|
Supplement
No. 18May 18, 2019
50th Anniversary
of the
Regina Conference
Work of The
Internationalists and
the
Regina Conference
Hardial Bains speaks in Regina in 1989 on the 20th
anniversary of
the Regina Conference.
• The
Decisive
Role of Consciousness in Social Change
- Hardial Bains -
50th Anniversary of the Regina
Conference
Work of The Internationalists and
the Regina Conference
The work of The
Internationalists founded in 1963, under
the leadership of its
founder Hardial Bains and the Regina Conference in
1969 were of
historic significance. They sorted out the crucial
issue of who decides
as it pertains to the political organization of
the working class and
its leading role in the society and the
indispensable role of
consciousness and organization in the mobilization
of the people to
participate in finding solutions to the key
problems facing the society.
In an article titled "Paying First-Rate Attention
to the
Need
of the People for Consciousness and Organization,"
Hardial Bains
addressed the living legacy of The
Internationalists. He
wrote:
"Besides other things, in
dealing with the problems of
consciousness and organization, The
Internationalists adopted
the principle of collective work and individual
responsibility, that every member has the duty to
not only
implement the decisions agreed upon but to also
participate in
arriving at them. This insistence that they must
participate in
arriving at decisions was considered not just a
right but a duty
as well. It put the individual at the centre of
all developments
and the organization as a means of achieving them,
thereby
establishing a dialectical relationship between
the individual
and the collective, between form and content.
Referring to the reorganization of The
Internationalists, in May 1968, Hardial
Bains pointed out: "[...]
It was a
historic moment of departure from the building of
organizations
on the basis of old definitions, to building them
on the basis of
the present and modern definitions. It became
profoundly clear
that The Internationalists as a political
organization
could only develop on the basis of political unity
and political
initiative, as manifested in concrete terms by
their line of
action with analysis and in defence of their
immediate and
strategic aims. Such aims were set according to
the demands which
arose from those conditions, for the harmonization
of the general
interests of society with those of the collective
and individual,
placing in the first place the role of the masses
in ensuring
that it happens. [...]
"[The Internationalists] provided a
framework
through
which everyone's word and deed could shine,
realizing the tasks
set for that period. This meant that as a way of
life, all those
in whose interest it was to make the decisions in
the course of
realizing their aims were mobilized. A modern way
of doing things
was established, linking the organization with the
content, words
with deeds, the individual to the highest
responsibility of
ensuring that nothing passes by without his/her
scrutiny. A truly
revolutionary and Marxist-Leninist organization
was created by
the individuals who wished for nothing else but
the victory of
the working class in its historic march for
emancipation. A
qualitative change took place, in both the spheres
of
consciousness and organization. This change was
consistent with
the concrete conditions and deserving of those who
prided
themselves for being members of the vanguard
organization of the
working class.
"The Internationalists created another
form
consistent
with the aim of providing the class with
consciousness and
organization. This was the form of mass democracy,
today known as
the method of mass political mobilization. It is
the method of
seeking the opinions of the masses in the course
of work. Seeking
the opinions of the masses was not an option but
an obligation to
the mass activism. It was the only reliable basis
for the
realization of any task set for the period.
Bourgeois formalism,
the method of spending millions of dollars by
using the most
modern techniques to confuse the people, gossip,
character
assassination, etc. were replaced with involving
the people in
discussion. What was to be done, how and when,
emerged as
on-going work under all conditions without
exception.
"For The Internationalists, work and
mobilization
constituted two categories of a single whole,
interdependent on
each other and on everything else. Action with
analysis had the
same relationship. The starting point for The
Internationalists was always work, as
demanded by the
concrete conditions of the time.
"Besides the method of mass democracy, The
Internationalists carried out the work of
mobilization at
various levels, ensuring that all problems inside
or outside the
organization were sorted out on the basis of
advanced positions,
through criticism and self-criticism and by always
keeping the
aim of unity in first place. Struggle was never
separated from
either the on-going task of strengthening unity or
from the aim
of realizing the immediate aims set for the period
or at the cost
of the strategic aim. The Internationalists
placed
struggle in first place. This meant putting the
entire
consciousness and organization in the service of
the class
struggle as the only basis of development in
society. How should
class struggle be waged and against whom and when
were the most
important questions which The
Internationalists dealt
with, on the basis of the keenness and seriousness
they required.
It is for this reason that everyone was called
upon to
participate in arriving at decisions not just as a
right which
belongs to them but also as a duty demanded from
them by the
organization. [...]
"Finally, The Internationalists provided
forums
to the
people, both internal as well as external, private
as well as
public, for their mobilization. Basing the
organization on the
principles of democratic centralism required The
Internationalists to have a leading line all
the time, which
is presented to the masses all the time, ensuring
that their
level of consciousness and organization are not
lowered to that
of the bourgeoisie. [...]
"After a period of less than two years of
vigorous
all-round
political activity from May 1968 to March 1970, it
was analyzed
that all the material and technical conditions
were ready to
found the Communist Party. The required
theoretical and political
work and the organization as their integral part
were ready for
the founding of CPC(M-L), declared in a public
meeting in
Montreal on March 31, 1970."
"This entire work to involve everyone in the
decision-making
plan, which came to be known later on as the
method of maximum
political mobilization, meant that the entire work
always had to
be based on the people according to the concrete
conditions of
the period. If the working class is to lead
everyone in
fulfilling its historic mission to create a new
society, people's
right to make decisions must be recognized as must
the demand
that so doing must be considered a duty as well."
And herein lies the significance of the Regina
Conference as
well. It settled scores on the question of the
content of the
Canadian revolution, the relationship between the
democratic
movement, the anti-imperialist movement and
socialism. The
conference started with the questions of form, and
it ended with
the questions of content. This was its great
exploit and it
remains so to this day.
Speaking about this at the commemoration of the
20th
anniversary of the Regina Conference in 1989,
Hardial Bains said,
"As we look back with the benefit of hindsight, we
find that
during the heady days of the late sixties, we
opposed the
revisionist ideas and practice by using various
methods. Thus, The
Internationalists had to develop forms which
could
facilitate revolutionary Marxist-Leninist content.
The Regina
Conference was an important victory in that
direction."
He spoke to the relationship between form and
content
pointing
out that it is by separating the two that the
bourgeoisie and
opportunists and revisionists within the workers'
movement, who
make a lot of noise about form with their talk
about democracy,
openness, transparency, restructuring and reform,
push their
counter-revolutionary content. The forms they push
are designed
to dazzle the gullible and pressure the working
class to not take
up Marxism-Leninism, Hardial Bains pointed out.
"It is through
this mechanism that they attack the revolutionary
Marxist-Leninist line and content, and push their
counter-revolutionary line." He added:
"The question of form and content, the
relationship
between
the two, has been and remains the major
demarcation line between
the proletarian world outlook and the bourgeois
world outlook,
and between the Marxist-Leninist line and that of
the
revisionists and opportunists. According to the
bourgeois world
outlook, the relationship between form and content
is an eclectic
one. The two are arbitrarily separated, and then
presented as two
isolated entities. It is difficult to comprehend
how two integral
components of a thing can be presented as entities
in themselves,
totally detached from one another. That is, the
form cannot be
detached from content. This is what dialectics
teach us. But on
the basis of the bourgeois outlook this is done
all the time.
According to proletarian world outlook, the
relationship between
form and content remains a dialectical one. Not
only can form not
be detached from content, and vice versa, but
development takes
place as a result of the contradiction inherent
between the two.
A quantitative change merely repeats the same form
and content,
which the bourgeois outlook considers the eternal
fate of
everything living or inorganic. According to us,
according to
science, according to materialist dialectics, this
contradiction
gives rise to qualitative changes. This change is
not the
shedding of the form or elimination of the
content, but the
coming into being of new form and new content --
that is, the
coming into being of the New out of the
destruction of the Old.
For example, the overthrow of capitalism creates
the conditions
for the building of socialism, which constitutes
the new
condition for the creation of the working class as
a new class.
What is New as distinguished from the Old is that
the new working
class is no longer a class of wage slaves.
Revolution and
socialism put an end to this old quality, and the
new quality of
emancipated labour takes hold, creating both new
form and new
content in the relations of production. On this
basis all the
other relations are then transformed."
Today the most prominent feature of the crisis in
which
the
bourgeois democracy is mired is to deny the
possibilities of
qualitative change. Mired in old forms which are
no longer
consistent with what is required today, the ruling
class and all
those who defend the old forms are caught up in
their own
machinations and pretensions to be democrats and
those who stand
for high ideals. But, since the mid-eighties at
which time the
neo-liberal anti-social offensive was launched and
the former
Soviet Union and people's democracies went into
their death
throes because they abandoned the aim of
empowering the people
with the working class constituting the nation and
vesting power
in the people, no force can continue to act in the
old way. The
persistence to defend the old forms has created a
quagmire for
ruling elites as clearly seen whether we speak of
Canada or the
United States, Britain or any of their allies and
fellow-travellers who espouse what are called the
liberal
democratic institutions through which they govern
on the basis of
force, privilege and corruption and nonetheless
claim to have the
consent of the governed.
Today, to stop the people drawing warranted
conclusions
and
speaking in their own name, collective
consciousness is
destroyed, everyone must fend for themselves and
give personal
understanding of the reality which can never
furnish them with a
guide to action. Speaking about the Regina
Conference, Comrade
Bains addressed how the Marxist-Leninists overcame
this problem
at that time.
"The main pressure during the Regina Conference
was to
narrow
and limit the level of discussion to the problems
of the
understanding of an individual. Nothing else but
the
preoccupation of the individual mattered. This was
an all-out
attack to liquidate the work to build the Party
and turn it into
an association of chance individuals, do-gooders,
people with a
conscience, etc. The first part of the conference
was plagued by
this pressure, and once the conference refused to
submit to the
pressure, it could advance and work out the plan
for the creation
of the conditions to found the Party. There was
resistance to new
form and new methods of work. But what is most
significant is the
resistance to content which appeared in the first
place as if it
was a resistance only to form. During that period
we never heard
anyone say: 'Well, I disagree with the line.' The
same is true
today. Disagreement comes in opposition to the
form, the method
and style, in the final analysis with practice.
This is what the
Regina Conference deliberated on. It was not
fortuitous that the
results of the Regina Conference were to be
included in the
political report of March 1970. It is quite
well-known that the
nature of form has to be consistent with content.
If this is not
the case, then there will be chaos, anarchy and
disruption."
The matter of form and content which arose in
1969,
remains a
fundamental issue today -- the defence of the form
is the defence
of the content, and vice versa. The bourgeoisie's
defence of the
liberal democratic institutions seeks to detach
the content from
the form, and it tries to fool the people in doing
so, so that
the working class and people do not organize on
the basis of
their own independent politics but, on the
contrary, give
Anglo-American imperialists and world reaction
free rein. All the
contradictions in the world have now become
aggravated and the
Anglo-American imperialist rulers are incapable of
providing
viable future prospects.
Speaking in Regina in 1989 about the historic
conference
Hardial Bains said, "The most important conclusion
for us
Canadian Marxist-Leninists was drawn right here in
1969 -- that
is, that form without content is just an empty
vessel, a chatter,
a noise which will give rise to nothing.
"The Regina Conference can be summed up as the
militant
defence of the Marxist-Leninist content in order
to defend,
expand and strengthen the Marxist-Leninist
organization. This is
why it was so crucial. This is why we were able to
go to Winnipeg
in August 1969 to found the Canadian Communist
Movement
(Marxist-Leninist), and why more than 175
delegates went to
Vancouver at the end of December 1969 where the
Party's founding
resolutions were adopted and, from there, to
Montreal where
hundreds of people together declared the founding
of the
Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) on
March 31,
1970.
"In my estimation, without the Regina Conference,
the
Party
would not have been possible. The pressure which
was being
exerted on us at that Conference and by others was
that the Party
would come out of discussions and debates and that
various groups
should debate ideology and reach agreements on the
basis of
documents. But The Internationalists, and
the Party later,
did not agree with such things. The Party is not a
debating
society, and parties do not come into being
through discussions
and debates. Only those elements who see the
necessity of the
Party, who see the necessity of the class leading
the revolution,
will come forward and build such parties. It is
not by convincing
some individuals and then declaring that there
will be a
party.
"In this great struggle which took place at the
Regina
Conference, the opposition to form, that is to the
Party,
necessarily meant opposition to content. The
events and
individuals of that time may look inconsequential
or
insignificant, but in actual fact if you follow
the whole
development, you will find that those who had
objections to the
form later came out with their opportunist and
revisionist
content. They were our fellow-travellers for only
a short period
of time, and they came out into the open as
opponents afterwards.
We found out for ourselves that those who want to
vulgarize the
form, those who want to separate it from the
content, do so for
very deliberate reasons. One should not lose one's
guard, one
should always be vigilant about any force which
tries to reduce
the Party or its organization or any level of its
activities to
nothingness, to a hollow chatter.
"The historical experience of building the
revolutionary
Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of the working
class from the
time of V.I. Lenin and of a communist party in
Canada, and the
entire historical experience of the international
communist
movement, proves that the defence of the form can
only be carried
out by defending revolutionary Marxist-Leninist
content, and that
this defence is absolutely necessary.
"At the time of Lenin, there were enemies of
Lenin who
began
opposing him by opposing form. They agreed with
the general line,
with paying dues and so forth, but not that it was
mandatory as a
condition of membership to work in an organization
of the Party.
On the surface, looking from outside, it may look
as if there is
only a disagreement in form. But as this whole
period unfolded,
we find that this was not just a disagreement in
form, it was
actually a disagreement in content. What we had at
the time of
the Regina Conference was not only opposition to
working in a
basic organization, but the individuals, being
part of the
Anglo-American imperialist world, were very
arrogant. Their
chauvinism and arrogance were without equal. They
even declared
that they did not understand the general line, and
that we have
the responsibility to first teach them what the
general line is,
and then they will see whether they can join us.
Such jokers
still exist in this world. The Party does not
agree with them.
The Party has condemned such views..."
Speaking of the unfolding events in 1989, before
the
subsequent collapse of the former Soviet Union in
1990-91,
Hardial Bains further elaborated that form is not
isolated from
content. "Our Party and all the people with
revolutionary class
consciousness have never stopped organizing. They
have not become
smug or detached from the problems of the masses.
This is why the
Party appeals to all the people who are fighting
in various ways
and waging various kinds of struggles. The Party
has a position
of honour amongst them. The two superpowers, the
U.S. and the
Soviet Union, are preaching that communism has
failed, and the
ideals of communism are either not good for
mankind or
unattainable. Our Party does not think so and we
do not believe
that the U.S. and Soviet Union are saying such
things without an
ulterior motive. [...] This content is what
invigorates the class
and all the exploited. It is in one form, not in
many forms. As
Lenin pointed out: our theory is made from a
single sheet of
steel. If this is the case, then the movement
which is led by
this theory is one movement, not many. [...]"
The neo-liberal anti-social offensive and
collapse of
the former Soviet Union and former people's
democracies brought in a
period of retreat of revolution characterized by
the initiative going
over to the most reactionary representatives of
international finance
capital which act with impunity. The countries
which capitulated to the
reactionary offensive are mired in civil wars
between the factions of
the ruling class and narrow supranational private
interests. Having
taken the path of nation-wrecking, in the name of
high ideals they
refuse to engage in politics of any kind such that
negotiations are
anathema to them and just their dictate prevails,
along with criminal
wars of aggression, occupation and destruction. A
feature of the
counter-revolution is that none of the old forms
which comprised the
so-called liberal democratic institutions serve a
purpose today. At the
time of the English Civil War in the mid-1600s,
the rising capitalist
class brought into being the nation-state based on
national
institutions capable of keeping civil war in
check. They achieved this
by creating a fictitious person of state and
vesting sovereignty, the
decision-making power, in that fictitious person.
That person of state
was said to represent the national interest
exercised on the basis of
preserving privilege and maintaining prerogative
powers to regulate and
keep in check the factional fighting between
sections of the ruling
class striving to come to power in favour of their
own narrow
interests, and for purposes of negating the very
existence of a people
which form a polity and of the working class as a
class with its own
aim and political program, consciousness and
organization.
Under these conditions, the importance of the
principles
which
guide the building and consolidation of
organization elaborated
by Hardial Bains, embodied in the work of
CPC(M-L), cannot be
overemphasized. Without them, it is not possible
to work out and
achieve the pro-social aims of the working class
and people. By
working out and then basing themselves on these
principles, The
Internationalists in their day provided
themselves
with the capability to meet the needs of the
times. So too today,
Party activists and the working class must rise to
the
occasion.
The Decisive Role of Consciousness
in Social Change
- Hardial Bains -
The Origin of Consciousness and Social Change
TML Weekly is reprinting in this
supplement an
important speech delivered by Hardial Bains at the
First
Inter-Disciplinary Conference on the same subject
successfully
held at the University of Windsor, February 9 -11,
1996.
The conference was co-sponsored by the University
of
Windsor Marxist-Leninist Study Group, the
University of Windsor's
Students Alliance, the Graduate Student Society,
the Organization
of Part-time University Students and CAW Local
195. It was
well-attended by people spanning all ages and
representing a
broad cross-section of society: university and
high school
students, professors, industrial workers and other
working people
and professionals.
Hardial Bains provides a theoretical treatment of
the
problem
of the origin of consciousness and social change,
in particular
the complexity between the dependence of
consciousness on humans,
and its necessary independence from them. Hardial
Bains' thesis
on the origin of consciousness addresses the
dilemma of
determining the content of consciousness.
Affirming clearly that
there is consciousness independent of us, Hardial
Bains makes an
important contribution to understanding the
relationship between
consciousness and being.
In a letter to the Marxist-Leninist Study Group
(MLSG)
at the University of Windsor on September 28 of
the previous year,
Hardial Bains wrote: "In my opinion, the most
important question which
arose during the discussion [of the
Marxist-Leninist Study Group] was
the relationship between Consciousness and Being
or, put another way,
the relationship between the Objective and
Subjective or, Does
Objective Reality Exist in Itself Independent of
Anyone's Will and Is
It Verifiable? The answer to this question is
really the foundation of
sorting out all other problems of theory, of
ideology, that is, of
human action, understanding and consciousness. In
the absence of a
clear statement on this question, no other clear
statement can be made."[1]
Today we are living through a defining moment in
which
the old
forms which comprised the liberal democratic
institutions have
passed away and new forms have yet to be brought
into being. This
"defining moment" is not a matter of somebody
simply declaring
its existence, Hardial Bains pointed out. It has
been forced onto
the agenda by objective developments. It is from
this defining
moment that consciousness is going to emerge and
all forms of
fundamentalism which lay claim to this or that
absolute truth, in
whatever name, will stand in the way of this. In a
situation
where objective conditions are crying out for
change, but the
subjective conditions are lagging behind, the task
before us is
to look at the present and carry out a summation
as a guide to
action. This is crucial in a defining moment, he
said.
What Is Consciousness
"The
need
is
for
a
consciousness
which
emerges
out
of
present real life, free of all preconceived
notions and
synonymous
with social change." - Hardial Bains
The most important question in front of us is
that
before we
can speak about the decisive role of consciousness
in any way,
the issue is What Is Consciousness? Or, Is There
Such a Thing As
Consciousness? We have heard various things like
"human
consciousness" and "animal consciousness." We also
know that in
the English language "consciousness" and
"conscience" have a
parallel and very close development. So what is
really known as
consciousness, or conscience? If we are to say
that consciousness
appeared with the society when it came into being,
it does not
get us out of our difficulty in defining what
consciousness is.
Are we to propose that before the society was
created human
beings had no consciousness? I presuppose various
things, but
more importantly those things which can get us out
of the
difficulty to define what is consciousness.
If in Canada one were to ask the question, that
when
there was
no human being on earth, was there consciousness?
Or when there
was no biological world, was there consciousness?
I'm quite sure
the answer invariably will be negative.
Consciousness, in this
world, which is debased and counterfeit, generally
is linked to
an instrument of a third factor, a mediator. That
mediator is
between one thing and the other, in this case
between nature and
society and human beings, or some creation by a
human being and
so on. In other words, consciousness — something
in existence
independent of this mediator or independent of
anyone else, does
not exist. However, if consciousness does not
exist independent
of us, how can it be called consciousness?
Human beings or homo sapiens have an existence of
over
40,000
years. Imagine what it would mean to have a
consciousness tied to
somebody's head. It would have to keep coming into
being and
passing away and so on with every person who is
born or comes
into this world. A new consciousness or
consciousness consistent
with that brain would have to come into being. In
other words,
what will that consciousness be?
We know through the study of various elements in
the
growth of
a child, from the time the child is born to about
the time it is
three or four years old, that a child goes through
a whole period
of evolution in order for the child to be able to
assume the
qualities of this society, whereby the child can
manipulate or
manoeuvre various things. And one of the qualities
the child
acquires is to abstract absence. Tests are carried
out to see if
a child is developing normally. A child goes
through a whole
evolution, literally from a unicellular organism
through various
stages of evolution until it is born. In the same
way, a child
once born goes through this evolution. Can it be
said that the
mother and father know precisely how to educate
this child so
that this child goes through this 30,000 to
40,000-year period of
history which precedes it and has given it the
capacity to
abstract absence? To suggest such a thing would be
ridiculous.
But let us forget about that point, and let me
just
present to
you, this time in a positive way what I think is
the answer. By
presupposing that there is
consciousness-in-itself, we can get
out of the difficulty of defining consciousness.
In our approach
to the study of any question, we begin with the
study of a thing
in itself. And we know that all matter is in
motion. Matter
exists only in different forms. There is no such
thing as matter
as an abstraction. If somebody comes to you and
says that "I
actually met matter," this would be a nonsensical
statement. You
would say at least this much, "Well, what is that
matter?" The
person would have to say, "Alright, here it is."
And you would
say, "Well, this is not matter. It is a form of
matter." Now if
matter exists only in its different forms and its
study involves
the study of its different forms, then this matter
is more than
meets the eye. But let us leave this question for
the time
being.
 This
consciousness, that is
consciousness-in-itself, is by
definition independent of us. Whether you agree
with me at this
point or not, just to humour me go along with this
argument. Is
this really the case? Is there such a thing as
consciousness-in-itself? For instance, it could
also follow that
once human beings came into being they had yet to
transcend
animal consciousness. They had to humanize
themselves. It is
quite well known as a result of all the
information available
that human beings did not appear spontaneously on
the scene with
all the attributes of human beings. The
bourgeoisie even suggests
today that the essential element of human beings
is a gorilla or
ape and that this essence has not changed. But
that is beside the
point. The fact that they had to humanize
themselves, the
starting point of this humanization had to be the
humanization of
the environment, the act of survival to make the
natural
environment fit for human beings. If we were to
presuppose
consciousness-in-itself, consciousness with its
own logic, with
its own laws of development, with complete
independence from us,
then it can be seen through its eyes, that the
humanization of
the environment itself, presupposes the
pre-existence of the
human trait -- that human trait is that which
humanizes.
Nonetheless, this is not the case. The very fact
that each human
being was a product of nature and acted upon it in
order to
change it, it is considered to be a human act.
From humanizing
nature we have come to this point at which the
humanization of
society is the order of the day. Humanizing nature
begins when
the human beings, who were a product of nature,
undertook to
fight the forces of nature to serve them.
Humanizing society
begins when these human beings are born to
society. They are no
longer born to nature. A qualitative change has to
take place
from one state to the other, or one stage to the
other. In the
first period, that is the period of humanizing
nature, there is
the presupposition that the act of humanizing
nature must have
made the human beings conscious.
Consciousness-in-Itself
In the second period, the presupposition is that
the act
of
humanizing society would provide the human beings
with
consciousness-in-itself. Leaving aside all the
protestations, all
the objections coming from all different schools
of thought which
have come into being in the past, including the
Post-Modernists,
those who assert in one way or another that every
epoch of
society and nature do not have self-consciousness
of their own
and that all consciousness is limited to those who
perceive it.
In spite of all this I am going to go ahead to
stress that the
study of the subject Origin of Consciousness must
proceed by
presupposing the existence of
consciousness-in-itself. The
question, Was There Consciousness Before Human
Beings Came Onto
the Earth or Even Before the Biological World Came
Into Being? is
often met with a blank look. One or two eye-brows
are raised when
this question is answered in the affirmative. Yes,
there was
consciousness before human beings made their
appearance on this
earth, and even before the biological world came
into being. It
is consciousness-in-itself, consciousness which is
dependent on
nothing but an epoch of society and nature.
What was that consciousness is not the question.
If that
were
the question it can be answered with ease.
Everything, all
phenomena of nature and society, and nature and
society
themselves have their own laws of development. It
is these laws
which impart them with their own consciousness,
with their own
content. However, where does that content take
them? Where does
it reside? It resides in the thing-itself, which
is in turn the
proof of the existence of consciousness-in-itself.
The question
whether it existed is thus answered in its
entirety. The
Post-Post-Modernist contention is that without
presupposing the
existence of that consciousness it is not possible
to prove the
existence or non-existence of any other forms of
consciousness
whatsoever. But by its very own definition, that
consciousness is
independent of the human or biological world,
whose dependence is
only on the thing-itself.
What is this presupposition, this
consciousness-in-itself? By
presupposing the existence of this consciousness,
it is
presupposed that every epoch of society and nature
has a
consciousness of its own. If every epoch has a
consciousness of
its own, it can be deduced from that there was
consciousness
before these epochs began as well. That is, before
the
pre-biological world as well. To be precise, it
must be deeply
appreciated that consciousness-in-itself by
definition, is that
consciousness that exists independent of ourselves
or anything
else except the thing-itself. The study of such a
consciousness
can only begin in itself as the starting point.
This is how the
study of everything must be taken up. The study
must begin with
the thing in itself. That is, a thing that is
nature, society in
change, development and motion.
If I stop here for a moment and digress, you will
find
that
the consciousness of a person who existed 600
years before our
era and the consciousness of the person who exists
in 1996, that
is in this period, a difference of some 2,500
years, is entirely
different. They are still human beings, they still
belong to
society, but they belong to different epochs. If
this is the case
that within these 2500 years the consciousness has
developed,
what makes anyone think that it will not go
further and actually
prove what I am saying, that there is
consciousness-in-itself?
There is no logic which can defy the argument
which I am
presenting. At the same time, if anyone were to
say that
consciousness is to exist by definition by
depending on this or
that thing, then that is not consciousness by
definition. We know
that society has changed, developed and moved and
with it human
consciousness has changed, developed and moved.
This
consciousness thus appears by definition in
various forms. It
appears in the form of the product of the
pre-class society, or
in the form of the consciousness of different
epochs of class
society. If it is presupposed that consciousness
is independent
of us and if, even for the sake of argument, the
participants of
this discussion were to generally accept this,
then the question
is posed, What are these forms of consciousness?
Are these things
which are not consciousness at any stage of
change, development
and motion? What are the forms of consciousness
and these things
in their content? Will the content of these forms
of
consciousness be nothing but the laws of
development of the
things which they reflect in themselves? By
presupposing the
existence of consciousness itself, in itself, what
is this
Post-Post-Modernist consciousness will also become
clear. I pose
this question of finding out the content of the
Post-Post-Modernist consciousness, of the
consciousness, the
human factor, as it is only by finding its content
that we begin
again to deepen and broaden the very
presupposition we made at
the outset, the presupposition of
consciousness-in-itself. It is
from here, from the object of establishing the
content of
Post-Post-Modernist consciousness that the
discussion and debate
can really begin.
Having accepted this school, even if only for the
sake
of
argument, then the challenge might legitimately
follow that if it
is we who have to establish the content, then how
can that
content be presupposed, that the consciousness
exists independent
of us. It would appear that I am contradicting
myself. Do not
worry about these challenges or accusations for
the time being.
Come along with me and let us presuppose that
consciousness and
consciousness-in-itself are two different things
in qualitative
terms. Consciousness which is dependent on the
developments
taking place around us at a particular time, is
not the same as
consciousness-in-itself. If this is accepted,
another question
might be raised in this regard. That question
might be posed as
follows: Look, you have already presupposed
consciousness-in-itself, but you are now stating
that
consciousness and consciousness-in-itself are two
different
things. Suppose then that we want to establish the
content of
consciousness and not of consciousness-in-itself.
What should we
do? How should we overcome this difficulty? I
would make the
definite reply: Try as you must, you cannot do
that. You cannot
establish the content of consciousness by
asserting that it is
separate from consciousness-in-itself. What has to
be presupposed
is that consciousness-in-itself is not the same as
consciousness.
The laws of change, development and motion of a
thing are not
things themselves. If the content of
consciousness-in-itself is
the laws which are presupposed, then our
difficulties in
establishing the content of consciousness are
insurmountable. Let
us see if we can or cannot overcome these
difficulties. The
question will be raised immediately, but
consciousness is the
only thing whose existence presupposes its
dependence on us. Why
can we not establish the content of something
which is dependent
on us? The answer is simple. If we have no clue as
to what our
own consciousness is, the origin of this
consciousness, and its
change, development and motion, how can we
establish the content
of consciousness which is dependent on us? It can
be explained
that precisely because we know nothing about it we
can provide it
with content. It can be said however that we can
never establish
what this content is in its final form. This is
the only absolute
there. It is the source of both its difficulties,
which are
insurmountable and so on. And here to make it
easier for you,
think about this as a light coming on earth and
reflected by
earth. The consciousness which we have is also
like that
reflection. We reflect what we receive in the same
manner as
light. But all the different schools say the
source of that light
is the one which reflects that light. The dispute
is not that
light is reflected, that consciousness is there.
The dispute is,
What is the source of that light? or What is the
source of that
consciousness?
We started with the proposition that
consciousness-in-itself
exists. We will call it supposition one.
Consciousness-in-itself,
by definition, is independent of us. There is also
consciousness
which does not have to be presupposed. We all
spontaneously
exhibit, reflect and claim this consciousness to
be our own,
without ever thinking that it is dependent on us.
But just
because consciousness is reflected by us, can we
really conclude
from this that we are the source of this
consciousness? For
instance, just because we reflect light, can we
claim that we are
the source of light? Or just because we have five
senses which
are the product of the evolution of society and
nature
themselves, can we claim that we are the creators
of these five
senses ourselves? Can we go further and conclude
that as
different people are of different backgrounds
expressed in the
languages they speak, or by their national origin,
ethnicity,
colour of skin or gender, that they will reflect
or exhibit
consciousness differently. Yes, this could be said
if national
origin, ethnicity, colour of skin or gender were
actually the
source of that consciousness. But how can it be
that something we
already possess is also the source of something we
reflect? As we
explore the independence and dependence of
consciousness on us we
will reach the point at which someone is going to
ask, What is
the definition of "us"? Does the "us" refer to you
and me or
those who came along 40,000 years ago, or 500
years ago, or 50 or
5 or just yesterday or the lot of you who came
along today? How
will we define the "us"? We move from exploring
the content of
consciousness to establishing who is "us"? How can
we really
debate when we perpetually shift from one thing to
another? Is
there something we can do to undo this shifting to
ensure that it
does not take place so that we can stick to the
subject? How will
we achieve this?
When I raise the prospect of discovering if there
is
something
we can do, it actually multiplies our difficulties
as we shift
even further afield from the discussion on
consciousness and
enter into an entirely different field of whether
there is
something we can do to undo this shifting. We can
go into what we
can do to ensure our own independence and so on.
Let us go ahead
and try to overcome this difficulty.
In 1967 there was a study program held in Trinity
College,
Dublin, called The Necessity for Change. And at
that time I had
the honour to be the main speaker on this precise
subject of what
can we do to overcome this difficulty. I had a
hunch at that time
that this difficulty can be overcome. And to
overcome this
difficulty I made this proposition that we should
decide --
presupposition one -- that consciousness-in-itself
exists. We
should go ahead, without any fear and make another
supposition
that is number two, that it is this consciousness
which
metamorphoses from one form of consciousness to
another, with the
change in content taking place consistent with the
epoch of
society and nature. And to illustrate this we made
the
presupposition number 3, the existence of "I," in
quotation
marks. This "I," this proposition "I" in quotation
marks,
provides us with the following definition: "I" is
relate or
relationship; "I" is something which sees the
phenomena, not only
sees the phenomena but acknowledges it; not only
acknowledges it,
but analyzes it; not only analyzes it, but
reflects it in return.
It is my opinion that these propositions solve our
problem. If we
agree to accept these three presuppositions, then
the solution
lies in understanding what is the "I" which sees,
acknowledges,
analyzes and reflects. And this "I," by
definition, is a relate
or a relationship. It is neither the
thing-in-itself nor the laws of
development, that is the consciousness-in-itself.
It is the
reflection of the relationship between a thing
itself and
everything else.
"I" as a Relate or a Relationship
"Understanding
Requires
an
act
of
conscious participation of the individual,
an act of finding out." - Necessity
for Change
Let us go further, keeping in mind this
presupposition.
"I" as
a relate or a relationship is neither
consciousness-in-itself nor
consciousness, "I" as something which is
conditioned on definite
periods and circumstances. Why do I say such a
thing? I come to
this conclusion because by definition a
relationship is dependent
on time and circumstance. If a relationship were
to be the same
under all conditions and circumstances, then it
would mean that
consciousness-in-itself does not metamorphose. It
does not assume
any form. This would mean that
consciousness-in-itself is merely
an abstraction and it will also mean that the
thing-itself does
not change, develop and move. In other words, this
is an
abstraction too. In other words, we are talking
about a
stationary universe. In other words, we are
speaking about
nothing. In order to speak about something, we
have to presuppose
the existence of "I," this relationship, which
provides the
living form with that concrete, that definite
quality which can
be verified by life itself. I have to further
presuppose that
there is something which is preconditioned. That
something is the
thing-itself, that is nature and society, the
condition of nature
and society at any particular time and space. Take
for instance
the present world, which we all know to a greater
or lesser
extent, as we are all not only its product, but we
are living in
it. By using the presupposition "I," what do we
come up with?
"I" as a relationship could be
between the teacher and the
taught, between the worker and the capitalist,
between atoms and
molecules or between subatomic parts and so on. In
other words,
we can with facility see a relationship which
exists independent
of us, while on the contrary the presupposition
"I" clearly
creates the impression that it is dependent on us.
If you like, a
miracle is achieved. Why is this the case? In the
Necessity For
Change Study Program, I pointed out: the "I" that
acknowledges,
analyzes, reflects and receives the reflection is
not the
egocentric "I," is not that "I am" period. The
egocentric "I"
recognizes with a prejudiced definition. That
definition is the
definition of that particular "I." The "I" thus
defined is the
only "I," that "I" which acknowledges, forgetting
that I can
acknowledge and so on. And the conclusion comes
that this "I" is
nothing but a definition of somebody, a definition
of something.
Beyond that, it is nothing.
This is what all the schools of thought want us
to be
satisfied with, to be the most limited,
unverifiable in the
broader sense of science. The "I" which we are
talking about is
the being incarnate; a relationship existing
in-itself. Once that
"I" is dependent on the thing-itself, we are able
to explain that
the thing-itself is subject to the laws of change,
development
and motion, as reflected by "I," by that
relationship.
Let us apply this restriction of "I" depending on
the
thing-itself in a broad way. First, when we speak
about
consciousness-in-itself we have to pose the
question, Does it
exist? By definition, consciousness-in-itself is
independent of
us. It is beyond us. We are elaborating on it and
asking the
question, Does it exist? The answer to this
question is quite
obvious. Yes, it exists insofar as it is
acknowledged that there
are conditions at a time when there was no
biological world
anywhere in the universe. The moment the
biological world comes
into being, and more so the human beings, you and
I, in sum the
society into which we are born, come into the
picture, this
consciousness-in-itself metamorphoses.
Does this mean that consciousness-in-itself
disappears
because
the biological world and society have come into
being? No. It
does not mean that. What happens is that
consciousness-in-itself
begins its metamorphosis into consciousness and
appears as if it
is dependent on us. This is why Frederick Engels
says, "All
consciousness is false consciousness." But this
dependence is
illusory. It is false. This is why reality has to
be studied and
restudied, rediscovered all the time. This is why
any of this
consciousness is only relative. The existence of
consciousness
presupposes the existence of "I" in quotation
marks, which
presupposes the existence of the thing-itself,
which in turn
presupposes the existence of society or nature,
whichever one
wants to talk about. Can it be said that this
metamorphosed
consciousness means that it is no longer
consciousness-in-itself?
No, it does not mean that. What it means is that
because
consciousness is consciousness-in-itself, it
becomes
metamorphosed by the conditions assuming this or
that form,
dependent on the content imparted by those
conditions. In other
words, as far as it is concerned, it continues to
transcend its
dependence and continues to appear as
consciousness-in-itself.
The Problem of Defining the Modern Personality
"We
have
fidelity
to
the
ensemble of human relations and to what is being
revealed by these indispensable relations, most
importantly,
the need for political power." - Necessity
for
Change
Once it is accepted that this is consciousness,
then the
only
question which is left is a very small one, which
is whether it
is essential for social change? That of course
will be dependent
on the individuals. If they want to have social
change, they will
have to define what that social change is. We come
back to the
problem of defining the modern personality. We
will have to start
with destruction, analysis. We will have to then
get down to
precisely defining as to what are the social
conditions, which
social conditions one wants to change. In other
words, we have to
go from spontaneous developments to conscious
planned
developments. In other words, we have to come to
this condition,
this circumstance, this stage when we have to
define whether
there is a social force existing in this society
independent of
us, in whose interest it will be to have that
social change which
we are talking about. If you can define that, you
will answer the
question.
For example, we communists say that the working
class is
that
social force in whose interest it will be to
overthrow all the
conditions of capitalist exploitation. On this
basis we have gone
further and analyzed that the material conditions
are ripe for
the overthrow of capitalism. The subjective
conditions have to be
prepared. But that is the working class which is a
social force
exists, but not as a conscious, organized,
revolutionary force.
This force has to be brought into being. Such a
thing can be done
only with, you can say, pure consciousness, that
is completely
unprejudicial consciousness, that is
consciousness-in-itself. In
other words, we have to rediscover, we have to
relook at all the
reality and so on as has been proposed by Sandra
Smith in her
argument on "A Defining Moment." If we are to say
that whatever
the consciousness was in the 1960s and whatever
the consciousness
is at this time is sufficient and whatever was
discovered by Marx
and Engels and Lenin and Stalin and any number of
people was
good, then we will make a serious mistake. To the
extent that if
any organization such as a Communist Party does
not reexamine its
stand all the time, if it does not put into
question all its
basic propositions, such an organization would
become
theoretically senile. And once you are
theoretically senile, then
you are practically nonexistent.
This is why it takes vibrant communist parties a
long
period
of time to come to a stage whereby they will take
power, because
theoretical soundness is a deterrent against any
adventures, any
false notions, any illusions that things can be
organized when
the conditions are not there for it.
Note
1. TML Daily,
September 30, 1995
(To access articles
individually
click on
the black headline.)
PDF
PREVIOUS
ISSUES | HOME
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|
