EMANCIPATION OF LABOR GROUP
“The Emancipation of Labor group was the first Russian Marxist
group. It was founded in Geneva by G.V. Plekhanov in 1883; the group included P.B.
Axelrod, L.G. Deutsch, V.I. Zasulich, and V.N. Ignatov.
“The group did much to spread
Marxism in Russia. It translated such Marxist works as the Manifesto of the Communist
Party by Marx and Engels; Wage-Labor and Capital by Marx; Socialism:
Utopian and Scientific by Engels; it published them abroad and organized their
distribution in Russia. Plekhanov and his group dealt a serious blow at Narodism. In
1883 Plekhanov drafted a programme for the Russian Social-Democrats and in 1885 drew up
another. The two drafts were published by the Emancipation of Labor group and marked
an important step towards the establishment of a Social-Democratic Party in Russia.
Plekhanov’s Socialism and the Political Strugle (1883), Our Differences
(1885), and The Development of the Monist View of History (1895) played an
important role in disseminating Marxist views. The group, however, made some serious
mistakes; it clung to remnants of Narodnik views, overestimated the role of the liberal
bourgeoisie, while underestimating the revolutionary capacity of the peasantry. These
errors were the first projections of the future Menshevik views held by Plekhanov and
other members of the group. The group had no practical ties with the working-class
movement. Lenin pointed out that the Emancipation of Labor group ‘only laid the
theoretical foundations for the Social-Democratic movement and took the first step
towards the working-class movement’. [LCW 20:278] At the Second Congress of the
R.S.D.L.P., in August 1903, the Emancipation of Labor group announced its
dissolution.” —Note 102, LCW 5:552-553. [The internal Lenin quote has been
corrected to the form it appears as in LCW vol. 20.]
EMBOURGEOISMENT
Acquiring the characteristics of the bourgeoisie, and especially large parts of their
ideology. Sometimes those classes, strata or individuals which are embourgeoised, or
made more bourgeois, also acquire some objective characteristics of the bourgeoisie, such as
partial bourgeois relationships towards the means of production. (For example, a relatively
well-paid worker might buy some shares of stock or make other investments, even though he or
she must still continue to hold down a job.)
A fundamental principle of
historical materialism is that the prevailing
ideas of any age are ordinarily those of the ruling class. And thus, in bourgeois society,
most of the members of other classes are also indoctrinated to one degree or another with
aspects of the ideology of the bourgeoisie. In other words, in bourgeois society most of the
petty-bourgeoisie and even most of the proletarians are embourgeoised to some degree.
However, the term embourgeoisment usually refers to situations beyond this mere superficial
indoctrination, and where the members of other classes more deeply internalize bourgeois
ideology and habits.
Embourgeoisment of the working class is more
common in imperialist countries like the U.S. wherein a labor
aristocracy arises which to some limited degree shares in the spoils the imperialists rip
off from other countries. The ruling class has sometimes allowed this to happen in order to
keep the workers quiet at home while they exploit the rest of the world. Interestingly enough,
however, as economic problems and eventually a major economic crisis develops, the ruling
class is forced to drive these relatively well off workers down again. The capitalist
necessity becomes that of reproletarianizing the partially embourgeoised working class. This
has been happening in the U.S. in recent decades, and as of 2009 is now tremendously speeding
up as the intensifying crisis develops in the direction of a new great depression.
“EMBRACES BUT CANNOT REPLACE”
A phrase and concept used by Mao in his Talks at the Yenan Forum which describes
the relationship between Marxism and other spheres such as art or natural science. This concept
was later borrowed by Bob Avakian, and has apparently become one of
the main points in Avakian’s claimed “New Synthesis” of
communist theory. Here is what Mao wrote:
“To study Marxism means to apply the dialectical materialist and historical
materialist viewpoint in our observation of the world, of society and of literature and
art; it does not mean writing philosophical lectures into our works of literature and art.
Marxism embraces but cannot replace realism in literary and artistic creation, just as it
embraces but cannot replace the atomic and electronic theories in physics.” —Mao, “Talks
at the Yenan Forum on Literature and Art” (May 1941), SW 3:94.
Mao seems to mean here that there are many things of value in the world in addition to Marxism,
things such as aesthetic values in art and scientific theories of nature, which Marxism by no
means rejects or replaces. But ‘embraces’ means not just “accepts” or “welcomes”, but also “to
take in or include as a part ... or element of a more inclusive whole” [Merriam Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed.]. Thus while Marxism does indeed accept or welcome
aesthetic values and scientific theories of nature, it also seeks to unite them with Marxist
principles into an overall coherent world outlook and expression. In art and literature,
for example, we by no means identify aesthetic merit with the exposition of or agreement
with Marxist ideas and principles; but we do judge works of art based not only on
their aesthetic merit, but also on the basis of whether or not they serve revolutionary
proletarian interests, both morally and politically.
Similarly, in natural science, we do use Marxist
principles to help arrive at and evaluate scientific theories. Our philosophy,
dialectical materialism, is simply the most abstract
conceptions which we have derived from all the sciences, and therefore it is not surprising
that it is of considerable value in determining and evaluatating new scientific theories even in
other spheres besides social science. Even in the natural sciences there are sometimes put
forward theories which purport to be scientific, but which can be almost immediately ruled
out based on the principles of dialectical materialism. (Two recent examples are “creationism”
and “intelligent design”, which have been promoted by Christian fundamentalists within biology
and the educational system.) In other cases, certain aspects of a natural science theory must be
revised in light of Marxist philosophy or principles. (For instance, we reject
“Social Darwinism” even though this was a very secondary
aspect of Darwin’s theory of evolution (and was promoted even more by bourgeois reactionaries
after Darwin). Similarly, in evaluating the “Big Bang” theory in cosmology, by no means must we
accept the religious dogma usually included in it that the universe and “time itself” were
“created” in the Big Bang.) Of course, some dogmatists (e.g., Stalin and
Lysenko) have gone too far with this evaluation of theories in natural
science and rejected some valid and correct theories (such as basic genetics). We must of course
carefully guard against that sort of thing happening again!
In addition to using Marxism to help derive
or evaluate theories in natural science, we also insist on using the principles of Marxism
(and most fundamentally, the basic interests of the people) as our primary guide in how the
discoveries and theories in science are actually made use of in society. For example, the
decision of whether or not to build a nuclear power reactor must be made not only on technical
grounds, but also in light of the possible severe danger it may have for the people should an
accident occur. “While we say that Marxism cannot replace natural science, we do not mean to
weaken the guiding role played by Marxism.”
[“Repulsing the Right
Deviationist Wind in the Scientific and Technological Circles”, Peking Review, v. 19,
#18, April 30, 1976, p. 7.]
There are in fact multiple aspects to what it
means when we say Marxism embraces but cannot replace the theories of natural science.
And while Mao first put it in these precise terms, this entire general approach to the arts and
sciences has been a core part of Marxism from the very beginning. It is thus sheer nonsense to
imagine that Avakian has added anything new to Marxism by including this principle of “embracing
but not replacing” as a central element in his supposed “New Synthesis”!
EMERGENCE
The development of a new property, based on newly arisen dialectical contradictions, of a new
entity, thing or process, which was formerly known only by the component parts which went in to
constructing it. A few of the enormous number of examples which could be mentioned are:
• The phenomenon of air
pressure which is an emergent property of the vast numbers of individual molecules in air
considered together, as they move around and collide with each other and with other objects.
• The phenomenon of ocean waves.
The individual molecules of water (and other substances) in the ocean only go to make up waves
when enormous numbers of them move together in certain ways.
• The blue color of the sky.
Individual air molecules are invisible, but visible light of the wave length we see as blue
is scattered more effectively by masses of air molecules which is why we see the sky as blue.
• Human intelligence is
an emergent property of the functioning of the brain. No individual neuron is “intelligent”,
but intelligence (like all mentalistic terms and states) is a high level way of describing
aspects of the functioning of the billions of components of the brain, or at least the
possible functioning of such a brain, since “stupidity” is also an emergent property
sometimes!
[More to be added... ]
“Simplicity in physics is an emergent phenomenon.” —Robert B. Laughlin,
a Nobel Prize winning physicist, A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the
Bottom Down (2005), p. 130. [This is a profound comment. At some levels of
investigation and description of the world there appears to be enormous complexity.
But, at least in some respects things are much simpler at a higher level of description.
There are trillions and trillions of air molecules in the room buzzing around me right
now and describing the precise situation seems totally impossible. But we can also
describe the air in the room as simply being at 70 degrees Fahrenheit, where the
temperature is an emergent characteristic of all those countless molecules of air
considered as a whole. —Ed.]
“EMERGING ECONOMIES”
“Emerging economies”, “developing economies”—these are the sorts of euphemistic terms used by
the bourgeoisie to refer to the poor countries of the world, most of which are neither
“developing” nor “emerging”, since they are bled dry under the thumbs of the imperialism
countries. Even the bourgeoisie itself sometimes admits these terms are totally phony:
“It makes even less sense to speak of the ‘south’ as shorthand for the
planet’s poor countries (what about Australia or Singapore?) or of the ‘West’ as synonymous
with industrialization and political freedom—what’s ‘western’ about Japan? ‘Third World’
dates from the Cold War, when the planet had capitalist ‘First’ and communist ‘Second’
compartments. Its most recent replacement, ‘emerging economies’, already seems out of date,
as some erstwhile star performers, such as Argentina, submerge. And the term unhelpfully
lumps together hardworking manufacturers (Vietnam, say) and service-based economies (Dubai)
with those blessed—or perhaps cursed—by natural resources (Nigeria, Saudi Arabia,
Russia).” —“A menagerie of monikers”, leader (editorial) in The Economist, Jan. 9,
2010, p. 16.
EMPATHY
Vicariously understanding and/or sharing the feelings or emotions of another person even
though you are not in the same objective situation as the other person, at least at the
moment. Thus you might emphasize with a person whose mother has just died, even though your
own mother is still alive and well. Empathy of this sort is possible because we can all at
least imagine how we might feel in the other person’s situation. Every normal human being
has this capability to one degree or another, and experiments have shown that babies are
either born with the capacity for empathy, or else develop it at an extremely early age.
(Babies tend to be upset when other babies around them are crying, for example.)
“We see someone scratch her elbow; we relate, because we, too, have
scratched our elbow (and our knee, and our neck...), thousands of times. We see
someone yawn; we relate because we, too, have yawned tens of thousands of times.
These kinds of analogies are certainly not deeply insightful, but they are nonetheless
deep, because they lie at the roots of our understanding of other beings—it would be
no exaggeration to describe them as the cornerstones of compassion and empathy—and
because they determine our style of relating to the world.” —Douglas Hofstadter &
Emmanuel Sander, Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking
(2013), p. 156. [I.e., we “relate to”, we are empathetic with, other human beings,
because we see in endless sorts of ways that they are like us and we are like them.
—Ed.]
EMPIRICISM
1. The view that the only source of knowledge of the world is the experience of the
senses... [More to be added...]
See also:
LOGICAL POSITIVISM,
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE (esp. Mao quote)
“If one accepts the premise that all knowledge comes to us through
our senses, Hume says, then one must logically conclude that both ‘Nature’ and
‘Nature’s laws’ are creations of our own imagination.” —Robert Pirsig, Zen and
the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (1974), chapter 11.
[This is the sort of classic
non sequitur which empiricists are prone to. One might by the same “logic” conclude
that since our awareness and knowledge of the moon comes to us through our senses,
that the moon is only a “creation of our own imagination”. It is utterly amazing how
idiotic philosophical empiricists can be! —S.H.]
“Empiricist ideology, which was the collaborator and assistant of
dogmatism [within the Communist Party of China] in the period of its domination, is
likewise a manifestation of subjectivism and formalism. Empiricism differs from
dogmatism in that it starts not from books but from narrow experience. It should be
emphasized that all the useful experience gained by vast numbers of comrades in
practical work is a most precious asset. It is definitely not empiricism, but
Marxism-Leninism, to sum up such experience scientifically as the guide to future
action, just as it is definitely not dogmatism, but Marxism-Leninism, to take the
theories and principles of Marxism-Leninism as the guide to revolutionary action and
not as dogma. But if there are some comrades among all those versed in practical
work who remain satisfied with their own limited experience and with that alone, who
take it for dogma that can be applied everywhere, who do not understand and moreover
do not want to acknowledge the truth that ‘without revolutionary theory there can be
no revolutionary movement’ [Lenin, “What Is To Be Done?”, LCW 5:369] and that ‘in
order to lead, one must foresee’ [Stalin, Works, 11:39], and who consequently
belittle the study of Marxism-Leninism which is the summation of world revolutionary
experience, and are infatuated with a narrow practicalism which is devoid of principle
and with a brainless routinism that leads nowhere; and if they nevertheless sit and
give orders from on high ... then indeed these comrades have become empiricists.”
—Mao, “Appendix: Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party”,
adopted April 20, 1941, SW 3:211-212.
EMPLOYEE MENTALITY
Viewing one’s work within the revolutionary movement, or for a revolutionary party, in
the same way an employee of a capitalist corporation might view their work. Naturally, since
the corporation exists not to benefit its employees or the public, but only to make profits
for its rich owners, few employees will go out of their way to do the very best job that
they can. They will most often do only what they are told to do by their supervisor, and
often only to the minimum acceptable level. However, when it comes to our revolutionary work,
each of us involved in it shares the greatest responsibility for making it as successful as
we can. Each of us must continually think about how we can do a better job in our revolutionary
work, and about what further tasks we can perform that really need to be accomplished. We must
not think like exploited employees, but rather like people who are really dedicating their
lives to serving the people.
“3. The ‘employee’ mentality. Some comrades do not understand that the
Party and the Red Army, of which they are members, are both instruments for carrying out
the tasks of the revolution. They do not realize that they themselves are makers of the
revolution, but think that their responsibility is merely to their individual superiors
and not to the revolution. This passive mentality of an ‘employee’ of the revolution is
also a manifestation of individualism. It explains why there are not very many activists
who work unconditionally for the revolution. Unless it is eliminated, the number of
activists will not grow and the heavy burden of the revolution will remain on the
shoulders of a small number of people, much to the detriment of the struggle.” —Mao, “On
Correcting Mistaken Ideas in the Party” (Dec. 1929), SW 1:113.
The percentage of the population that has jobs. In the U.S. this percentage increased for a
number of decades following World War II as growing numbers of women had to find jobs
outside the home to help maintain family income levels (as real wages of men began to fall).
However, in recent years, more and more people (men and women both) have been laid off and
have been unable to find new jobs, as the economic crisis continues to develop. And many
young adults who look for jobs once they are out of school cannot find them at all. The
drop in this employment/population ratio was especially sharp in the
“Great Recession” of 2008-9. Note that despite phony
claims by the government that the unemployment rate has been falling since then, the
employment/population ratio has remained low and essentially unchanged. A new recession
will cause it to drop even further.