Dimitrios Patelis | Revolutionary Unification (Greece)
Contents
1. Introduction
2. On the structural conditions of unity and struggle between people
3. Concerning the historically differing degrees of unity and conflict among human beings
4. What is the meaning of an upcoming “biologisation” of production?
5. What is the necessity for planning and how does it relate to planning?
6. Morality, politics and law as aspects of social conscience
7. Justice as a criterion for the preservation or change of the objective conditions of human existence
8. Just and unjust wars. War & revolution
9. Some conclusions
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Introduction
Does it make sense for people to think about justice when World War III (WWIII) is rapidly escalating into a series of war zones? What historical causes determine the different forms of unity and struggle among people? How do human needs and interests escalate historically? How do they relate to morality, politics and law as aspects of social conscience? Under what conditions can justice function as a criterion for maintaining or changing the objective conditions of human existence? What is the relation between politics, war and revolution? Are there just and unjust wars?
What is justice? The concept of justice has a double meaning: 1. It refers to the application and administration of law, its practical enforcement as an institution and action of the state. 2. It is a concept of moral philosophy and moral conscience, which is also linked to political and legal conscience. It concerns the “δέον”[1] and is linked to historically changing conceptions of the nature of man and his inalienable rights. It implies the demand that the social position of a given individual or historical community (group, class, nation, state, etc.) should correspond to the practical role it plays in the life of society, that there should be a correspondence between consciously understood needs (interests) and practical possibilities for their satisfaction, between rights and duties, between labour and reward, between crime and punishment, between people’s contribution and its social recognition. A mismatch between the above is seen in the context of moral conscience as injustice. Here we will emphasise the second meaning of the term.
Understanding the concept of justice and its significance for the prospects of humanity requires the study of the structure and history of society as a whole in the Logic of History (Vaziulin 2004, p. 73-97). It also requires the dialectical study of the relations between social conscience and social being, i.e. the relations between man as a conscious being and the objective conditions of his existence, as well as the interaction of ethics, politics and law (as above, p. 229-293).
2. On the structural conditions of unity and struggle between people
An essential structural element of humanity is the fundamentally different survival strategy of the human race compared to animals. Man, as the culmination and dialectical sublation of earlier biological development, instead of adapting to the changes in his environment, turns this survival strategy into its opposite: he changes, transforms his environment, nature, through his labour activity in order to survive by satisfying his needs. In this way, he creates a man-made, artificial environment, developing a system of technological and, in a broader sense, social, culturally mediated processes to satisfy his vital needs through foraging (gathering, hunting, fishing, mining, extraction of resources) and production. This fact essentially distinguishes the process of man’s exchange of matter with nature from that of animals: while animals metabolise instinctively (either as individuals or in herds), man metabolises in a socially mediated way, with the help of the means of foraging and production, through the social division of labour, as a being with conscience and self-conscience (as above, p. 99-201).
The type of relations that develop between people depends on the type and character of human labour activity on nature. If we outline the conditions of this activity, we find that they are summarised in aspects concerning: 1. the quality and quantity of the results of this activity, 2. the type of effort that the subject of this activity has to make, and 3. the type of subject required for this activity to be carried out. (as above, p. 221-228)
1. From the point of the results of man’s labour activity on nature for the satisfaction of his vital needs, namely the products derived from foraging and production, this activity can:
1a) provide people with goods that are just above the minimum threshold for the survival of the members of society, but below the optimum (the combination of quantity and quality that would ensure the optimal development of their organism). In this case, as long as some members of society satisfy their needs at the expense of others, relations of rivalry, hostility and competition develop between people. “Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole, i.e., on the side of the class that produces its own product in the form of capital” (Marx, Capital, vol. 1, 645). The competitive nature of these relations derives from the struggle to seize, secure and control this super-product, the struggle to possess and redistribute it: “Darwin did not know what a bitter satire he wrote on mankind, and especially on his countrymen, when he showed that free competition, the struggle for existence, which the economists celebrate as the highest historical achievement, is the normal state of the animal kingdom. Only conscious organisation of social production, in which production and distribution are carried on in a planned way, can lift mankind above the rest of the animal world as regards the social aspect, in the same way that production in general has done this for men in their aspect as species. Historical evolution makes such an organisation daily more indispensable, but also with every day more possible. From it will date a new epoch of history, in which mankind itself, and with mankind all branches of its activity, and especially natural science, will experience an advance that will put everything preceding it in the deepest shade” (Engels, Introduction to Dialectics of Nature). This is the basis on which the historical sequence of the types of private property, of socio-economic class formations, characterised by exploitation and oppression, emerges and escalates.
1b) The above-mentioned activity as a historical tendency governed by laws[2] develops to the point where it is able to provide people with goods sufficient for the optimal satisfaction of the vital needs of all members of society; therefore, from this aspect, the causes for the development of rivalries, exploitation, oppression, enmity and competition for survival disappear, and consequently conditions for the development of cooperation, friendship, solidarity, comradeship and mutuality are created.
2. From the point of the character of labour, of the type of effort that the subject of this activity has to make,
2a) as long and insofar as this action is predominantly repetitive, strenuous, unhealthy, tedious, etc., there is a tendency on the part of individuals and groups to avoid this kind of labour, a tendency to impose and assign this kind of labour to certain people so that others can get rid of it and avoid it. Wherever and whenever historical forms of labour such as slave labour, serf labour or wage labour dominate, labour is usually projected as repulsive, as “external forced labour; and not-labour, by contrast, as ‘freedom, and happiness’” (K. Marx Grundrisse: Notebook VI―The Chapter on Capital). There is then a tendency for conflict between people, so that some (the few) can parasitise at the expense of others (the many), in order to afford the privilege of leisure.
In this case, to the extent that the level of development of man’s labour activity on nature does not allow society to ensure access to creative activities that promote personal development (e.g. research or artistic activity) for all its members, the struggle between people, the competition for access to this type of activities, which allow man to develop, becomes more intense. Consequently, in this society, as long as and to the extent that a certain level of development of the personality of some people is achieved, it is usually at the expense of others, in conditions of incomplete development, in conditions of a development deficit, of underdevelopment of some other people; therefore, in any case, it also bears the stigma of this one-sidedness, of cultural inequality. Man, whose development on the basis of competition is antithetical of the underdevelopment of others, is marked by one-sidedness and alienation. He who enslaves others cannot be a free man. This is also true―as the classics of Marxism-Leninism have shown―of the relations between historical communities and groups (classes, peoples, states, groups of states, etc.).
2b) From the point of the character of labour, of the type of efforts the subject of this action has to make, as long as and to the extent that it becomes a developing, interesting and creative activity par excellence, “in which labour becomes attractive work, the individual’s self-realization” (as above), and when this type of labour becomes accessible to all members of society, the tendencies of parasitism and the conditions of rivalry, competition, etc., born of unequal access to creative forms of labour, disappear. Society can ensure the satisfaction of the need for creative labour for all its members, as long as and to the extent that the character of labour changes radically, when the developing type of labour takes precedence over the repetitive one, when, due to broad automation, man is expelled from the direct process of production as a physical presence, having become the creator, regulator and operator of automated processes. In this case, the complete development of one’s personality through creative occupation/activity is not achieved as a process that takes place regardless of, or at the expense of, the development of the other person’s personality. On the contrary, labour is transformed into a creative activity, social culture/education, in the context of which the mutual enrichment of knowledge, skills and creative abilities of fully developed personalities is achieved. Then, the conditions are created for the all-round development of the personality within creative collectives, the characteristic feature of which is―now based on this historical criterion―relationships of cooperation, friendship, solidarity, comradeship and mutuality.
3. The type of subject (individual or collective) required for man’s productive activity on nature, i.e. whether it is an individual or a group or the whole of society, depends primarily on the degree to which the character of the means and ways of man’s labour activity on nature has been socialised.
From this aspect, there are means of labour activity that:
• can be used by a single person,
• can be used by small or large groups of people (manufacture, industry)[3], but also
• the monitoring and control of their power, operation, scale and impact on the environment and society (potentially catastrophic if out of control) requires, in a sense, the unification and coordination of the whole of humanity.
The latter means, which require the coordinated intervention of humanity, initially on a planetary scale, are not the speculations of science fiction, nor do they concern distant potential prospects. To a large extent, their presence is already a rapidly unfolding active reality, to the extent that systems of productive processes with globally networked productive forces are being established and developed. Think, for example, of the global networking of productive processes, the operation of global positioning and navigation systems via satellite networks, systems of satellite telecommunications and remote monitoring (of meteorological, geotectonic, etc. processes), the prospect of the biologisation of production, and so on. The possibility of mass self-destruction, mutual annihilation, generalised suicide of humanity by peaceful and/or warlike means and ways (weapons of mass destruction, technogenic ecological destruction, degeneration/destruction of the biological core of the personality and the family) is a negative manifestation of the scientific and technological possibilities and the necessity of unifying humanity’s efforts on a planetary scale.
3a) As long as the labour processes are dominated by means of activity the operation of which requires the efforts of individual persons or isolated groups of persons, the possibilities of the unification of society are limited. On the other hand, it is possible and (under certain conditions) necessary for individuals and social groups (classes) to be indifferent to each other and to function in different, unequal, opposing or even antagonistic ways on the basis of the labour processes they carry out and their results.
3b) To the extent that the technological conditions of these processes require the unity of collective subjects on an ever-larger scale, with greater intensity and complexity, the social character of production increasingly escalates and becomes a technological necessity. With the upgraded position and role given to productive processes the safe execution and development of which require the joint efforts and conscious coordination of the whole of humanity (initially on a global scale), the unification of humanity becomes not only feasible, but necessary for its survival and development. Then, solidarity and cooperation among the members of humanity will also become a technological necessity.
The above definitions of the character of human labour activity on nature and the consequent division of labour in the context of this activity (division of labour in the narrower sense of the term) constitute the basis on which labour relations, relations of production and the overall matrix of relations between individuals, social groups, classes (the social division of labour, positions and roles in the broader sense of the term) and society as a whole are established accordingly, on a national, transnational and global scale. These relations involve the distribution of the means, conditions and results of human labour activity on nature among individuals (private persons), groups and society as a whole, with a corresponding distribution of burdens and reliefs, damages and benefits, unfavourable and favourable effects, and so on. The historically specific type of these relations (common, private and social property) functions as a mechanism for securing, establishing and reproducing the social division of labour, positions, and roles in the broad sense of the term, in favour of or against certain individuals, groups or society as a whole. The dominant type of relations in each historical period indicates whether and to what extent people act in favour of or against individuals, groups, classes or society as a whole in the activities they develop and the relations they establish.
3. Concerning the historically differing degrees of unity and conflict among human beings
Society, as a developing whole, goes through a series of stages in the course of its history. So do the type, the character, the position, the role and the interaction of morality, politics and law. Indeed, changes occur not only in the various manifestations of morality, law and politics, or in the interaction between them, but also in each of the above-mentioned spheres of social development and in the perceptions of them.
The need to satisfy the needs necessary for survival (food, protection from adverse or dangerous conditions, self-preservation, sexual relations, reproduction of the species, etc.) has been and still is a fundamental and decisive concept in human history. Human beings, having adopted a survival strategy clearly different from that of other living beings and their evolutionary process, in order to satisfy their necessary biological needs, started using ready-made objects provided by nature as means of foraging; then they gradually moved on to the use of functionally and morphologically processed artificial means, means of production per se (tools). However, the role of foraging has remained, and for the most part still remains important.
The use and development of means of foraging and means of production have radically improved the ability of human beings to satisfy their vital biological needs, although the optimal satisfaction of the biologically necessary needs of the whole of humanity, or at least the majority of its members, has not yet become possible. The above-mentioned insufficiency leads to rivalry between human beings, to a struggle for survival and to the domination of some over others, a fact that is indicative of the incomplete nature of human socialisation, the still unfinished transcendance/dialectical “sublation” of the animal kingdom.
The struggle for the satisfaction of biologically necessary needs requires, causes and reproduces various groupings and divisions among individuals and groups, inclusions and exclusions, etc., so that certain people impose, establish and extend the conditions and limits for the satisfaction of their own biologically necessary needs at the expense of other people.
As society emerges and begins to form and develop, the possibilities for satisfying basic needs are primarily and increasingly determined by the available means of foraging and production. The disposition and distribution of the means of foraging and production thus becomes the factor that determines the ability to satisfy the biologically necessary needs; as a result, production becomes the object of dispute and struggle par excellence between individuals, groups and associations of people in order to satisfy their biologically necessary needs.
During the historical period marked by the use of means of foraging and the means of production that begin to allow the acquisition of goods for consumption beyond the absolute minimum necessary for survival, until the moment when these means allow the acquisition of goods for consumption sufficient for the optimal satisfaction of the biologically necessary needs of each member of society, the biologically necessary needs are satisfied in a way, but not optimally satisfied. This period is characterised by various forms of conflict, inclusion and exclusion of individuals, groups, classes and associations of people for the distribution and securing of the necessary goods for consumption. “During this period, the existence of separate individuals, groups and associations is necessary, which concentrate the distribution of the means of foraging and production in their own hands, depriving other individuals, other groups and associations of them, and thus living at the expense of these other individuals, other groups and associations.” (Vaziulin V. A., The logic of history of the interaction between morality and politics).
Under the conditions of human unity and conflict, the history of humanity is divided into two eras: the prehistory of humanity (in which the external bonds between human beings prevail over the internal ones) and the authentically human history (in which the internal bonds between human beings prevail). In the first era, unification and conflict between human beings is mainly a matter of biological survival, while the main external bonds between human beings are either essentially animal bonds (civilised to one degree or another, such as e.g. sexual bonds), or bonds between self-interested individuals who, through their association, with varying degrees of inclusion and exclusion, aim to achieve their self-interest, so that the other person is either a means to an end/instrument, or an obstacle to the achievement of said self-interested ends. To the extent that the development of foraging, and especially of production, over time establishes the possibilities for the optimal satisfaction of the vital and other needs of the whole (and not a part) of society, the transition to the authentic history of humanity, where the existence and development of internal bonds, internal relations between people as a unified whole is dominant, becomes a law-governed necessity. this law-governed necessity matures, the necessary and sufficient conditions for the socialist revolution, for the transition to unified humanity, to communism, also mature.
4. What is the meaning of an upcoming “biologisation” of production?
The historical development of the division of labour has escalated with the continuous qualitative and essential upgrading of the leading use of forms of motion of matter in technological devices and production processes and their respective combinatorial use in systems and processes of increasing complexity: mechanical interactions of escalating degrees of complexity, chemical, thermal, electromechanical, electronic, nuclear, digital, informational, networked, biochemical, neuronal and biological. Through this contradictory escalation, with the cascading transformation of science into a direct productive force (Marx), humanity is moving towards the abolition of the competitive type of division of labour from the universal creative activity of man.
Mature society will be established on a unified automated complex, on production of automata by automata (further automation of branches and of all branches) with a broad biologisation of production, on a radical improvement of the network of automated production with the pioneering and then dominant role of technological devices and processes based on the biological form of motion, to which things, interactions and processes will belong.
Automation on the basis of biologisation will involve the global and combined synthetic creation, selective and planned development, co-development and assembly of diverse forms and species of life, diverse artificial habitats and ecosystems (with organically integrated subsystems within them, structures and functions now partly based on and linked to other forms of motion and activity), the morphology and functionality of which will be subject to productive purposefulness based on human needs.
The transition to mature automation, with the pioneering, prevalent and dominant role of biology within it, is what will place the process defining human development, the necessary functional and morphological transformation of nature through technologically and socially mediated exosomatic metabolism, on a basis corresponding to itself.[4]
The organically interconnected automation of this exosomatic metabolism of society on a now predominantly biological basis will function as the logistical infrastructure corresponding to a mature, unified humanity. Human beings will no longer have to transform nature in an eminently mechanical way or navigate rigid mechanical/engineering etc. configurations in order to optimise specific processes of activity. On the contrary, biologized universal automation (with the other forms of interaction and motion embedded and arranged within it) will provide the material substrate corresponding to the mature unified and unifying substance of humanity. A substrate that will inherently embody the potentiality of the organic unity of its parts, the law-governed necessity of planning[5] for which, as a spectrum of possibilities, will dictate the optimal research approach, goal setting, planning and practical intervention of the conscious collective subject as an actual organic whole. The biologisation of the material substrate of the unified substance in the mature unified whole of humanity entails a radical improvement, a transition to a different type of research and technology, conscience and self-consciousness, and is linked to the abolition of the fragmentation of disciplines and divergent tendencies in research and technology. A synthesis of the above is envisaged, on a dialectical basis, which simultaneously performs research and productive-technological functions, organically fed back and interrelated in their relative independence, creatively and inventively integrating research, production, relations and communication between people.
5. What is the necessity for planning and how does it relate to planning?
As the social character of labour activity develops, as science becomes a direct productive force, planning itself emerges as a necessity both for man as the subject of developing/non-repetitive labour, and for the objective conditions for the performance of this labour. There arises and matures, in a law-governed way, the necessity of planning as an indispensable condition for the operation and development of the material/technical substrate and the substance, the organisation of the subject’s activity, of labour activity, as an internal necessity for the involvement of a certain type of subject of this activity in the implementation and development of this activity, through goal-setting, through planning and through the implementation of this activity. Planning is carried out as the selection of the best potential prospect from the range of possibilities revealed by the objective insight into the logic of the laws governing the activity in question. This subject has to understand this existing necessity for planning and its potential prospects; therefore, it has to be able to develop the best creative abilities for the execution and implementation of plans, planning abilities. The optimal combination of the necessity for planning and planning itself is not an automatic, linear and spontaneous process. The particular goal-setting for an activity proposed by planning and carried out by the subject may not be the optimal form of intervention in the range of development possibilities objectively encompassed by the given conditions of production, as dictated by the necessity for planning. In fact, to the extent that other factors are involved in this relationship, the divergence, the difference between the necessity for planning and planning itself can take on the attributes of a contradiction.
Streamlining, conscious regulation, cannot be confined to technical means alone, but must apply to the whole of humanity’s relations with nature and to mutual relations between human beings. The necessity for this conscious regulation is not of an abstract ethical nature. This necessity matures according to laws, together with the maturation of the social character of labour. This necessity emerges as the law-governed objective necessity for planning, which directs the conscious planning of the above-mentioned relations as a condition for their functioning and development.
In capitalist society, this coordination is highly contradictory, which manifests itself in the need for planning within the productive unit (especially in the context of multinational monopoly groups under imperialism) and in the spontaneous element of extreme unevenness, inequality and competitiveness within the framework of the economy and society as a whole.
Therefore, the necessity for planning, which is required by laws, calls for the timely and optimally recognised and conscious collective planning of the organically connected parts and the whole of the unified productive processes on the scale of unified humanity, the initial forms of which are manifested in the early socialist societies.
Thus, the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production of society is historically resolved. This contradiction is resolved in the mature internal socialisation of production, where it is now transformed into the non-competitive contradiction between the necessity of planning imposed by the technology of unified production (first on a planetary scale, then in space) and planning on the part of humanity constituted as a collective subject.
6. Morality, politics and law as aspects of social conscience
The relations of human beings as social beings to the objective conditions of their existence (first of all, the conditions of labour action on nature and the relations between human beings within, around and because of it, and its respective results) are revealed within social conscience[6]. The latter is on the one hand con-science, i.e. the cognitive relation of the subject to the object (matter that can be scientifically known), and on the other hand con-science, i.e. the awareness and anticipatory perception of the interaction of people, their mutual relations and their communication (of people as subjects). The characteristic of social con-science is the reflection of the subject as a subject, and the effect on people as subjects through actions, feelings (and emotions) and thinking. Depending on the predominance of one of the aforementioned forms of reflection and action, social conscience is divided into three basic forms: moral, aesthetic and philosophical (for a more detailed elaboration, see Vaziulin 2004, p. 233-279 and Patelis 1999).
The moral form of conscience concerns the field of the realisation and performance of actions (attitudes, behaviours, deeds, enterprises, etc.) which are considered in terms of the benefit or harm they can bring to individuals, groups and society as a whole, i.e. in terms of good and evil. The highest good (excellence, virtue), is that action which best contributes to the preservation and development of society, of humanity as a whole. Therefore, within the framework of moral conscience, in principle and in various ways, the possibility and necessity of the unification of humanity, of a universal human society, is realised. In those stages of social development in which conflicting and contradictory interests prevail, this form of social conscience acquires two additional necessary and interrelated manifestations: politics and law.
Political conscience is a complex field of feelings, emotions, experiences, thoughts, but above all actions, driven by the awareness of the essential difference, antithesis and contradiction of the actor with the one against whom the action is directed, for the achievement (satisfaction, assertion, etc.) of certain material interests. Political power is exercised in order to ensure (violently or non-violently, repressively or consensually) the obedience of people to the rules and ostensible general social purposes of the (historically specific) type of authority in question. The main stake of politics is the struggle for domination and subordination, in which the question of who and how will have the means of foraging and production at their disposal is central, as long as the unequal relation to the means of foraging and production of different people, groups and associations is necessary. This struggle is intertwined with the existence of private property in the means of foraging and production, and will continue as long as there is unequal access by members of society to the means of foraging and production, and therefore to the means of consumption. Thus, the main feature of power in class society is the relations of domination and subordination.
Biologically, necessary needs are common to humans and animals; they are largely animal needs. Therefore, politics, as the condensed expression of man’s struggle for the actual means and ways of satisfying these essentially animal needs, is a manifestation of the inherently non-humanised character of human relations. Consequently, political views, thoughts, feelings and actions are not characterised by the purely human, the purely social element. As the political conflict intensifies, the opponents and class antagonists use every means, they try to achieve their ends by legitimate and illegitimate means, in every way. This is true to a degree that directly corresponds to the selfishness of the aims defended by each antagonist, but also to the severity, the inexorable character of the struggle for survival. To the extent that this is the case, self-interested political expediency subordinates moral questioning.
This struggle for dominance, for the power and domination of one part of society over another part of society as a condensed manifestation of the struggle for survival, passes historically through various phases: from intense relentless conflicts (revolts, revolutions, wars), to periods of relatively peaceful coexistence of the warring parties, to the next change in the balance of forces and of the warring camps (Vaziulin 2004 p. 260-263). Hence the interconnectedness of politics and war.
From the above conflict, law emerges as a set of rules and regulations governing the actions of people, which (rules and regulations) are either enacted or ratified by the state, by the political authority. Law is primarily the codified framework of action of the agencies of the victors, of the dominant material interests of a given time, aimed at imposing on the defeated those conditions and rules which safeguard, preserve and reproduce the dominant material interests.
Historically, law emerged as a gradual validation of customs and morals (“customary law”) during the transition from the system of primitive community to class society (see also Vecchio). The first systems of law appeared in antiquity and the Middle Ages (e.g. Attic law, Roman law, Justinian’s Code, Justinian’s Novels) and are associated with the relative development of commodity and monetary relations. Under slavery and feudalism, however, law was not independent of other aspects of social life (economic, political, religious, etc.). As a field of social life, social conscience and the superstructure which is as independent as possible, law arises under capitalism, in the rise and consolidation of which it plays an important role (see also Pasukanis, Tigar & Levi). Legal systems are developed and refined on the basis of the formal/legal equality of individuals/citizens (egalitarianism), which is indispensable for capitalism.
7. Justice as a criterion for the preservation or change of the objective conditions of human existence
As we have seen, justice is a concept that touches on aspects of morality, politics and law. The concepts of good and evil are placed at a higher level of generalisation and abstraction, allowing the formulation of moral judgements about certain moral phenomena as a whole. In contrast to the concepts of good and evil, which characterise morally certain phenomena (attitudes, behaviours, actions, inactions, omissions, etc.), justice characterises more specifically the interrelation of certain phenomena or even the overall assessment of the state of society in terms of the interrelation and distribution of good and evil in the relations between people. this light, it is through the concepts of justice and injustice that people assess the totality of the social conditions of their existence and form their perception of the necessity and desirability of maintaining or changing these conditions.
The ways in which scarce goods (e.g. optimal access, in terms of quantity and quality, to material goods and services to satisfy primarily biological needs, optimal access to creative activities that help develop the human being and to the acquisition of material and spiritual culture) are distributed among people, are examined through the lens of justice. It is therefore concerned with the way in which people relate to each other, mediated by access or lack of access to desirable and coveted goods.
From this aspect, as long as this access is unequal, that is, as long as the existence of exploitation of man by man is historically necessary, injustice prevails and the prospect of eliminating this exploitation is presented as the prospect of justice. However, the objective conditions of this perspective, which appear, develop and mature historically, are understood through corresponding conceptions of justice. The latter are divided, different and opposed, to the extent that the material interests of individuals, groups (classes) and society as a whole are divided, different and opposed to each other, while the dominant conception of justice at any given time is consolidated and internalised at the level of everyday practice within the dominant relations, but is also generally imposed by the agents of the dominant material interests as a pseudo-universal justice that supposedly expresses the whole of society (through law, institutions, etc.). In fact, these perceptions have changed historically and locally. In antiquity, for example, slavery was seen as the natural state for Aristotle’s “talking tools”, while feudalism and serfdom were seen by the rising bourgeoisie as unjust and undignified anachronisms that deserved to be overthrown.
From a certain point of view, justice can be seen and function as the moral dimension of the limits of the consent of the underprivileged, the exploited, the oppressed, or (in the case of exceeding these tolerable limits, which is realised as social injustice, corruption, etc.) the demand for a change in their conditions of existence. In the latter case, we have clear symptoms of the manifestation, on a mass scale and at the level of everyday consciousness, of the moral deterioration of historically obsolete economic and social relations and institutions.
However, if philosophical reflection does not wish to indulge in abstract moralising and arbitrary deontological constructions from a position of safety, it must not limit itself to philosophical reformulations of the experiences that cause the above-mentioned symptoms in the bearers of everyday consciousness, nor to schemes outside historical time and place, in the name of timeless, unchanging principles. Abstract notions of justice, perceived as an ahistorical self-righteousness, as well as feelings of justice, cannot replace the theoretical (philosophical and interdisciplinary) study of the real possibilities and the law governed necessity of a way out of the social impasses that are experienced by people as situations of injustice. Even more, they cannot replace the practical and organisational struggle for changing the balance of power, for the revolutionary transformation of society.
The bourgeois concept of justice is linked to formal equality (egalitarianism) and to theories of natural law. In the bourgeois “neoliberal” ideologies of “meritocracy” we have the degeneration of the original demands of the rising bourgeoisie for equality, justice and freedom (see also Young). The neo-liberal revision of the original bourgeois values that prevails today is manifested in that extreme social minimalism that renounces any positive definition of the fight against injustice, inequality and lack of freedom, and is negatively limited to the conditions of consolidating the now unquestionable inequality and lack of freedom, or to the conditions of managing these conditions in order to secure consensus.
8. Just and unjust wars. War & revolution
War and politics are interrelated forms of imposition, domination and subjugation based on the balance of power between the camps of conflicting interests. They differ in the means and ways of settling the conflict for power: in the first case, armed violence and the suppression and elimination of the opponent predominate; in the second, consent and obedience to the dominant order, with the threat or even occasional use of repression by the ruling class organised in institutional power (state or inter-state), as long as it maintains a monopoly on the exercise of organised violence over society.
According to the above approach, in the revolutionary theory of Marxism-Leninism, wars are linked to the question of justice (as is revolution), and are divided into just and unjust wars, depending on the position and role of the social forces involved in each camp. The sense of justice, questions of justice and their consequent theoretical and ideological/political foundations differ according to the interests at stake in each camp of the conflict.
The collective interests and the selfless aims of the camp of the progressive forces involved in a conflict go hand in hand with an objective, scientific and universal knowledge of the nature of the irreconcilable contradictions that lead to it, as well as of the tactical and strategic prospects that are important for the working class, the people and society, and that drive these forces in their just struggle.
On the contrary, the selfish to predatory interests and aims of the camp of the exploiters and oppressors, of the reactionary forces involved in the same conflict, are not compatible with an objective, scientific and universal knowledge of the nature of the irreconcilable contradictions that lead to it, because they reveal the deceptiveness of their tactical and strategic aims, that is, they reveal the misanthropic and antisocial character of these forces. Therefore, in order to subjugate the popular masses into mobilising in a war for interests alien to themselves, these forces resort to the concealment of their predatory interests, to take-over, to deception (lies, disinformation, ideological manipulation, nationalism, chauvinism, racism, fascism, religious fanaticism, etc.), to “divide and rule”, but also to violent conscription, mass terrorism, police/military rule and the fascisation of society
Therefore, just wars are the wars of the social forces suffering from exploitation and oppression (in the imperialist stage of capitalism): Classes, peoples, nations, countries and groups of countries against colonialism, neo-colonialism and imperialism, for their social/class and national liberation (“civil” class war, war of national liberation), for the defence and consolidation of their national independence and popular sovereignty, for the defence, consolidation and development of the achievements of the development of early socialism and anti-imperialist movements, as well as wars waged to repel the aggression of imperialist countries, forces and coalitions.
Unjust wars are usually waged by the social forces of exploitation and oppression. In the imperialist stage of capitalism, it is the financial oligarchy, the imperialist states in which it is dominant and the groups/coalitions of countries under its leadership, the forces of colonialism, neo-colonialism and imperialism, which instrumentalise fascism, engage in “proxy wars”, regime-change operations, border changes, the seizure and redistribution of economic, natural and human resources, etc., for the social/class and national subjugation and enslavement of peoples, in civil wars, wars of conquest, etc., for the defence and consolidation of their domination, for the defence, consolidation and intensification of the mechanisms of super-exploitation of the peoples with the extraction of monopoly super-profits, for the reversal and destruction, through interventions and subversive counter-revolutionary actions, of the achievements of early socialism and anti-imperialist movements, etc.
A war can be unjust on both sides if both camps have selfish predatory interests (as in the First Imperialist World War). Then the forces of social progress must use the conflict to create opportunities to strike at the “weak link” created by the conflict and weaken the opposing parties. A war can―and most often does―be just for one side and unjust for the other.
In the course of a war, its character can change: the case of the Second World War is typical: it began as an imperialist war and then, with the participation of the USSR, it was transformed into an anti-fascist war.
Wars have different effects on the development of society, on social progress or regression.
Just, revolutionary wars, waged by the oppressed against the oppressors, are a motive for social progress, break outdated regimes and dominant relations, liberate and develop revolutionary potential, open up prospects for the development of society on the way to the unification of humanity.
The unjust, predatory wars launched and waged by the oppressors and exploiters are regressive and destructive for the peoples and, in our time, can lead to the total destruction of humanity.
Throughout history, however, predatory wars have “awakened” society, bringing to the surface the obsolete and regressive character of the dominant relations of production, institutions and regimes, and bringing to the surface contradictions that trigger large-scale social changes and revolutions.
Of course, no war can artificially impose revolutionary changes, it cannot be a mechanism for “exporting revolution”, if the mature objective conditions (including the revolutionary situation), but also the subjective conditions, do not exist in a country or a group of countries. Only as long as these necessary and sufficient conditions exist, war can bring out and under different conditions, trigger latent forces and motives for revolt and social revolution.
9. Some conclusions
Unbridled self-interest is often presented as a supposed biological law. In higher animals, however, “altruistic” behaviour is observed, where the main role in the individual’s behaviour is not the survival of the individual, but the need to maintain the life of the species (genus) as a whole. Such behaviour is required for acting in the interests of the unity and survival of the human race.
When it becomes possible to satisfy the needs of the members of society beyond the absolute minimum of resources necessary for survival, the interactions of human beings are divided into external and internal. Consequently, politics and law―as particular expressions of the predominantly external bonds between people (as expressions of the predominantly external similarity of people and the predominantly external unity of people)―and morality―as a particular expression of the predominantly internal bonds between people―are distinguished as relatively independent spheres of social life (Vaziulin 2006, p.21). To the extent that internal and external bonds are opposed, the fields of morality, on the one hand, politics and law on the other, are also opposed and to a large extent mutually reproductive, mutually defined and mutually exclusive. This relation is expressed, on the one hand, in the subordination of morality to self-interested politics (always invested with rampant moralising) or to legal formalism (of double standards), in Pharisaic hypocrisy, in the imposition of the dominant version of morality, etc., and, on the other hand, in the reduction of morality to the absolute and abstract ahistorical principles of an academic deontology that lies above social reality.
In competitive society, various associations of people, on the basis of self-interest, form a certain unity through separation, an alienated and alienating unity. In the formation of humanity, the inner bond is first of all projected as a necessity for the survival of humanity, by preventing the destructive effects on nature and society of means and actions that are not controlled by the whole of humanity. What we are dealing with here is the negative manifestation of the inner bond of humanity as a condition of its existence.
The positive manifestation of the inner bond of humanity consists in the maturing of such necessary and sufficient objective conditions (overcoming the struggle for survival and dominance, optimal satisfaction of needs, universal access to creative activities, actual socialisation of the character of labour, etc.) that lead to the revolutionary struggle for the unification of humanity, to its authentically human history.
When this becomes possible, it will also mean the realisation of morality and the achievement of authentic, universal justice, in parallel with the withering away of the state, politics, war and law. Thus, morality will also disappear as a separate and externally influenced sphere, and will become an inseparable aspect of the multifaceted conscience and attitude to life of the universally developing personality.
However, the radical reconstitution of humanity as an internally unified whole, the transition to an authentically human history, is not a mere moral demand for the restoration of justice, but an inescapable necessity the failure of which will inexorably lead to self-destruction.
Therefore, from the point of view of the forces of social progress, of revolution, the just character of military conflicts―especially of the imperialist world wars―is linked to the global revolutionary process:
WWI was imperialist, it led to a series of revolutions and uprisings, the greatest of which was the Great October Revolution, the first victorious early socialist revolution, which inaugurated the transition of humanity to another type of development, the path to the revolutionary unification of humanity.
WWII, which began as an imperialist war but was transformed into an anti-fascist war with the attack of the anti-communist axis on the USSR, led to the emergence of the global system of early socialism and initiated the dissolution of colonialism.
WWIII is by definition a just war from the point of view of the anti-imperialist forces under the leading role of the forces of early socialism (PRC, DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba). For the first time in history, we are witnessing the drastic initiation of a process of separating the imperialist countries and their transnational coalitions from their established sources of parasitism based on the neo-colonialist type of extracting monopoly super-profits from dependent, semi-independent, formally independent, etc. countries. The most vital task of the progressive and revolutionary forces of the time, with the communists in the forefront, is to unite with the most consistent forces of this camp, the pole that has justice on its side. The victory of the socialist and anti-imperialist forces will launch a new wave of victorious socialist revolutions.
There is a lack of study of the deeper causes of the conflicts between the early socialist countries in the 20th century. The revolutionary movement and humanity cannot afford to leave room for spontaneous recurrence of such ruptures and conflicts between early socialist countries! Such phenomena are not only unjust, but they go against the essence of socialist transformations.
These transformations are impossible and repulsive to the working class and the peoples if they are marred by a revival of primitive regionalism, collective egoism, nationalism, big-state chauvinism and short-sighted geopolitical bureaucratic self-interest.
These transformations can only develop with impetus and inspire the progressive forces if they are consciously launched on the basis of scientific planning, not only of individual parties and countries, but on an inherently internationalist basis, guided by the strategy of revolutionary unification of humanity as a whole.
The question of justice is particularly relevant today as WWIII is rapidly escalating. The World Anti-Imperialist Platform consciously joins the forces waging a just war for the survival and prospect of the unification of humanity and coordinates their struggle. It exposes and counteracts the divisive and deceptive role of the ideology and practice of the apostate opportunists, servants of the imperialist axis, and takes the lead in reorganising and developing the leading role of the communists in this struggle, which paves the way for the coming victorious socialist revolutions.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Books I-X, http://www.mikrosapoplous.gr/texts1.htm#nicom1-10.
Vazioulin V. A. “The logic of the history of the interaction of ethics and politics”. ΔΙΑΠΛΟΥΣ 14, (2006): 18-22.V. A. (18, 2006). The logic of history. Issues of theory and methodology. Translation, editing, annotation and prologue by D. Patelis. Athens: ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ ΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΑ, 2004.
Vazioulin V. A. “The paradoxes of dignity in the light of Marx”. ΟΥΤΟΠΙΑ 30 (1998): 143-146.
Engels, F., The Conduct of the Family, Private Property and the State. Athens: S.E., 1997.
Hegel G. W. Fr.
Volumes A-B.
ΝΕΦΕΛΗ, 1980-1981.
Kane M. Marx and Engels on the right, Thessaloniki: Παρατηρητής, x.
Malchev G.V. Bourgeois egalitarianism. Moscow, 1984.
Marx K. Capital. Τ. 1-3. Σύγχρονη Εποχή. Athens, 1978.
Marx K. Grundrisse…. vol. A. B, C, Στοχαστής, Athens 1989-90.K. Theories of surplus value. Σύγχρονη Εποχή, Athens, vol.1- 3.
Marx K. Critique of Gota’s program. Σύγχρονη Εποχή.
Pasukanis E. Marxism and law, Athens: Odysseus, 19852.
Patelis D. “Religion as a form of social consciousness”. ΟΥΤΟΠΙΑ, 34 (1999): 99-124.
Patelis D. The articles: “Law, justice, right, property, oppression, labour, society, socio-economic structure, socio-economic formation, political system of society, power, subjective factor, subject, subject, interest, consensus, social consciousness, class consciousness, conscious and spontaneous”, in the five-volume PHILOSOPHICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL VOCABULARY vol.1-5. Athens: ΚΑΠΟΠΟΥΛΟΣ, 1994-1995.
Patelis D. Research, technology and the prospect of the unification of humanity. 2019.
Pellegrini Th. K. P. Tp. Tehrini, Athens, Greece. Athens: Hellenic Literature, 1997.
Rawls John. Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical. ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ ΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΑ: Polis, 2003.
Rawls John. A Theory of Justice: ΠΟΛΙΣ, 2001.
Saint Amartya. Rethinking inequality. Athens: ΚΑΣΤΑΝΙΩΤΗΣ 2004.
Tigar M. E. Levi M. R. Law and the rise of capitalism. Athens: 1981.
Vecchio G. History of the philosophy of law. Athens.
Young M. The Rise of the Meritocracy. 1870-2033. An Essay on Education and Equality. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1967.
Notes
[1] Δέον (déon), ancient Greek for that which is binding, needful, right, proper.
[2] Law-governed or governed by laws is used as the translation of the German term Gesetzmäßige, , Greek: Νομοτελής.
[3] For the type of subject in relation to the historical forms of the division of labour in the making of capitalism, see Marx, Capital, Volume I, Part IV: Production of Relative Surplus Value.
[4] The unifying effect of this functional and morphological transformation, as long as it proceeds mainly on the basis of mechanical interaction, can only be detected a posteriori and in its results. In fact, it requires insight and theoretical effort on a large scale to first detect and discern this unifying basis at the level of the material substrate of the social mode of production in developed capitalism (with K. Marx’s brilliant discoveries in philosophy and political economy). As we have noted, the systematic diagnosis of this unifying effect of the internal unity of the material substrate and human substance in the historical development of society as a whole comes much later, under existing early socialism, i.e. at a radically different historical and cognitive juncture, with Vaziulin’s discoveries in the “Logic of History”.
[5] See next part.
[6] Conscience, from Latin conscientia is a calque of Ancient Greek συνείδησις (suneídēsis), σύν: prefix meaning “with” + εἴδησις: meaning knowledge.
