Bukharin: Materialismoa eta idealismoa filosofian

 

 

—Nikolai Bukharin—

Materialismo historikoaren teoria

MATERIALISMO DIALEKTIKOA

Materialismoa eta idealismoa filosofian: objektibotasunaren arazoa

Itzulpena: trotskistak.blogspot

(...)

J

ainkoak ez du ezartzen giza nahimena, kanpoko kausen eta giza organismo propioaren baldintzen menpe dago. Hemen arazorik handienaren aurrean gaude, milaka urtez gizakien pentsamenduaren kezka iturri izan dena: materiaren eta espirituaren arteko harremanaren arazoa, hau da, kaleko hizkeran adieraztearren, “gorputzaren” eta “arimaren” arteko harremana. Orokorrean, bi fenomeno mota bereizten ditugu. Batzuk hedadura bat dute, espazio bat okupatzen dute, gure zentzuen bitartez sumatu ditzakegu; ikus, entzun, sentitu, dastatu eta usaindu ditzakegu; fenomeno material gisa ezagutzen ditugu. Besteak ez dira espazioan hedatzen, eta ezin dira, ondorioz, sentituak ezta ikusiak izan. Horiek dira, adibidez, giza gogamena, borondatea edota sentsazioak. Baina inork ezin du hauen existentzia zalantzan jarri. Descartes-ek egitate hori giza existentziaren frogatzat hartu zuen, hain zuzen ere. Hortaz, zera esan zuen: “Cogito, ergo sum” (Pentsatzen dut, beraz banaiz). Aldiz, giza pentsamendua ezin da ukitu ezta ikusi; ez du kolorerik eta ezin da zuzenean metrotan neurtu. Fenomeno hauei “psikikoak” edo “espiritualak” esaten diegu. Zein harreman mota ote dago bi fenomeno hauen artean? Zein ote da “gauza guztien printzipioa”: espiritua edo materia? Zein da jatorrizko fenomenoa? Zein oinarrizkoa? Materiak sortzen ote du espiritua edo alderantziz da? Zein harreman mota dago elkarren artean? Horixe da filosofiaren funtsezko arazoa, eta erantzunak zientzia sozialen alorreko arazo anitzei eragingo dio.

Hartu dezagun afera hau ikuspuntu posible guztietatik. Deus baino lehen, onartu behar dugu gizakia naturaren parte dela. Ezin dugu ziurtatu beste planeta batzutan giza-organizazioa gainditzen duen izakirik existitzen ote den, baina planeten kantitatea kontutan hartuz, baliteke hala izatea. Baina guretzat ebidentea da “gizakia” delakoa (Pascal-en “ihi pentsalaria”) ez dela jainkoaren sorkuntza bat, mundutik at dagoena, beste unibertso misteriotsu eta ezezagun batetik proiektatu dena. Natura-zientziek, ordea, gizakia naturaren parte dela eta lege orokor batzuen menpe dagoela erakusten digute. Ezagutzen dugun mundu honi so eginez gero, ikusten dugu fenomeno psikikoak, espiritua delakoaren fenomenoak, fenomeno guztien artean, parte infinitesimal bat besterik ez direla. Badakigu, halaber,  gizakia beste animalia batzutatik datorrela, eta, azken batean, izaki bizidunak Lurrean agertu zirela denbora jakin baten ondotik. Lurra oraindik eguzkiaren antzeko suzko esfera bat zenean, hozte prozesua baino lehenago, ez zegoen bizitzarik bere gainazalean, ezta inongo motako izaki adimendunik. Natura hilaren eboluziotik sortu zen natura organikoa, pentsatzeko gai den forma bat sortu zelarik. Lehenbizi materia existitu zen, pentsatzeko gai ez zena, eta hortik sortu zen materia adimenduna, gizakia, alegia. Hori horrelaxe izan bazen —eta natura-zientziek horrela izan zela esaten dute— ebidentea da materiak espiritua sorrarazi zuela, eta ez espirituak materia. Ez dugu ezagutzen seme-alabarik beraien gurasoak baino lehenago existitu direnik. Espiritua ondoren agertzen da. Beraz, ondorengotzat hartu behar dugu, eta ez aitatzat, gauza “espiritualen” jarraitzaile sutsuegiek nahi duten bezala.

Badakigu, halaber, “espiritua” ez dela agertzen harik eta “materia modu jakin batean organizatu” ez den arte.

Zero batek ezin du pentsatu, hutsik dagoen zerbaitek ezta ere, “espirituak” ezta ere materiarik gabe. Gizakion garunak du —giza-organismoaren parte dena—pentsatzeko ahalmena; eta giza-organismo hau modu ikaragarri konplexuan organizaturiko materia da.

Gainera, bistan da, esandako arrazoiengatik, materia existitu daitekeela espiriturik gabe, baina, aldiz, espirituak ez du existentziarik materiarik gabe. Materia existitu zen izaki adimenduna agertu baino lehenago: Lurra denbora luzez existitu zen bere gainazalean edozein motako “espiriturik” agertu aurretik. Beste era batera esanda, materia objektiboki existitzen da, espiritutik independentea da. Baina “espirituaren” fenomeno psikikoa ez zen inoiz existitu materiarik gabe, modu independentean. Garunik gabe ez dago adimenik, desioak ezinezkoak dira ez badago desiorik sortzen duen organismorik. “Espirituak” harreman estua dauka “beti” materiarekin (soilik Biblian aurkitu dezakegu “espiritua” uretan flotatzen). Beste modu batean esanda, fenomeno psikikoak, kontzientziaren fenomenoak “era jakin batean organizaturiko materiaren propietate bat” baino ez dira, “materia honen funtzio” bat.

Har dezagun gizakia adibidez: Modu delikatu batean organizaturiko kreatura bat da. Deuseztatu, desantolatu, deskonposatu dezagun organizazio hau eta orduan berehala desagertuko da bere “espiritua”. Gizakiek sistema hau berreraikitzeko gai izango balira, giza-organismo hau berriz osatzeko ahalmena izango balute, giza-organismo bat desantolatu eta berriz muntatzeko gai izango balira, erloju baten parteekin egiten dugun moduan, orduan berehala etorriko litzateke kontzientzia. Noski, ez gara oraindik hori egiteko gai. Baina jadanik ikusi dugun bezala, determinismoari buruz eztabaidatu dugunean, “espirituaren” egoera, hots, kontzientziaren egoera, organismoaren egoeraren menpe dago. Organismoa alkoholarekin intoxikatzen badugu, kontzientzia nahastu egingo da, espiritua zabuka ibiliko da. Organismo hori sendatzen bada bere egoera normalera itzuliz (sustantzia toxikoen aurkako antidoto bat hartu duelako, adibidez), orduan espiritua ere modu normalean funtzionatzen hasiko da. Honek argi eta garbi frogatzen du kontzientzia materiaren menpe dagoela, hau da, “existentziak determinatzen duela pentsamena”.

Ikusi dugunez, fenomeno psikikoak modu jakin batean organizaturiko materiaren propietate bat dira. Beraz, zenbait fluktuazio gerta daitezke, materia organizatzeko zenbait forma, eta, hortaz, bizitza mentalaren zenbait forma. Gizakiak, bere garunarekin, organizazio jakin bat du, Lurreko bizitza psikiko perfektuenaren jabe da eta benetako kontzientzia bat du. Zakurrak beste modu batean organizaturik daude, eta horrexegatik beraien psikea eta gizakiarena ezberdinak dira. Zizarea ere modu berezi batean organizaturik dago, eta bere “espiritua”, ondorioz, ikaragarri pobrea da, eta ezin da inolaz ere konparatu gizakiak daukanarekin. Harri batek, adibidez, bere organizazioa dela-eta, materia bizigabe  bat da, eta, beraz, ez du bizitza psikikorik. Psikea izateko materiaren organizazio berezi eta korapilatsu bat behar da. Materiaren organizazio bereziki konplexu bat izatea nahitaezko baldintza da bizitza psikikoa agertu dadin, hau da,  «kontzientzia» izenez ezagutzen dugun bizitza hori agertu dadin. Lurrean, kontzientzia hori azaltzen da soilik materia instrumenturik konplexuenarekin organizatu denean; gizakiaren kasuan: garunarekin.

Hortaz, materiarik gabe ez dago espiriturik, baina materiak ez du espiriturik behar existitzeko; materia espiritua baino lehenago existitu zen, materia modu jakin batean organizatzen denean, bere propietate berezi bat sortzen da: espiritua.

Ondorioz, filosofiaren eremuan, materialismoaren eta idealismoaren arteko erlazioen arazoa ebatzita gelditzen da. Materialismoaren ustez, materia lehenengo gauza da, funtsezko gauza bat; idealismoaren iritziz espirituak du lehentasuna. Materialistentzat, espiritua materiaren produktu bat da. Idealistentzat, aldiz, materia da espirituaren produktua.

Ez da zaila ulertzea idealismoa (existitzen diren gauza guztien oinarria ideiak edo espiritua dela dioen doktrina) kontzepzio erlijiosoaren forma arindu bat dela, eta honen arabera, botere misteriotsu eta jainkotiar bat naturaren “gainetik” dago, eta giza-kontzientzia botere jainkotiar batek sortzen duen txinparta txiki baten gisa kontsideratzen du, eta gizakia bera ere jainkoak hautatutako kreatura bat dela uste du. Ikuspuntu idealistak, ondorioz, absurdo multzo batetara garamatza, sarritan klase menperatzaileen filosofoek seriotasunik handienarekin defenditzen dituzten absurdoak.

—Nikolai Ivanovitx Bukharin, militante boltxebikea: Teoría del materialismo histórico.

Николай Иванович Бухарин

Richard S. Fraser: "Nazio modernoa kapitalismoaren produktu esklusibo bat da"

Trotsky. Foto recortada; detalle.

2.- The Question of Nationalism

 [ For the Materialist Conception of the Negro Struggle ]

Richard S. Fraser, 1955

 

http://www.prl.org/

 

The modern nation is exclusively a product of capitalism. It arose in Europe out of the atomization and dispersal of the productive forces which characterized feudalism.

Nations began to emerge with the growth of trade and formed the framework for the production and distribution of commodities on a capitalist basis.

R. S. Fraser,
estatubatuar komunista

Nationalism has a contradictory historical development in Europe. Trotsky elaborated this difference as the key to understanding the role of the national question in the Russian revolution. In the first place the nations of western Europe emerged in the unification of petty states around a commercial center. The problem of the bourgeois revolution was to achieve this national unification.

In eastern Europe, Russian nationalism appeared on the scene in the role of the oppressor of many small nations. The problem of national unification in the Russian revolution was the breakup of this oppressive system and to achieve the independence of the small nations.

These were the two basic expressions of the national question in Europe. But these two basic phases of national development, corresponding to different stages in the development of capitalism, each contain a multiplicity of forms and combinations of the two phases [as is] not uncommon.

The national question of Europe reveals problems such as the Scotch rebellions, wherein a nation never emerged; Holland in its revolutionary war against Spain; the peculiarity of the unification of Germany; the rise and breakup of the Austro-Hungarian empire; the revolutionary transformation of the Czarist empire into the USSR; and the many contradictory expressions of national consciousness which were revealed in the October revolution; and lastly, the peculiar phenomenon of the Jews: a nation without a territory.

But even these do not exhaust the national question, for it appears as one of the fundamental problems of the whole colonial revolution, and all the problems of national unification, and national independence, dispersal and unification, of the centrifugal and centripetal forces unleashed by the national questions, reappear in new and different forms.

And we have by no means seen everything. The African struggle, as it assumes its mature form will show us another fascinating and unique expression of the national struggle.

What constitutes the basis for nationalism? A people united by a system of commodity exchange, a language and culture expressing the needs of commodity exchange, a territory to contain these elements: all these are elements of nationalism. Which is fundamental to the concept of the nation?

Language is important but not decisive: the Ukraine was so Russified and the Ukrainian language so close to extinction that Luxemburg could refer contemptuously to it as a novelty of the intelligentsia. Yet this did not prevent Ukrainian nationalism, when awakened by the Bolsheviks, to play a decisive role in the Russian revolution, alongside the other nationalities.

It would be convenient to be able to fasten upon geography as a fundamental to nationalism: a common territory where in relative isolation a nation could develop. This has, indeed, been the condition for the existence of nations generally; still it would not satisfy the Jewish nation which existed for centuries without a territory.

The one quality which is common to all and cannot be dispensed with in consideration of any and all of the nations of Europe, of the colonial world—the one indispensable quality which they all possess, and without which none could exist; including the old nations and the new ones, the large and small, the advanced and the backward, the “classical” and the exceptional—is the quality of their relation to a system of commodity production and circulation: its capacity to serve as a unit of commodity exchange.

National oppression arises fundamentally out of the suppression of the right of a commodity to fulfill its normal economic function in the process of technological development and to produce and circulate commodities according to the normal laws of capitalist production.

Washington, 1982

This is at the foundation of the national oppression of every nation in Europe and the colonial world. This is the groundwork out of which national aspirations develop and from which national revolutions emerge. It is this fundamental economic relation of a people to the forces of production which creates the national question and determines the laws of motion of the national struggle. This is just as true of the cases of obscure nationalities who only achieved national consciousness after the October revolution as it was for the Netherlands, or France, or for Poland.

Comrade Breitman is thoughtful not to put words into my mouth. But I wish he were equally thoughtful in not attributing to me ideas which I think he has had every opportunity to know that I do not hold. For when he contends that I am thinking only of the classical examples of the national question, when I deny that the Negro question is a national question, he is very wrong.

The Negro question is not a national question because it lacks the fundamental groundwork for the development of nationalism; an independent system of commodity exchange, or to be more precise, a mode of life which would make possible the emergence of such a system.

This differentiates the Negro question from the most obscure of all the European national questions, for at the root of each and every one of them is to be found this fundamental relation to the productive forces.

The Negro question is a racial question: a matter of discrimination because of skin color, and that’s all.

Because of the fundamental economic problem which was inherent among the oppressed nations of eastern Europe, Lenin foresaw the revolutionary significance of the idea of the right of self-determination.

He applied this to the national question and to it alone. Women are a doubly exploited group in all society. But Lenin never applied the slogan of self-determination to the woman question. It would not make sense. And it doesn’t make very much more sense when applied to the Negro question.

It would if the Negroes were a nation. Or the embryo of a “nation within a nation” or a precapitalist people living in an isolated territory which might become the framework for a national system of commodity exchange and capitalist production. Negroes, however, are not victims of national oppression but of racial discrimination. The right of self-determination is not the question which is at stake in their struggle. It is, however, fundamental to the national struggle.

Despite his protestation to the contrary, Comrade Breitman holds to a basically nationalist conception of the Negro struggle.

This is contrary to the fundamental course of the Negro struggle and a vital danger to the party. Comrade Breitman’s conception of the unique quality of the Negro movement is explained by him on page 9. In comparison to the nationalist movements of Europe, Asia and Africa he says “Fraser sees one similarity and many differences between them; we see many similarities and one big difference.”

Of what does this one big difference consist? According to Comrade Breitman, the only difference between the movement of the Polish nationalists under Czarism and the American Negro today is that the Negro movement “thus far aims solely at acquiring enough force and momentum to break down the barriers that exclude Negroes from American society, showing few signs of aiming at national separatism.”

Therefore, the only difference between the Poles and the Negroes is one of consciousness. But this proposition makes a theoretical shambles not only of the Negro question but of the national question too. According to this analysis, any especially oppressed group which expressed group solidarity is automatically a nation. Or an embryo of a nation. Or an embryo of a nation within a nation. This would apply equally to the women throughout the world and the untouchables of the caste system of India.

If we must ignore the fundamental economic differences in the oppression of the Polish nation and the Negro people, and conclude that the only difference between them is one of consciousness, then we have not only discarded Lenin’s and Trotsky’s theses on the national question, but we have completely departed from the materialist conception of history.

It is one thing for Trotsky to say that the fact that there are no cultural barriers between the Negro people and the rest of the residents of the U.S. would not be decisive if the Negroes should actually develop a movement of a separatist nature. But it is an altogether different matter for Breitman to assume that the fundamental economic and cultural conditions which form the groundwork of nationalism have no significance whatever in the consideration of the Negroes as a nation.

The basic error in Negro nationalism in the U.S. is the failure to deal with the material foundation of nationalism in general. This results in the conception that nationalism is only a matter of consciousness without material foundation. The other subordinate arguments which buttress the nationalism conception of the Negro question clearly demonstrate this error.

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/icl-spartacists/prs3-fraser/08aMaterialistconception.html

 

iSt, gero LKI

Sylvain Maréchal: Dios y los sacerdotes, fragmentos de un poema filosófico (1793)

Nada nace; nada muere: todo necesariamente,

Todo existe, sometido a los juegos del cambio;

Alternativamente, la materia dispuesta de otro modo,

Vegeta en la planta, en el hombre es el pensamiento:

Todo se atrae, se rechaza; y dentro del mismo objeto,

Se encuentra, al mismo tiempo, un principio, un efecto:

Por su propio ascendente, la naturaleza sobre ella

Actúa, y toma sin cesar una forma nueva:

Los elementos, amigos y rivales a la vez,

Tienden al mismo fin, mediante leyes contrarias.

—Sylvain Maréchal (Citado en Historia de las filosofías materialistas, de Pascal Charbonnat ; Dieu et les prêtres, fragments d'un poème philosophique)

Pueblo, conoce tu fuerza, y hazlo todo por ti mismo;

Tú lo puedes todo; no esperes nada de ese ser supremo,

Que sirvió demasiado tiempo de asilo a los perversos.

Pueblo, opón a tus reyes, no un Dios, sino tu brazo.

—Sylvain Maréchal (Citado en Historia de las filosofías materialistas, de Pascal Charbonnat ; Dieu et les prêtres, fragments d'un poème philosophique)

Lukrezio: "Unibertsoa ez dago ezein aldetarantz mugatua"

 刘洋 / Liu Yang

 

UNIBERTSO AMAIGABEA, BERAZ, HEDADURA

AMAIGABEKOA

[...] Ba, unibertsoa ez dago ezein aldetarantz mugatua; mutur bat

eduki beharko baitzukeen. Baina argi dago ezeren muturrik ez daitekeela

izan, mugatuko duen zerbait harago izan ezik; gure begiak urrunago

jarraitzerik ez daukala ikusteko moduan. Orain, unibertsoaz

harago ezer ez dagoela argi dagoenez gero, ez dauka muturrik eta,

beraz, ez dauka mugarik ez neurririk. Ez dio ardura bere zein aldetan

aurkitzen zaren; hain ez dio ardura ezen, bakoitza dagoen lekuan

dagoela, unibertso berdin infinitua hedatzen baita norabide guztietarantz.

Bestalde, den espazio guztia mugatua dela jorik, norbait azken

mutur ertzeraino lasterkatuko balitz eta azkon hegalari bat jaurti, hura

indar bortitzez egotzitako lekura joango litzatekeela ala zerbaitek eragotzi

eta bidea itxiko liokeela uste duzu? Bata ala bestea aitortu eta

hautatu beharra baitaukazu. Batak zein besteak irteera itxi egiten dizu,

ordea, eta unibertsoa mugagabe hedatzen dela onarrarazten dizu.

Jaurtitakoa helburura iristea eta bertan jostea eragotz eta oztopa dezan

zerbait badagoela nahiz kanporatu egiten dela eman, ez baita azkengunetik

irten. Honelaxe jarraituko dut eta, bazterra nonahi jartzen

duzula, azkona azkenean zertan den galdetuko dut. Inon ezingo zaiola

mugarik jarri gertatuko da, eta ihesak ihesbidea luzatu egingo du

beti.[...]

—Lukrezio, Gauzen izaeraz (De rerum natura)

Amurizaren itzulpena

TO PAN APEIRON TO GAR PEPERASMENON

AKRON ECEI

La historia de Giordano Bruno from Javier Smaldone on Vimeo.