Dictionary of Revolutionary Marxism

—   Ex - Ez   —


“It was [Steven Jay] Gould and Elizabeth Vrba who gave the name to yet another potential contributor to evolutionary change: exaptation. An exaptation is some feature of an organism originally selected for one function that may also serve as the basis for another. The favorite example is that of feathers, believed to have evolved among small dinosaurs as a means of regulating body temperature, but which also enabled flight in the precursors of modern birds. For Gould such exaptations are an indicator of the chance or opportunistic nature of evolutionary processes, relying as they do on multiple mechanisms.” —Hilary & Steven Rose, Genes, Cells and Brains (2014), p. 78.

[To be added...]

[Sometimes with a hyphen.] The value of
commodities (goods or services produced for sale) as they are bought and sold in the marketplace; roughly the same as price. Or more precisely, the form that value takes in the act of EXCHANGE. Exchange value is contrasted to use value, which is the capacity of the commodity to satisfy human needs or wants.

EXISTENCE   [Philosophy]
[Intro to be added...]
        See also:

“The proof that something exists has no other meaning than that something exists not in thought alone.” —Ludwig Feuerbach, quoted in G.V. Plekhanov, “Fundamental Problems of Marxism” (1908), International Publishers ed., 1969, p. 39; Plekhanov—Selected Philosophical Works, 3:134.

A bourgeois philosophy of despair, which holds that there is no objective truth, that there are no universal values, that the human “essence” is a matter of free choice by the individual, and that consequently people are in a permanent state of anxiety because of their realization of this free will. Among the religious existentialists are Kierkegaard, Martin Buber and Gabriel Marcel. Nietzsche and Heidegger were authoritarian or fascist existentialists, and
Sartre is often called a “Marxist” existentialist, though genuine Marxism is quite incompatible with any form of existentialism.
        See also: ALBERT CAMUS, and Philosophical doggerel about existentialism.

CAPITALISM—Expand or Die

A term used by Maoists (especially in South Asia and with particular reference to India) to describe the domination and exploitation by one country—which itself is nevertheless not a full-fledged imperialist country—of other weaker countries in its region. This is also sometimes termed
“sub-imperialism”, and does in fact amount to sort of a local or subordinate sort of imperialism.
        For a fuller discussion see chapter 9 on “Expansionism and Sub-imperialism” in Is China an Imperialist Country? (2014), by N.B. Turner, et al., at: http://www.bannedthought.net/International/Red-Path/01/RP-8.5x11-IsChinaAnImperialistCountry-140320.pdf

“The term ‘expansionism’ for India derives from the terminology used by Maoist China to criticize India’s territorial claims and military actions against China (over border disputes) and similar claims and actions against other neighboring countries, and the doctrines of the ruling class in India which led to these actions. ‘These reactionary expansionist ideas of India’s big bourgeoisie and big landlords form an important part of Nehru’s philosophy.’—‘More on Nehru’s Philosophy in the Light of the Sino-Indian Boundary Question’, by the Editorial Department of Renmin Ribao (Oct. 27, 1962), English translation in Peking Review, #44, Nov. 2, 1962, pp. 10-22. This specific quote is page 11. Available online at: http://www.massline.org/PekingReview/PR1962/PR1962-44.pdf

[General, non-pejorative senses:]
        1. Behavior or action appropriate to achieving the end in view; fitness, suitability.
        2. Behavior or action in accordance with what is advantageous, or with what answers to one’s interests.
[Pejorative senses:]
        3. Behavior or action which is opportunistic or temporarily advantageous, as opposed to what is right and just (i.e., as opposed to what is actually appropriate and in the long term interest).
        4. Acting for one’s own advantage or to serve one’s own self-interest, as opposed to what is right (i.e., as opposed to what is in the general interest).

[To be added... ]
        See also:

EXPERIMENTS (Scientific)
        See also:

“[T]he authority of Archimedes was of no more importance than that of Aristotle; Archimedes was right because his conclusions agreed with experiment.” —A view expressed by Galileo in his work Bodies of Water, as summarized by Stillman Drake, quoted in I. Bernard Cohen, Revolution in Science (1985), p. 142.

“If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” —Richard Feynman, quoted in “The Best Mind Since Einstein”, Nova TV program, 1993.
        [Well, not quite! Feynman is certainly correct if the experiment in question is well-designed and implemented and if the conclusions drawn from it are appropriate and correct. The problem, however, is that not all experiments are done properly and summed up properly. This is why there needs to be repeated experiments and continued thought about what past experiments have actually proven. —S.H.]

        1. The unjust or improper use of another person for one’s own profit or advantage.
        2. [In the Marxist sense in the context of the political economy of capitalism:] The expropriation (theft) of the labor of a worker (via the extraction of
surplus value) by the owners of the means of production (the capitalists).

Countries whose merchandise exports form a very large and/or important part of their entire economy. Not only the absolute size of exports is important, but also the proportion of the total economy of a country that depends on exports. In 2009 the U.S. had $1.056 trillion in exports and a GDP of $14.256 trillion. That means, as big as those exports were, they were only 7.4% of the U.S. economy.
        As the chart below shows, China has become the world’s largest exporter. While that remains true, in recent years the proportion of China’s economy that depends on exports has been declining significantly. In 2007 the export of goods made up 38% of Chinese GDP, but that fell to 26% in 2012. [Economist, Aug. 17, 2013, p. 39.] In other words China, while still an export-oriented economy, is less so than it was a few years ago.

Country Rank in Value
of Exports
Value of Exports
Exports as % of
its GDP (2009)
China 1 $1.20 trillion 24.1% Not including Hong Kong.
Recently eclipsed Germany as world’s largest exporter.
China (including
Hong Kong)
1 $1.53 trillion 29.4% See also separate listing below for Hong Kong.
Germany 2 $1.13 trillion 33.6% Largest percentage of economy in exports, among major
United States 3 $1.06 trillion 7.41% As % of GDP, near the bottom of the pack for major economies.
Japan 4 $581 billion 11.5% A major exporter, but with a surprisingly large domestic
economy. A huge decline in exports in 2009.
Netherlands 5 $498 billion 62.9% Because of the existence of the European Common Market
many smaller European countries have high export rates.
France 6 $485 billion 18.3%
Italy 7 $406 billion 19.2%
Belgium 8 $370 billion 78.9%
South Korea 9 $364 billion 43.7%
United Kingdom 10 $352 billion 16.2%
Hong Kong 11 $329 billion 153% Note that Hong Kong has a very high export/GDP ratio
because it re-exports many goods from China.
Canada 12 $317 billion 23.7% Canada exports a lot of goods to the U.S.
Russian Federation 13 $303 billion 24.6% Oil and gas exports are a major component.
Singapore 14 $270 billion 148.4% Exports are so amazingly high as % of GDP because it
imports many commodities which it then re-exports.
Mexico 15 $230 billion 26.3%
World Total $12.49 trillion
21.5% World trade declined by 12% in 2009 due to the
international economic crisis.
Sources: World Trade Organization statistical database at http://stat.wto.org/Home/WSDBHome.aspx?Language=E;
World Bank database at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf.

The world around us; i.e., the everyday world of objects and things that we perceive, move among, and act upon. In philosophy, to speak of the “external world” is to implicitly adopt a
materialist position, that the objective physical world exists outside of the mind of the person contemplating it. For this reason philosophical idealists often object even to the usage of the term external world! For these idealists there is actually no external world outside the mind (or, at least, outside the mind of “God”).
        Even for modern dialectical materialists, however, the term “external world” has sort of an early Twentieth Century quaintness about it, since we now take the existence of the objective world outside of any mind as something that is totally obvious, and scarcely necessary of any further argument.

“The external world is not dependent on us, it is a thing absolute in itself, a thing we must face, and the discovery of the laws governing this absolute has always seemed to me the most wonderful task in a scientist’s life.” —Max Planck, Wissenschaftliche Selbstbiographie [Scientific Autobiography] (Leipzig: 1948), p. 7.
         [This great physicist, though he was a conservative and religious person, nevertheless took a materialist stance on the existence of an objective external world. Note, however, the terminology he still uses, referring to the objective world as the “absolute”, a term previously mostly used by idealists such as Hegel for their very non-materialist conception of the world.]

“The belief in an external world independent of the perceiving subject is the basis of all natural science.” —Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, (NY: 1954), p. 266.

[In bourgeois economics:] The costs (or very rarely, the benefits) of producing a commodity which are not borne (or received) by either the producer or the purchaser of the commodity. For example, a chemical plant may discharge toxic wastes into the river, which results in severe damage to the environment. But neither the chemical company’s profits nor the price paid by the company’s customers are adversely affected in any way. Instead, the expensive costs of cleanup of the toxic discharge are left to be paid by the taxpayers—or else the mess is not cleaned up at all!



Dictionary Home Page and Letter Index