Two Marxist-Philosophy Short-Answer Questions I Didn’t Want to Answer by the Book + A Supplement to Short Answer Question 5 in Marxist Philosophy (Part II)

1．What is the dialectical view of negation? Illustrate it with the attitude one should take toward cultural tradition.

First let us look at what the dialectical view of negation is not:

In The Poverty of Philosophy, Marx satirized Proudhon’s vulgar use of dialectics. Marx said, “Let us see what Monsieur Proudhon has made of Hegel’s dialectic when he applies it to his economic theory… Monsieur Proudhon thinks that the good and the bad sides, the advantages and the disadvantages, together make up the contradiction inherent in every economic category. What needs to be done is to preserve the good side and eliminate the bad side.”

—What we see here is that Marx points out that this kind of thinking—saying things like “Napoleon did a great deal of good and also committed many evils,” or saying that in one thing there are “both affirmative aspects and negative aspects,” and then affirming the good and negating the bad—is by no means “dialectical negation.” True dialectics is a method of pursuing truth through the unfolding of things from within, through the debate and synthesis of thesis and antithesis. Dialectical negation is not simply picking out the bad things, still less a simple cancellation or removal of a thing; dialectical negation is also “the negation of negation,” as Engels exemplified. Dialectical negation is not “grinding wheat into dust,” but rather refers to the process by which wheat itself, through negating itself (by being buried in the soil as a seed), generates something new (by growing new ears of wheat).

Looking at the attitude toward cultural tradition, to insist on the dialectical view of negation should first of all not mean, as Proudhon did, simply saying: “Traditional culture has good aspects and bad aspects, so we need to preserve the good aspects and eliminate the bad aspects.” It is precisely this way of thinking that Marx mocked. Marx and Engels repeatedly emphasized that dialectical negation is the “self-negation of things”; therefore, the “dialectical negation” of cultural tradition must also, first and foremost, originate from within. That is to say, we first and foremost act as a part of our culture; dialectical negation is first and foremost our profound self-reflection and painful self-examination, rather than standing outside it and pointing fingers as if it were none of our business. And the way to carry out dialectical negation is not to look for the “good aspects” and then the “bad aspects,” and then use debate to let the good aspects overpower the bad; rather, it means first “stating the thesis,” and then “developing the antithesis.” Here nowhere is it said that the thesis must be bad and the antithesis must be good. We are to seek truth through the contest and synthesis of thesis and antithesis—for example, through the debate and integration of Chinese traditional culture and modern Western thought—and, in the process of the culture’s own negation of negation, bring about a new life for Chinese culture!

5．Explain the essence of the state from the angles of the state’s origin, the difference between the state and clan organization, and the functions of the state.

 ……

Apart from whether or not there is obvious class conflict, the main differences between the state and clan organization are as follows: first, the state divides its population according to territory, whereas clan organization divides its population according to blood ties; second, the armed forces of the state are not an automatic armed organization of the residents. They not only defend against external aggression, but also play a role internally in maintaining the social order and suppressing class conflict.

In addition to suppressing class conflict, the functions of the state also include reconciling the interests of various members of society, maintaining stable social order, and organizing social production as well as scientific, cultural, and educational undertakings.

Etymologically speaking, there are two words in English that express “state”: country and state. The former comes from the meaning of “land,” while the latter carries the meaning of “rank” or “status”; and in Chinese, the two characters “国” and “家” likewise have their origins, with the former also deriving from the meaning of “land” or “territory,” while the family relation represented by 家 symbolizes a hierarchical structure. Thus, from the etymology of “state,” we can corroborate the features mentioned above: namely, that the state replaces blood ties with territorial relations and constructs a kind of social order through a pattern similar to that of the “family”—hierarchy, division of labor, cooperation, and so on. Like the family, the state also has spiritual significance, such as sustaining national feeling and providing a sense of belonging. Just as the family is an embodied crystallization of the vague relation of blood ties, the state is a concrete expression of relations such as nation, region, homeland, and culture. This is especially true of a country like China, which has a long civilization and history and formed spontaneously. However, many “states” in the modern world, especially the newly independent countries across Asia, Africa, and Latin America, are products of Western powers carving up colonies and partitioning the world; they did not arise gradually and spontaneously from clan society, but were artificially “planned out.” When examining these two kinds of states with different origins, we need to pay attention to their differences. 

Supplement to Simple Question 5 in On Marxist Philosophy (Part II)

Xingding posted on 2006-01-07 12:05:03

A couple of days ago ZW saw these two short-answer responses of mine and said that he strongly agreed with my answer to the first question, “but I haven’t looked at the fifth question”… What an information-free comment! To say he agrees—of course that makes me happy to hear, but such a remark is of little benefit. At the very least he could also write out which point he agrees with and in what way he agrees, right? Otherwise anyone can offer polite talk, which is utterly dull. What I paid closer attention to was his opinion on the fifth question—since he said “but,” that means he more or less did not agree, or at least had reservations. Why the reservations?—What does “haven’t looked at” mean? Haven’t looked at what? What exactly needs to be looked at in order to form an opinion? All of this is very unclear. Still, even such a vague and indistinct comment on the fifth question is more informative than agreement with the first question, and it was quite useful to me as well. Why is it that after reading my post, no one has ever written even a sentence or two in the comments section below?

This tiny bit of commentary reminded me of some topics, and I can add a supplement to the preceding text:

First, when friends read what I write, they may wish to pay attention—of course, the same applies when reading other people’s writing as well—not only to what I wrote and how I argued these matters, but even before that, they can pay attention to why I wrote these things, what my original intention was. Behind a finished article there is always something like an “origin”—whether or not that “origin” is included in the article itself. Of course, reading what I write is merely for amusement and entertainment, and my writing doesn’t have much depth, so there is no need to be particular about such things. But the reading method I am talking about must surely be quite useful when reading famous classics, right? So below I will explain my own original intention in writing the fifth question.

The first and fifth questions are what I called “two questions I am unwilling to answer according to the textbook.” The implication is that, apart from these two, the other eight thought questions can basically all be answered according to the textbook. So why is it that I alone am unwilling to answer these two according to the book? Of course, on these two questions I have some ideas of my own that have already taken roughly shape, to imitate what ZW said: I have “looked at” some relevant material. However, for instance, on the question of the view of science, clearly I have looked at even more material and my own ideas are more developed, but I can still more or less write according to the textbook. In other words, the explanations in the textbook for the other questions are all basically acceptable to me. Although I think the textbook’s explanations are often very one-sided, at least there are no serious problems or major harms. But I have to make a personal exertion on precisely these two questions because, if I answer according to the textbook, I “cannot bear it.”

As for why I cannot bear the textbook’s answer to the first question, I imagine everyone knows, and ZW probably cannot bear it together with me, right? I won’t explain that either. So then why, regarding the fifth question, do I want to go beyond the necessities and add my own remarks about etymology? What was my original intention?

In fact, I have not actually done any textual research on etymology, and all this roundabout detouring is really meant to bring out the connotation of “family” within “state”! What I cannot bear is the traditional textbook’s explanation of “state,” which presents the state as merely a “machine of violence” for suppressing class conflict and striking at hostile classes. If it mentions any mild aspect, at most it is coordination of production, promotion of science and technology, and so on—practical things. In short, in the expression of the traditional textbook, “state” has become a machine; the state symbolizes class contradiction, hierarchy, violence against the internal population, and so on—it is a “bad” thing, and the existence of the state is only a kind of “stopgap measure”… What is the consequence of understanding it this way? —We may preserve the state and defend the state for the sake of this “stopgap measure,” but how can we possibly develop feelings for such a cold, violent machine? That is to say, how is one to place something like “patriotism”?

Official opinion and textbooks today, on the one hand, advocate “patriotism,” but on the other hand, they tell us that the “state” is such a cold machine: it arises together with class contradiction; it is marked above all by the emergence of an army that can repress internal enemies, and it will also be ultimately extinguished as communism eliminates class contradiction. So how can such a thing of expediency and violence be worthy of our love? The authors of textbooks often pay little attention to the self-contradictory position into which they have fallen at this point.

I think that saying the state is some kind of “institution” is not wrong, but this kind of “institution” is by no means a cold machine; it is alive, it has life. When we address the motherland, we often use “mother” as a symbol, that is to say, the motherland is not only not a dead machine, but is alive—and more than that, it is personalized and sacred. So, is the “motherland” not also the “state”? If “motherland” and that violent “state” are two different things, then what is the “state” in motherland’s “state” supposed to be? Is it the same as “nation”? Or the same as “culture,” or what exactly? … It is laughable to say, perhaps many of us have advocated “patriotism” for ages without even making clear to ourselves just what it is we are loving.

I feel that the motherland is also the state; the “state” in motherland is not some new concept outside the definition of the state. Therefore I want to emphasize the connotation of “family” in “state.” There are hierarchy, authority, force, and such things in the family too. If we also understand the family as a kind of institution organized for certain practical purposes, then the family too will become a cold machine—“the family is a group of people organized together because of blood ties, mutually supporting one another for the sake of common interests (the territory on which they live and the food needed to sustain life); and, in order to maintain order, they establish a hierarchical system of parental authority, with elders representing old things and thus the forces of backwardness and rigidity, who, in order to defend themselves to the utmost, inevitably must control and oppress the younger generation, who as new things represent progress and vitality. The new things will eventually defeat the old things and replace them…” —Who would like such an explanation of the family? How boring! In fact, modern China really does have a way of understanding the family mechanically. Under the banner of so-called “democracy” and “freedom,” the family too has become merely a cold institution: the relation between parents and children becomes a contractual relation of debt repayment; children in their teens want to stand on equal footing with their parents; in their twenties they know more than their parents and want their parents to listen to them; in their thirties they sign contracts with their parents to clarify property rights; and when parents are old, caring for them is because one is repaying a debt, and once the debt is paid and the parents kick the bucket, the two sides have nothing to do with each other… How terrible these things are, and yet they seem already to have become fashionable in modern society!

The family is certainly some kind of institution, but the ties among family members are as close as flesh and blood; they are natural, what is called “the joy of family life” (天伦之乐). This natural order, or so-called “hierarchical” relation, among family members is a thing of supreme joy! How can it be seen as a cold machine?

The state is the same way. It has its practical and utilitarian significance, but the state is not merely an institution. Especially in the case of a country like China, which formed spontaneously, the state itself, like the family, is natural. It arose and took shape spontaneously on the basis of culture, region, nation, and so on. Here I want to distinguish it from those “states” that first use force to open up colonies, then use lines of longitude and latitude to draw borders, and finally let go with external force so that they become independent “states.” The Chinese state was gradually and naturally formed and shaped by internal momentum. Such a “state” is capable of providing a vessel for national and cultural identity!

Some time ago, while reviewing for the political science exam, I reread several of He Xin’s books—He Xin exerted a tremendous influence on me in high school, and of course even now I continue to admire him. I especially admire He Xin’s calmness and lucidity when facing Western neoliberal ideology; as for his economic and political positions, I am not expert enough to comment; regarding many of his philosophical and religious views, I do not quite agree either; but most important is that, under China’s present conditions, he has such a strong sense of urgency and at the same time makes an extremely calm effort to confront these crises. That is what I especially admire. —He Xin’s collection of historical essays is called History and National Consciousness, his collection of political essays is called On Political Statism, and his collection of economic essays is called The Economic View of New Statism; just from the titles, it is very clear: for He Xin, “state” is the most important keyword. So why does He Xin emphasize “statism” so much? I feel that He Xin’s intention is profound and also astute. He first saw an important problem in China today: namely, a lack of “cohesion”! When we discuss in philosophy the loss of faith, confusion of values, and so on, we are examining the sources of the problem at a deeper level; but the immediate expression of the urgent real problem is “cohesion”—the whole of Chinese society presents itself as a pile of loose sand, with left-wing radicals, right-wing conservatives, those who want wholesale Westernization, those who advocate a return to the old ways, those who insist on socialism, those who advocate a free economy, and so on and so forth. It is very messy. So the pressing task is this: even if we cannot unify the various views and positions, at the very least we should try to bring everyone onto the same front, so that everyone is working toward the same goal and revolving around the same thing; only then can people sit down together calmly and exchange views. Moreover, what is even more important is not the problem in the theoretical circles, but among the masses: there is a lack of something cohesive. We need cohesion, but if we cannot make clear what to cohere around, and instead ask the masses to cohere around thin air, that will not work. So what thing is suitable as the object of cohesion? —Nation? Although we now speak of the “Chinese nation” and downplay the Han nationality, in any case “nationalism” is always a bad word, and moreover what exactly is the “Chinese nation” is a very vague concept. Culture? We say we should inherit and promote China’s five-thousand-year-long culture, which is certainly excellent, but what is Chinese culture?—that too is a rather vague question. Many vulgar opinions precisely take the essence of traditional Chinese culture for dross. The effectiveness and persuasiveness of talking about culture are both very limited. Some kind of ideal? For example communism, or freedom, democracy, and so on? These concepts are even more vague and unclear, and the controversy surrounding them would be even greater… Thinking it over again and again, the word “state” had long since leapt forth to be called upon, because the concept of “state” can be made fairly clear—what territories our motherland includes, what people it includes, what customs, what ethnic groups, what cultures, and so on: these are all, relatively speaking, quite clear. In question 5 I mentioned that “just as the family is an embodied crystallization of the vague relation of blood ties, the state is a concrete expression of relations such as nation, region, homeland, and culture”—nation, blood ties, thought, culture, and so on are all quite vague concepts, but the state, as a kind of “entity” that is spontaneously formed and finally solidified through the combined action of these things, is quite clear. As long as we say “patriotism,” the object of love must be the same for everyone (of course, issues such as Taiwan are another matter altogether)!

We are born in China and, as Chinese people, just as we are born into a certain family and are one member of that family, our relation within this country is also natural. It can be said that, just like our relation with our family members, we are all Chinese people—this relation is a kind of natural “destiny” or “affinity.” We love our own family, share breath and fate with our own family; this is not for some utilitarian gain, still less a forced stopgap measure. This feeling of flesh and blood connection is itself a kind of happiness—the joy of family life. Likewise, loving one’s country is also a natural love, an affection for the mother, and it need not be justified. Of course, this first requires that we not regard the state merely as a cold machine!

 January 7, 2006

Latest Comments

Qifeng 2006-01-07 13:32:04 [reply]

I’ve been singled out again. The other day I hurriedly skimmed your previous post and didn’t have the mind to read it carefully, so I only said something in the group about my impression; it was by no means a comment or an evaluation.

On the question of dialectical negation, it so happens that I had paid attention to it for the sake of my philosophy of Marxism class, especially Marx’s critique of Proudhon. You mentioned Proudhon’s compromise of discarding the bad while preserving the good, so I felt an immediate sense of familiarity. As for that passage in the book about traditional culture, it is indeed intolerable.
As for the fifth question, when I said I hadn’t looked at it, I mainly meant that I hadn’t looked at how the book explained the state. When we were reviewing philosophy of Marxism with Li, Ming, and the others back then, I told them both that this question could be skipped, so I simply ignored the stuff in the book. You, don’t take it too much to heart.
Since you say my comment contains no information, then let me talk about your post instead. Your understanding of the state is indeed not wrong. But I think you have one problem. First of all, what are we taking? Philosophy of Marxism. No problem there. Then should we not discuss Marx’s view of the state, or the Marxist view of the state?
What concept of the state appears in Marx’s texts? Can it be explained with the Chinese traditional idea of “from the family to the state”? Of course not. When you talk about the concept of the state, it should carry the meaning of “family.” Then does the “state” Marx speaks of take this “family” dimension into account? I don’t think so. From your angle, the concept of the state emphasizes “family,” and then a cohesion can be built up. In the West there is a special term for this, namely the concept of “community.” But in Marx’s notion of the state, there is absolutely no such factor. After all, Marx was not Chinese. His state carries a strongly critical coloring; he examines this concept within a political order of construction and arrangement. I still haven’t looked at how the textbook talks about the state, so I still won’t comment on the textbook. But I do need to point out that your understanding of the state is Chinese, not Marx’s. That’s all.
Many times, we can criticize, but first we should look at the context in which the object of criticism is being used.
Still, I do agree with your thinking about the state. It’s just that we are discussing Marxism, and the exam is on philosophy of Marxism, so we ought first to build our discussion within the scope of Marx’s theory. Since you think that origin is very important in writing, then you should first pay attention to what the origin of Marx’s “state” is.
Also, as for comments, I don’t think you need to care so much. Take me as an example: sometimes I just blurt out an impression. Sometimes I read a piece of writing and really have no interest in commenting on it. Sometimes I feel I don’t know how to say it. After all, your blog is not the same as other people’s; there’s not much narrative prose, only argumentative prose, so fewer comments are normal. After all, commenting on ideas requires caution.  
I 2006-01-07 18:07:59 [reply]First of all, the kind of comment I hope for is just “blurt out an impression”; I don’t want people to read my article sentence by sentence and paragraph by paragraph and then write reading notes or anything like that. My articles are not some philosophical works worth pondering over—they’re nothing more than me hoping that what you say offhandedly can be written down as text online, and that’s best. A quick glance through my articles is enough; why read them so seriously? The words philosophers have poured their blood and sweat into are the only ones worth reading with effort. What am I, anyway, with my casual little scribbles? Just give it a quick glance and that’s enough. I don’t want to get more comments; if I really saw you carefully weighing my words, I’d be a little afraid too. But the things you usually say to me in passing when we chat out loud are all things that can be expressed in writing. In fact, the existence of this blog wasn’t something I actively told you about. I didn’t write articles in order to solicit comments either; I just hoped to communicate in writing, because I’m not very good at speaking. If I speak a little too fast in real life, I get flustered.
Second, the issue with the question is: “Try, from the origins of the state, the difference between the state and clan organization, the functions of the state, and so on, to explain the essence of the state.” — This question does not say we have to answer according to Marx’s texts. For example, the final essay question, and questions about value judgments, how do we answer those from philosophy of Marxism? And the question about outlook on life—when Lao Yang was teaching, how many times did he mention Marx? Lao Yang’s philosophy of Marxism class was never limited to “within the scope of Marx’s theory.” Besides, are the explanations in the textbook really philosophy of Marxism? Saying the textbook’s explanations are “Chinese-style” interpretations sounds more accurate.  
I 2006-01-07 18:28:06 [reply]Actually, the reason I hope everyone communicates in writing is that I have some hope of beginning now to separate scholarship from life. Of course, scholarship is also part of life, and thinking is also part of life, but I don’t want this part of life to get mixed up with the other part. In life, I only want to talk about romantic things; I don’t want to make things too serious. In the Hezu, then let’s chat in a Hezu way. Even though our discussions are always carried out in a fairly good state of mind, in real life, discussing certain issues more or less affects the mood for admiring flowers and enjoying the rain. When pointing at the country and laying out strategic plans, then one should devote oneself wholeheartedly to pointing at the country and laying out strategic plans; when discussing the profound and expounding the Way, then one should devote oneself wholeheartedly to discussing the profound and expounding the Way; when it is all about breezes, flowers, snow, and moonlight, then one should devote oneself wholeheartedly to breezes, flowers, snow, and moonlight. So I’m just hoping we won’t abruptly insert these discussions into our usual joking and play; it may be better to write our opinions here instead.  
unic 2007-12-13 19:31:25 anonymous 220.171.181.92 [reply]At first glance it really does feel like your writing from before, especially the comment section. But Night Uncle didn’t seem to be wrong—now it’s like the reading questions in our Chinese entrance exam: no matter how… how much they cheat by saying “please say something about this passage yourself…” they still want you to extract the author’s meaning or directly copy the original text. As for that old question of yours, I think it would actually be worth digging into MARX’s own texts; the textbook can be set aside, absolutely set aside~ (it’s already in the past, and I wonder whether you had that possibility at the time…), as for what you wrote, this really is the sort of thing that should be written as a question like “my understanding of the state.”
But since ancient times the concepts of family and state in China and abroad have not been the same. The word “state” may still need to be traced back to its source; I wonder whether you have already traced it? But your kind of thinking back then was itself very good~ Didn’t it immediately glimpse that Marx’s philosophy lacks a consideration of the individual human psyche?

As for whether you separate philosophy\life or not, I seem to remember that you never specially wrote anything about it. If you haven’t, then you should write it well.  

Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.