship of the state, leading society eventually to stagnation and degradation. As a protest against the domination of the state in society, a worldview of development must emerge, which will serve as the basis of the noosphere.

The main problem of the sociosphere’s development is the stimulus of labor activity. Labor activity created society, and labor relations are the pivot around which all society’s events revolve. All labor is violence against man’s biological basis (in the sweat of his face…). Labor activity forces man to suppress or control his biological side with the help of the social side. The latter is acquired in the course of social practice (starting with the upbringing of infants). Initially and still today, the stimulus of labor activity is consumption. But when basic biological needs are met, then this incentive disappears. This is the problem with the comstruction. Then there remains as an incentive the coercion of labor with the help of the state. But forced labor loses effectiveness. That is why socialism in the USSR (quasi-feudal type) was replaced by quasi-capitalist socialism. This allowed a return to the former incentive of labor activity — consumption — while the state significantly reduced social support for the population.

As a result, the consumer society, irrespective of political systems, has become global. As a result, the sociosphere now faces a dilemma under the worldview of consumption (the dominant attitude to consumption) — either the dominance of the social state or the dominance of the commodity exchange system. This dilemma can be resolved only with the emergence of a new attitude toward personal development. Personal development will be the new stimulus to labor activity that will come into contradiction with consumerism and will have primacy. The development of technology, informatics, robotics allows for a socially acceptable level of consumption for all people, but people are morally behind the development of technology. The absence of the need to work in the sweat of their face leads people to a return to the animal state.

The problem of finding the human incentive to work.

Obviously, it cannot be solved in principle, and this stimulus to labor activity will always remain at the biological level under the predominance of the consumerist worldview and the domination of the commodity-exchange system. But if the domination of the commodity-exchange system is controlled by the state, a new domination is formed — the dictatorship of the bureaucracy, which uses the same incentive of labor activity — the satisfaction of biological needs (the activity of enthusiasts is not used and is suppressed by the bureaucracy). As a result, both societies come to a consumer society, a convergence of capitalism and socialism (Sakharov talked about this). The stimulus for labor activity could be the desire for personal development in the system of labor relations. Personality emerges and exists in the system of social relations. But only labor relations carry the primacy of the social relative to the biological. As it turns out, labor relations must also be produced. If they are produced in a system of dictatorship of capital or dictatorship of bureaucracy, the person participating in such labor relations remains in consumer society and does not develop or develops within this society without being able to go beyond consumer relations. Therefore, the new labor relations for personal development must be produced by enthusiasts.

The stimulus for the activity of intelligent enthusiasts is cognition. In cognitive activity we find the true social stimulus of labor activity. A new hierarchy will emerge. Authority belongs not to the sum of knowledge, not to the heap of information, but to the ability to operate with it and to cognize, that is, to produce new knowledge. In society, the priority belongs to the transmission of information, not its extraction. And this state of affairs corresponds to the antagonism of Alive Matter. While the biosphere is based on the change of biological species, for the sociosphere (antagonism of Alive Matter) the leading pattern is the preservation of one biological species of man. In the noosphere, as a harmony of Alive Matter, we will come to the primacy of information extraction over information transmission through the preservation of the human species. The modern surge of human information interaction has as its consequence not only the transmission of information, but also the desire for new information, the desire for information extraction, the desire for cognition, which has a purely biological basis — curiosity. Therefore, the primacy of cognition over production has a biological basis and will become the basis of the noosphere.

The development of the individual requires that the individual become a subject of social relations, not an object. The developing personality creates new labor relations, and by creating new labor relations the personality develops and develops society. Consequently, cognition must be at the core of development. Cognition will become the leading opposite in contradiction to production, which will ensure the emergence and existence of the noosphere.

Looking for the weak link! Apparently it is the North American states or the People’s Republic of China.