ANALOGIES
[Intro to be added...]
“Everything in nature is analogical.” —Leibniz, quoted in Lenin, LCW 38:383. [It is not clear to me exactly what Leibniz meant by this; it could have just been a comment on how there are a great many analogies between the physical structures of different living things—for reasons that Leibniz himself did not understand. (A great many of the analogies between animals result from their common evolutionary descent, for example, which Leibniz was not aware of.) In any case, and for a great many additional reasons as well, this is a profound comment. —S.H.]
“How do we ever understand anything? Almost always, I think, by using one or another kind of analogy—that is, by representing each new thing as though it resembles something we already know. Whenever a new thing’s internal workings are too strange or complicated to deal with directly, we represent whatever parts of it we can in terms of more familiar signs. This way, we make each novelty seem similar to some more ordinary thing.” —Marvin Minsky, researcher in artificial intelligence, in his Society of Mind (1986), p. 57.
ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY
[To be added...]
See also:
Philosophical doggerel
about this topic.
ANALYTIC STATEMENT
A statement that is true by definition, or simply because of the meanings of the words
in it. Thus the statement “All ducks are birds” is true (in the usual context) simply
because the word ‘duck’ is defined as a certain type of bird. The opposite of an
analytic statement is a synthetic statement.
The analytic/synthetic distinction (or
at least this terminology) was introduced by Kant, but there are
various sorts of questions and disputes that have been raised about it in academic
philosophy. The logical positivists worried about
proving that all knowledge which can be known a priori must be
analytic. The bourgeois philosopher W.V.O. Quine claimed
that we do not have sufficient criteria to be able to know whether or not the subject and
object of a sentence have the same essential meaning. (This is a typical example of the
sort of excessively picky quibbling that bourgeois philosophy is prone to.)
ANARCHISM
[To be added...]
See also below, and:
CHOMSKY, Noam
ANARCHISM — Individualist
[To be added...]
See also:
STIRNER, Max
ANARCHY OF PRODUCTION (Under Capitalism)
“[A]narchy, which is irreconcilable with the socialization of labor, is an inherent feature of capitalist society.” —Lenin, “What the ‘Friends of the People’ are” (1894), LCW 1:177.
ANARCHY OF PRODUCTION THEORY (For Capitalist Economic Crises)
[To be added... ]
ANAXIMANDER OF MILETUS (c. 610-c. 546 BCE)
An early Greek materialist philosopher of the Ionian School,
a pupil of Thales, and the first philosopher whose views are known
to any significant degree. Like Thales and other members of the Ionian School, he was also in
effect an early scientist. He constructed the first geometrical model of the universe, and
made maps of both the earth and the skies. His cosmological theory consisted of the earth,
which he thought had the shape of a flattened cylinder, at the center of the Universe, with
three rings (solar, lunar and astral) surrounding the earth. He invented the gnomon (or
upright pointer) on sundials, which gave them greater accuracy in keeping time. Anaximander
also originated the concept of biological evolution. He thought that human beings, like other
animals, had evolved from fish. (This idea probably arose from examining the fish-like
appearance of spontaneously aborted early fetuses. See:
“ONTOGENY RECAPITULATES PHYLOGENY”)
Anaximander was the author of the first
written work of philosophy in ancient Greece, On Nature, which—unfortunately—has
not been preserved. He was a natural dialectician. He introduced the concept of
arché, or the “primary principle”, or the underlying impetus of all things,
which however does not seem to be any sort of reference to a god or gods. And these “all
things” themselves (or at least their original state) he called the
apeiron, or the boundless, indefinite, never-ending, multiplicity
of our surroundings which are in constant motion. This is perhaps the first attempt to refer
to what materialists later came to call “matter in motion”. And Anaximander thought that out
of the apeiron, all worlds, and all the objects in them, have been produced through a
dialectical struggle of opposites.
ANAXIMENES OF MILETUS (c. 588-525 BCE)
Greek materialist philosopher and natural dialectician of the Ionian
School who was a student of Anaximander (see above). He gave Anaximander’s conception of
apeiron (original matter in motion) a more concrete form, by
arguing that everything develops from the primary matter air, forming first clouds, then
water, and finally earth and rock. Unfortunately, in this case this more definite form of the
theory was a step backwards, similar to returning to Thales’s naïve idea that everything
is composed of water. However, Anaximenes did seem to understand and utilize the general
dialectical principle of the transition of quantity into quality.
ANDROID THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
Marx supposed that only the labor of human beings is capable of producing
surplus value in a system of capitalist production. The
android thought experiment, which occurred to me some
decades ago, is a way of seeing that it is at least conceivable that Marx is wrong on
this point.
The thought experiment starts by assuming
that there is nothing mystical about human beings or their labor that allows them alone to
create new value, but instead that it might just be because there is some special exclusive
characteristic, or set of characteristics, of human beings that allows their labor
alone to produce surplus value in capitalist production. Such a characteristic might be
intelligence, ingenuity, creativity, or some such thing. (Marx himself implies at one place
in Capital that the essential thing which distinguishes human labor from the
industrious activity of other animals is our sense of
conscious purpose.) But the thought
experiment then supposes that some non-human entity might someday be created, such as an
artificial “man” or android, which has that same characteristic (or set of characteristics).
In short, an artificial human—if it truly replicates the relevant essential characteristics
of a human being—should also be capable of generating surplus value in capitalist production.
This is the foot in the door.
The next stage in the argument is to
recognize that all characteristics of human beings come in degrees. Intelligence or
creativity, for example, are not absolutely uniform characteristics of every human being.
Some people are more creative than others. We do not say that a somewhat less intelligent
or somewhat less creative human being is unable to produce surplus value in at least many
forms of labor under capitalism. In the same way, we are forced to admit that an android
might be able to create surplus value even if it were somewhat less intelligent or creative
than the average human being. Further considerations along these lines leads us step-by-step
to recognize that any “special characteristic” that might allow human labor to generate
surplus value must be part of a continuum, only gradually rising from zero to the full
abilities of the most capable human being (and then conceivably way beyond!). Finally, in
this age of ever growing computer sophistication and artificial intelligence research, we
have to at least consider the possibility that computer-controlled robots might someday
possess enough of this hypothesized special characteristic (whatever that may be) that they
too would have to be viewed as generating surplus value.
However, the main persuasiveness of this
thought experiment does not depend on any belief that androids will ever actually be
constructed! It just shows what we would have to say if they ever are constructed.
It is a thought experiment, and not a prediction about robots and artificial intelligence.
But it already shows that Marx’s insistence that only human labor alone can create surplus
value is at least subject to serious doubt.
The android thought experiment then leads
to the further idea that maybe there is no such “special exclusive characteristic” that
human labor has which allows it alone to create surplus value. Moreover, more theoretical
considerations suggest that it may be necessary to somewhat revise the labor theory of
value from the precise form that Marx gave it. See
LABOR THEORY OF VALUE—Revised Form —S.H.
See also:
“Steve Keen on Marxist Economics, Together with a Mini Essay on the Labor Theory of Value”
(especially sections 3-10) at
http://www.massline.org/PolitEcon/ScottH/Keen_LTV.htm, and “Letter to Frank S. about
the Labor Theory of Value” at
http://www.massline.org/PolitEcon/ScottH/Keen_LTV.htm
ANG BAYAN
The official news publication of the Communist Party of the Philippines. Its name means
“The People” in English.
“Ang Bayan is the official news organ of the Communist Party of
the Philippines issued by the CPP Central Committee. It provides news about the work of
the Party as well as its analysis of and standpoint on current issues.
“AB comes out fortnightly. It is
published originally in Pilipino and translated into Bisaya, Ilokano, Waray, Hiligaynon
and English.” —Statement on the web page for Ang Bayan, at
http://www.philippinerevolution.net/cgi-bin/ab/index.pl as of 10/21/10.
ANNUITY
A series of equal payments as part of a retirement plan or an insurance policy payout (such
as to someone who has a long-term disability insurance policy and becomes unable to work).
The payments may continue for a fixed period, or on a contingent basis (such as until the
beneficiary dies). (The payment of interest to the holder of bonds
may amount to the same sort of thing but is seldom described as an annuity.)
ANSHAN IRON AND STEEL COMPANY
The Anshan Iron and Steel Works was constructed in the period of Japanese rule in Manchuria, and
was China’s first large modern industrial enterprise and the center of its heavy industry. After
the 1949 Revolution, it was the focus of industrialization during the first five-year plan, and
by 1960 it was an advanced complex with more than 100,000 workers supplying 25 percent of the
nation’s steel, the foundation of the industrial economy. The Charter of the Anshan Steel Company
was proposed by the workers of Anshan in 1960. Mao strongly approved of this Charter and wrote a
famous note with regard to it which guided industrial work in general during the Maoist period.
See also:
CHARTER OF THE ANSHAN IRON AND
STEEL COMPANY
ANTAGONISM
[In Marxist usage:] Open hostility and conflict; complete irreconcilability not only in how
a struggle is finally resolved but also in how it is carried out.
The struggle between the two opposing poles
(or aspects) of a dialectical contradiction may take quite different forms. The struggle may
be gentle or ferocious, peaceful or violent, slow and drawn out or immediate and all-out. In
human affairs such struggle may involve reason, discussion, temporary concessions, etc., or
it may involve unrestrained force, violence, and immediate unrestrained action. In other
words, the form that the struggle between the two poles of the contradiction takes may be
non-antagonistic or antagonistic. Moreover, in some cases the form of the struggle may change
from being antagonistic to being non-antagonistic, or vice versa.
“Contradiction and struggle are universal and absolute, but the methods
of resolving contradictions, that is, the forms of struggle, differ according to the
differences in the nature of the contradictions. Some contradictions are characterized
by open antagonism, others are not. In accordance with the concrete development of things,
some contradictions which were originally non-antagonistic develop into antagonistic ones,
while others which were originally antagonistic develop into non-antagonistic ones....
“Lenin said, ‘Antagonism and
contradiction are not at all one and the same. Under socialism, the first will disappear,
the second will remain.’ That is to say, antagonism is one form, but not the only form, of
the struggle of opposites; the formula of antagonism cannot be arbitrarily applied
everywhere.” —Mao, “On Contradiction” (Aug. 1937), SW 1:344-5.
For more discussion of this topic see section VI of Mao’s essay On Contradiction,
entitled “The Place of Antagonism in Contradiction”, from which the above quotation is taken,
and these more specialized essays:
“Antagonistic and Non-Antagonistic
Contradictions”, by Ai Siqi (1957), in which he discusses the concept of antagonistic and
non-antagonistic contradictions as expounded in several works by Mao. [PDF format: 107 KB];
“An Attempt to Discuss ‘Antagonism’
and ‘Antagonistic Contradictions’”, by Shan Hong (1957) [PDF format: 108 KB].
See also:
CONTRADICTIONS—Dialectical
ANTI-COMMUNISM
A reactionary political position, point of view, or piece of propaganda opposing communism,
revolution, and often also opposing most other ideas or measures which significantly promote the
interests of the working class or masses as a whole. Communism is often portrayed as the most
horribly evil system, and communists are routinely portrayed as vicious man-eating monsters and
the like!
See also:
TO BE ATTACKED BY THE ENEMY IS A GOOD THING
ANTI-DÜHRING
This famous book by Frederick Engels, published in 1878, was directed against a crude
petty-bourgeois theory of socialism put forth by Eugen Dühring.
The formal title of Engels’ book is Herrn Eugen Dührings Umwälzung der Wissenschaft
(Herr Eugen Dühring’s Revolution in Science). Engels did such an excellent job of
exposing Dühring and at the same time putting forward the essentials of his and Marx’s much
more coherent and profound theory of scientific socialism, that Anti-Dühring has ever
since its publication been considered an essential textbook of Marxism.
[This book analyzes] “highly important problems in the domain of philosophy, natural science and the social sciences. This is a wonderfully rich and instructive book.” —Lenin, “Frederick Engels” (1896), LCW 2:25.
ANTI-HISTORICISM
See also:
HISTORICISM
“Nothing is more characteristic of the bourgeois than the application of the features of the modern system to all times and peoples.” —Lenin, “What the ‘Friends of the People’ Are” (1894), LCW 1:154 (footnote).
ANTI-LIN BIAO, ANTI-CONFUCIUS CAMPAIGN
A mass campaign in Maoist China launched in late 1973 and promoting criticism of both the
disgraced Lin Biao and Confucius. Lin
Biao died in 1971 in a plane crash in Mongolia while attempting to flee China after his plot to
assassinate Mao had been exposed. Mao and the CCP recognized that Lin’s betrayal was connected
to some deeper lingering problems in the ideology of people left over from the old China, and
therefore appropriately attempted to criticize not just Lin, but the broader ideological problem
that still remained. This campaign is sometimes considered to be one of the later phases of the
Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, and sometimes considered to be
a separate mass campaign.
ANTI-MATTER
[Often without the hyphen:] An uncommon type of matter composed of
“anti-particles” (such as anti-protons and “anti-electrons”, or positrons) which when brought
together with ordinary matter leads to mutual annihilation and the release of enormous quantities
of energy in accordance with Einstein’s equation: E = mc2
Some forms of anti-matter differ from ordinary
matter in the electrical charge carried. Thus while ordinary protons carry a positive charge,
anti-protons carry a negative charge. More fundamentally, the difference between ordinary
particles and anti-particles lies in their internal characteristics or constituents. Thus ordinary
neutrons and anti-neutrons are both electrically neutral, but consist internally of either quarks
or anti-quarks which can still annihilate each other when brought together.
The term “matter” in physics can in one sense
refer only to ordinary matter, and in a more inclusive sense can refer to both ordinary
matter and anti-matter. Both particles of matter and anti-matter have mass and generally have the
same intrinisic properties as their anti-particle forms.
The even more abstract conception of matter in
the materialist philosophical sense includes both ordinary matter and anti-matter, and also
energy in all its forms.
ANTI-SOCIALIST LAW (In 19th Century Germany)
“The Anti-Socialist Law was introduced in Germany in 1878 by the Bismarck government with the object of combating the labor and socialist movement. The law banned all Social-Democratic Party and mass working-class organizations, and the labor press; socialist literature was confiscated, and Social-Democrats were hounded and deported. These repressions, however, did not break the Social-Democratic Party, which readjusted its activities to the conditions of illegal existence: the Party’s central organ Sozial-Demokrat was published abroad and Party congresses were held regularly there (1880, 1883, and 1887); in Germany, Social-Democratic underground organizations and groups headed by an illegal Central Committee were rapidly restored. Simultaneously, the Party made wide use of legal opportunities to strengthen contact with the masses, and its influence steadily grew. The number of votes cast for the Social-Democrats in the Reichstag elections increased more than threefold between 1878 and 1890. Tremendous assistance to the German Social-Democrats was given by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. The Anti-Socialist Law was repealed in 1890 as a result of pressure from the mounting mass labor movement.” —Note 209, LCW 20:611-612.
ANTI-TRUST LAWS
Laws nominally for the purpose of preventing or restricting the growth of capitalist
monopolies, trusts, cartels and oligopolies. Marx discussed the strong tendency toward the
development of monopolies as weak firms fail or are bought out, especially during recessions
or depressions. Bourgeois economists and politicians have been forced to acknowledge this
trend as well, and also its economic harmfulness, usually after it has already become well
advanced. Even some early economists such as Adam Smith considered monopolies, price
agreements, and the like to be “conspiracies against the public”.
In 1890 the U.S. Congress passed the Sherman
Anti-Trust Act in response to public alarm about the growth of giant capitalist combines.
While there were a few famous breakups of monopolies, “the primary effect of the Sherman
Act over the next few decades was to weaken labor unions” [E. K. Hunt & Howard Sherman,
Economics: An Introduction to Traditional and Radical Views, 1981, p. 118.]
However, in 1914 the Clayton Act was passed to give the anti-trust laws a few more teeth,
and to exempt labor unions.
The most famous anti-trust case was the
breakup of the Rockefeller Standard Oil Trust in 1911 into 34 separate companies. But this
was more a matter of the short-term, and for public image purposes. Even soon after the
breakup these companies still colluded and engaged in price fixing, and the like. Many of
the 34 companies were rather small and not central to the matter of industry price fixing,
and this made it easier for the few big ones to collude, not only with each other, but also
with the small number of other big oil companies around the world. For example, “In 1928
the heads of British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell, and Standard Oil met in the Scottish
highlands and secretly agreed to limit production in the wake of the huge discoveries in
the Middle East.” [U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 14, 1998, pp. 26-27.]
More to the central point, there are
today, after more than a century of supposed anti-trust regulation, a very small
number of super-giant oil companies that completely dominate that industry worldwide. In
the 1998-2001 period there was a further consolidation: Exxon merged with Mobil, Chevron
with Texaco, BP with Amoco, Arco with both Conoco and Phillips, and in Europe,
Total merged with PetroFina and Elf.
Even bourgeois economists recognize that
anti-trust legislation has been largely ineffective. In 1949 there was a symposium on the
topic in the American Economic Review, and every participant agreed that anti-trust
legislation was a dismal failure. However, the situation is actually far worse than what
these economists admit. Far from being an opponent of monopoly (though an “ineffective”
one), governments in the imperialist era actually promote monopoly. The “anti-trust”
legislation on the books is at most a false cover for this real stance. As the radical
economists E.K. Hunt & Howard Sherman summed it up, “the enforcement of antitrust laws and
the actions of the numerous government regulatory commissions have consistently aided and
abetted the achievement and maintenance of monopoly power”. [Op. cit., pp. 329-330.]
Dictionary Home Page and Letter Index