Log in

View Full Version : Capter One of "Serving the People with Dialectics: Essays on the Study of Philosophy"



Dhalgren
10-26-2015, 03:18 PM
Raising Peanut Yields
by Yao Shih-chang*

I was born into a poor peasant family forty-eight
years ago. I went to school for four years when I
was a child. For more than ten years I have studied
Chairman Mao's philosophic works in order to use
materialist dialectics. Applied to my scientific experiments
to increase peanut production, this study helped
to raise our brigade's average per-hectare yield of peanuts
from around 1.5 tons before 1958 to 3.4 tons. We've
reached as high as over 6 tons.

Lessons from Failure

Our brigade has some 320 hectares of fields, mostly
hilly. We grow peanuts on about 133 hectares of this.
Before 1955, our average per-hectare yield was about
1.1 tons. We raised this figure somewhat after setting
up our agricultural producers' co-operative that year, but
it was still low.
In 1953 I began trying to raise our peanut yield, but
I experimented without using materialist dialectics, and
started sowing. The soil was dry, and it looked as though
the seeds would not sprout. I had heard about a production
team using deep ploughing and covering the seed
with only a thin layer of soil. I persuaded our brigade
to use their method, but our output dropped that year.
What was wrong? Our leaders suggested analysing
our experience and drawing lessons from it. I turned
to Chairman Mao's On Practice and On Contradiction.
"Only those who are subjective, one-sided and superficial
in their approach to problems," he says, "will smugly
issue orders or directives the moment they arrive on the
viewing things in their totality (their history and their
present state as a whole) and without getting to the
essence of things (their nature and the internal relations
between one thing and another). Such people are bound
to trip and fall."
Chairman Mao's teaching made me realize that my
mistake was imitating others without considering the
local conditions. That team's land is level and fertile, so
their rows of peanuts can be wide apart. The method
of planting in deep furrows and covering lightly works
well in their situation but not for our brigade, where
the land is hilly and the soil layer thin. Our rows must
be close together. When we ploughed deep, the loose
soil fell into the furrow just dug and buried the seeds.
It amounted to ploughing deep and covering deep, and
this was what caused our output to fall.
that my failure was due to lack of correspondence between
my notion of things and the facts. I was acting
blindly and passively in trying to know the objective
world. I decided to apply Chairman Mao's philosophic
thinking in future scientific experiments and really increase
our peanut output.

What Produces the Peanuts?

I determined to study the growth of peanuts so as to
place our efforts to increase yields on a new basis. How
should I go about this?
I started at the blossoming stage, with the knowledge
that the peanut plant yields pods after the flowers wither
But what was the relationship between flower and nut?
I selected two clusters of peanut plants for field observation,
and stayed in the field for three nights during the blossoming
stage. I found that peanuts blossom just
before dawn. From the fourth night I went to the field
before dawn each day, and labelled each flower with the
date it blossomed.
I continued doing this for more than twenty days,
including one rainy night when I went only after
struggling with the thought that one night's absence
wouldn't matter much. Then I remembered Chairman
Mao's teaching that the Marxist philosophy of dialectical
materialism has two outstanding characteristics. One is
its class nature: it is in the service of the proletariat. The
other is its practicality. How could I learn the laws
governing the growth of peanuts if I did not apply
Chairman Mao's philosophic ideas, first of all, to think
always of serving the proletariat. I got a good soaking
that night and was chilled through, but I had followed
from that time on, I persisted in making my observations,
rain or shine. In sixty nights I attached 170 labels to
my two clusters. When the peanuts were dug, I analysed
my data and learned things I never knew before about
peanuts. The time between the opening of the flower
and the ripening of the nut below was at least sixty-five
days. I found also that the first pair of branches was
responsible for most of the nuts.
This was an exciting discovery. The experiment would
need testing, and in fact observation and study the
second year confirmed the conclusions drawn. But
coincidentally I also found that between 60 to 70 per cent
of the pods were produced by the first pair of branches
while 20 to 30 per cent were produced by the second.
The third pair produced only a few pods, and most of
those were empty. Further, the main stem of the plant
bore neither flowers nor pods at all.
(*Yao Shih-Chang, Chairman of the revolutionary committee
of the Tuanchieh Production Brigade, Nanwang Commune in
Penglai County, Shantung Province

I have this is pdf format and it has been photocopied, so copying and pasting is a bitch. But this gives you the idea of what the whole thing is like. All you have to do is separate out the "Praise for Chairman Mao" and the rest is kind of interesting. There are other chapters on transportation, predicting weather, keeping vegetables fresh, treating people with spine injuries - all with regards application of dialectics.

Again, ignore the adoration of Mao, but the rest is interesting. This pdf came from Marxists.org,

blindpig
10-26-2015, 04:04 PM
I appreciate you and Kid taking pains for my sorry ass.

I don't know what I'm supposed to be seeing here. I see rigor and redoubled dedication to observation, conclusions based upon good work. It's just basic science. I do not see what philosophy or dialectic got to do with it, or Chairman Mao. Sorry.

Dhalgren
10-26-2015, 05:12 PM
I appreciate you and Kid taking pains for my sorry ass.

I don't know what I'm supposed to be seeing here. I see rigor and redoubled dedication to observation, conclusions based upon good work. It's just basic science. I do not see what philosophy or dialectic got to do with it, or Chairman Mao. Sorry.

Not just for your sorry ass, but for mine too. I am not even sure that this book on dialectics for the people is even correct or anything other than somebody making a good-faith effort to do the thing.

Thesis>antithesis>synthesis. This is the way things change - both the how and why. It is the nut of materialism, that's all. Instead of things being static (being) they are fluid (becoming). It is really just that simple. There is no "is", only "was" and "will be" - and even the "will be" is dicey.

Kid of the Black Hole
10-26-2015, 05:52 PM
Not just for your sorry ass, but for mine too. I am not even sure that this book on dialectics for the people is even correct or anything other than somebody making a good-faith effort to do the thing.

Thesis>antithesis>synthesis. This is the way things change - both the how and why. It is the nut of materialism, that's all. Instead of things being static (being) they are fluid (becoming). It is really just that simple. There is no "is", only "was" and "will be" - and even the "will be" is dicey.

I am warily agnostic on what you have written here. I tend to lean closer to blindpig's stance, even though I don't necessarily think all of the ideas you present are invalid.

The idea is to trace out the inner contradictions that motivate a thing's development (which roughly corresponds to thesis/antithesis, a schema that Hegel himself didn't employ). But the resolution is not a happy medium because the two have an antagonistic relationship. Hegel characterizes the resolution as Aufhebung which means "lift/pick up" and is normally translated as "sublate". The issue is that if things were in a harmonious state, then there is no driver of change (this is how Hegel's philosophy is interpreted as reactionary -- once self realization is achieve, the dialectic ceases..and dontchaknow that process just happens to cease with the Prussian State)

I don't really see the connection to peanut farming (or manual transmissions). I also don't think talking about Being and Becoming is appropriate outside of expressly philosophical conversations/dialogue. Even Lenin and the Soviets (Lenin!) tended to keep the philosophical and political apart in their debates (although apparently Bukharin was adept at rankling Lenin)

Dhalgren
10-27-2015, 10:38 AM
Sometimes "rankling" can be good (and sometimes you get your ass handed to you :)).

The idea that the dialectic is somehow "applied" to reality, by an observer, to me is a problem. (I am not saying that that is what you are suggesting, but it is how it plays out in my head when you say nyet to peanut farming and manual transmissions). I granted, above, that the book I sited might not be the dialectical gem it wants to be, but that does not mean that dialects is not there. After all, "Abstinence makes the hare grow fonder", right? :)

If the dialectic is not at work in everyday reality, then what is it? Where does it come into effect and why? If dialectics isn't an integral (in all that word's meanings) aspect of all development, then how and why does development in reality occur? And if it is "there", then how and why do we pick and choose regarding when to recognize it, and when not?

Maybe you should give me (and everyone else) a down and dirty expose on dialectics. Your 'here it is in a nutshell' version. I admit that I may be missing the mark - a lot.

blindpig
10-27-2015, 12:00 PM
The idea that the dialectic is somehow "applied" to reality, by an observer, to me is a problem.

I can't see how it would be useful otherwise.

You saw something in the above that I'm unable to see. To me, seeing the 'before and after' of a 'frozen in time' event or thing in order to best evaluate it (izzat what we're talking about here?) seems a normal thing to do. Perhaps it's my lifelong reading of ecological science, where the being/becoming never stops. Mebbe the big deal about the dialectic is that it is a corrective of bad philosophy? Mebbe it's too mundane, afterall, "life is one damned thing after the other."

http://hinessight.blogs.com/.a/6a00d83451c0aa69e201901dc1a679970b-320wi

Dhalgren
10-27-2015, 03:38 PM
I think that the dialectic is "observed by an observer" - not "applied". That strikes me as a big difference.

blindpig
10-27-2015, 03:46 PM
I think that the dialectic is "observed by an observer" - not "applied". That strikes me as a big difference.

Somewhere along the line something is getting 'applied' or you wouldn't be doing it.

Kid of the Black Hole
10-27-2015, 07:46 PM
Somewhere along the line something is getting 'applied' or you wouldn't be doing it.

You're both right. Dhalgren is correct that dialectics (which is not quite our target..we are aiming for dialectical/historical materialism) is not "applied" to create a schema/system by which to codify reality (Hegel clarified that point for us by showing us what an unbelievable disaster that turns out to be..*rimshot*).

But it is equally true that the dialectic (more correctly, the materialist outlook) is applied, just as one would say that we apply science to a problem. Of course it is then left to show how this is done concretely.

Kid of the Black Hole
10-27-2015, 07:57 PM
I can't see how it would be useful otherwise.

You saw something in the above that I'm unable to see. To me, seeing the 'before and after' of a 'frozen in time' event or thing in order to best evaluate it (izzat what we're talking about here?) seems a normal thing to do. Perhaps it's my lifelong reading of ecological science, where the being/becoming never stops. Mebbe the big deal about the dialectic is that it is a corrective of bad philosophy? Mebbe it's too mundane, afterall, "life is one damned thing after the other."

http://hinessight.blogs.com/.a/6a00d83451c0aa69e201901dc1a679970b-320wi

If you are merely trying to interpret reality, then I think it is fairly mundane (in the sense that all purely academic questions are mundane). However, when one employs a materialist outlook as a CRITIC (remember, Marx identified himself as precisely that -- saying things like "you are a poet but I am a critic" -- and reminds us of this in the titles of his writings several times over) then things start getting interesting. Criticism -- of everything existing in the final instance -- is kind of like the crankshaft that lets you turn reciprocating motion into rotational motion in that it lets you transition from interpreting to changing the world.

The dialectic's contribution to the equation is akin to combustion (ie the process which makes it go). Through criticism we can demonstrate how to change the world by drawing out, emphasizing, and heightening the existing contradictions/antagonisms -- and thats when you hear the grinding sound of theory meeting reality (so the enging analogy kind of breaks down somewhere in there. Think of it as an engine without lubrication maybe :))

There is nothing mystical about Historical Materialism either -- it is an acknowledgment that humans and human society are governed by the same laws as everything else even though they may take different forms or have properties specific to themselves. Most of the commentary trying to explain the distinction between dialectical and historical materialism ends up as unwitting opera buffo.

Kid of the Black Hole
10-27-2015, 08:13 PM
Maybe you should give me (and everyone else) a down and dirty expose on dialectics. Your 'here it is in a nutshell' version.

Post #10 is my opening jab at getting down and dirty. It needs quite a bit of refinement but hopefully you can see the direction its going in and help me get to the destination.

Kid of the Black Hole
10-27-2015, 08:28 PM
After all, "Abstinence makes the hare grow fonder", right?

That quote is Bohm Bawerk's (the Splendid Flea I think Anax dubbed him) feeble explanation for how man assigns utility -- based on unit-less numbers that seemingly pop out of thin air. You could spend hours trying to figure out how in the world anyone thinks this drivel supplants Marx. You would probably end up looking like this (about 2 minute mark)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFMrBldVk0s#t=1m45s

blindpig
10-28-2015, 07:39 AM
If you are merely trying to interpret reality, then I think it is fairly mundane (in the sense that all purely academic questions are mundane). However, when one employs a materialist outlook as a CRITIC (remember, Marx identified himself as precisely that -- saying things like "you are a poet but I am a critic" -- and reminds us of this in the titles of his writings several times over) then things start getting interesting. Criticism -- of everything existing in the final instance -- is kind of like the crankshaft that lets you turn reciprocating motion into rotational motion in that it lets you transition from interpreting to changing the world.

The dialectic's contribution to the equation is akin to combustion (ie the process which makes it go). Through criticism we can demonstrate how to change the world by drawing out, emphasizing, and heightening the existing contradictions/antagonisms -- and thats when you hear the grinding sound of theory meeting reality (so the enging analogy kind of breaks down somewhere in there. Think of it as an engine without lubrication maybe :))

There is nothing mystical about Historical Materialism either -- it is an acknowledgment that humans and human society are governed by the same laws as everything else even though they may take different forms or have properties specific to themselves. Most of the commentary trying to explain the distinction between dialectical and historical materialism ends up as unwitting opera buffo.

Oh, I'm a CRITIC all right, just ask my sweetheart. I can't watch TV without a non-stop criticism of everything wrong with it from multiple angles. And that's just the PSAs. I think in this case that criticism and 'interpretation' are much the same. No, nothing mystical about HM, though we must bear in mind that sometimes material matters drive some loopy shit that innocents and philistines will take at face value. Indeed, I am critical of everything except Johnny Unitas(and don't you dare 'go there'). I'm depressing too, doncha know?

Hate to tell ya but the metaphors ain't working, I accept that's 'what' it is, but really need to put my finger on it(or grab it by the throat...).

Dhalgren
10-28-2015, 11:17 AM
Oh, I'm a CRITIC all right, just ask my sweetheart. I can't watch TV without a non-stop criticism of everything wrong with it from multiple angles. And that's just the PSAs. I think in this case that criticism and 'interpretation' are much the same. No, nothing mystical about HM, though we must bear in mind that sometimes material matters drive some loopy shit that innocents and philistines will take at face value. Indeed, I am critical of everything ... I'm depressing too, doncha know?

Man, pig, I could have written this! I am labeled "too critical", "a bitcher". I get the line: "Don't you see anything that is good or right?" My wife and kids hate to watch the news (or any TV, at all) with me - "Are you against the US in everything?" Simple answer? Yes.

(My 'don't go there guy' is Fran Tarkington - not the business dweeb, but the quarterback!) :)

All of that aside, I think that the Kid is hitting close to the quick in the last few posts. Understanding dialectics is just the springboard for getting the historical materialism. Now, from my perspective, you have that down damned well - for your own use. We have to be able to justify our criticisms by showing historical materialism and explaining it such a way that others "get" it. Historical materialism is practically the opposite of the prevailing ideology, the prevailing view of "things", and as such is alien to most everyone we will encounter. This is one of the reasons why the working class in this country (and around the world) are kept so unorganized: they are sucked into the dominant ideology and can't "see" a way out. Historical materialism is the door to the way out. I know that you know this, but it is the reason why all this egghead shit is important.

Kid of the Black Hole
10-28-2015, 12:57 PM
The last changeup to throw into the mix is that it is human activity and practice that is the self-motivation for the development of human society (and, to be honest, "materialism" refers as much to this fact as it does to the physical concept of "matter"). It doesn't so much correspond to Hegel's Geist as supplant it.

Dhalgren
10-28-2015, 02:17 PM
The last changeup to throw into the mix is that it is human activity and practice that is the self-motivation for the development of human society (and, to be honest, "materialism" refers as much to this fact as it does to the physical concept of "matter"). It doesn't so much correspond to Hegel's Geist as supplant it.

Right. "Materialism" as a cosmic philosophical stance on "things" is in the far, far distant background of Historical Materialism. At some point, I know, "free will" will rear its ugly head, but I agree that 'human activity and practice' are the avenues for the development of human society and that historical materialism refers, in toto, to this fact. Where I lose the thread is in saying that human activity and practice is, in particular, any kind of "self-motivation for the development of human society". Maybe a different phrase for "self-motivation" when speaking of human societal development? Human society is not a "self" as far as I can see, but maybe I am making too much of that.

Kid of the Black Hole
10-28-2015, 02:39 PM
Where I lose the thread is in saying that human activity and practice is, in particular, any kind of "self-motivation for the development of human society". Maybe a different phrase for "self-motivation" when speaking of human societal development? Human society is not a "self" as far as I can see, but maybe I am making too much of that.

Well..

Humans are social by nature. Its murky to me how we could characterize humans outside of societal relations. And, of course, society is the entire rich tapestry of human relations, no? So you are right that we are talking about the self-motivated development of human beings -- but its ultra importance to realize that it is a social development which in turn fosters individual development (you can also reverse this formulation and be well within your rights to do so but the two sides are not quite obverses even though they stand in a "dialectical" relationship to each other)