Modern Definitions
Vague notions about what existed in the past; fiery essays against the "enemy"; the incessant inciting of passions against all one disagrees with; none of these can be considered a modern way of doing things. However, this is not where controversy either begins or ends. The burning question of the day is that the productive forces have advanced to such an extent that there is the need for theoretical and ideological considerations of a calibre which can assist these productive forces to break away from the integuments of the old thought stemming from the old relations of production. Both in class terms, where millions of modern proletarians comprise the social basis of modern production, and in terms of the scientific and technical revolution, the world is on the brink of either making one of the greatest advances in history or experiencing one of its greatest disasters. Once released, the productive forces are bound to create an entirely new society, a society fit for human beings or, if kept bottled up, there will be a disaster of unheard of proportions.
In order to tackle the problem of releasing the productive forces, modern definitions of society have to be recognized. Once it is recognized that modern society is the condition for the perpetuation of a system on which it is based, it stands to reason that the precondition for change in society is changing the system. From where should changing the system start? Just to observe some negative symptoms and draft a programmatic call to eliminate them is not enough. Even to trace the basis of a symptom and take the remedial action will not work. What is needed, first and foremost, is to work out a modern perspective, a modern definition of progress, a modern conception for the high road of civilization. The building of this perspective is the recognition of the interests of the working class and broad masses of the people and of society itself.
A modern definition of progress necessarily has as its starting point a modern definition of all interests in contention in the objective sense. The old controversy that there is a conflict between the individual and the collective does not suffice. It does not fully reveal what is really in conflict at this time and how it should be harmonized in order to open the path for the progress of society. If it were to be recognized that there are collectives in a society and that these collectives not only have interests which clash with each other and with the general interests of society, but that within the collective there is a clash between individual interests and those of the collective, and that the interests of the individual clash with the general interests of society, this will lead to a modern definition of the key problem which must be resolved at this time. Its resolution will open the path to social progress.
The starting point of this resolution is the demand that a system must be established which recognizes that all individuals have fundamental inherent rights which originate from the fact that they are human beings. In sum, the fact that an individual has inviolable rights by virtue of being human has to be the perspective, the modern definition, the basis on which all interests can be harmonized and the path to progress of society can be opened.
The unprecedented and colossal advance of the productive forces has put a huge strain on the old consciousness and old relations of production at this time. In a matter of just five years, modern consciousness has arisen about the political and economic system. More and more people demand their right to exercise control over their lives. In the political sphere, consciousness about the political process and awareness that people must have the right to select candidates before they can exercise their right to elect a representative to Parliament is a radical departure from passively accepting the old system in which modern-day slave drivers are elected on the basis of a universal franchise. An equally radical consciousness can be seen in the demand of the people to increase investments in social programs in order to overcome the economic crisis. There is also an increasing consciousness about the necessity for working out theoretical and ideological considerations on the basis of present-day reality instead of by submitting to dogmas. This spontaneous consciousness is the reflection of the pressure of the productive forces on the old consciousness and old relations of production. However, there is an increasing amount of work being done to transform this consciousness into planned activity towards a definite goal. It is an indication that the productive forces are prevailing over the old and it delineates a path for the creation of a modern system on which a modern society can be erected.
It has to be recognized that at this historical juncture, because of the level of the development of the productive forces, all human beings are born to society. The notion that a person is only born to a family and that society has nothing to do with it, has to be discarded. However, there is a demand coming from the Old according to which society must not recognize that human beings are born to it and that individuals must fend for themselves.
It is often observed and said that animals accept a certain level of responsibility only towards their own offspring, not towards their species. How can the demand that society must not take any responsibility towards its members be considered human? Society has emerged on the basis of people producing their livelihood together. How can the issue of a livelihood be left to the individual if the basis of procuring it is social? No human person can make her or his living on their own, speaking generally, within the conditions when the production process is social. This is to recognize that the technical and material content of the economy and of the relations of production presupposes the existence of a social process of production. If production is social, how can the demand that individuals should fend for themselves be accepted? It is based on an archaic definition known as the law of the jungle. There is no reason whatsoever to recognize the law of the jungle as the foundation of a modern society.
For the working class to emancipate itself it must recognize that all individuals have inviolable rights by virtue of being human and, secondly, that society has an obligation towards all its members. Starting with these two fundamental presuppositions, the working class will propose that, in the sphere of the economy, investments in social programs should increase to such an extent that all members are guaranteed the highest possible standard of living within the material and cultural level their society has attained and the level of the development of the productive forces must lead to raising the standards even further. In the political sphere, the working class would demand that there should be no election without selection, meaning that they choose the candidates, not line up behind choices over which they exercise no control. The working class would demand the establishment of a modern democracy in which people rule themselves. Political parties must be subordinated to the needs of the people and not the other way around. People have to be rulers themselves. Political mechanisms which can facilitate this have to be brought into being. The working class will also declare that all its theoretical and ideological considerations are verifiable and that they are all in the service of opening the path to society's progress.
Recognition of the inviolable rights of people by virtue of being human and that society must provide for all brings forth the important question that there are obligations which an individual must fulfill by virtue of being a member of society. It is generally understood that there can be no rights without duties. However, when society recognizes the fundamental issue that all individuals have rights by virtue of being human and that it must provide for all, the demand also emerges out of life itself that all individuals have the duty to defend, strengthen and extend a system so ordered and the society based on guidelines derived therefrom. They have the duty to create such a system, as it does not exist at this time.
Will all collectives comprising the society agree with these two fundamental principles? The answer is no. Some collectives would agree and others will not. Such an attitude would depend on how a collective is faring under the present system. All those which are favoured by the present system in which the two fundamental principles are not recognized would oppose these modern definitions of what rights are and what society is. The financial oligarchy is the most opposed to these two fundamental principles and even though this is understandable, it is not acceptable. What is not understandable and also not acceptable is why more than a few labour leaders do not recognize the two fundamental principles.
It is to be presupposed that all people want to open the path for the progress of society. It is our contention that such a path cannot be opened without recognizing these two fundamental principles. Furthermore, neither the general interests of society will be served nor the specific interests of individuals if these two fundamental principles are not recognized as the basis of a modern society. In other words, all individuals, all collectives in whose interest it is to open the path for progress, and society itself will have to insist on eliminating the social basis of those who become obstacles to progress. They will have to work to elaborate their theoretical and ideological considerations so that they can accomplish their goal. This is the sum and substance of modern definitions.
(Originally published in Discussion Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 1, Spring 1994, slightly edited for publication in 2026)
This article was published in
Volume 56 Number 6 - July 6, 2026
Article Link:
https://cpcml.ca/TML2026/Articles/TS56063.HTM
Website: www.cpcml.ca Email: editor@cpcml.ca