CHANGE — Dialectics Of
“New things come from old things which change and develop. But how
do things in general change? People familiar with Marxist dialectics of course know that
change takes place through qualitative leaps. In other
words the dialectical view is not that something develops gradually and evenly from one
thing into another, but that at some point there is a sudden transition, a leap, a
revolution. This is true not only in human thought and society, but in nature as well,
such as in the change of water to steam as it is heated. But the point I want to emphasize
here is that this is not the whole story about change.
“(Generally it is necessary to give
special emphasis to the importance of dialectical leaps when talking to people about
change and development. That is because most people in present society are not used to
looking at things this way. But with my present intended audience I assume this first
essential characteristic of change is already well understood and completely obvious. That
is why I am putting the emphasis here on the other important characteristic of change.)
“While qualitative leaps are the
essence of change, there is also the aspect of gradual development leading up to
those qualitative leaps. Water, for example, does not make the sudden transition to steam
unless it has first been gradually heated up from room temperature to the boiling point.
Now it is true that if you look at the preliminary gradual process in a detailed enough
way, you will find that it also is composed of many small leaps. In the case of the
gradually heated water what is going on at a very fine level is the sudden qualitative
leap in the acquisition of energy by individual water molecules as they come in contact
with the energetic (heated) surface of the tea kettle (or with other, hotter, water
molecules). Thus ultimately all change does seem to take the form of dialectical
leaps. But nevertheless, from the point of view of the overall process, a large series of
very small subsidiary qualitative leaps takes on the appearance of gradual development. It
is almost as bad to fail to recognize this as it is to fail to see that this gradual
development must lead to a qualitative change if there is to be any fundamental change in
the overall situation.
“Change is a matter of gradual
development leading up to, and preparing the ground for, sudden transition. Thus any
intelligent effort to bring about change must not only recognize that a sudden transition
or revolution is necessary at some point (though that is the first element of wisdom), but
that also the ground must be prepared for that revolution through a period of
gradual development. To rationally work to bring about a change is therefore primarily
to concern yourself with fostering the gradual development that must inevitably occur
before the necessary sudden leap is possible.
“Politically, there is the phenomenon
of individuals who long for social revolution with all their heart and soul, but who are
too impatient to do the actual work necessary to prepare the ground for revolution. Because
they are so impatient, they abandon the dialectical outlook on change, focus entirely on
the need for a sudden transition, and down-play the effort needed to lay the necessary
ground work.
“Such extreme impatience even leads
people to revise their revolutionary theory to fit their subjective desires. ‘Winning the
masses takes time, therefore maybe it is not necessary to win the masses, or maybe it is
only necessary to win a small number of the masses...’ In such a way are the impatient
pushed away from the masses, away from mass revolution, away from Marxism and toward ‘left’
adventurism or even putschism.
“‘Organizing the masses takes time,
therefore maybe it is not necessary to organize the masses, maybe we can just suppose that
when push comes to shove the masses will spontaneously organize themselves for revolution...’
In such a way are the impatient pushed toward a form of anarchism and aloofness from the
masses (even if they still recognize the importance of a vanguard party).
“‘Participating with the masses in
their day-to-day struggle in order to raise their revolutionary consciousness is too big a
job, therefore maybe it is not necessary, maybe it is really only a kind of reformism
dressed up as revolutionary preparations; maybe the masses do not really need to learn
through their own experiences, and maybe we do not need to be there with them to help them
with this summation...’ In such a way does Marxism get turned into a sort of ‘leftist’
preaching, or a form of evangelism.
“‘Preparing for revolution takes time
and effort, therefore maybe it is not necessary to make extensive preparations, maybe the
masses are almost ready to go right now, maybe the revolution could break out any day...’
In such a way do the impatient lose the ability to appraise the objective situation, and
start to lose contact with reality. This leads to constant predictions of revolution ‘within
this decade’, or ‘within a couple years’, or even ‘within a few months’—which in turn leads
to demoralization when the subjective predictions do not materialize.
“Extreme impatience can thus lead to
ultra-‘leftism’ in various guises, and to a distortion of Marxism.
“Impatience can be a good thing or a
bad thing. If impatience with the present despicable bourgeois world turns us into
revolutionaries, and gets us working toward bringing about revolution, it is of course a
very good thing. But if that impatience gets out of hand and leads us into the renunciation
of Marxism and the only real path to revolution, it is a very bad thing. We should be
impatient, but we should not let it make us crazy.” —Scott Harrison, The Mass Line and
the American Revolutionary Movement, Chapter 31 (excerpt), online at:
http://www.massline.info/mlms/mlch31.htm
CHANGE — Sudden
Virtually all major natural and social processes and developments occur through periods of
relatively long and gradual changes leading up to comparatively sudden and major qualitative
changes. Often these periods of gradual and sudden change alternate. Why this unevenness?
It is because change, when viewed as a single overall process, is actually composed of many
different smaller changes and subprocesses, each of which is governed by laws appropriate
to its own particular contradictions. Or, in other
words, some of the subprocesses proceed at one speed, others at a different speed. And those
which proceed quite fast are for relatively longer periods held up by those among the
prerequisite changes and subprocesses which proceed more slowly.
Some changes must necessarily occur very
rapidly. This is perhaps most obvious in natural science. Chemical changes often happen
extremely fast—and not just in the case of explosions! Sub-atomic particle interactions
generally happen even faster, in tiny fractions of a nanosecond! (On the other hand, even
there all physical changes take some amount of time; strictly speaking, there is
actually no such thing as “instantaneous change”.)
But even in human society some changes must
be brought about quite rapidly if they are to be successful at all. There is an apocryphal
story that illustrates this: Some country or other once decided (for whatever reason)
to switch over its roads so that instead of driving on the left side of the road, people
would drive their vehicles on the right side of the road. Supposedly some government
official told the public not to worry about the switchover, because “the change will take
place gradually”. In reality, of course, that would be the very worst way to try to do it!
It would be much more sensible to say, for example, that as of 2 a.m. on some very quiet
Sunday morning all traffic will be required to simultaneously change from driving on
the left to driving on the right. Many of the major steps in social revolution must likewise
be carried out very rapidly if they are to be successful. Certainly this is true of
revolutionary insurrection, for example.
CHARTISM
An early mass semi-revolutionary movement of British workers which arose because of the
bad economic conditions they suffered and their political disenfranchisement. Chartism
was one of the earliest working class movements in the world. The Chartist movement began
with (and takes its name from) the People’s Charter of 1838 which focused on voting
rights. Only about 700,000 of Britain's 25 million population at that time had the right
to vote. The movement reached its peak in 1839, a year in which Britain came closer to
social revolution than any time since the English Civil War, or any time since. There was
mass rioting, a failed general strike, and actual insurrections in south Wales and northern
England.
After this peak the movement continued at
a lower level and lasted up to around 1850, and during that period it held numerous
mass meetings and demonstrations. The movement fell apart, however, principally because
it did not develop a steady and solid revolutionary leadership and because it lacked a
clear-cut programme.
CHASI MULIA ADIVASI SANGHA (CMAS)
A militant but peaceful organization of adivasis, or tribal
people, in the southwestern part of Orissa state in India. In particular the CMAS has
struggled for the redistribution of land to the adivasis, and against illegal mining on
their land by giant mining corporations. The CMAS has been accused by the police and media
of being a front organization of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), and this was the
“excuse” given by the police for murdering 3 adivasis (including a CMAS leader) at a
demonstration led by CMAS in Narayanpatna, in southern Orissa, on November 20, 2009.
However, the leadership of the CMAS is actually made up of some of the middle range of
revolutionary forces in India, who have been trying to wage a peaceful struggle for the
people. In an interview, one of these top CMAS leaders, Gananath Patra, explained their
political ideology and strategy this way:
Satyabrata: The state has militarized itself. What will its effect
be on the movement?
Gananath Patra: We know very
well that behind the military intervention of the State is its intention to militarize
our movement in order to find a plea to brutally subjugate it. We know their intentions
and we are careful about any move we shall be taking. The movement must continue.
Satyabrata: The CMAS is being
projected as the frontal organization of the Maoists. Is that true?
Gananath Patra: You mean the
CPI(Maoist). No. we have considerable differences with the CPI(Maoist) line, though
they are our sympathizers and critics. I believe in Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought,
which has considerable differences with the Maoism of the CPI(Maoist). Our method of
occupying and cultivating land is mass line task and has nothing in common with the
CPI(Maoist).
Satyabrata: Why are you being
projected as Maoists then?
Gananath Patra: We pose a danger
to the status quo the ruling class wants to maintain and hence it wants us to be branded
as Maoists. Then the matter becomes simple; pick up anyone who is against this status
quo, brand him a Maoist and rob him of his movemental potentiality by either putting
him behind bars or by gunning him down. History has been spectator to this strategy of
several States at several conjunctures in the past. The state has banned the CPI(Maoist)
to facilitate this purpose. [From: “Narayanpatna: An Interview with Gananath Patra”,
online at: http://sanhati.com/articles/1917/]
However, it seems that Gananath Patra has inadvertently put his finger on the fatal problem
with the CMAS political strategy: The state will simply not allow them to proceed with
their programme no matter how peaceful they are. They will simply be attacked and destroyed
by the armed forces of the Central and state governments of India. Peaceful strategies will
not work against governments willing to shoot you dead anyway.
In early December 2009 hundreds of adivasi
people associated with CMAS surrendered to the police in what was falsely billed by the media
as a large surrender of “Maoists”. Those are the alternatives facing the people there: abject
surrender to the government and their perpetual victimization, or else a very different form
of struggle involving the force of arms.
However, as of January 2010, it appears that
either the CMAS organization, or part of it, or at least a large number of those who have been
members of it, are moving rapidly towards the Maoists and the Maoist approach to revolution.
See the news article
“India Drives Tribals into Maoist Arms” for more information.
CHATTEL SLAVERY
A “chattel” is an item of property other than real estate (i.e., other than land and buildings).
So chattel slavery means the same thing as what we ordinarily just call slavery.
However, the full term is useful since all forms of exploitive class society actually amount to
slavery in a broad sense. In chattel slavery, the slaves are owned outright by the exploiting
class (the slaveowners); in feudalism, the “slaves” (serfs) cannot be sold since they are tied
to specific estates and land, but otherwise are almost the same as owned by the aristocracy
(feudal landlords); in capitalism, the wage-slaves are not owned by individual capitalists,
but rather they are in effect owned by the capitalist class as a whole. Each individual worker
is usually free to quit working for one capitalist, but must then go to work for another in
order to survive.
See also:
SLAVE SOCIETY
CHAUVINISM
1. Patriotism, expecially “excessive”, “blind” or absurdly exaggerated patriotism.
2. Male chauvinism: Partiality towards, or promotion of the rights and privileges of men
as compared with those of women.
3. Similar sorts of partiality and favoritism with regard to some other sub-set of humanity.
All forms of chauvinism favor the rights and
privileges of one section of humanity above all the other sections. In bourgeois usage,
‘chauvinism’ means only excessive patriotism, or excessive concern for the rights
and privileges of men relative to women, etc. But from the revolutionary Marxist point of view
it is not just the “excessive” tendencies like this which are chauvinistic, but any such
tendencies at all!
CHERNYSHEVSKY, Nikolai Gavrilovich (1828-1889)
A very important Russian revolutionary democrat who was the leader of the revolutionary movement
in Russia during the 1860s. He was a utopian socialist, a materialist philosopher, a writer and a
literary critic.
In philosophy, Chernyshevsky further developed
Feuerbach’s materialist views and sought to revise
Hegel’s dialectics in a materialist manner. His philosophy marked the high
point of pre-Marxist materialist philosophy in Russia. However, as Lenin noted, “Chernyshevsky did
not succeed in rising, or, rather, owing to the backwardness of Russian life, was unable to rise to
the level of the dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels”.
CHIANG KAI-SHEK (New style: JIANG JIESHI) (1887-1975)
A reactionary Chinese military leader and political dictator who was eventually overthrown on the
Chinese mainland by the Chinese Revolution in 1949. He then fled with the remnant of his army to
Taiwan where he ruled as dictator until his death.
Chiang was an associate of Sun Yat-sen, the founder
of the Guomindang [Kuomintang] or Nationalist Party, and assumed
control of the GMD after Sun’s death in 1925. Chiang had been the commandant of the GMD’s Whampoa
Military Academy, and had become the top GMD military leader. In 1928 he led the Northern Expedition
(with considerable support from the Soviet Union and members of the Communist Party of China) which
succeeded in displacing a number of warlords and in more or less unifying the country.
But Chiang then turned on the CCP which had been
supporting him within the GMD, and massacred thousands of its members and sympathizers. Chiang led
a pitifully inadequate nationalist resistence to Japan’s invasion of China during the 1930s. This
gave an opening for the CCP, under Mao’s leadership, to wage a more determined fight against Japanese
imperialism. Even during World War II Chiang spent considerable effort fighting the Communists (rather
than Japan); but after the Japanese surrender he turned his full attention toward trying to wipe out
the Communists in a major civil war. However, despite enormous material help from the U.S. (and only
very limited help to the Communists from the Soviets) Chiang was defeated and fled to Taiwan.
On Taiwan he established martial law and ruled in his
usual dictatorial manner. The GMD, at first with Chiang’s son in charge, continued to rule Taiwan
for many years after his death, until bourgeois democracy was finally introduced there. Most of the
hundreds of statues of Chiang on Taiwan that the GMD erected have been taken down and even there a
majority looks back at him with complete disdain.
CHICANO MORATORIUM
A massive demonstration and march by Chicanos and other Latinos against the Vietnam War which took
place in East Los Angeles on August 29, 1970. Between 20,000 and 30,000 people marched and rallied
that day. This was the largest single anti-war demonstration within the Chicano/Mexicano community
during the Vietnam War, and was a powerful protest against the high number of Chicano deaths in the
war. It was also a protest against the inequality and discrimination directed at Chicanos in the
United States. The march and demonstration were peaceful, but the police used the excuse that there
was a store robbery nearby (unrelated to the demonstration) to attack and break up the demonstration.
Four people were killed by the police that day, including journalist Rubén Salazar, and more than
150 people were arrested.
This demonstration and other demonstrations and
activities during that period were organized by the National Chicano Moratorium Committee, which was
led by activists from local colleges and members of the Brown Berets organization.
CHILE — Military Coup of 1973
[Intro material to be added...]
Since Pinochet’s military dictatorship was
overthrown, the government of Chile has gradually announced that more and more people were killed,
tortured, or became political prisoners during that period. As of August 2011, the official
victim list totals 40,018, though this probably still considerably understates the scope of
these crimes. [S.F. Chronicle, 8/19/11, p. A2.]
CHINA — Class Analysis Before 1949
“Those who possess a great deal of land, who do not themselves labor but
depend entirely on exploiting the peasants through rent and usury, sustaining themselves
without toiling—these are the landords. Those who own large amounts of land, plow
animals and farm implements, who themselves take part in labor although at the same time
they exploit the hired labor of peasants—these are the rich peasants. Those who
have land, plow animals and farm implements, who labor themselves and do not exploit
others, or do so only slightly—these are the middle peasants. Those who have only
a small amount of land, farm implements and plow animals, who labor on their own land but
at the same time have to sell a part of their labor power—these are the poor peasants.
Those who have no land, plow animals, or farm implements and who must sell their labor
powerthese are the hired laborers.” —Jen Pi-shih, Several Problems Regarding
Land Reform (1948, in Chinese). Translated and included as an explanatory footnote in
William Hinton, Fanshen: A Documentary of Revolution in a Chinese Village (1966),
p. 27.
CHINA — Hyperinflation In (1937-1949)
The corrupt and reactionary Chiang Kai-shek regime in China
horribly mismanaged the nation’s economy, as well as the country in general. In order to pay
for its enormously expensive war to try to put down the Revolution, it simply printed up ever
more money. By late 1946 what had cost one yuan (the unit of Chinese money) in 1937 now cost
1 million yuan. By December 1947, it cost 16 million, and by the end of 1948, 21 billion yuan.
In May of 1949, just before the final collapse of that government, the same purchase would have
required 8.5 trillion yuan, perhaps the most extreme example of hyperinflation in
world history!
The new revolutionary government led by Mao
Zedong soon brought the situation under control, however. For some information on how this was
done, see the pamphlet “Why China Has No Inflation” (Peking: 1976), by Peng Kuang-hsi, posted
at:
http://www.massline.org/PolitEcon/China/Inflation-pamphlet.htm
CHINESE LANGUAGE — Romanization Of
There are two common systems for Romanizing Chinese names and words. The older of these is
known as the Wade-Giles system, and the newer (and better) system is known as Pinyin. Pinyin
was devised in China in the 1950s and came into virtually universal use in foreign-language
publications published in China beginning on January 1, 1979. Most Western scholarship also
switched over to Pinyin at about that same time. For historical reasons some Chinese names
(such as Sun Yat-sen and Chiang Kai-shek) are still commonly given in the older Wade-Giles
system. Some other names, such as Mao Zedong, while usually given in Pinyin today, are also
still encountered in Wade-Giles form: Mao Tse-tung. In this dictionary names are normally
given in Pinyin, and the Wade-Giles version of the name is sometimes also added and
described as “old style”.
Romanization of Chinese Names and Words
|
| Pinyin |
Wade-Giles |
Approximate
English sound |
| b |
p |
b |
| c |
ts’ |
ts |
| ch |
ch’ |
ch |
| d |
t |
d |
| g |
k |
g |
| j |
ch |
j |
| k |
k’ |
k |
| p |
p’ |
p |
| q |
ch’ |
ch |
| r |
j |
r |
| t |
t’ |
t |
| x |
hs |
sh |
| z |
ts |
dz |
| zh |
ch |
j |
|
[Primary source: Colin Mackerras & Amanda Yorke, The Cambridge Handbook of
Contemporary China, (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1991), p. ix.] |
CHINESE NATIONAL CHAUVINISM
“China is a land with an area of 9,600,000 square kilometers and a
population of 600 million, and it ought to make a greater contribution to humanity.
But for a long time in the past its contribution was far too small. For this we are
regretful.
“However, we should be
modest—not only now, but forty-five years hence and indeed always. In international
relations, the Chinese people should rid themselves of great-nation chauvinism
resolutely, thoroughly, wholly and completely.” —Mao, “In Commemoration of Dr. Sun
Yat-sen” (Nov. 12, 1956), SW 5:330-1.
CHOMSKY, Noam (1928- )
Famous American linguist and political radical, who is known very widely for both things. He
is perhaps the most prominent American intellectual who regularly speaks out against United
States imperialism. Politically he is variously described as an anarchist, an anarcho-syndicalist,
or a libertarian socialist. He is surprisingly weak when it comes to political theory and
political economy, but quite often effective in criticizing American foreign policy.
Chomsky is one of the most famous linguists in
history, and his contributions starting in the 1950s are now known as the “Chomskyian Revolution”
in that branch of science.
In the 1950s, Chomsky began developing his theory of generative grammar,
which has undergone numerous revisions and has had a profound influence on linguistics. His
approach to the study of language emphasizes “an innate set of linguistic principles shared
by all humans” known as universal grammar, “the initial state of the language learner,” and
discovering an “account for linguistic variation via the most general possible mechanisms.”
He also established the Chomsky hierarchy, a classification of formal languages in terms of
their generative power. In 1959, Chomsky published a widely influential review of B. F.
Skinner’s theoretical book Verbal Behavior, which was the first attempt by a
behaviorist to provide a functional, operant analysis of language. In this review and other
writings, Chomsky broadly and aggressively challenged the behaviorist approaches to studies
of behavior dominant at the time, and contributed to the cognitive revolution in psychology.
His naturalistic approach to the study of language has influenced the philosophy of language
and mind. [From the “Chomsky” entry at Wikipedia.com]
Chomsky first became known as a critic of American foreign policy during the Vietnam War.
He has published a large number of books which expose the day-to-day activities and outrages of
American imperialism in detail. Indeed, sometimes these books are a bit dull because of all their
many details and extensive source notes! But his writings are a good source for particulars about
the actual role of the United States in the world today. Chomsky has also given many extensive
interviews (a number of which have been published in book form), and gives frequent public
lectures on political matters (many of which are available as videos on the Internet).
Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian
socialist, which he says is “the proper and natural extension of classical liberalism into the
era of advanced industrial society.” [“Government in the Future” (1970)] The surprising thing,
however, is how very non-radical his political ideas are when you look at them carefully! He
seems to think that American politics is “democratic”, or has mostly been so far (even if there are
now growing “limitations” to that “democracy”. He has no deep theoretical criticism of bourgeois
democracy, of the sort that Lenin did. When it comes to political economy, his ideas are even
more startling! He actually said in a recent video that contemporary American corporations can be
“democratized” and thus be transformed to serve the people. He has little or no understanding of
Marxist political economy, and doesn’t even understand something as basic as the nature of surplus
value. Thus, like many liberals, he thinks the cause of the current economic crisis is the
foolishness of the banks in creating and promoting sub-prime mortgages and securities based on
them, and doesn’t even begin to understand that capitalist economic crises are inherent in
capitalism, and ultimately arise from the very extraction of surplus value!
Chomsky’s contributions to linguistics are important
(though not always completely correct), as are his constant criticisms of American foreign policy.
But his theoretical writings and lectures on politics and economics are of little value. He is
called an “anarchist”, and even wrote a book promoting his idea of what anarchism is. But actually
he is proof of how pedestrian and non-revolutionary anarchism can sometimes be! He is really
only proposing that we make some rather limited and superficial modifications to the American
bourgeois socioeconomic system that in fact deserves to be completely destroyed and reconstructed
from the ground up.
CHURCHILL, Winston (1874-1965)
Famous British politician and imperialist leader. He had a very long history of leadership of the
capitalist state against the interests of both the British peoples and—even more outrageously—against
the people in the British colonies and elsewhere in the world. However, he is viewed as a
national hero by the ruling class in Britain (especially for his leadership role in World War II),
and as a “great world leader” by both the bourgeoisie and numerous misled people in other countries.
There is much work still to do to more fully expose him as a vicious enemy of the people of the
world.
See also:
FAMINES—Imperialist Caused
“We [the British] are not a young people with an innocent record and a scanty
inheritance... We have engrossed to ourselves an altogether disproportionate share of the wealth
and traffic of the world. We have got all we want in territory, and our claim to be left in the
unmolested enjoyment of vast and splendid possessions, mainly acquired by violence, largely
maintained by force, often seems less reasonable to others than to us.” —Winston Churchill,
a comment to his British Cabinet colleagues in January 1914; quoted in John Darwin, The
Empire Project (Cambridge, 2010), p. 268.
Dictionary Home Page and Letter Index
MASSLINE.ORG Home Page