Friday, 31 January 2025
Anti-Duhring, Part I, Philosophy, IX – Morals and Law. Eternal Truths - Part 6 of 12
If we consider social organisms, we can see, as Engels describes in The Origin of The Family, Private Property and The State, the material conditions – rise in social productivity – that bring about the dissolution of the primitive commune and metamorphosis into class society. It is not that the class society arises alongside it, or within its interstices. Rising social productivity makes possible a social surplus, A social surplus means that some in society need not labour. It is the foundation of class society, as a division into labourers and exploiters of that labour, of rulers and ruled.
If we look at different types of class society, however, we see a different process, more akin to evolution of different species than to metamorphosis of a given species through its lifecycle. When the primitive commune dissolved and private property arises, this private property takes the form of means of production, primarily the ownership of land, but, in slave societies, also, of slaves. As Barrington Moore Junior describes, even in societies based on the AMP, where a bureaucratic-collectivist ruling caste arises, there is still a class of private landlords and often slave owners.
Slave-owning societies always existed alongside the private ownership of land, and the existence of a large class of peasants, who were neither slaves nor owners of slaves. Slave society does not metamorphose into feudal society, but is replaced by it, as better adapted to material conditions.
Just as slave-owning societies, such as ancient Greece and Rome, as well as societies based on the AMP, such as Egypt, India, and China contained within them private landowners and peasants, so feudal society based on private land owners contains within it, also, the ownership of slaves/serfs, as well as a large class of peasants. This feudal society, based on this private ownership of land leads to a metamorphosis into a more developed form, but it is not capitalism. In every society, including the primitive commune, there arises commodity production and exchange, as Marx and Engels describe. Each commune begins to produce commodities that it exchanges with other communes. In order to conduct this trade, the communes appoint representatives who become the basis of a class of merchants.
So, even whilst societies continue to be based on direct production, be they slave societies, feudal societies, or the AMP, there is always trade and commodity production and exchange, and there are always merchants, and their merchant capital. Because money arises naturally from such commodity production and exchange, as a means of indirectly measuring value, and then of circulation, there also arises, in each of these societies, money lending capitalists. These are what Marx calls antediluvian forms of capital.
Feudal society exists on the basis of the extraction of rent from land ownership – unequal exchange. Its mature metamorphosed form, then, becomes colonialism, the acquisition of land across the globe. The means for achieving this becomes a symbiotic relation between the landowners, and the merchant and money-lending capitalists. In other words, Mercantilism. But, as Marx sets out, this mercantilism itself represents an obstacle in the path of the development of a new social organism in the shape of capitalist society. Rent, interest, and merchant profits represent a deduction from industrial profit. It was based upon unequal exchange, protectionism and monopoly.
Thursday, 30 January 2025
Anti-Duhring, Part I, Philosophy, IX – Morals and Law. Eternal Truths - Part 5 of 12
Scientific study depends upon being able to produce a hypothesis, and then to test that hypothesis, but if the phenomenon being studied is always unique in its own own specificity it becomes difficult to test the hypothesis for validity, because of the role of these different variables. If we study the metamorphosis of a caterpillar into a moth, or a tadpole ino a frog, it only becomes possible to recognise the connection between one and the other when the process of metamorphosis is largely complete.
If we witnessed it for the first time, there would be no reason to connect a tadpole with a frog or a caterpillar with a moth. These are two different creatures, in both cases. We only recognise the connection of the tadpole to the frog when it begins to grow legs, and take on other characteristics of the frog. The same is true of the caterpillar though its transformation is hidden within the cocoon. However, we have seen the metamorphosis of tadpoles into frogs, and caterpillars into moths so frequently that we can assert that one necessarily implies the metamorphosis into the other.
But, unlike tadpoles or caterpillars, no two societies are identical. Even when they share many common features, as with feudalism, there are always variations. So, to conclude that, because feudalism in country A, followed some given historical course that resulted in its replacement by capitalism, means that every feudal society must follow this same course of development cannot be hypothesised in the same way. Hence Marx and Engels comments to Zasulich and Danielson, respectively, about the development of capitalism in Russia. Or, as Plekhanov noted, the question of whether it must pass through that stage of development, in the 1890's, was the wrong question, because it already was doing so.
Similarly, in Capital and elsewhere, Marx identified not that capitalism was inevitably going to give way, at some point in the future, to Socialism, but that it was, already, metamorphosing into it, even then. The development of socialised capital, in the form of the cooperatives and joint stock companies, was the transitional form of property between the two – capital but not capital. The nature of this large-scale capital, as oligopolies, involved planned production, not production determined by the planless nature of the market and competition. It required the removal of the constraints of the nation state, as later Lenin and Trotsky and others were to more fully elaborate, as the imperialist stage of capitalism. All of these are the features and characteristics of the socialist future, not the capitalist past, just as much as the legs sprouted by the tadpole are the characteristics of its future existence as a frog, and signify the inevitable and imminent transition to that future existence.
Its useful to compare and contrast the evolution of biological species as against the metamorphosis of a species, as part of its life-cycle, with the evolution of social organisms, as against a similar metamorphosis. A given species, say a chimpanzee does not metamorphose into some other species, such as a human being. Both are primates, and evolved from a common ancestor. But that is not the case with the metamorphosis of tadpoles into frogs or toads, or caterpillars into moths and butterflies. Each of these former metamorphoses into each of the latter, as part of its own individual life-cycle, the frogs and toads producing tadpoles, and moths and butterflies caterpillars.
Wednesday, 29 January 2025
Anti-Duhring, Part I, Philosophy, IX – Morals and Law. Eternal Truths - Part 4 of 12
The second great development of human knowledge is that relating to living organisms.
“In this field there is such a multiplicity of interrelationships and causal connections that not only does the solution of each problem give rise to a host of other problems, but each separate problem can in most cases only be solved piecemeal, through a series of investigations which often require centuries; besides, the need for a systematic presentation of interconnections constantly makes it necessary to surround the final and ultimate truths with a luxuriant growth of hypotheses again and again. What a long series of intermediaries from Galen to Malpighi was necessary for correctly establishing such a simple matter as the circulation of the blood in mammals, how little do we know about the origin of blood corpuscles, and how numerous are the missing links even today, for example, in the establishment of rational relationship between the symptoms of a disease and its causes!” (p 110-11)
And, again, here, science has confirmed Engels' argument. In doing so, it has revolutionised that knowledge, and speeded up the pace at which that knowledge is acquired. It has been facilitated by all those other developments in science and technology in other spheres, themselves, often accelerated by the requirement of capitalism to replace labour with technology, and to reduce the costs of production, so as to raise productivity, and maximise profits, as the capitalistic form of the operation of The Law of Value. The development of more powerful microscopes enabled bacteria and viruses to be identified, as well as the way they invade the cells of other organisms, causing disease. The development of X-Rays enabled the examination of the inside of bodies, which has been further extended by the development of MRI and CAT scanners to give 3D images of organs etc. DNA and RNA were discovered and their molecular structure identified, and then, more recently, computer technology enabled the genome to be decoded. Now, AI makes possible the use of big data to identify patterns and connections that would be impossible for human analysts to discern.
The third department of human knowledge is that relating to society, its history and social relations, giving rise to laws and institutions, “with their ideal superstructure in the shape of philosophy, religion, art, etc.” (p 111) Here, it is even more difficult to determine absolute or eternal truths.
“In organic nature we are at least dealing with a succession of processes which, so far as our immediate observation is concerned, recur with fair regularity within very wide limits. Organic species have on the whole remained unchanged since the time of Aristotle. In social history, however, the repetition of conditions is the exception and not the rule, once we pass beyond the primitive state of man, the so-called Stone Age; and when such repetitions occur, they never arise under exactly the same circumstances.” (p 111)
One commonality that reproduced itself for a long time was the common ownership of land. Engels also says that another commonality was the way it was dissolved. The latter, however, is not true. The dissolution of common ownership, and its replacement by private property, as a result of some internal processes, is the same across Europe, but, even in Scotland and Ireland, where clan ownership persisted for a long-time, the real cause of dissolution arises from external forces, i.e. the role of British colonialism. The same is true of common ownership in Asia, Africa, the Americas, and Australasia.
“In the sphere of human history our knowledge is therefore even more backward than in the realm of biology.” (p 111)
Tuesday, 28 January 2025
Why Are Supporters of Palestine Deluding Themselves?
Supporters of Palestine and the Palestinians are deluding themselves. Repeatedly, we hear comments such as Netanyahu has failed, because Hamas has not been defeated, that a ceasefire has, now, been agreed, in which large numbers of Palestinian hostages are being released from Zionist gaols, and so on. To see in this any kind of victory for Palestine or for the Palestinian people, let alone for the working class of Palestine, or the broader region, is wilful self-deception.
First, of all, as I set out at the start of the Zionist genocide in Gaza, the aim of Netanyahu was never the defeat of Hamas, or release of hostages. That provided a useful justification for the actual purpose of the Zionist onslaught, which was to flatten Gaza, eviscerate the West Bank, and further extend its annexation, as well as to open up new wars of annexation in Lebanon and Syria. The ludicrous, and reactionary attack carried out by Hamas on October 7th, simply facilitated it. It was to enable the latest phase of the Zionist project to create a Zionist state stretching “from the river to the sea”, or a “Greater Israel”, as it is described using ridiculous biblical foundations. In turn, that project fulfils the strategy of US imperialism to create the geo-strategic conditions for a Middle Eastern politico-economic bloc, as set out in the Abraham Accords, with other US clients, such as the Gulf States, Jordan, and Egypt to counter the growing influence of China.
This is nothing less than a 21st century equivalent of the genocides committed against Native Americans, and aborigines in Australia, in the 19th century, to clear the way for the seizure of their land, and more rapid economic development, which their continued resistance frustrated. Those that justified the project of Zionism, either at the time, or later, including those who did so on the basis of the cover of arguing for the illusory, two-bourgeois states solution, bear responsibility for all of the inevitable wars between that expansionist Zionist state, and its neighbours, all of the death and destruction, the creation of conditions in which all sorts of reactionary, nationalist ideologies, medievalist clerical-fascist ideologies, and divisions between the working-class of the region, could thrive. Its no wonder that some of those that are responsible for that are willing to delude themselves, once more, into believing that a peaceful, progressive solution for Palestinians might, now, open up, with a rebuilding of Gaza, arising out of the ceasefire.
But, on the other side, those that adopted an equally reactionary nationalist stance of supporting Hamas, or likewise, Hezbollah are also responsible for those same divisions and so on. Not for nothing did Lenin and the early Comintern argue that our goal is not national self-determination, but the self-determination of the working-class, as an international class. Not for nothing did they set out in the Theses on The National and Colonial Questions, that communists only give support to bourgeois-national struggles where the revolutionary proletariat plays a leading role, and where, therefore, the possibility of permanent revolution exists. Not for nothing did they specifically warn against the reactionary role played by the khans, clerics and so on, and of Pan-Islamism.
That is true, whether that support for those reactionary nationalists takes the overt and crude form of groups such as the SWP and its various splinters, or the more subtle form of that of the CPGB/Weekly Worker, which continually confuses and conflates the question of support for an abstract right of self-determination of nations, with the support for the concrete struggle being waged by reactionary, nationalist organisations and governments. It is simply a continuation of the Popular Frontist strategy of the Mensheviks and Stalinists, which has repeatedly led the working-class into disaster, as with Stalin's support for Chiang Kai Shek, and the KMT government.
In fact, as Owen Jones has set out, from the start of the Zionist genocide, in his videos, you did not need to look hard for the real agenda of Netanyahu and his government, which makes Jones' own repeated refusal to face the facts of what is going on even more puzzling, and illustrative of that self-deception. From the start, the Zionist regime, from top to bottom, made open statements about their intention to exterminate the Palestinians in Gaza, men, women, children, babies and their property and livestock, with full biblical rhetoric in citing Amalek. That is what they proceeded to do, with no concern about hostages, or whether, in that process, Hamas managed to protect itself, in large part, or whether, as a consequence of the genocide, other similar organisations would be created to take its place. On the contrary, despite the fact that the majority of hostages were released as result of negotiations, rather than military operations, and despite the continual demonstrations inside Israel, the Zionist regime, repeatedly obstructed negotiations, and continued with its genocide, backed to the hilt by US, UK and EU imperialism.
We have large headlines in western newspapers, on Monday, rightly stating that we should “Never Forget”, the Nazi Holocaust that slaughtered six million Jews, and yet the sickening, gut-wrenching hypocrisy of those headlines, and of those newspapers, and other media organisations, is that they have forgotten, when it comes to standing up against the very genocide happening in front of their eyes, in Gaza, a genocide that they have not only permitted, but actively encouraged and provided cover for.
For the reality is that Netanyahu, and the Zionist regime have not suffered any kind of defeat, or failure. In fact, Netanyahu, who was facing electoral defeat, would probably win an election, tomorrow, and, on that basis, rather like his friend Trump, would also sweep aside the legal challenges he faces, too. And, Netanyahu's friend Trump, also spells out that reality more clearly. Trump is truly a moron, but one benefit of that is that he simply blurts out what his intentions are, as with his desire to seize Greenland, and the Panama Canal, and now his desire to clear Gaza, sending its population to Jordan or Egypt, to make way for its annexation by the Zionist state, and the development of Gaza's “prime beach front”, no doubt including the erection of Trump hotels, casinos, and golf courses! As with the open statements about their intentions, given at the start by the Zionist regime, we should take Trump at his word, a word that has been openly seized upon, by Smotrich, and others.
If we take the other supposed victory of the Palestinians, it is the release of large numbers of them held in Zionist gaols. But, anyone with any sense knows that, having flattened Gaza, much of Lebanon, and having eviscerated any capacity for the Palestinians to fight back, the current ceasefire, is merely a means of the Zionist regime completing its victory. As soon as the remaining hostages are released, the bombing and shelling will resume. Indeed, the shooting, bombing and shelling have never actually stopped, the occupation of Lebanon and of Syria has continued, in defiance of the terms of the deal, and, no sooner than the ceasefire, inevitably collapses, the Zionist regime will simply round up even more Palestinians from the West Bank than it has released! It has given UNWRA until Thursday to cease operations in Gaza.
The willingness of supporters of Palestine to delude themselves that what has happened is anything short of a disaster for Palestine, let alone the idea that it is some kind of defeat for the Zionist state, stems from their own impotence, other than to issue one pious wish after another. It is the result of seeing the world as some kind of morality play, a struggle between good and evil, in which, ultimately good wins out in the end. Unfortunately, its not just bourgeois liberals that have adopted that world view, but the vast majority of “the Left”, including those that proclaim themselves to be Marxists. For actual Marxists, history is not a morality play, but the consequence of class struggle, determined on the basis of material conditions, which unfolds according to objective social laws.
On that basis, its impossible to describe what has happened in Palestine as anything other than a disastrous defeat for the Palestinians, but more importantly for the global working-class, whose political leadership has been found missing in action once more, and in criminal dereliction of its duty.
Monday, 27 January 2025
Anti-Duhring, Part I, Philosophy, IX – Morals and Law. Eternal Truths - Part 3 of 12
If we take mathematics, astronomy, mechanics, physics and chemistry, Engels says,
“... it can be asserted that certain results obtained by these sciences are eternal truths, final and ultimate truths, for which reason these sciences are called the exact sciences. But this is very far from being the case for all their results. With the introduction of variable magnitudes and the extension of their variability to the infinitely small and infinitely large, mathematics, which was so strictly moral in other respects, fell from grace; it ate of the tree of knowledge, which opened up to it a path of most colossal achievements, but at the same time a path of error, too. The virgin state of absolute validity and irrefutable proof of everything mathematical was gone for ever; the realm of controversy was inaugurated, and we have reached the point where most people differentiate and integrate not because they understand what they are doing but from pure faith, because up to now it has always come out right.” (p 109-10)
In other words, the differential calculus, without which most modern maths and science would be impossible, itself breaches the rules of the syllogism. In orthodox economics, for example, based on marginalist theories, the point of tangency is fundamental. If we take an indifference curve, at the point of tangency with the budget constraint line, it is where the consumer is indifferent between good A or B. Either side of this point, they can improve their welfare by exchanging one for the other, and so will do so up to this point. But, how do they, then, choose one or the other as any choice implies inequality?
Similarly, firms employ factors of production up to the point at which the marginal revenue product from them is equal to their price, and, similarly, they expand output to the point where the marginal cost of production of a good is equal to its price. But, as described earlier, all of these points of tangency required for the determination of optimality conditions, require the existence of such a point, which, when considered more closely, has to be a point as defined in mathematics, as being of zero size. It depends on something that can only exist abstractly, and not in the real world.
Engels; argument was strengthened within a couple of decades of his death, both in the work of Einstein, on Relativity, but also, the work of Planck, Bohr, Schrodinger and others in relation to Quantum Theory. Again, without the latter, none of modern electronics would be possible.
Engels argues that, with many of these sciences, it would be impossible to verify the theories, because it would be impossible to observe the reality. In fact, we have been able to do that, to a far greater extent too, and, thereby, to confirm the theories. Einstein's theory of relativity, which showed that Newton's laws were themselves only partial truths, argued that gravity is not a force, but represents a distortion of the fabric of space-time, due to mass, and this distortion also causes light to be bent, so disproving the “truth” that it travels in straight lines. That was proved by observing the light from distant stars being bent around the sun - gravitational lensing – during an eclipse.
Engels doubted that we would be able to observe the movement of molecules, but the development of the electron microscope has made that possible, and now have the ability even to manipulate individual atoms via nano-technology. At the other extreme, in the realm of the very large, the Hubble, and, now, James Webb telescopes have enabled us to see to the outer reaches of the known universe, and so also, back in time to within around 300 million years after the Big Bang. That, plus spacecraft sent in orbit around, and landing on other planets, means that we can observe the same processes of geology and meteorology.
Sunday, 26 January 2025
Anti-Duhring, Part I, Philosophy, IX – Morals and Law. Eternal Truths - Part 2 of 12
Up to this point, Engels says, he has let the claims of Duhring, in relation to the existence of absolute and eternal truths slide. In relation to natural philosophy, we accept a whole series of such “truths”, because they are tautological and, for all everyday, practical purposes, “true”. That 2 + 2 = 4, is, on this basis, true, and always will be true, even though, as described earlier, when considered concretely, for example, two raindrops + two raindrops may equal one large raindrop, and so on, it is not true. But, Engels notes, it is now that Duhring seeks to make these claims in relation to social science, to morals, laws and history that such tolerance cannot continue.
“So far it has been enough to inquire how far the separate assertions of the philosophy of reality had 'sovereign validity' and 'an unconditional claim to truth'; now we come to the question whether any, and if so which, products of human knowledge ever can have sovereign validity and an unconditional claim to truth.” (p 107)
Is human thought sovereign, Engels asks? If we mean the thought of any individual, then, clearly not. But, if what is meant is the totality of all human thought, all of this sum of human knowledge, past, present and future, “then, I say that the total thought of all these human beings, including the as yet unborn, which is embraced in my idea, is sovereign, able to know the world as it exists, if only mankind lasts long enough and in so far as no limits are imposed on its knowledge by its organs of knowledge or the objects to be known, then I am saying something which is pretty banal and, what is more, pretty barren. For the most valuable result would be that it should make us extremely distrustful of our present knowledge, since in all probability we are just about at the beginning of human history, and the generations which will correct us are likely to be far more numerous than those whose knowledge we are in a position to correct – often enough with considerable contempt.” (p 107)
In other words, there is a fundamental contradiction in Duhring's argument, which seeks to assert not only that these absolute and eternal truths exist, but that he has uncovered the key to identifying them. In the same way that he is contemptuous of the thinkers that went before him, and what he sees as their errors, it would be inevitable that future generations would find the errors contained in his thinking, not simply of the absolute and eternal truths he set out, but also in his method of identifying them. The reality of what he argues, as with Proudhon, is not this sovereignty of human thoughts, but the sovereignty of his own thought, passed off as objectively determined laws.
“In other words, the sovereignty of thought is realised in a series of human beings whose thinking is most unsovereign; the knowledge which has an unconditional claim to truth is realised in a series of relative errors; neither the one nor the other can be fully realised except through an unending duration of human existence.” (p 108)
In fact, even if humanity survived into an infinite future, its knowledge of reality would continually expand and deepen, but would be unlikely to ever be absolute.
“In this sense human thought is just as much sovereign as not sovereign, and its capacity for knowledge just as much unlimited as limited. It is sovereign and unlimited in its disposition, its vocation, its possibilities and its final historical goal; it is not sovereign and it is limited in its individual fulfilment and in reality at any particular moment.” (p 108-9)
Are there truths so well established that we can accept them as absolute or eternal, Engels asks? Of course, Engels replies, citing the examples of 2 + 2 = 4, the internal angles of a triangle equating 180 degrees, that Paris is in France, and that a man who gets no food dies of hunger. In fact, all these could be challenged, contrary to Engels' claim. The relative nature of the first has already been described. In fact, illustrating Engels' broader argument, the second has also been proved to be only relatively true, i.e. it applies to Euclidean geometry. If we take a triangle on the surface of a sphere, its internal angles do not equal 180 degrees, just as in this case, the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line.
If we examine the third example, its clearly not an eternal truth. Paris existed before France, and the borders of France may change, as happens with national borders over time, due to wars, annexations and so on. Moreover, what is meant by the word Paris? It refers to a city, but as with all cities, it is constantly changing. Properties are added and removed, people are born and die, move and so on. For all intents and purposes, we can accept that Paris is in France, but it is then trivial.
Saturday, 25 January 2025
Anti-Duhring, Part I, Philosophy, IX – Morals and Law. Eternal Truths - Part 1 of 12
Duhring believed that he had set out a series of eternal and absolute truths by his method, relating to natural philosophy, applicable everywhere in the universe. On that basis, he argued that this same method made possible the identification of similar truths in the realm of moral philosophy, much as did Kant with his categorical imperative. Of course, Duhring had done no such thing, in the realm of natural philosophy, and he does no better when it comes to moral philosophy.
“We refrain from giving samples of the mish-mash of platitudes and oracular sayings, in a word, of the simple balderdash with which Herr Dühring regales his readers for full fifty pages as the deep-rooted science of the elements of consciousness. We will cite only this:
“He who can think only by means of language has never yet learnt what is meant by abstract and authentic thought”.” (p 105)
As Engels notes, on that basis, every animal must be the most abstract and authentic thinker. Indeed, so would be human infants, before they learn to talk, and yet the work of Piaget identified that humans do not properly learn to think abstractly until around the age of 15. Gramsci also identified the importance of language in relation to thinking, writing that those who use language poorly, and are careless with grammar, also tend to think in the same kind of careless and undisciplined manner.
Engels notes that Duhring puts his argument about the application of these rules to all celestial bodies at the start of this section on morals and laws. The reasoning is that, by establishing a universalisability to all worlds, it is easier for him to, then, argue that these rules are absolute and eternal for the one celestial body, Earth.
Engels paraphrases Duhring's comments.
“The world of morals, 'just as much as the world of knowledge in general ', has 'its permanent principles and simple elements'. Moral principles stand 'above history and above present differences in national characteristics... The special truths out of which a more complete moral consciousness, and, so to speak, conscience are built up in the course of evolution,, may, in so far as their ultimate basis is understood, claim a validity and range similar to mathematical insights and their applications.'” (p 106)
As with the rest of Duhring's writing, there is nothing really new in this approach. The attempt to apply the laws and methods of mathematics to philosophy was the foundation of Cartesian philosophy. As previously noted,, in relation to morals, it is the basis of Kant's categorical imperative. Duhring, as with Proudhon, really just picks up and regurgitates these ideas. There is nothing new in Duhring's approach compared to that of Proudhon, previously dismantled by Marx in The Poverty of Philosophy.
“'Genuine truths are absolutely immutable ... so that it is altogether stupid to think that the correctness of knowledge is something that can be affected by time and changes in reality'” (p 106)
Friday, 24 January 2025
Trump's First Failure
Trump's first failure of his second term did not take long to materialise. He had promised to end the Ukraine-Russia war within 24 hours of becoming President. He hasn't, nor even within 48, or 72 hours of becoming President. Like everything that comes out of his mouth, it was a lie, and ridiculous.
As I wrote in my predictions for 2025, the only way that Trump could bring even a rapid end to the war, is if he were to immediately pull the rug from under Zelensky, much as, if Biden had really wanted a ceasefire in Gaza, he would have stopped supplying weapons to the Zionist state. Biden obviously was not going to stop arming the Zionist state (and nor will Trump as it resumes its genocide and wars of annexation), because the Zionist state is implementing US policy in the region. It requires the annexation of large amounts of land by the Zionist state, and obliteration of the Palestinians, and any other potential obstacles to that goal. That clears the path to the normalisation of relations with Saudi Arabia etc., as set out in the Abraham Accords, and the creation of a US friendly economic bloc in the region, to counter the growing influence of China/BRICS+.
The supporters of Putin anticipated that Trump would, indeed, quickly pull the plug on Zelensky, whilst the supporters of Zelensky, created their own new straw to grasp, by hoping that Trump was just setting up a bargaining stance in which he would threaten Putin that, unless he did a deal, the US would step up its arms supplies to Ukraine. As I set out in that prediction, that was always a false hope, “because as has already been seen any such additional support will not change things. More importantly, Trump has promised his supporters an end to the war, and that the US is removing itself from it. He is not going to undermine that position, and the only way of ending it soon is by pulling the plug on Zelensky.”
Already, Trump has failed, and reneged on the promise he made to his supporters, of ending the war in 24 hours of becoming President. Its not the only failure he's going to face, and those failures will increasingly lead to the disappointment of many of those that voted for him, as reality imposes itself, much as happened when reality imposed itself following the implementation of Brexit, in Britain. Trump has tried to cover his failure by saying that he has told Putin to do a deal quickly or face further sanctions, tariffs and so on. Much as with the threats issued to the EU by the Brexiteers, it is a toothless and empty threat.
Russia has been suffering sanctions and so on since 2014, and each new round of such have decreasing scope and effectiveness. Indeed, the main effect of those sanctions and so on, has been, not on Russia, but on the EU, which has seen its energy prices soar, as it boycotted Russian oil and gas. As I set out in that prediction,
“one of the reasons that all of the predictions by NATO imperialism about Russia's economy being destroyed, as a result of western sanctions, failed is that Russia, whose economy is heavily geared to the sale of primary products, has been able to continue selling them to China, India and elsewhere, and the effect of western sanctions has simply been to raise global prices of those products, and to encourage the development of alternatives to the western controlled global systems. It has been one of the biggest encouragements for the BRICS+ imperialist bloc there could be. What is developing is not a multipolar world, but a bi-polar world of these two huge imperialist blocs butting heads against each other, with the EU being torn by different forces in both directions.”
Russia knows that Trump can't step up arms supplies to Ukraine without Trump losing face with his base, and, in any case, with Russia sitting secure in its newly annexed regions of Eastern Ukraine, any additional weapons are no more likely to help Ukraine, than all the previous supplies. Indeed, Ukraine's main problem is, increasingly, not supply of weapons, but available troops to use them, especially as it faces increasing opposition from those it is asking to fight. So, Russia is likely to ignore any such threat. But, Trump has, also, used that recognition to shift the ground on to the real target of US imperialism, which is not Russia, but China. Recognising that further sanctions against Russia are unlikely to have any impact, Trump has opened the possibility of further sanctions and tariffs against anyone that facilitates trade with Russia, i.e. primarily China, but it, also, thereby, draws in India, and other BRICS+ states.
However, for reasons I also set out in my predictions for 2025, this is also unlikely to be effective either. The US, and EU already have tariffs and other protectionist measures in place against China, because they are losing out in global competition. Further such measures were already planned. For example, Trump had promised to impose 100% tariffs on imports from China – another promise he has failed to implement – and the EU has imposed large tariffs on Chinese EV's. Threatening China with additional sanctions and tariffs for continuing to facilitate Russian trade, is unlikely to be very effective, therefore, both because it sees those measures being threatened either way, and because, not only does China get much of its energy and other materials from Russia, but, it has increasingly developed its own regional market for its exports, as well as others in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America.
Further tariffs on China will not affect its exports to these other markets, and will also see China retaliate with its own tariffs on US and EU goods. Its why Germany, which is the biggest EU exporter to China, opposed the imposition of tariffs on Chinese EV's. Similarly, US imperialism tried to force Chinese owner of Tik-Tok, ByteDance, to sell Tik-Tok to a US company, to continue operating, but that also hasn't worked. Not only do many of Trump's supporters, along with millions of other US citizens, use Tik-Tok, every day, but many use it to earn a living. In addition, many of them, decided to move to a wholly Chinese alternative to Tik-Tok, Red Notes. Trump has not only been forced to give Tik-Tok a reprieve from being banned, but has also backed down, on his proposed 100% tariff threat.
Further tariffs by the US and EU on Chinese exports are only likely to raise the prices of those goods for their domestic consumers, further aggravating the so called “cost of living crisis” that they have faced over the last two or three years, as the vast amounts of liquidity they pumped into circulation during lockdowns, led to surging inflation. In conditions where we have systemic labour shortages, leading to rising wages, any such rise in the cost of living/value of labour-power, will simply lead to wages rising to compensate, and so reducing the profits of capital based in the US and EU. Central banks will, undoubtedly, try to ameliorate that by providing liquidity so that companies can further raise prices to compensate for the rising wages – and the ability of firms to use commercial credit, anyway, facilitates that, even if central banks don't – but that only leads back to the price-wage spiral that governments and central banks thought they had tamed.
Moreover, Trump partly based his campaign on dealing with that rise in the cost of living. If it quickly starts rising again, it will represent another one of his failures in the eyes of his supporters. Even more important, is that, as I set out, Trump's base, as with that of Farage, is within the ranks of the petty-bourgeoisie - the self-employed, the small trader and so on. Unlike big companies, they can't easily absorb those rising costs, and nor can they simply raise their wages, as workers can. It is they that will bear the brunt of Trump's economic policy, and his own, self-inflicted cost of living crisis, much as happened with the consequences of Brexit. That petty-bourgeois base undoubtedly likes the idea of swingeing tariffs, especially put forward on the basis that it reduces the requirement for higher taxes, but the reality of it is different.
Trump talked about the role of tariffs in that regard in the early days of the US, but Sky News' Ed Conway, illustrated the fallacy of those claims.
Moreover, as Engels described, although such protectionist measures may have a positive role for an industrialising economy, as the US was, in order to accumulate its own capital and scale of production, those benefits quickly dissipate, and become reversed.
“Protection is at best an endless screw, and you never know when you have done with it. By protecting one industry, you directly or indirectly hurt all others, and have therefore to protect them too. By so doing you again damage the industry that you first protected, and have to compensate it; but this compensation reacts, as before, on all other trades, and entitles them to redress, and so on ad infinitum. America, in this respect, offers us a striking example of the best way to kill an important industry by protectionism.”
That is being seen again, with the effects of protectionism, against China, simply meaning that in all of those areas of new technology such as green energy, battery technology, the development of E.V's, and charging infrastructure, it is continuing to stride ahead, whilst those economies seeking to protect their existing old industries, in energy production, fossil fuels, and petrol engined vehicles are simply delaying the inevitable, whilst simultaneously holding back the development of the new technologies.
It has been interesting to see other elements of the points made in my predictions for 2025, already playing out. For example, in relation to the question of access to Arctic routes and resources. Setting aside all questions of morals, it is not surprising that Trump has laid claim both to Greenland, and the Panama Canal. Logically, there is no more reason for Greenland to be part of Denmark than the Falkland Isles to be part of Britain. Indeed, Trump simply blurts out the fundamental reality that logically not only Greenland, but, also, Canada, should be part of a North American state. Its no wonder, therefore, that whilst Trump has backtracked on his promise of 100% tariffs on Chinese imports, he has spoken about imposing 25% tariffs on both Canadian and Mexican imports, even though, under the terms of the Mexico-Canada-USA treaty, that would be illegal. The MCA, of course, was signed during his first term, as a replacement for NAFTA. As with the Brexit deal signed by Boris Johnson, it didn't take long for Trump to denigrate a deal he was responsible for!
Yet, the fact is that the deal has been more beneficial for the US than for Canada or Mexico. Consequently, that gives both Mexico and Canada leverage in responding to any such tariffs, in a way that would be highly detrimental to the US, even more so than retaliation by China. US exports to each country run at almost triple American exports to China.
Expect reality to impose itself even more on Trump's rhetoric in the coming days and weeks. His policies in relation to energy production, are also full of contradictions, in a world where there is a surplus of oil production. As with Brexit, and the petty-bourgeois, nationalist agenda attempted by Truss, and now by Starmer/Reeves, they offer an even less credible solution than the already failed model of conservative social-democracy (Neoliberalism).
Thursday, 23 January 2025
Anti-Duhring, Part I Philosophy, Chapter VIII – Natural Philosophy. The Organic World (Concluded) - Part 3 of 3
Metabolism occurs even without life, Engels notes. In other words, a chemical process which consistently reproduces itself. We might also think about the carbon cycle, which involves the processes of geology, also. Engels uses the example of sulphuric acid produced by burning sulphur.
“In this process sulphur dioxide, SO2, is produced, and when steam and nitric acid are added, the sulphur dioxide absorbs hydrogen and oxygen and is converted into sulphuric acid, H2SO4. The nitric acid gives off oxygen and is reduced to nitric oxide; this nitric oxide immediately absorbs new oxygen from the air and is transformed into the higher oxides of nitrogen, but only to transfer this oxygen immediately to sulphur dioxide and to go through the same process again; so that theoretically an infinitely small quantity of nitric acid should suffice to change an unlimited quantity of sulphur dioxide, oxygen and water into sulphuric acid.” (p 101)
He also gives the example of liquids passing through organic or inorganic membranes, as with Traube's artificial cells. So, metabolism, of itself, cannot be definitive. He offers as an alternative,
“Life is the mode of existence of proteins, and this mode of existence essentially consists in the constant self-renewal of the chemical constituents of these bodies.” (p 102)
He notes that, wherever we find life, we find proteins. These proteins form building blocks of life, but organisms also also absorb proteins, in order to build and repair existing cells.
“But what are these universal phenomena of life which are equally present among all living organisms? Above all the fact that a protein absorbs other appropriate substances from its environment and assimilates them, while other, older parts of the body are decomposed and are excreted.” (p 102-3)
Non-organic matter also decomposes. A rock into sand, a metal into rust, an so on. But, this does not apply to organic life. Organic life, first, grows for example, a seed into a plant, a child into an adult. It is not a simple wear and tear as with the erosion of a rock, or even the passing of time itself that causes organic life to deteriorate and die. We know much more about this process, now, than Engels could know at that time. He writes,
“From which it follows that if chemistry ever succeeds in producing protein artificially, this protein must show the phenomena of life, however weak these may be. It is certainly open to question whether chemistry will at the same time also discover the right food for this protein.” (p 103)
In fact that has happened. Understanding of amino acids, of DNA and RNA enables such artificial life to be created in the laboratory, and grown in the appropriate medium. Similarly, using existing cells, its now possible to grow entire organs in the laboratory. But, we also know, as a result of the discover of DNA, that the cause of ageing, and ultimately death, is errors in the replication of this DNA in cells, as hey replace themselves, and that thee is a limit to the number of times a cell can replicate itself, determined by telomeres. However, science appears to be on the verge of being able to deal with these problems, so that ageing can be prevented, or even reversed. Understanding the role of epigenetics, is also significant in this respect.
“From metabolism - the essential function of protein – by means of nutrition and excretion, and from its peculiar plasticity there are derived all the other most elementary processes of life: capacity for excitation, which is already included in the interaction between the protein and its food; contractibility, which is shown, already at a very low stage, in the consumption of food; the possibility of growth, which in the lowest stage includes propagation by division; internal movement, without which neither the consumption nor the assimilation of food is possible.” (p 103-4)
Engels notes that this definition of life is also, inevitably, deficient, because limited. Fans of science-fiction will know that such organic life is based on carbon, whereas it has been suggested that, elsewhere in the universe there may be silicon based life forms. As the development of I shows, a self-aware computer could have all the required conditions of life, and would be able to engage in a process of metabolism and reproduction. It would not have the limitations and fragility of existing, carbon based, organic life-forms.
“But for ordinary usage such definitions are very convenient and in places cannot well be dispensed with; nor can they do any harm, provided their inevitable deficiencies are not forgotten.” (p 104)
Wednesday, 22 January 2025
Anti-Duhring, Part I Philosophy, Chapter VIII – Natural Philosophy. The Organic World (Concluded) - Part 2 of 3
Engels quotes Duhring's statement that,
“In nature, too, one simple type is the basis of all organisms, from the lowest to the highest”, and this type is “fully and completely present in its general essence even in the most subordinate impulse of the most undeveloped plant”. (p 98)
This is also wrong, Engels note. The most simple form of organic life upon which all the higher organisms are based, is the cell, but, among the lower organisms, there are many that stand below the cell, such as the protamoeba, consisting of a single globule of protein, “and a whole series of other monera and all bladder seaweeds (Siphoneae). All of these are linked with the higher organisms only by the fact that their essential component is albumen and that they consequently perform functions of albumen, i.e., live and die.” (p 98) Non-cellular organisms are considered part of a common universal ancestor of all life.
Duhring says that a dividing line between plants and animals is sensation, which requires some central nervous system. Plants are devoid of such sensation. Again, science has shown that to be wrong. But, even at the time Engels was writing, it was clearly wrong for some plants. For example, the carnivorous plants responded to the sensation of insects landing on them to close up and trap the insect before digesting it. Duhring had made this distinction at the same time as noting the existence of intermediate forms that could not be definitively classified as either plant or animal. Engels notes,
“That these intermediate forms exist; that there are organisms of which we cannot say flatly that they are plants or animals; that therefore we are wholly unable to draw a sharp border line between plant and animal — it is precisely this fact that makes it a logical necessity for Herr Dühring to establish a criterion of differentiation which in the same breath he admits is unsound!” ( p 99)
Moreover, the idea that sensation requires the existence of a nervous system is wrong. Plants whose chemical composition and operation of photosynthesis do not require a nervous system to experience the sensation of ultra-violet light that causes them to grow towards the sun, for example. This kind of sensation, towards light, is what leads, also, to the development of photo-sensitive cells that come to form the eye of animals.
Engels quotes Duhring's gibberish definition of life.
“The metabolism which is carried out through a plastically creating schematisation” (what in the world can that be?) “always remains a distinguishing characteristic of the real life process” (p 100)
Engels, then, sets out his own definition. To define life as an organic metabolism is to define life as life, “for organic metabolism or metabolism with plastically creating schematisation is precisely a phrase which in its turn itself needs explanation through life, explanation through the distinction between the organic and the inorganic, that is, that which is living lives and that which is not living. This explanation therefore does not get us any further.” (p 101)
Tuesday, 21 January 2025
Anti-Duhring, Part I Philosophy, Chapter VIII – Natural Philosophy. The Organic World (Concluded) - Part 1 of 3
Chapter VIII – Natural Philosophy. The Organic World (Concluded)
Engels gives a description of the nature of organic bodies, consisting of cells. He, then, describes the cell, consisting of a nucleus and outer membrane containing liquid surrounding the nucleus. Engels notes the existence of single celled organisms, as the most basic forms of life, and of the development of multi-celled organisms. He describes the process of cell division, but could not, at that time, explain how the evolution from single-celled to multi-cellular organisms occurred, because science has only recently proposed a theory to explain that.
The process of the formation of living organisms from non-living matter, abiogenesis, is, now, fairly well understood. The “vital spark”, is not itself some mystical act of creation, but arises from purely natural processes, combining known chemicals, and the role of electricity generated from a proton gradient.
The whole of Engels' presentation was necessarily limited, as he says, by the limits of science at that time. Not only had DNA and RNA not been discovered, but all of the science related to genes, in the type of cells produced to perform given functions was not known. So, although Engels could describe the way that all of the organic elements such as bones, blood, skin and so on are comprised of cells, and these cells are all different, he could not explain what causes that process of cell division to produce some cells that are blood cells, some bone cells, and some skin cells, for example, given that they begin from a single cell.
However, even allowing for those inevitable deficiencies, the point is that the process of cell division and formation of organic material, described by Engels, is clearly one of the development of the organism. Indeed, embryology, in looking at the development of the human embryo, in the womb, notes the similarities with other forms of embryo, reflecting the common heritage and evolution of all life. The main point, here, is in contrast to Duhring's description of this process as “composition”, implying some conscious or pre-determined end, that was involved, rather than development, which evolutionary theory shows takes place unconsciously, and with no pre-determined end, and yet, still purposively.
Engels quotes Duhring's definition of life.
“The inorganic world too is a system of automatic movements; but it is only at the point where real differentiation, and the interposition of the circulation of substances through special channels from one internal point and according to an embryonic scheme transmissible to a smaller structure begins that we may venture to speak of real life in the narrower and stricter sense”. (p 97)
Engels notes that this makes no logical or grammatical sense.
“If life first begins where real differentiation commences, we must declare that the whole Haeckelian kingdom of protista and perhaps much else besides to be dead, according to the meaning we attach to the concept of differentiation. If life only begins when this differentiation can be transmitted through a smaller embryonic scheme, then at least all organisms up to and including unicellular ones are not living things. If the interposition of the circulation of substances through special channels is the distinguishing mark of life, then, in addition to the foregoing, we must strike from the ranks of the living the whole of the higher class of the Coelenterata (excepting however the Medusae), that is, all polyps and other plant-animals. If the circulation of substances through special channels from one internal point is the essential characteristic of life, then we must declare that all those animals which have no heart and those which have more than one heart are dead. That is besides those already enumerated, all worms, starfish and rotifers (Annuloida and Annulosa, Huxley's classification), a section of the Crustacea (lobsters), and finally even a vertebrate animal, the Amphioxus. And moreover all plants.” (p 97-8)
Haeckel's theory of these pre-cellular organisms was deficient, but science has confirmed the development of cellular organisms from pre-cellular organisms.
Monday, 20 January 2025
Anti-Duhring, Part 1, Philosophy, Chapter VII – Natural Philosophy. The Organic World - Part 7 of 7
As Engels notes, science could only, at that that time, hypothesise that such organic life comes into existence as a result of such chemical reactions. Duhring, however, posited “independent coexistence of products of nature unmediated by descent.” (p 91)
How could these have arisen?
“... if these homogeneous products of nature — organic, of course, as here we are only dealing with such — are not connected by descent, they or each of their ancestors must have been put into the world by a separate act of creation at the point “where the thread of descent breaks off”,. So we arrive once again at a creator and at what is called deism.” (p 92)
Engels notes that Duhring mistakenly ascribes to Darwin the claim that the origin of variations is sex, whereas Darwin only ascribes the preservation of variations to sex, i.e. heredity. He also notes the development of the sciences of embryology and palaeontology, whose discoveries had further confirmed Darwin's theory.
“There is in fact a peculiar agreement between the gradual development of organic embryonic germs into mature organisms and the sequence of plants and animals succeeding each other in the history of the earth. And it is precisely this agreement which has given the theory of evolution its most secure basis.” (p 93)
By contrast, Duhring is forced to acknowledge the existence of such variability, but posits it alongside and separate from independent, unchanging products of Nature.
He says,
“The ... variability of species is an acceptable assumption”. But in addition “the independent coexistence of homogeneous products of nature, unmediated by descent” is valid too. (p 93)
So, after all, Duhring has to accept the Darwinian theory, and yet, even then he claims it to be a secondary factor.
“... after all his moral indignation over the struggle for existence through which natural selection operates we suddenly read:
“The deeper basis of the constitution of creatures is thus to be sought in the conditions of life and cosmic relations, while the natural selection emphasised by Darwin can only come in as a secondary factor”” (p 94)
Finally, Duhring takes issue with the term metamorphosis, proposing instead the term composition. Metamorphosis, of course, implies organic development from within, whereas composition implies a conscious process, guided from without.
Sunday, 19 January 2025
Anti-Duhring, Part 1, Philosophy, Chapter VII – Natural Philosophy. The Organic World - Part 6 of 7
The other component of evolution besides variation is heredity, i.e. those beneficial variations are inherited by future generations as the means of adaptation. According to Duhring, Darwin was wrong, here, too. He claims that Darwin had argued that all life evolved from one ancestor. In fact, Darwin said no such thing. Engels notes,
“Darwin expressly says on the last page but one of his Origin of species, sixth edition, that he regards
“all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings”.
Haeckel even goes considerably further, assuming
“a quite independent stock for the vegetable kingdom, a second for the animal kingdom”, and between the two “a number of independent stocks of protista, each of which, quite independently of the former, has developed out of one special archegone of the moneron type” (Schöpfungsgeschichte, p. 397)” (p 90-91)
For Duhring, claiming that Darwin had proposed this evolution from one primordial being has the advantage that he can, again, use the argument of the chicken and egg, of where did this original being come from? Even assuming not some primordial Adam, but a “few beings”, as actually argued by Darwin, or a separate stock of plant and animal beings as proposed by Haeckel, the question of chicken and egg, of how this organic life came into existence, before any process of evolution can occur, still arises.
“This primordial being was only invented by Dühring in order to bring it into as great disrepute as possible by drawing a parallel with the original Jew Adam, and in this he — that is to say, Herr Dühring — has the bad luck to be ignorant of the fact that [George] Smith's Assyrian discoveries have shown that this original Jew emerged from the chrysalis of the original Semite, and that the whole biblical history of the creation and the flood turns out to be a fragment of the old cycle of heathen religious myths which the Jews have in common with the Babylonians, Chaldeans and Assyrians.” (p 91)
As Engels notes, Duhring is quite right that Darwin's theory of evolution cannot extend back to the point prior to this primordial being or beings. But, that does not invalidate it as a theory of evolution of organic life. It was limited by the state of knowledge of science in general, at that time. Since then, science has developed a greater understanding of organic chemistry, of the role of amino acids, proteins, DNA and RNA. It has shown that these basic chemical elements were present on the Earth, and has been able to reproduce, in the laboratory, the means by which they can combine to form the building blocks of life.
The first forms of such life are single-celled organisms, and they posed a problem for the theory of evolution, because, without cell division, there can be no development of multi-cellular organisms and so no process of adaptation. However, recent theories have proposed that, much as with viruses that invade other cells and destroy them, such an organism must have invaded another single-celled organism, but, rather than destroying it, merged with it, creating a process of cell division, and the creation of multi-cellular organisms.
Saturday, 18 January 2025
Anti-Duhring, Part 1, Philosophy, Chapter VII – Natural Philosophy. The Organic World - Part 5 of 7
It is not, as Duhring seems to think, that individual plants will themselves to be toxic, or red, so as to survive, nor that they will themselves to grow taller, or grow in the direction of sunlight. All of these traits are simply ones they have as a consequence of their individual genetic make-up, mostly inherited from their parents, but also from mutation as a happy accident.
Duhring says,
“If, in growing, a plant takes the path along which it will receive most light, this effect of the stimulus is nothing but a combination of physical forces and chemical agents, and any attempt to describe it as adaptation — not metaphorically, but literally— must introduce a spiritistic confusion into the concepts”. (p 89)
If the Darwinian theory were that individual plants act in particular ways out of their own conscious will, rather than simply responding to these stimuli, then, of course, it would imply some ability to do so, some consciousness within the plant. But, that is not what the theory says. Yet, its that, as a species, those that develop certain characteristics are the ones that thrive and survive. By seeing the process as one in which certain desired ends are achieved consciously, but not as a result of any consciousness within the given species, Duhring simply transfers the source of this consciousness to Nature itself. He speaks of Nature's subtlety and will, and yet draws back from the logical conclusion from that. He says,
“The relation between means and end does not in the least presuppose a conscious intention”. (p 89)
Engels notes,
“What, then, is adaptation without conscious intention, without the mediation of ideas, which he so zealously opposes, if not such unconscious purposive activity?” (p 89)
In other words, it is not necessary to assign any conscious will on the part of Nature, as a whole, as some kind of spiritistic force, or to any given species or aspect of Nature, to achieve some given end, to identify a process in which the adaptation occurs, and does so for a definite purpose. The plants that become toxic do so as a result of a purposive process in which those individuals of the species that have this characteristic survive. Engels notes that its no accident that polar bears are white etc., given where they live.
This same unconscious, and yet purposive adaptation is seen in terms of the evolution of social organisms too, as Marx and Engels and later, Lenin describe, with these processes taking place “behind Men's backs”, as they put it. The development of first generalised commodity production and exchange, and, then, capitalism, was not something consciously planned and implemented by any individual or group of individuals, but arises out of the same adaptation to material conditions. Similarly, as Marx and Engels set out in Capital I, and III, the development of socialised capital, as the transitional form of property between capitalism and socialism was not something planned by individuals or society, but arises inevitably from the processes, the material conditions of capitalism itself, of the role of competition, and the consequent drive for capital accumulation, concentration and centralisation.
“... it cannot be denied that these animals, are purposively adapted through those colours to the environment in which they live, since they have thus become far less visible to their enemies. In the same way the organs with which certain plants seize and devour insects alighting on them are adapted to this action, and even purposively adapted. Consequently, if Herr Dühring insists that this adaptation must be effected through ideas, he is only saying, in other words, that purposive activity must likewise be brought about through ideas, must be conscious and intentional. As is usually the case in the philosophy of reality this again brings us to a purposive creator, to God.” (p 89-90)
Friday, 17 January 2025
Anti-Duhring, Part 1, Philosophy, Chapter VII – Natural Philosophy. The Organic World - Part 4 of 7
Engels notes the work of Haeckel,
“and the variation of species conceived as a result of the mutual interaction of adaptation and heredity, with adaptation being represented as the variation-producing factor and heredity as the preserving factor in the process.” (p 88)
Duhring is again offended by the use of a term, here, adaptation, rather than the actual content of the process described.
“Once again it is the name which makes Herr Dühring angry. But whatever name he may give the process, the question here is whether variations in the species of organisms are produced through such processes or not. And again Herr Dühring gives no answer.” (p 88-9)
Duhring does not understand the process as being one in which these individuals of a species that have inherited certain advantageous characteristics thrive, and pass on those characteristics, but one in which certain individuals, as some kind of conscious act of will, adapt themselves to those conditions.
Plants that developed toxins that deterred other creatures from eating them, did not do so as some kind of conscious act of will, and it is not that any individual plant within the species, overnight, does so. Some individual plants would have had characteristics that made them less attractive to potential predators, and one of those characteristics would have been a chemical make-up that was toxic to those predators.
The individuals within the species that had these characteristics would survive and pass on those characteristics that become enhanced, and become a part of the general characteristics of the species, or cause it to evolve into a new species. Often this toxic characteristic goes along with a red colouration and other creatures learn that this colouration implies toxicity and avoid it. But, other plants and other creatures that may not have developed this toxicity as a defence benefit from the fact that other creatures avoid eating anything red. So, those individuals that have a red or reddish colouration, survive and pass on these characteristics in their genes.
Thursday, 16 January 2025
Anti-Duhring, Part 1, Philosophy, Chapter VII – Natural Philosophy. The Organic World - Part 3 of 7
Following his return to England, Darwin did, indeed, study plant and animal breeding, because he saw in it the same processes of variation and development he had witnessed in his analysis of species on his travels. Yet, those variations had arisen without such conscious intervention, and Darwin sought, in his study, of plant and animal breeding to identify what those processes were, and how Nature might itself have brought them about.
The process has two components – variation and heredity. We now know, as a result of the science of genetics, that the characteristics of all organisms are determined by their genes, and these genes are inherited from their parents. Large numbers of new organisms come into existence and they all differ one from another, because they all have a different sequencing of their genes, as we now further understand as a result of the decoding of these genomes, which computer technology made possible, 20 years ago.
As a result of these minor differences in the genes, of any given species, they will have different characteristics. Depending upon the material conditions, in which the given species exists, some characteristics will be more beneficial than others. A plant whose characteristics mean that it tends to be even slightly taller than others may poke its head higher, obtain more sunlight and grow stronger. It will be more likely to survive, and so will pass on its characteristics to the plants that grow from its seed. The plant, of course, did not consciously grow taller to achieve that advantage, it was simply better adapted to those conditions. In other conditions it might have been a disadvantage.
“However great Darwin's blunder in accepting the Malthusian theory so naively and uncritically, anyone can see at the first glance that no Malthusian spectacles are required to perceive the struggle for existence in nature — the contradiction between the countless host of embryonic germs nature so lavishly produces and the small number of those which can ever reach maturity, a contradiction which in fact finds its solution for the most part in a struggle for existence — often of extreme cruelty.” (p 86)
Yet, Duhring could not see any possibility of a struggle for existence amongst unconscious plants or plant eaters, restricting it only to “the brutes”, and, having done so, then, moralistically, rails at the brutality of this process. He accuses Darwin of producing “its transformations and differences out of nothing” (p 87) But, this is not true, as set out above. The transformations occur as a result of the inheritance of advantageous characteristics.
“It is true that, when considering natural selection, Darwin leaves out of account the causes which have produced the variations in separate individuals, and deals in the first place with the way in which such individual deviations gradually become the characteristics of a race, variety or species. To Darwin it was of less immediate importance to discover these causes — which up to the present are in part completely unknown, and in part can only be stated in quite general terms — than to find a rational form in which their effects become fixed, acquire permanent significance.” (p 87-8)
But, we do know, now, the causes of these variations, which reside in the genetic make-up of the different individuals of a given species. We also know that other causes play a part, such as arising from mutation, as well as, more recently, becoming aware of the role of epigenetics in the way that certain genes within the genome of an individual may be turned on or off.
“It is true that in doing this Darwin attributed to his discovery too wide a field of action, made it the sole agent in the alteration of species and neglected the causes of the repeated individual variations, for the form in which these variations become general; but this is the kind of mistake which he shares with most other people who make any real advance.” (p 88)
This is quite correct, as not only does mutation play a role, but, also, there is the role of mass extinctions, which, for example, wiped out the dinosaurs, except for the birds, and which suddenly created conditions where other species may prosper.