The CPGB Philosopher Speaks

“Materialism and the Dialectical Method” by Maurice Cornforth, 1953

This is a somewhat ponderous and dated introductory explanation of dialectics and materialism.  Cornforth joined the British CP at Trinity College, Cambridge in 1931 and became one of their leading lights.  His specialty was philosophy.   

Cornforth explains the great battle between idealism and materialism that is still going on, which later morphed into a battle between religion and science.  He points out the non-philosophical understanding of materialism is that it means being a grubby consumer, a shallow person and a greed-bag.  “You’re so materialistic!” is the insult.  However, science is based on materialism, as is all technological innovation, and it is in the sense of understanding material reality as dominant that the term comes from.

THE IDEAS

Cornforth quickly examines: 1, ‘subjective idealism’ – the idea that everything that exists is in your head; 2, a ‘realism’ or dualism that allows for gods, ghosts, devils and suchlike; 3, ‘mechanical materialism,’ which thinks the world has no internal contradictions, but instead works like a clock with all that entails – absolute predictability, an outside clock-maker; an inability to grasp non-mechanical processes and treating society as a machine too; 4, idealism within the Left, which thinks that ‘bad ideas,’ ‘bad people’ and psychology are the real source of the problem.  Given the old publication date, he is unaware of post-modernism, semiotics, constructivism, identity politics, colonial and trans theories and the like.

As opposed to mechanical materialism, which was at one time a huge improvement over various idealisms, Cornforth says dialectics as applied to the material world shows that:  1, The world consists of processes; 2, matter and motion are inseparable; 3, there are an ‘infinite diversity of forms; 4, all things exist through connections and interrelations, not as discrete elements.  As can be seen, like most Marxists, Cornforth applies theory to nature, not just to class struggle or social issues.  

Evolution is a confirmation of dialectics in nature, as it shows changes from ‘quantity into quality,’ a signpost of dialectics.  For instance, a machine doesn't change - it just breaks or wears out.  It can't morph from water to ice for instance.  It shows how changes are part of a process, the interplay between environment, genes and animals. Internal contradictions and struggles of opposites also affect evolution within materiality.  When you apply this theory to society, it implies that capitalism is not the end point of history, which is why dialectics is not favored by the ruling class in science or politics.    

DIALECTICAL Receptacle?

Cornforth explains dialectics as rising above the ‘either/or’ abstractions, forever fixed concepts and the false dualisms of metaphysics.  ‘Man’ to the metaphysicians is an abstraction, not a living, breathing human embedded in a certain social and natural environment.  ‘Pure democracy’ and ‘human nature’ are other abstractions, absent a look at the social context in which they are being discussed. It’s like looking at a dead fish out of water.  “Growth” is not automatically linear either, as changes from quality into quality, like the development of a fetus, imply jumps in processes.   Liberals believe that all change should be gradual going forward, while conservatives believe all changes should be gradual going backward.

Dialectics on the other hand recognizes the ‘unity and struggle of opposites,’ not irreconcilable differences.  This implies that change can grow out of conflict, that, like the yin-yang symbol, contradictions can produce a synthesis that explains the movement of matter, nature, ideas, art, people and societies.  Even artists understand the combination of equal parts of red and blue is purple.  Class struggle is the foremost example affecting society.  But it is also evident that the seeds of socialism are present in capitalist planning, its world-wide spread, the growth of the working class and its' technology. Cornforth, who was balding, comments that men are not just ‘bald’ / ‘not bald’ as baldness is a process!  This is his answer to metaphysics which in the 1950s was a thing.

Cornforth goes after the liberal ideas of ‘fairness’ and rights.  He cites Lenin against ‘abstract truths’ and how dialectics and materialism presuppose “a thorough, detailed analysis of a process in all its concreteness.”  In this context, Lenin argued against a rigid, constant or perfect usage of ‘thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis’ thinking which came from Hegel, not Engels or Marx.  As Lenin said, ‘truth is always concrete.’ 

Cornforth says that development does not move in a straight line, but in zig-zags.  However sometimes stagnation is a result in history – witness the long reign of medievalism which only slowly developed into something else. In the present context ‘negation’ actually implies change, though liberals claim it is only negativity and anarchism, not a reaching for something higher.  This is how they treat all serious opposition to capitalist methods. A ‘negation of the negation’ actually implies development.  The phrase is an unfortunate conundrum, originating from Hegel but then upgraded by Marx.  In one key example an older form of society can come into being at a higher level, as primitive communal relations are joined with higher productivity and labor saving.  Private property is negated that once itself negated collective property. Engels pointed out that the law worked in looking at aspects of geology, plant breeding and chemical interactions too.

Cornforth ends with the concept of ‘criticism and self-criticism’ – a misused tactic that was later implemented to brow-beat internal opponents of the ‘correct’ line.  He instead means that theory and practice should be combined, which is an odd usage.  He ends with an ironic quote from Stalin:  “A Party is invincible if it does not fear criticism and self-criticism…”  Unfortunately not the tack taken by the CPSU.

SOURCES

The present print of this book omits the original publication date.  It also removed original parts of a section about Lysenko, who Cornforth accuses of a ‘miscarriage of dialectics’ in this text, a position against Stalinist orthodoxy.’  It was published 1 year prior to Stalin’s death, so it has many quotes as flattery to the dear leader, along with his acolyte Zhdanov.  Following Stalin, Cornforth thinks that ‘dialectical materialism’ can understand reality fully.  Since reality is always changing, this position of omniscience is actually impossible.  Nor is a concept like infinity fully comprehensible, a concept he occasionally endorses.  In a short description of the formation of ‘the whole stellar system’ Cornforth supports the idea of the original formation of the universe, which implies a ‘creator’ or creation myth, not a constantly changing universe. Cornforth also endorses Stalin’s perspective that dialectical change is ‘invincible’ and the working class ‘must conquer.’  This implies that socialism is inevitable, which is not true.  As Luxemburg remarked, a possibility could be ‘socialism or barbarism.’ The later fall of the USSR and the European workers' states is more proof.  This theory is yet another form of abstract, dogmatic positivism.  The struggle predominates, not some pre-ordained destination, as if socialism was the inescapable heavenly destination for the true believer.  Socialism is not a church.

This is all written under the moniker of ‘Marxism-Leninism” a code for Stalinist or bureaucratic socialism. Again and again Cornforth explains that “…dialectical materialism is the world outlook of the Marxist-Leninist Party” as if it was exclusive to the CP, as if a human organization embodied a certain theory – sort of like the Catholic Church once claimed for Christianity.  How did that work out?  Let’s apply dialectical and materialist analyses to the fates of the CPs then.  I'll bet we can find some internal contradictions!

Cornforth’s book is a simple introduction to the subject, using many political and some natural examples, along with quotations.  Some will appreciate its direct language, though perhaps not its errors. 

Prior blog reviews of this subject, use blog search box, upper left, to search our 17 year archive, using these terms:  “The Principal Contradiction,” “Hothouse Utopia,” “The Destruction of Reason” (Lukacs); “Reason in Revolt” (Woods/Grant); “Marx in Motion,” “Can History Predict the Future?” “Ubiquity,” “The History of Philosophy” (Woods); “Ten Assumptions of Science,” “On Revolution” (Sartre); “Materialism” (Eagleton); “Marx and Human Nature,” “The Crisis in Cosmology” or the “Big Bang.”

And I bought it at May Day Books!

Red Frog / August 16, 2024