C L R James

Notes on Dialectics: PART II The Hegelian Logic

... and now before we go on, do me a little favour, friends. Just sit down and read this whole previous section over. No? OK. As Mar said in the last paragraph of the !riti"ue of the #otha $rogramme, do what %ou li&e now. ' have saved m% own soul...( )octrine of Notion *election+ About half of $art '' reproduced, concentrating on commentar% on the ,ogic$ublisher+ Allison . /usb%, 0123-

4he )octrine of /eing 4he )octrine of 5ssence 6eview and ,eninist 'nterlude Appearance and Actualit% 4he )octrine of 4he Notion ,eninism and the Notion

The Doctrine of Being

PRELIMINARY E ERCI!E!
7ou &now, as ' propose to m%self to begin the actual Logic, ' feel a slight chill. 4he )octrine of /eing. 8arris, who ultimatel% wrote a ver% fine wor& on the 8egelian ,ogic, was a professor of philosoph% and lecturer on 8egel at second9hand. /roc&me%er, #overnor of Missouri, made a translation of the larger Logic and someone gave it to 8arris. 8arris sa%s that he copied out the thing with his own hand, the whole thing, and when he was finished, he didn:t understand a line, not a line. ' &now e actl% how he felt. ;hat ' propose to do is to use the )octrine of /eing as a means of getting practice in the st%le and habit of 8egel. 4he larger Logic is the most difficult boo& ' &now. Kant:s Critique of Pure Reason is child:s pla% compared to it. /ut we have to be able to handle it. *o while we shall get the main points of the )octrine of /eing, loo& upon this as a &ind of basic training, before we get down to it in the )octrine of 5ssence. ' am not giving a summar% of the Logic. ' am not e panding it as a doctrine. ' am using it and showing how to begin to &now it and use it. 4hin& of the world of human beings, nearl% two billions, more than that perhaps. ;hat is the simplest thing %ou can sa% about them? 4he% e ist. 4wo billion people e ist. *o what< 4o sa% that is to sa% = nothing. 4o sa% something so broad, so complete, so abstract, is to sa% nothing. *omething must happen, must come out of this abstraction. ' sa%+ some men wor&. 4he previous abstraction has now become something. *ome men wor&. ,et us loo& at the men who wor&. 4he% at once, b% being distinguished, create another categor%, the people who do not wor&. 7ou cannot separate one categor% without creating another one. 4o create a categor% is to determine( something. /ut ever% time %ou determine something, %ou negate something. 5ver% time. /% determining men who wor&, we negate them as men who merel% e ist, but we also negate the men who do not wor&. 4he% are no longer men who merel% e ist. 4hat is over. 4he% are men who do not wor&. ;henever %ou do something, %ou at the same time do not do something else. A silver coin on a green table negated the green cover on the particular spot where it rests. 't creates the spot where the coin is and the spot where the coin is not. Now we have men who wor&. 4hat is the "ualit% which distinguishes them. ;hen something becomes( out of the mass it has a "ualit%>. 4he "ualit% we ta&e is wor&. /ut as %ou pile up the men who wor&, %ou catalogue them, wor& is not enough. *ome are tailors, some shoema&ers, some cowbo%s, some engineers. 4he list is endless. *ome wor& well, some badl%. *ome wor& well but sta% at home ever% morning. ;e soon find ourselves concerned with more than "ualit%. ;e find that we must loo& not at "ualit% but at quantity of wor&. $reoccupation with "ualit% has led us to quantity. /ut "uantit% too is limited. 4he more %ou contemplate it, deal with it, %ou find that it is impossible to &eep tab of the "uantit% of wor& of tailors, coo&s, deep9sea divers b% measuring wor& in the abstract. 7ou have to get some common measure. 4he three divisions of the )octrine of /eing are ?ualit%, ?uantit%, and Measure. 4his is a crude, but in m% opinion, "uite ade"uate, e ample of 8egel:s method. 4hat is what ' am after. Kant and the others would &now and use ?ualit%, ?uantit%, and Measure. ;hat 8egel insisted upon is that these are connected, that one developed out of the other. ?uantit% came at a certain time because "ualit% upon "ualit% does not go on being "ualit% but at a certain stage becomes something new. 8egel ta&es ?ualit% and ?uantit% as abstractions to represent processes present in all aspects of nature, societ% and thought. ;ater is a "ualit%, a small stream negates the surrounding land. 't is a stream because it is no longer land. 'f it grows and grows, it becomes a river, and a number of rivers meeting in one place can become an inland sea.

8egel:s own categories are much more profound, of course. 8e sa%s+ thin& not of men, but of ever%thing that e ists, that has some being>. 4hin& of the whole world not as men, land, s&%, horses, air, buildings. Just thin& of it in its capacit% of e isting. $ure absolute being. #ood. /ut when %ou thin& that, %ou are thin&ing = nothing. $ure being = pure nothing. *omething emerges, it becomes( and %ou have being determinate>. 't has a "ualit%. /ut a coin on a table negates some of the table. *o that )eterminate /eing( is /eing9for9self but always being9for9another. Men who wor& are one being, being9for9self, but the% are also automaticall% being9for9another, men9who9do9not9wor&. ?ualit% means that a limit is imposed, a barrier between itself and its other. 'f we ta&e a closer loo& at what a limit implies, we see it involving a contradiction in itself, and thus evincing its dialectical nature. On the one side limit ma&es the realit% of a thing- on the other it is its negation. /ut, again, the limit, as the negation of something, is not an abstract nothing but a nothing which is = what we call an other>. #iven something, and up starts an other to us+ we &now that there is not something onl%, but an other as well. Nor, again, is the other of such a nature that we can thin& something apart from it- a something is implicitl% the other of itself, and the somewhat sees its limit become ob@ective to it in the other. 'f we now as& for the difference between something and another, it turns out that the% are the same+ which sameness is e pressed in ,atin b% calling the pair aliad-aliud. 4he other, as opposed to the something, is itself a something, and hence we sa% some other, or something else- and so on the other hand the first something when opposed to the other, also defined as something, is itself an other. ;hen we sa% something else( our first impression is that something ta&en separatel% is onl% something, and that the "ualit% of being another attaches to it onl% from outside considerations. 4hus we suppose that the moon, being something else than the sun, might ver% well e ist without the sun. /ut reall% the moon, as a something, has its other implicit in it. $lato sa%s+ #od made the world out of the nature of the one( and the other>+ having brought these together, he formed from them a third, which is of the nature of the one( and the other>. 'n these words we have in general terms a statement of the nature of the finite, which, as something, does not meet the nature of the other as if it had no affinit% to it, but, being implicitl% the other of itself, thus undergoes alteration. Alteration thus e hibits the inherent contradiction which originall% attaches to determinate being, and which forces it out of its own bounds. ... /ut the fact is, mutabilit% lies in the notion of e istence, and change is onl% the manifestation of what it implicitl% is. 4he living die, simpl% because as living the% bear in themselves the germ of death. 4hat is the core of the )octrine of /eing. *omething immediatel% involves something else. !ontinue with something li&e "ualit%, and its other, "uantit%, will ta&e form. A completel% abstract something is the same as nothing, that is its other. *omething /ecomes( out of nothing. 't alwa%s has its limit, its barrier. And this limit, barrier, is burst through, at a certain stage, to establish the other, its other. All this ta&es place in the sphere of determinate being, simple "ualit%. ,et me ta&e an e ample of what the method of the Logic signifies. 4he proletariat politicall% is an undistinguished bod% of proletarians. *omething becomes>. *ome of them form a part%. At once the proletariat is no longer part% and proletarians. 't is part% and non9part%, or as we sa%, part% and mass. 4he part% creates its other, the mass. /ut %ou can have one, two, three, four parties. One obvious wa% to distinguish is b% siAe. 4hat is not sufficient, however. Bor political purposes we can @udge b% support>, a form of "uantit%. /ut support changes. Out of support we can arrive at what in the last anal%sis decided support = polic%. 4hat is a form of Measure. ;henever %ou e amine an% ob@ect, %ou can begin b% loo&ing for its obvious distinguishing "ualit%, the "uantit% of this "ualit%, and the measure of it.

/it b% bit we go a step further, li&e an e perienced man bringing along a virgin who has willingl% consented. #race is probabl% tearing her hair at the vulgarit% of some of m% illustrations. 4he% are better than the perpetual water turning into steam which ever%bod% uses from 5ngels. /ut ' don:t want to leave it there. Bor us )octrine of /eing is a road to practise to get familiar with the method, the concrete method, the method of dealing with 8egel:s matter and manner. )o not be misled b% the e tract ' have given %ou from the smaller Logic. 4here he is being friendl%, considerate and &ind. 'n the larger Logic he is ruthless. 8e puts down the most difficult, complicated idea in a clause of three words. 8e creates terms, three, four, five, and uses them as if the% were letters of the alphabet. *o let us use this interlude as training. Now for this "ualit% into "uantit% business. 8egel uses the One and the Man% as his illustration. !ommon sense thin&s one is one, and over here, and man% is some, and over there. 'n other words. One has a special quality, and the% begin there and sta% there. 8egel sa%s No. $hilosoph% tells us that One presupposes Man%. 4he moment ' sa% One, ' have thereb% created the categor% Man%. 'n fact it is the e istence of the Man% which ma&es the One possible at all. 'f there were no Man%, One would be whatever %ou wish but it would not be One meaning this one, in contrast with man% others. 4he One therefore is repellent. 4o be, it repels the Man%. 't is exclusive, but it is not "uiescent. 't is activel% repelling the Man%, for otherwise its specific "ualit% as One would be lost. 4his is Repulsion. /ut, all the other Ones who constitute the Man% have a connecting relation with it. 4he% thereb% have a connective relation with each other- the One, b% holding them all off, ma&es them all @oin together against it. /ut each of these is a One, too. 4hus the One begins b% 6epulsion but creates in ever% other single One an attraction. 4hus, the One when %ou begin with it is a ?ualit%, but b% e amining first and following what is involved to the end, %ou turn up with a new categor%, ?uantit%, with the original pure and simple ?ualit% suppressed and superseded. 8ere is the complete e tract+ 4he One, as alread% remar&ed, @ust is self9e clusion and e plicit putting itself as the Man%. 5ach of the Man% however is itself a One, and in virtue of its so behaving, this all rounded repulsion is b% one stro&e converted into its opposite = Attraction. 4he thing that 8egel insists upon is not to see the One as fi ed, finite, limited, isolated. 't is One because there are Man%, and because of that the original categor% of One begins to assume new facets and suddenl% the% are the ver% opposite of what %ou began with. As 8egel &nows and sa%s %ou can Cif %ou want toD ma&e a lot of @o&es about these transitions. 8is fundamental answer is that %ou have to go along with him and see where %ou get and what %ou get. An%one who has had a class on Capital &nows that there are certain t%pes who passionatel% contest ever% sentence, ever% deduction. 'n the end the% alwa%s turn up in the bourgeois camp. 't is the revolution the% are fighting. 4he 8egelian categories offer infinite opportunit% for this. ;e, however, not onl% have our past traditions. ;e have had a ver% substantial introduction here, and can afford to follow him. As a matter of fact, few people challenge the broad divisions of the )octrine of /eing. ' have seen these basic premises challenged, but the writer said that if %ou admitted those, %ou could not seriousl% oppose him after. Now let 8egel himself spea&. ' give some length% e tracts from the smaller Logic. 4he transition from ?ualit% to ?uantit%, indicated in the paragraph before us, is not found in our ordinar% wa% of thin&ing which deems each of these categories to e ist independentl% beside the other. ;e are in the habit of sa%ing that things are not merel% "ualitativel%, but also "uantitativel% definedbut whence these categories originate, and how the% are related to each other, are "uestions not further e amined. 4he fact is, "uantit% @ust means "ualit% superseded and absorbed+ and it is b% the dialectic

of "ualit% here e amined that this supersession is effected. Birst of all, we had being+ as the truth of /eing, came /ecoming+ which formed the passage to /eing )eterminate+ and the truth of that we found to be Alteration. And in its result Alteration showed itself to be /eing9for9self, e empt from implication of another and from passage into another- which /eing9for9self finall% in the two sides of its process, 6epulsion and Attraction, was clearl% seen to annul itself, and thereb% to annul "ualit% in the totalit% of its stages. *till this superseded and absorbed "ualit% is neither an abstract nothing, nor an e"uall% abstract and featureless being+ it is onl% being as indifferent to determinateness or character. 4his aspect of being is also what appears as "uantit% in our ordinar% conceptions. ;e observe things, first of all, with an e%e to their "ualit% = which we ta&e to be the character identical with the being of the thing. 'f we proceed to consider their "uantit%, we get the conception of an indifferent and e ternal character or mode, of such a &ind that a thing remains what it is though its "uantit% is altered, and the thing becomes greater or less. 4hen he wor&s through ?uantit% and arrives at Measure. 4hese he sums up so far+ 4hus "uantit% b% means of the dialectical movement so far studied through its several stages, turns out to be a return to "ualit%. 4he first notion of "uantit% presented to us was that of "ualit% abrogated and absorbed. 4hat is to sa%, "uantit% seemed an e ternal character not identical with /eing, to which it is "uite immaterial 4his notion, as we have seen, underlies the mathematical definition of magnitude as what can be increased or diminished. At first sight this definition ma% create the impression that "uantit% is merel% whatever can be altered = increase and diminution ali&e impl%ing determination of magnitude otherwise = and ma% tend to confuse it with determinate /eing, the second stage of "ualit%, which in its notion is similarl% conceived as alterable. ;e can, however, complete the definition b% adding, that in "uantit% we have an alterable, which in spite of alterations still remains the same. 4he notion of "uantit%, it thus turns out, implies an inherent contradiction. 4his contradiction is what forms the dialectic of "uantit%. 4he result of the dialectic however is not a mere return to "ualit%, as if that were the true and "uantit% the false notion, but an advance to the unit% and truth of both, to "ualitative "uantit%, or Measure. 4his is worth pondering over, it is not too difficult. 4here 8egel sa%s something which he often repeats, as ' have shown before. Men it seems could be as stupid then as now. 8e is tal&ing about Nature where simple determinate being, "ualit%, abounds. Measure is a ver% low stage of the dialectical logic. And 8egel sa%s+ 't ma% be well therefore at this point to observe that whenever in our stud% of the ob@ective world we are engaged in "uantitative determinations, it is in all cases Measure which we have in view, as the goal of our operations 4his is hinted at even in language, when the ascertainment of "uantitative features and relations is called measuring. Now come two splendid e amples of the dialectical relation between "ualit%, "uantit%, and measure+ ;e measure, e.g. the length of different chords that have been put into a state of vibration, with an e%e to the "ualitative difference of the tones caused b% their vibration, corresponding to this difference of length. *imilarl%, in chemistr%, we tr% to ascertain the "uantit% of the matters brought into combination, in order to find out the measures or proportions conditioning such combination, that is to sa%, those "uantities which give rise to definite "ualities. 4hen comes a reall% superb passage in which %ou see what the Logic meant to him and how he used it. 't is ver% long. /ut this is in its wa% an antholog% and ' would li&e it in+

4he identit% between "uantit% and "ualit%, which is found in Measure, is at first onl% implicit, and not %et e plicitl% realised. 'n other words, these two categories, which unite in Measure, each claim an independent authorit%. On the one hand, the "uantitative features of e istence ma% be altered, without affecting its "ualit%. On the other hand, this increase and diminution, immaterial though it be, has its limit, b% e ceeding which the "ualit% suffers change. 4hus the temperature of water is, in the first place, a point of no conse"uence in respect of its li"uidit%+ still with the increase of diminution of the temperature of the li"uid water, there comes a point where this state of cohesion suffers a "ualitative change, and the water is converted into steam or ice. A "uantitative change ta&es place, apparentl% without an% further significance+ but there is something lur&ing behind, and a seemingl% innocent change of "uantit% acts as a &ind of snare, to catch hold of the "ualit%. 4he antinom% of Measure which this implies was e emplified under more than one garb among the #ree&s. 't was as&ed, for e ample, whether a single grain ma&es a heap of wheat, or whether it ma&es a bald9tail to tear out a single hair from the horse:s tail. At first, no doubt, loo&ing at the nature of "uantit% as an indifferent and e ternal character of being, we are disposed to answer these "uestions in the negative. And %et, as we must admit, this indifferent increase and diminution has its limit+ a point is finall% reached, where a single additional grain ma&es a heap of wheat- and the bald9tail is produced, if we continue pluc&ing out single hairs. 4hese e amples find a parallel in the stor% of the peasant who, as his ass trudged cheerfull% along, went on adding ounce after ounce to its load, till at length it sun& under the unendurable burden. 't would be a mista&e to treat these e amples as pedantic futilit%- the% reall% turn on thoughts, an ac"uaintance with which is of great importance in practical life, especiall% in ethics. 4hus in the matter of e penditure, there is a certain latitude within which a more or less does not matter- but when the Measure, imposed b% the individual circumstances of the special case, is e ceeded on the one side or the other, the "ualitative nature of Measure Cas in the above e amples of the different temperature of waterD ma&es itself felt, and a course, which a moment before was held good econom%, turns into avarice or prodigalit%. 4he same principles ma% be applied in politics, when the constitution of a state has to be loo&ed at as independent of, no less than as dependent on, the e tent of its territor%, the number of its inhabitants, and other "uantitative points of the same &ind. 'f we loo&, e.g. at a state with a territor% of ten thousand s"uare miles and a population of four millions we should, without hesitation, admit that a few s"uare miles of land or a few thousand inhabitants more or less could e ercise no essential influence on the character of its constitution. /ut on the other hand, we must not forget that b% the continual increase or diminishing of a state, we finall% get to a point where, apart from all other circumstances, this "uantitative alteration alone necessaril% draws with it an alteration in the "ualit% of the constitution. 4he constitution of a little *wiss canton does not suit a great &ingdom- and, similarl%, the constitution of the 6oman republic was unsuitable when transferred to the small imperial towns of #erman%. 4hat is about all we need. Now for a little recapitulation and a @umping9off place into 5ssence. /eing means "ualit%, determinate being. 't comes out of Nothing. 't deals with the categories of other determinate beings that one determinate being automaticall% creates. /ut Measure as the last stage of such /eing which creates other over there. 4he dialectic of Measure leads it into 5ssence, where being is no longer simpl% determinate. 't is reflected. ;e now begin to see an ob@ect whose parts are separated b% thought. One part creates an other, true, but the other is inherent in the ob@ect itself, not one ob@ect here and another over there, but the ob@ect splits into related categories that are both contained within the ob@ect itself. 4his has been ver% "uiet, ver% eas%. 4he smaller Logic is worth reading on the )octrine of /eing in particular. ' have purposel% &ept the pitch low. Just read and get ac"uainted. Bor after this we are going to begin to go places and it is going to be hectic.

The Doctrine of Essence

E!!ENCE I! A M"#EMENT "$ NE%ATI"N

8ere goes then, right into the heart of it, and ta&e the worst first. /race %ourself+

/ecoming in 5ssence = its reflective movement = is hence the movement from Nothing to Nothing and through Nothing bac& to itself. 4he transition or /ecoming transcends itself in its transition+ that Other which arises in the course of this transition is not the Not9being of a /eing, but the Nothing of a Nothing = which constitutes /eing = /eing e ists onl% as the movement of Nothing to Nothing, and thus is 5ssence- and 5ssence does not contain this movement in itself but is this movement, an absolute *how and pure negativit%, which has nothing without it that could negate it, but negates onl% its own negativit%, which is onl% in this negation. 't is as tough a passage as %ou can have. 7et we can brea& its bac&. Just tr% to remember. 8egel must write this wa%. 'f he said, as we do, the labour movement this and that, or atomic energ%, or the theor% of the state, he would at once limit himself. 4he reader would thin& of this as politics or whatever it was 8egel had chosen. 4he movement would be from politics to something else, then to something else, and so on ad infinitum. /esides it would, ' feel sure, limit his freedom of anal%sis. 8e e amines instead an infinite number of processes, studies the relation between stages, and e tracts, abstracts the essential movement. /esides, as ' read him, ' get the impression that from the stud% of phenomena and the methods of other philosophers he had learnt to handle these abstractions b% themselves, and as a man does in mathematics, push them further b% their own movement. *o the% have to be accepted as valid. ;e are to ta&e this passage all wa%s, worr% it li&e a dog. ;hat is the central idea? 4he thing that ' want %ou to notice is where he sa%s 5ssence does not contain a movement, but is that movement. 'magine a spirit, a genie Ariel, a disembodied being flitting around in the spiritual void. 8e does not &now who he is or what he is. /ut he wants to find out and he has been told that inside his spiritual constellation are a number of elements which periodicall% e plode into an ob@ect, stone, flower, horse, ape, man, etc. 8e gets a chance in these to see what he reall% is. /ut he will &now whether this is the real thing or not. 'f after a while he feels that this is not the real thing he dissolves it and he steps bac& again into a pure spirit. 8is onl% wa% of &nowing an%thing about himself is to become one of the things that is in him. 4he da% he becomes something and &nows, feels, that this is it, then he is something new at last. 8e has we ma% sa% a notion of his true self at last. /ut, e cept as something that has become something for a while, he himself is a pure spirit, abstract, waiting in those cold regions. 4he essence is the fact that something continuall% becomes something else and negates it because it isn:t what the thing that is becoming wants to be. 4his being( that it becomes, we &now from the )octrine of /eing has become( out of Nothing. All immediate being comes out of Nothing and can go bac& to nothing. 4he difference with 5ssence is that it creates a lot of different beings- the% go bac& to nothing, but essence &eeps on tr%ing, for poor 5ssence is the fact that he has to &eep on tr%ing. 8e is a &ind of being that does not rest at becoming nothing but from his ver% nature must &eep on tr%ing and tr%ing again. ;e can now go bac& to the passage and concentrate on certain things. Now we can do a loose paraphrase. CAs far as 5ssence is concerned, the process of becoming is being, that is to sa% it comes from nothing, sta%s as being for a while and goes bac& to nothing, but thereb% gets bac& to itself, which is the imperative necessit% to become( once more.D Ordinary being is the movement of nothing to being9for9other and going on, or ma%be, @ust becoming and disappearing, and that:s that. /ut 5ssence tries again. *o that the being in which 5ssence tries to find itself is pure *howit does not become a "ualit%, which becomes a "uantit%, which becomes a Measure, etc. No, sir. $ure *how. Absolute Negativit%. *how No. 0. No good. Negated. *how No. E. Not what ' am loo&ing for = out with it into limbo. *how No. F. No good. Negate it. Negate them all. One da% we:ll get to it Cand we:ll see a lot of things which we could not see beforeD. /ut for the time being 5ssence can trul% sa%,

Me< ' &now what ' am b% now. ' am @ust Negativit%, becoming something and negating it. ' am a movement, me. 7es, that:s it. ' am movement of negation. /ut that isn:t all of me. One da% ':ll find out.( 5ssence of course does not &now that there is a logic to his negativit%. A philosopher, a 8egelian philosopher, who was watching him through an atomic microscope would sa%+ first he was a stone, then he was a flower, then he was a horse, then he was an ape, then he was a man. 4he poor abstraction doesn:t &now it, but ' thin& one da% he will be an angel. 4hat:s what all this restlessness and negativit% must mean. /ut that of course does not concern us here. Now from there into the labour movement. ;e &now what the labour movement is. 't was at one time the 02G2 revolutions, including !hartism, 02F19G2. 't too& the form of the Birst 'nternational. 't too& the form of the *econd 'nternational at its highest pea&. 4he unions were also organised. 4here are asses who would sa%+ the !ommune, for e ample, too& place in one cit%, how can %ou sa% that was a form of the whole labour movement? 4hin& of all the millions and millions who had no connection with the !ommune. Bools. *ince 010H the labour movement in countr% after countr% has repeatedl% tried to imitate the !ommune. 5urope and Asia seethe with would9be !ommunards. *o it is obvious that the !ommune Cin a single cit%D showed the pattern of the future = to the millions and millions in the hundreds and thousands of cities who perhaps paid little attention to the !ommune = which was a form of nothing in particular. 4he !ommune represented them. *o these forms show the labour movement going somewhere. /ut the 02G2 revolutions, the% came and went, the !ommune came and went. 4he Birst 'nternational came and went. 4he *econd 'nternational remains, but is a relic. ,oo& at it in Brance = the 4hird Borce. 't is a @o&e. 'n Brance the two forces are )e #aulle and the 4hird 'nternational. ;ho chooses to bother himself about the *econd 'nternational and !atholic wor&ers is in the same position as those who did not understand that it was the !ommune and not the apparentl% inert millions that was decisive for the future of 5urope. Mar pounced on it. /ut, as ' sa%, these forms disappear. /ut the proletarian movement continues. 4he% have an e ternal being, and these vanish, the new e ternal forms appear. ;e can alwa%s, if we are Mar ists, see the form and what for the moment we will call the 5ssence. /ut the 5ssence is not one thing that changes. No, the form was the Birst 'nternational- the essence was the labour, the proletarian, the revolutionar% movement of 02H0, which was different from that of 02G2. And we have established that the revolutionar% movement toda%, the wor&ers that follow *talinism, are not the same wor&ers who followed Menshevism. 4he% are further advanced "ualitativel%, further advanced along the road of their ultimate goal. 4he !ommune, therefore, the Birst 'nternational, the 013I struggles were @ust /eing, the% were Nothing. 4he% did not e ist, the% e isted, the% did not e ist an% more. 4he% were from nothing and went bac& to nothing. /ut their e perience, what the% represented was stored up. 't was not lost. 5ssence is a movement but a movement of stored up /eing. 4he wor&ers under *talinism have the e perience of ,eninism. 5ssence we ma% certainl% regard as past /eing, remembering however meanwhile that the past is not utterl% denied, but onl% laid aside and thus at the same time preserved.( 4he reactionar% 4hird 'nternational has, stored up in it, the past being of ,eninism which is gone = it e ists no longer. $hilosophers, Mar ists, have to trace this. 4he thing that continues to move, however, is the labour movement, the revolutionar% movement itself. 't stored up the e perience of the follies and wea&nesses of $roudhonism and /a&uninism. 't learnt the value of organisation. 't stored up the e perience of parliamentarianism, national defence,

etc. 't became richer and richer. C't organised the ideas too, but alwa%s as a result of the ob@ective movement, changing, developing capitalism.D At a given moment, this proletarian movement loo&s li&e the Birst 'nternational or the !ommune or 010H9E3. And if %ou stop, loo& at it, and be precise about it, as you have to do Cremember %ou cannot thin& unless %ou have fi ed and precise determinationsD, then %ou see that the essential movement is reflected in the form. 4he Birst 'nternational reflected it, 010I reflected it, etc. 4he reflections disappear. ;hat the% reflected is stored up and becomes part of the new proletariat. 4his process, the disappearance of the reflection, and the new proletariat with its e perience of the reflection stored up in it, starting off again, this process is 5ssence. 4he essence of a thing is the fact that it must move, reflect itself, negate the reflection, which was nothing, become being, and then become nothing again, while the thing itself must move on because it is its nature to do so. 4hat it must move, the consistent direction in which it moves, its necessit% to negate its reflections, store them up, and go on to some ultimate goal, this is its 5ssence. 4he essence of the proletariat is its movement to incorporate in itself e perience of the evils of capitalism until it overcomes capitalism itself. 4he essence of the proletariat is not that it is revolutionar% and tries a lot of different parties and re@ects them because the% fail. 't is not an e istent substratum(. 't negates not onl% its reflection, it does more than that, it further negates its own e periences and stores them up, so it is alwa%s further than it was before in its own special purpose. Nor does it negate in general. C4he "uote will show.D 'ts negation is a specific negation of its own contradictions, inherent in capitalism and therefore inherent in it as inseparable from and in fact unthin&able e cept as an opposite to capitalism. And now, sentence b% sentence. /ecoming in 5ssence = its reflective moment = is hence the movement from Nothing to Nothing and through Nothing bac& to itself. Obvious. !ommune, Birst 'nternational, ,eninism, all, as e isting entities, all pure being. 4he proletariat had a being, a certain feeling, ideas, impulses, desires, will. 't gained these in its e perience, ob@ective e perience with capitalism, with its past stored9up being. 4his was abstract being, abstract proletarian being. /ut abstract being is Nothing. 4he Nature of being is to become determinate. Just as thought organises impulses, desire, will, etc., the proletarian part% organises itself, becomes determinate in ,enin, /u&harin, 4rots&%, 6a&ovs&%, the /olshevi& $art%, the 4hird 'nternational, determinate being. ,eninism, therefore, the 4hird 'nternational, is a cr%stallisation of abstract being, which is Nothing. ,eninism negates this nothing b% becoming something. 4hen it is superseded b% *talinism. /ut the fact that this ta&es place is the essence of the proletariat. 'ts desires, will, impulses, needs Cbasicall% implanted in it b% its position vis-a-vis capitalismD are alwa%s first abstract being, i.e., nothing, then ta&e determinate form, then these vanish bac& into nothing, but their essence is stored up. 4he proletariat, in essence, has an Other, its reflection, but this @ust comes and goes. 4he transition or /ecoming transcends itself in its transition+ that Other which arises in the course of this transition is not the Not being of a /eing, but the Nothing of a Nothing- and it is this = the fact that it is the negation of a Nothing = which constitutes being. 4his is an e ercise in the development of the ideas of the )octrine of /eing. 4his passage contains the &e%. 6ead it slowl% and get it+ /eing e ists onl% as the movement of Nothing to Nothing, and thus is 5ssence9 and 5ssence does not contain this movement in itself but is this movement, an absolute *how and pure negativit%, which has

nothing without it that could negate it, but negates onl% its own negativit%, which is onl% in this negation. *o that loo&ing bac& we can see that we had one &ind of being in "ualit%, immediate being, which went its own wa%. Now we have another &ind of being, 5ssence, which has its wa%, constant negativit% of the *how, in which it must find itself. 4he rest of 5ssence is to trace the dialectical development of this *how, and the movement that constantl% negates it. C' do not guarantee these interpretations. 4he point is once the% are down we begin to /et somewhere. ' am not afraid of mista&es.D *o now we have 5ssence. 't is a form of Reflection. As 8egel describes it in the smaller Logic+ 4his word reflection( is originall% applied when a ra% of light in a straight line impinging upon the surface of a mirror is thrown bac& from it. 'n this phenomenon we have two things, first an immediate fact which is, and secondl% the deputed, derivated, or transmitted phase of the same. *omething of this sort ta&es place when we reflect, or thin& upon an ob@ect- for here we want to &now the ob@ect, not in its immediac%, but as derivative or mediated. Mediated. A lovel% word. 8ug it to %our bosom. ' sa%, we sa% that people:s consciousness is one thing, immediac%, an entit% that we can sa% has "ualit%(. /ut as Mar ists we &now that consciousness is in essence the reflection of economic and political, i.e. social environment. 4he social bac&ground, therefore, is mediated through consciousness. 'n the doctrine of /eing, "ualit% was, if %ou li&e, mediated into "uantit%. 'n the )octrine of 5ssence "ualit% is, or rather would be a *how of something which is reflecting itself through "ualit%. 8egel goes on+ 4he problem or aim of philosoph% is often represented as the ascertainment of the essence of things+ a phrase which onl% means that things instead of being left in their immediac%, must be shown to be mediated b%, or based upon, something else. 4he immediate /eing of things is thus conceived under the image of a rind or curtain behind which the 5ssence lies hidden. 4he maestro is ta&ing it eas%. 5ver%thing, it is said, has an 5ssence- that is, things reall% are not what the% immediatel% show themselves. 4here is something more to be done than merel% rove from one "ualit% to another, and merel% to advance from "ualitative to "uantitative and vice versa+ there is a permanent in things and that permanent is in the first instance their 5ssence.( 4hat is simple enough. ;h% didn:t ' begin with it? No. /ecause that simple phrase in the first instance( covers a lot and it would have given us a lot of trouble. 7ou would have believed %ou understood something which %ou did not. 4he essence of consciousness is social environment. /ut %ou get there an impression that is static. 't is onl% because consciousness is a &ind of show, which must reflect environment, and environment must go on e pressing itself, forever see&ing, can we call it 5ssence. 4he importance of this cannot be overestimated. 'f %ou do not see that clearl%, %ou get the conception of tr%ing this, tr%ing that, tr%ing the other. 7ou soon sa%+ it never seems to learn, because it( is static. 4hen %our essence becomes a thing. /ut when %ou see 5ssence as the movement, and the movement which stores up the superseded being, but %et is impelled to go on, then %ou have 5ssence in truth and in fact. Now to &now that 5ssence is a movement which reflects into a *how Cwhich is dismissedD and then goes off again, to &now this is onl% to &now 5ssence in general. 4his is the beginning of 5ssence. 5ssence, a movement, moves on dialecticall%. 4he reflection and the thing reflected have their own life- the% develop into different things and we trace them, and see how at each stage the% change into

something else. 8egel calls their most important form the 6eflections of )eterminations. 6emember that for a long time the% are creations of thought. Bor e ample, when %ou loo& at consciousness, %ou do not see it divided into consciousness and e istence, to use Mar :s word. !onsciousness is consciousness. 4hought, however, ma&es this separation, these determinations of the ob@ect, into its component parts. ;e see ,eninism as a determination which reflects a certain stage of development of the perpetual movement. /ut ,eninism is a thought9determination. 4here is the proletariat, in capitalist societ%, at a certain stage of development. 4o isolate what we call ,eninism is a determination of thought. 4o isolate it as a fact and give it an independent life of its own, ah< Jesus, that is something that brings a terrible retribution. ,isten to 8egel even before he begins to develop the )eterminations of 6eflection, telling us how certain people get stuc&+ . . . the reflected determinations are of a &ind different from the merel% immediate determinations of /eing. Of the latter it is easil% admitted that the% are transitor% and merel% relative, related to something other, while the reflected determinations have the form of /eing9in9and9for9*elf. 4he% accordingl% assert themselves as essential, and instead of passing over into their opposites, the% appear rather as absolute, free, and indifferent to one another. 4he% therefore stubbornl% resist their movement+ their /eing is their selfidentit% in their determinateness, according to which, while presupposing one another, the% %et preserve themselves as absolutel% separate in this relation. ,eninism is ,eninism and *talinism is *talinism- the Bourth 'nternational is the Bourth 'nternational. 4his is giving them the form of /eing9in9and9for9*elf. 4he above e tract poses the problem. 4here is no need to ta&e ever%thing sentence b% sentence. A looser interpretation is here indicated. CAnd 8egel will sing this song for nearl% five hundred pages .D 'f %ou loo& at the immediate( determinations of being, %ou see ,eninism, and %ou sa%+ it will pass- things come and go. l remember the Brench consul in an island where ' sta%ed who told me that the Brench politician /riand was a socialist in his %outh, but there always arise people more to the left than %ou, which pushes %ou to the right. 4hat idea appears to have movement, but it ta&es /riand and those more left( than he as immediates(9 4he reflection is e ternal. And 8egel Cin the complete e tract = ' have left out some of the paragraphD sa%s it is eas% for serious thin&ers to throw these e ternal determinations aside. /ut when %ou thin& seriously, see the apparent being as merel% reflections of essence, then these determinations become themselves essential. 4he !ommune, the *econd 'nternational, ,eninism, *talinism, etc., become free(. 4he% become independent of life. 4he% live on after the% are dead, and what does live on is dead = for Jnderstanding. 7ou see, %ou know %ou are a superior thin&er. 4hese determinations %ou have traced to their roots. 4he% presuppose( one another of course(. ,eninism is in a wa%( connected with Menshevism, and *talinism comes from ,eninism. 4he% are in inseparable connection with developing capitalism and the developing proletariat. Of course, of course(, but %et the% are &ept separate(. 4he individual thin&er, having wor&ed hard, overcome vulgar common sense, and established these, holds tight on to them. 8is creative energ% is e hausted. Or his energ% for organisation of concrete things is such that he throws himself into organisation within these categories. 8e would ordinaril% do little harm. /ut when these marvellous, new categories were established, the% came from the impulses, will, desire, etc., of people. And there are alwa%s some people who, for ob ective reasons, wish to sta% right there. 4he% catch hold of this individual and ma&e him a hero. 4he ,ogic of Jnderstanding has a base. /ut there are some even more pathetic cases, and as ' thin& of this, ' am moved to tears. 4here is the powerful intellect and spirit which moves in categories that, once powerful in their da%, now have no

ob@ective base. ;hat wasted effort< ;hat vain sacrifices< 8egel &new. All the time he &eeps sa%ing+ 4hat is the enem%, thin&ing in the categories which were precise, but ac"uire independent life and do not move.( 8e is going to tell us about opposites and transition. 4hat is the main content of 5ssence. /ut before he begins he sa%s that this Jnderstanding t%pe of thought can strangle us before we can get started.

I&entit'( Difference an& Contra&iction( es)eciall' Contra&iction

;e now approach the core of 8egel:s s%stem, in the three noted above. 't must not, however, be forgotten that the larger Logic is nine hundred pages in all. 4a&e for e ample the "uestion of #round which follows these three. #round, sa%s 8egel, is the real self9mediation of 5ssence. OK. And then he is off. Absolute #round which is further determined into )etermined #round, which he further anal%ses into Bormal #round and 6eal #round, which finall% ends up as !omplete #round. /ut the sub9divisions of Absolute #round alone are CaD Borm and 5ssence, CbD Borm and Matter, CcD Borm and !ontent. 't is thirt%9four pages in all. ;hat the hell can we do with that? And %et it contains such crucial things as Borm and !ontent, 5 istence, Appearance, *ubstance, and so on and on. 7ou will read it for %ourselves. M% selections are arbitrar%. ;e ta&e bits. /ut in realit% there are no arbitrar% selections. !y purpose, my &nowledge of the Logic, my &nowledge of the labour movement, m% &nowledge of m% probable readers, are all at wor& deciding which bits ' shall ta&e. 'f m% &nowledge is not too superficial and m% purpose not too narrow, a real insight into the Logic will be given and a real insight into the labour movement too. /ut we must &now the limits of what we are doing. ;e are getting an idea of the thing, that:s all. 8owever, when it comes to 'dentit% and )ifference and !ontradiction, ' thin& we should ma&e some attempt to follow his abstract method, as we did to some degree in the )octrine of /eing. 4he% are, as ' sa%, the core. 4he treatment of 'dentit% in the smaller Logic is one of the most baffling and most irritating things in 8egel. ' suspect that a thorough &nowledge of the old9fashioned logic would help. 'n an% case 8egel seems to be sa%ing something li&e this+ 7ou see that tablecloth? 't is more than a tablecloth- a thorough &nowledge now of a tablecloth is absolutel% necessar% to understand logic- let us now go on to the ne t section.( M% e planation, as man% of m% e planations, undoubtedl% will commit violations. /ut %ou will probabl% learn something from it. ' have read numbers of brief e planations of 8egel and the Logic in particular, which e plained nothing. 4hat is wh% ' am using m% own method. As the translators of the larger Logic sa% "uite fran&l%+ ;e have no doubt that we have failed to understand the thought in man% places. ' too &now how eas% it is to misinterpret. /ut that need not deter us. Now = ' loo& at something and in m% view ' get a picture of it Chow ' could tear that formulation to pieces<D = boo&, stone, horse, house, labour movement, scientific theor%, dish of ice9cream. ' define it to m%self+ ' establish its identit%. ' can be "uite precise. ' sa%+ that house, ' designed it. ' built it. ' live in it. ' &now all about it. ' can describe it, ma%be ma&e an inventor%. 4hat house is that house. ;hat ' write on the paper, the plans, the photographs, the memories, etc., all correspond to that house. /ut the conception = that house, which ' thin& ' have established so clearl%, eludes me even as ' establish it. 4he house is changing. C' am changing too, but forget that, or rather put it aside for the moment.D 'n two %ears that house will be another house+ paint gone, holes in the roof, furniture waterlogged, grass growing in the patio. 'nstead of that house being in !lass A that house has degenerated into !lass !. 't happened in two %ears, but it was in realit% happening all the time. 4he whole e istence of the house is a struggle against precisel% such a degeneration. Now 8egel sa%s, and this is the first CbroadD statement of his particular 8egelian method, he sa%s+ ' who &now this, when ' loo& at the house, l must sa% = this house is, but at the same time it is not, or to be more precise, it is and it is not what it is, it is

also something else. 7ou find it in the boo&s as A is not e"ual to A. 4hat formula is the most misleading formula that could be. An% fool can agree with it, and an% fool can disagree. *impl% because b% itself it proves nothing. 7ou have to ta&e the whole of the 8egelian argument or %ou had better leave it alone. Bor 8egel, having established the uncertain character of 'dentit%, moves on at once to )ifference. And here he is e"uall% bold but a little easier to follow. 8e sa%s that if identit% implies difference, then e"uall% difference implies identit%. ' do not compare a camel to a Brench dictionar%. 4hose are merel% things which are unli&e- there is no difference( between them. *ure the% are different(, but that is a vulgar difference, as vulgar in its wa% as the identit% that house is house. ' can seriousl% compare the differences of two boo&s, two novels, two novels of the same period, two novels of the same author. )ifference, difference worth tal&ing about, can onl% e ist on the basis of some identit%. And identit% conversel% can onl% e ist on the basis of difference, this house is and is not that house. And this house toda% is not this house tomorrow or in two %ears: time. 'n fact 8egel sa%s at the moment %ou thin&, whether %ou &now it or not, %ou negate the e istent. 4his house is worth KI,333( means it was worth more and that tomorrow it will be worth onl% KG333, or if the inflation goes on, K03,333, Negroes and all. 'f ' am sa%ing that this house is worth KI,333, was alwa%s worth KI,333 and will alwa%s be worth KI,333, for ever and ever, 0 am sa%ing nothing, at least ' am not seriousl% thin&ing. 4hought has significance onl% when the house has relation to other houses which do not possess this priceless attribute of constantl% maintaining the price. 'dentit% means difference. )ifference means identit%. And now with a leap we can get into it. 8egel sa%s that this principle becomes important, in fact decisive, when %ou watch, ma&e a philosophical cognition, about a single ob@ect. ;ithin the identit% of an ob@ect, %ou have to establish the specific difference, and within its specific difference, %ou have to establish the identit%. 'f %ou have established the specific difference, the difference which belongs to the ob@ect, which distinguishes it from all other ob@ects and their differences, then %ou have the Other of the ob ect. 4he other is the difference that matters, the essential difference. /ut as it is special CessentialD difference to no other ob@ect, then Other is therefore identical with its ob@ect. 4o find that out is to find out what ma&es the ob@ect move. l loo& at bourgeois societ% and ' see capital, but labour is its other. 'n capital is essential difference, but both capital and labour are one identit%. ' thin& m%self that all this is thrilling. ,et us now ta&e this principle a little further, letting 8egel himself do most of the tal&ing, if even ' do not alwa%s use "uotes. 8e sa%s that this "uestion of essential difference within ever% identit% is the indispensable necessit% for philosophic cognition. ,ater he will tell us when %ou sa% father, %ou have in mind son. *on is interpenetrated with father. Bather has no meaning e cept in relation to son. Above has no meaning e cept in relation to below. 'f ' did not mean father in relation to son ' would not sa% father, ' would sa%+ man or baseball9pla%er or something, but then ' am loo&ing at another ob@ect or ob@ects. *o that simple, abstract identit% is a fiction, a deadl% trap for thinkers. 't is of the greatest importance to recognise this "ualit% of the )eterminations of 6eflection which have been considered here, that their truth consists onl% in their relation to each other, and therefore in the fact that each contains the other in its own concept. 4his must be understood and remembered, for without this understanding not a step can reall% be ta&en in philosoph%. "hat is how house is not merel% house. 8ouse is essentiall% a protection against Nature. *o that identical with house is its Other, destruction b% Nature. 8ouse can be a fort containing soldiers. *o identical with house in that connection is its destruction b% artiller%, etc. 8ouse can be also a source of

income. *o that identical with it is decline in rent. 5ver%thing has its own specific comple of relations, and the something has different comple es of relations which continue to give it a specific Other, in other words, control its movement. 4hat is a ver% important aspect of dialectic. And as 8egel loves to sa%, dialectic is not practised onl% b% philosophers. 4he real9estate merchant, the architect, all these people &now the particular Other of their house ver% well. 't is alwa%s in their concept. 4rue the dialectic of the house is as a rule on a ver% low level, e cept in case of Blorida hurricanes, fire, or runawa% inflation. /ut that 8egel &nows too. And he &nows too that where %ou e amine great social and intellectual forms in societ%, then %ou have got to remember that ever% ob@ect contains its Other in its own concept and ever% determination of thought has its other in its concept too. ,abour alwa%s has capital in its concept. 4hat is wh% labour in 02LG had the capital of 02LG in its concept, labour in 01G2 has the capital of 01G2 in its concept. Menshevism had ,eninism in its concept, and ,eninism had *talinism in its concept. 8ow *talinism? /ecause as long as the new organism, socialism, had not been achieved, the revolutionar% determination, ,eninism, would be attac&ed b% the reflection within it of the fundamental enem% of the proletariat, capital, and state capital within the labour movement is precisel% *talinism, as Menshevism was monopol% capital Cin its stage of super9profits from imperialismD within the labour movement. 7ou don:t know this? 7ou cannot move a foot. 't is worse. 7ou can move but in the wrong direction. 4heir truth consists onl% in their relation to each other. 5ach contains the other in its own concept. #now this. 6ead it in the two Logics. 6eflect on it. Bor if %ou don:t, %ou cannot think. 4heir truth consists onl% in their relation to each other. 4he truth of the labour movement consists onl% in its relation to capital. 8ow we have sweated to show that the truth of the Birst 'nternational can onl% be grasped in relation to the specific capital of the da%, that the *econd 'nternational had a similar relation, that the truth of the 4hird 'nternational, in relation to the Bourth 'nternational, must be the same. Jnderstand it and remember it. 6emember it. 6emember that Menshevism as a political tendenc% in the labour movement had its precise opposite, ,eninism. 4hat is the histor% of the *econd 'nternational, of the *econd 'nternational and no other. ;hen Menshevism reached its pea& it perished and ,eninism too& its place. 4hat is the wa% it went, and it could move no other wa%. 4he ,abour movement could move from the revolutionar% ideas of 0221 to 010H onl% b% wa% of an opposition, a transition through the growth of Menshevism, and b% overcoming it. C;e &now but we have to repeat that these represented ob@ective forces. /ut for the time being, let us concentrate on the process of thought.D ' don:t &now if %ou have it. A determination of reflection is identit% and difference. And the difference, the Other, emerges, becomes strong, and the 'dentit% has to overcome it, for identit% is the beginning of 5ssence, the movement forward. 4he histor% of the 4hird 'nternational is the histor% of the supersession of ,eninism b% *talinism. 8old the movement tight. 7ou see what was show is now more than show. 't is Other which forms the heartbrea&ing mountain that 'dentit% has to create and climb before it can reach the height to re9 establish itself as 'dentit% once more on a higher plane. 4hus the reflections of determination must be viewed. )o not give them a free, independent life of their own. 4he% will murder %ou. ,oo& into them. *ee their Other, and see if when something serious appears it is not Other which is coming out. 4hen %ou &now it, %ou can trace it, %ou &now wh% it is there, and %ou can mobilise forces to overcome it. /ut if %ou do not see it as )ifference in identit%, cruel, murderous, but Cgiven the ob@ective forcesD necessar% transition, then %ou rush off into fantastic e planations such as tools of the Kremlin( or the incapacit% of the wor&ers to understand politics and such li&e. Once more. 4hat which ultimatel% becomes the obstacle over which %ou must climb is an Other which was inside it, identical with it and %et essential difference. 'f the Bourth 'nternational is to supersede *talinism then it must contain( *talinism in its concept of itself. 't begins from all the things that *talinism too& over from ,eninism and &ept Cob@ective forces

bring out Other = different ob@ective forces would bring out a different OtherD. 4he moment %ou thin&, or allow it to lur& in %our mind that the wor&ers are bac&ward or deceived, %ou repudiate two or three decades of histor% and %our concept contains as its opposite, Menshevism. 7ou then fight a ghost. 4he /ritish wor&ers, the American wor&ers are not Menshevi&, neither are the wor&ers in Norwa% and *weden. A poll ta&en a few months ago in all the 5uropean countries showed that over si t% per cent of the populations were read% to abolish customs duties, integrate economies, etc. ;hat was vanguardism in ,enin:s da% is now an essential part of the whole populations. 4he Other of Menshevism was ,eninism. 4he Other of *talinism is an international socialist economic order, embracing from the start whole continents. 4heir truth consists onl% in relation to each other. 5ach contains the other in its own concept. 't goes forward b% overcoming this specific opposite. ;e have not laboured in vain. ;e have now C' hopeD grasped without &nowing what 8egel means b% his great principle of contradiction.

Contra&iction
4he most important pages in the )octrine of 5ssence ' have found to be Observation F of the larger Logic. ' thin& when we have finished with this the hump will be behind us, though much will remain to be done. 8egel in his tantalising wa% begins b% tal&ing calml% about 'dentit%, Mariet% and Opposition, which he calls the primar% determinations of 6eflection. ' preferred to tal& about 'dentit% )ifference and !ontradiction. #o loo& them up %ourself if %ou want to. 4hen he sa%s that contradiction is the root of all movement and life and onl% through it an%thing moves and has impulse and activit%. 5ver%bod%, ever% Mar ist, &nows those statements. 4hen 8egel does something ver% characteristic. 8e sa%s that in regard to the assertion of some people that contradiction does not e ist, we ma% disregard this statement(. Just leave it. Birst of all he is, blessed man, not a politician. 'n politics %ou cannot disregard opponents. *econdl% he cannot begin b% proving such a statement. 4o as& him to do this is, he considers, unscientific. 4he proof is all that he will sa% and the conclusions that he will reach. 'f %ou don:t li&e it go %our wa%. 4hen after a lot of the same paneg%ric to contradiction, he ends+ *peculative thought consists onl% in this, that thought holds fast !ontradiction, and, in !ontradiction, itself, and not in that it allows itself to be dominated b% it = as happens to imagination = or suffers its determinations to be resolved into other, or into Nothing . 7ou have not got "uite simple insight( into what this means, ' am "uite sure when %ou do %ou understand dialectic. Jntil %ou have that simple insight %ou do not understand it. 4o get that simple insight is going to be a @ob. ,et us get down to it. 7ou remember that each contains the other in its own concept. ' tal&ed about organisation and spontaneit%, part% and mass, politics and economics. 4o sa% that each of these concepts must contain the other is to ma&e a profound but general statement. Much wor& has been done in /olshevism to show that politics contains economics in its concept. $o work, absolutel% none, has been done on the others, e cept for some marvellous beginnings b% ,enin. C4he sub@ects of organisation and spontaneit%, part% and mass, were not urgent in Mar :s da%.D As ' said+ to sa% that the truth of part% consists in its relation with mass, the truth of organisation consists in its relation to spontaneit%, is to sa% an abstract truth, but still important truth, a beginning.

4he one concept has life and movement because of the opposition of the other. 't moves because of the other, because the other moves. 't cannot move otherwise. And thought must &now this and hold it. ,oo& at 8egel:s actual procedure in the Logic. ;e begin with 'dentit%. 4hat became difference. 8e has now carried it to contradiction. %ach is carried to its limit and so becomes a point of transition for its opposite. 4hat is how "ualit% becomes "uantit%. 4hat is how "uantit% became measure. 4hat, then, is what 8egel is getting at b% his treatment of identit%, )ifference, !ontradiction, Mariet%, Opposition and his statement that contradiction is the source of all movement. ;hen %ou observe what is an apparent identit%, &now that within it the contradictions e ist, the essential differences. 8ow will %ou &now? 'n that anno%ing section in the smaller Logic dealing with 'dentit% he uses a superb phrase, 'dentit% is the idealit% of /eing(. 4he difference is first in %our head, the 'dea. C' as&ed %ou, remember, not to forget this, but to put it aside.D ;hat happens in %our head when %ou loo& at something can never be a simple reflection, an ordinar% identit% with it. 7ou &now where it is going, what it is aiming at. 't has its being, the being is concrete, but its essence is that, because of its Other, it will move in a certain direction and %our 'dea tells %ou how to search for the !ontradiction. ;ithout that %ou cannot thin&. ,oo& at what passes in the Mar ist movement toda% as anal%sis of organisation. 4rots&%, we repeat, having failed for %ears to understand ,enin on organisation(, in 010H was converted- and this is what is true, forthwith converted it into a fetish, i.e. a persistent Jnderstanding. Bor that is what fetishism is. C4he *talinists did the same.D ,enin:s principles of organisation( are toda% on all lips. 4he% have become a complete abstraction, Jnderstanding. 4hat %ou can thin& of organisation onl% in relation to its opposite, spontaneit%, this nobod%, not a single soul, ever sa%s a word about. ' shall ta&e this up concretel% before long, but for the time being let us listen to 8egel and understand him. 8e tells us first the wa% 'magination thin&s and b% 'magination Cwe had it a few minutes agoD 8egel means the &ind of thought that deals onl% with what is familiar. Note what he calls it = 'magination. At first sight it seems incongruous. /ut ' thin& he wants to contrast it with scientific method, anal%sis. 'n an% case+ 4hus although imagination ever%where has !ontradiction for content, it never becomes aware of it, it remains an e ternal reflection, which passes from ,i&eness to Jnli&eness . . . 't &eeps these two determinations e ternal to each other, and has in mind onl% these, not their transition, which is the essential matter and contains the !ontradiction. $ote their transition. "hat is the essential matter. 4he transition shows the contradiction. 6emember the growth of /ernsteinism within the revolutionar% *econd 'nternational in contradiction to the whole essential aim and purpose of the organisation- and after this growth the brea& of 010G9E0, the point of the transition, when the revolutionar% proletariat overcomes this and reasserts its essential purpose on a higher plane. 7ou nod %our head and sa%+ %es, %es, OK. ' have it, ' have it. /alone%. 7ou will be a little more chastened, %ou will be much more chastened later, but %ou will be a little chastened now when %ou reflect that ,enin never saw this, until after, and 4rots&% it can trul% be said never saw it = up to 01EF at least he was singing the same old tune. *o a little modest% please while we go on. 'magination, in so far as it is revolutionar%, sees *talinism here, and democratic socialism( over there- and never sees them, their identit% or their unit% as opposites. 't does not see that the labour

movement, being what it is in essence, the bureaucratic, criminal, organisational domination of *talinism, will form inevitabl% the point of transition for another stage higher. 't sees the degrading organisation and in despair Cor hopeD scans the horiAon loo&ing for salvation. 4he 8egelian dialectic &eeps its e%es glued on the *talinist organisation for it &nows that the Other of it is there. Now see 8egel:s chief enem% Jnderstanding ma&e its bow+ On the other hand intelligent reflection, if we ma% mention this here, consists in the understanding and enunciating of !ontradiction. 't does not e press the concept of things and their relations and has onl% determinations of imagination for material and content- but still it relates them, and the relation contains their contradiction, allowing their concept to show through the contradiction. Jnderstanding is the same as intelligent reflection. Jnderstanding cannot, does not e press the concept of things and their relations. 'ts determinations are what is familiar to it, not what is familiar in general but what is familiar to it, what once it wor&ed out. 't operates with bureaucracies which are unalterabl% tied to private propert%, and reformist internationals which alwa%s in crisis defend private propert% and the national state, things familiar to it. /ut Jnderstanding relates these determinations = it thin&s, it has perspectives. 't sa%s, this is what it is, and this is what it ought to be.( 7ou are able to glimpse the genuine concept. 't shows through the contradiction. 't is possible to have a more @ust, a more precise appraisal of the nature of 4rots&%:s writings? And now to see what the% are, b% seeing still more clearl% what the% are not. ,et us see how the true )ialectic, 4hin&ing 6eason, handles these things. 4his is a clause b% clause section. ' hope %ou get it the first time. ;e wor&ed hard enough. 4hin&ing 6eason, on the other hand, sharpens Cso to spea&D the blunt difference of Mariet%, the mere manifold of imagination, into essential difference, that is, Opposition. Magnificent. MA#9nificent. 'magination sees a lot of various things, and sees them as ,i&e and Jnli&e, a manifold variet%. 6eflection, Jnderstanding, relates them and shows how the% contradict each other. *ee how *talinism contradicts a true revolutionar% organisation. /ut 6eason, 6eason, catches hold of the variet% and see&s out the Opposition, the !ontradiction, and drives them together, ties them together, ma&es one the Other of the other. 4hen things happen. 4he manifold entities ac"uire activit% and liveliness in relation to one another onl% when driven on the sharp point of !ontradiction. 4hat is it. ;hen the% are both @ammed together, loc&ed together, each in the other, that is the guarantee of their movement. ;hen %ou concentrate all attention on the contradiction between *talinist bureaucratism and the necessit% of the proletariat for free creative activit%, then all the phenomena begin to move. 4he% do this onl% when the contradiction is at its sharpest. 8egel means that we can see the movement, onl% when we have clarified the contradiction = thence the% draw negativit%( . ?uite so. 4he negativit% of the free creative activit% of the proletariat can onl% come completel% into pla% when it is in contradiction with a concrete obstacle, something which, to release its own nature, it must overcome. 't is the unbearable nature of the contradiction that creates negativit%, which is the inherent pulsation of self9movement and liveliness(. 4hus it is not a blemish, a fault, a deficienc% in a thing if a !ontradiction is to be found in it. 4hat is its life.

On the contrar%, ever% determination, ever% concrete, ever% concept is essentiall% a union of distinguished and distinguishable moments, which pass over through determinate and essential difference into contradictor% moments. ' wonder if %ou have got the e treme, the unparalleled boldness of that statement. ' can well imagine so man% of the people we &now sa%ing, 8egel, there is something in what %ou sa%. /ut as usual %ou exaggerate.( %very determination. %very concrete. %very concept. 4hat is his wa% of sa%ing ever%thing has these moments, these oppositions- one of them is the opposite of what is the real, the essential nature of the organism. /% its struggle against this the organism finds more of its real, its genuine nature. ;riters on American political econom%, writers on American histor%, students of #ree& drama, writers on the development of unions, all of %ou, get this into %our bones. 't is not simple. *trive to see it, to see it simpl%(, as 8egel said in the 'ntroduction. 'f there is no sharp contradiction, then there is no movement to spea& of and there is stagnation, a compromise. 4hat is the onl% reason wh% there is compromise and stagnation = because the contradiction is not sharp enough. 4he paragraph isn:t concluded %et, but ' propose to sta% here for a while. Birst of all, listen to 8egel again, in the smaller Logic. Just as he approaches the clima of his wor&, his e position of the Absolute 'dea. 'n the course of its process the 'dea creates that illusion, b% setting an antithesis to confront it- and its action consists in getting rid of the illusion which it has created. Onl% out of this error does the truth arise. 'n this fact lies the reconciliation with error and with finitude. 5rror or other9being, when superseded, is still a necessar% d%namic element of truth+ for truth can onl% be where it ma&es itself its own result. 'f %ou had to write this, %ou would &now the bowed admiration with which ' read phrases li&e necessar% d%namic element of truth( to describe error- and the ma@est%, the completeness of the phrase truth can onl% be where it ma&es itself its own result(. 4he proletariat itself will smash *talinism to pieces. 4his e perience will teach it its final lesson, that the future lies in itself, and not in an%thing which claims to represent it or direct it. 4his is the thing that people glibl% write as thesis, antithesis and s%nthesis. ;ho ever understood that? Ma%be a lot of other people understood it well and ' was @ust dumb. /ut it too& me a long, long time to see it, to get it in m% bones, to get simple insight( into it ever%where, in ever%thing. ;hat am ' sa%ing? 4he thing constantl% evades me, but ' chase it. A few things of great importance can be said at once, one general, and one particular. /% this doctrine, 8egel gets rid of that tendenc% to ignore realit% or to be overwhelmed b% it, which is alwa%s lur&ing around to hold our movement b% the throat. 8e had the utmost contempt for people who tried to brush awa% the harsh, the cruel, the bitter concrete, the apparently unadulterated evil. 4his is the wa%, and the onl% wa% that truth and the good come. 4hus he could sa% that the real was rational. 8owever evil realit% might be, it had its place, its function in the scheme of development. 4he great idealist, the man of ;orld9*pirit, etc., did not depend on ;orld9*pirit concretel% to teach people an%thing. 4herefore he was the last man to e pect people to be inspired, to see the light, to recognise( that we( were right all the time, or worst of all to be educated( b% a few gifted people. 'n fact he believed that *pirit, conscious &nowledge, was onl% the province of a few philosophers. As far as great masses or classes of people learnt an%thing, the% learnt it concretel% in struggle against some concrete thing. 8egel:s doctrine was reactionar% but that isn:t what concerns us here. ;hat does concern us is this. 8e would have laughed to scorn the idea that an% part% would teach the masses free

creative activit%. 8e would have said instead+ the% will find themselves inevitabl% up against such a s%stem of oppression, bureaucrac%, manipulation and corruption within their own arena, their own e istence, that the% will have to overcome it to live, and free creative activit% can onl% come into e istence when it is faced with something that onl% free activit% and free activit% alone can overcome. 4hat is the point of transition to a higher stage of e istence. 4here is no other. 4he *talinist bureaucracies thus become a stage of development. Bree creative activit% becomes immeasurabl% more concrete in our heads. Our notion of socialism changes and we see the harsh realit% differentl%. And finall%, note that the Logic itself moves b% @ust this method of opposition, transition, timeliness. 8is anal%sis of identit%, variet%, opposition, ground, actualit%, etc., particularl% in the )octrine of 5ssence, alwa%s represents, as he tells us, pairs of correlatives. One of them becomes overwhelming, it threatens to disrupt the whole process, the other overcomes it, and we find ourselves further on. 4hat is how identit% splits into difference- difference appears @ust as variet%, but variet%, variet%, variet% all over the place ma&es no sense- the manifold variet% either disintegrates into craAiness Cand this happens- it means onl% that the ob@ect as such comes to an endD or this manifold variet% cr%stallises into opposition. And so on. ' thin& we got some place. /ac& now to the rest of the page. ' attach great methodological importance to this page. Among other reasons ' have it on m% conscience for the wa% ' am @umping from place to place and the still bigger @umps ' am going to ma&e. C8egel would not be too angr%. 8e would sa%+ 4his impertinence of James, this undoubted evil is a necessar% point of transition to some people so that the% will read the whole boo&.D 4he thirt% pages of #round which ' shall probabl% s&ip are on m% conscience. /ut this page happens to sa% a great deal which will cover #round C' hopeD. *o here goes. ' thin& ' shall write freel% and then "uote lengthil%. 5ver% concept there has these opposing movements. One becomes ob@ectionable, evil, and this forms the bridge, the transition, for the real nature of the concept, to show itself. /ut when this overcoming does ta&e place, what happens? 4he new thing is a resolved contradiction. 't is, isn:t it? /ernsteinism has been overcome. 4hat contradiction is resolved. /ut inasmuch as the complete nature of the organism has not been revealed, i.e. socialism has not been achieved as %et, ,eninism contains a new contradiction. Now this thing Cforgive me, philosophical friends = for !hrist:s sa&e, ' need no forgiveness, ' have @ust seen that 8egel himself calls it thing(D . . . now this thing that is alwa%s producing contradictions, resolving them, and then finding new contradictions, this is the sub ect or the concept. 't is not %et the complete, the concrete Absolute, i.e. the proletariat, self9conscious, self9 acting, beginning the real histor% of humanit%. 4he 6ussian wor&ers were not that in 010H. 't is therefore finite, as %et limited. 4herefore contradictor%. 't still has negation before it. 4he finite, limited multiplicit%, the manifold of which it consists, has a certain identit%, a unit%. /ut it constitutes a variet%, and this variet% can be seen to form itself into an opposition- we have a contradiction. /ut at an% rate it is unified once more read% for the business of further splitting up and further negation. C7ou remember the last e tract from the Phenomenology?D 4hese stages of unification of resolved contradiction when 5ssence prepares for negation show us what is the real nature of the thing = its #round. 4he fact that it &eeps on finding higher and richer #rounds, that is its 5ssence. ;henever it sets up a good strong concrete stage of resolved contradiction we can see what is its #round. On the contrar%, ever% determination, ever% concrete, ever% concept is essentiall% a union of distinguished and distinguishable moments, which pass over through determinate and essential difference into contradictor% moments. 't is true that this contradictor% concretion resolves itself into nothing = it passes bac& into its negative unit%. Now the thing, the sub@ect, or the concept is itself @ust this negative unit%+ it is contradictor% in itself, but also it is resolved !ontradiction- it is the #round which contains and supports its determinations. 4he thing, sub@ect, or concept, as intro9refracted in its sphere, is its resolved

!ontradiction- but its whole sphere again is determinate and various- it is therefore finite, and this means contradictor%. 'tself it is not the resolution of this higher !ontradiction- but it has a higher sphere for its negative unit% or #round. Accordingl%, finite things in the indifferent multiplicit% are simpl% this fact, that, contradictor% in themselves, the% are intro9refracted and pass bac& into their #round. 8ere comes now a superb piece of anal%sis, the maestro at his best. ' shall again refrain from clause9 b%9clause anal%sis, difficult as it is. ' shall interpret freel% and %ou will have the passage. Matthew Arnold in a famous piece of criticism sa%s that %ou should &now certain passages in poetr% b% heart and let them act as a test and touchstone of other poetr%. 4he method has its dangers, but on the whole it is good. ;ith the Logic it is even more so. 7ou must have some passages that %ou will read and re9 read. 4he% are more than a test. 4he% are a handrail. ;ith the more intricate passages, being bus% with other things, ' forget what ' &now. ' patientl% have to re9educate m%self. 4hese long "uotations, in a conte t, with e amples of familiar material serve this purpose too. 7ou begin to understand and to use the Logic when %ou read these and begin to dig with them into material of %our own.

%ro*n&: the Proof of the A+sol*te

;e have been Ccontinues 8egelD inferring the necessit% of an essential, continuous, infinite movement from watching and anal%sing a fi ed, limited series of determinations. ;e shall have to e amine this procedure later. /ut we must remember that we do not ma&e this inference because the being, the determination, persists, becomes a #round, brea&s up, becomes another #round, being much the same all the time. Not at all. 't is because the limited, finite, determination constantl% collapses and transcends itself that we can infer continuous motion. ,et us stop here a minute. 't is not one 'nternational that tries a certain form, and when this fails, tries another form, and when this fails, tries another form Cnot the same people of course, but the same organisationD. No. ;e could not draw an% conclusions from that. 4he Birst 'nternational is one entit%. 't collapses. A new one is formed, and this shows us the #round of these formations. 't has the same aim and purpose as the first, though now enriched, developed, concretised. 4hat collapses. A new one is formed. 4hus whatever form it ma% accidentall% ta&e Ccontingenc%D we can see that it posits something fundamental to it, i.e. shows that this something will appear in the course of negation of the finite. 'n ordinar% thin&ing the Borm, the constantl% appearing 'nternationals, seem to be the #round of our idea of a full% developed, concrete, international socialism some da%. 4he Absolute 'dea e ists because the finite concretions &eep appearing. No, sa%s 8egel Cand he is right as ' shall demonstrate in a momentD. 4he Absolute conception e ists precisel% because the finite 'nternationals are alwa%s collapsing. 4he first commonsense thin&ing sa%s+ the continued appearance of 'nternationals shows that there is an Absolute. 4he 8egelian dialectic sa%s+ the fact that all these 'nternationals lac& so much, struggle and collapse, this is the proof of the e istence of an absolute. ;e do not add the different ones and come to a conclusion. No. As we watch them striving, failing but alwa%s incorporating, we recognise that the% are e pressing a movement to something prior to their contingent appearance. ' have a suspicion that ' have vulgarised this somewhat+ %ou will read for %ourself. 8egel is dealing here with a strictl% philosophical problem and what ' have written is horator%. ' don:t mind reall% because he is going to come bac& to this and b% the time he is finished with it, all our opponents will shrin& from argument. ' feel confident that the truth of the philosophical problem posed is contained in

m% vulgarisation, and that 8egel has this at the bac& of his head. 7ou cannot prove inevitabilit% or certaint% merely from repetition of the concrete. 7ou cannot prove inevitabilit% or certaint% from a constant series of empirical facts, however often repeated. 4hat the sun has risen ever% da% for a million %ears is no proof that it will rise tomorrow. Bor absolute certaint% %ou must have a philosophical conception, which has its own unsha&eable basis. 8egel sought logical tightness in the ;orld9*pirit. Mar found it in his philosophical concept of the nature of man9activit%. ' ta&e 8egel to be sa%ing here that 5ssence is a movement and we can be sure it is see&ing an Absolute because ever% form is finite, see&ing something further. /ut if %our proof of the Absolute is the merel% finite appearance, then ever% limitation, ever% collapse that is not an immediate and obvious resolution of contradiction into #round is a terrible blow. /ut to @ump a little, if %ou have Absolute in %our head, for this is what it amounts to, then the finitude, limitations, etc., become stages of advance, and above all advance in thought. 't is obvious that involved here is the inevitabilit% of socialism. ;e have seen this wea&ness which 8egel is warning against in the last few %ears so near home and in such high places that we can spend a little more time on this. 8egel &new that %ou had to have a certaint% that did not depend upon limited fi ed determinations and categories. 't had to depend on something else, and this, in the last anal%sis, is what drove him to ;orld9*pirit. 5lsewhere :N we have treated the inevitabilit% of socialism as a necessit% of logical thin&ing in dialectical terms. /ut it is wise to recall here that this necessit% of having some ultimate goal between %our present stage as the twin poles between which %our thoughts must move, this also is the product of e perience. $hilosophers and great men of action have alwa%s thought in that manner. Bew things are more amusing that the passage from !orinthians, '.0I, which is read at 5piscopalian burial services. *t $aul:s inevitabilit% of socialism( was that the dead rise again. 't seems that some tired radicals in !orinth had sneered at the comrades there, as&ing them+ 7ou believe in the resurrection of the dead? 8ow are the dead raised up, and with what bod% do the% come? $aul unloosed all his forces and it is a tour de force of gorgeous rhetoric, sophistr% and passionate conviction. 8e said point9blan&+ ,et this go and ever%thing else goes. 4he $uritans were the same. &t was ordained, the% said. *ame with the philosophers of the eighteenth centur%. Just get rid of the reaction and the reason inherent in all things will ta&e over. 't is the merit, not the wea&ness of 8egel, that he saw the necessit% of giving this a solid logical foundation. 4he empiricists call it teleolog%, religion and all sorts of abusive names. ' have dealt with them in 'ialectical !aterialism and the (ate of )umanity, and shown the contradictions in which the% find themselves. 8ere is the final e tract. 4he nature of the true inference of an absolutel% necessar% 5ssence from a finite and contingent entit% will be considered below. *uch an essence is not inferred from the finite and contingent entit% as from a /eing which both is and remains #round, but, as is also implied immediatel% in contingenc%, this absolute necessit% is inferred from a merel% collapsing and self9contradicting /eing9 or rather it is demonstrated that contingent /eing passes automaticall% bac& into its #round, where it transcends itself = and, further, in this retrogression it posits #round in such a manner onl% that it ma&es itself into the posited element. 'n an ordinar% inference the /eing of the finite appears as the #round of the absolute+ the absolute is because the finite is. 4he truth, however, is that the absolute is @ust because the finite is self9contradictor% opposition = @ust because it is not. 'n the former meaning an inference

runs thus+ 4he /eing of the finite is the /eing of the absolute- = but in the latter+ 4he Not9being of the finite is the /eing of the absolute. ' hope %ou get it. ' thin& it is a beautiful e ample of 8egel:s method. 4his is all we can do+ give some idea of what #round is and wh% it is necessar%. 5ssence is a movement. 't is the anal%sis of #round which tells us e actl% what that movement is+ Our abstract little spirit who didn:t &now what he was b% his futile becomings was b% degrees establishing some #round. 'f %ou want more #round, there it is.

Re,ie- an& Leninist Interl*&e

E!!ENCE I! A M"#EMENT "$ NE%ATI"N

' feel guilt% as hell. ;e are now onl% at p. 23 of 5ssence. ' pass b% #round loo&ing firml% at the other side. *ubstance, Necessit%, 6eciprocit%, all of them ' am going to pass b%. ' shall ma&e some strictl% ad hoc notes on Appearance and Actualit%, and then over to Notion. /ut let us review a little and then loo& for some help. ;e are dealing with thought. ;e learnt to loo& at the "ualit% of a thing and its

dialectical movement into something else. ;e then saw that when we loo&ed at it, what we saw was not a photograph, an identit%. No, we saw difference within identit% and identit% within difference. ;e saw too that in our heads was an 'dea which enabled us to distinguish the specific differences. ;e saw the importance of !ontradiction, the fundamental relation of good and evil, truth and error, the process of transition. 4he ob@ect does not move into something else- it shows the Other contained in it. ;e are learning how to e amine an ob@ect and how to e amine thoughts about an ob@ect. 's #round the next transition after !ontradiction? )oes Appearance arise inevitabl% out of 5 istence? ' doubt if 8egel would maintain all that in detail. 4hese determinations in 5ssence are, it must be remembered, )eterminations of 6eflection. 4he% are creations of thought, but creations which reflect the ob@ect, enable us to ta&e it apart and put it together again, and first of all in our heads. ;e are going to the concept of Notion = the notion of the thing. ;e worr% it as a dog worries a bone. 4hat is what 5ssence teaches. /ut before we ta&e up the concepts of Appearance and Actualit% we would do well to see what a remar&able intelligence, trained in the same sphere as we have been trained, made of the Logic, and e amine his thin&ing with this in view. ;e need a little rest. 5ssence is the hardest part of the Logic, sa%s 8egel, and we still have a long wa% to go. ,enin in 010G found himself in Ourich, with the world that he had &nown and his categories brea&ing to pieces. 8e did not get e cited and start to ma&e the revolution b% himself. 8e had a policy and he fought for it, but he recognised that ever%thing was in a melting pot. 8e wrote above all &mperialism and *tate and Revolution. 8e studied the Phenomenology of !ind, and he wor&ed at 8egelian Logic. 8e made notes on the Logic. ;e have e tracts and comments. *idne% 8oo& once told me that there wasn:t much to them. ?uite right. Bor him, there wasn:t much. 4he Mar ist movement swears b%. . . $le&hanov. ' remember on m% @ourne%s between Missouri and New 7or& stopping at ;ashington and 6ae, calling out an at9sight translation from ,enin:s 6ussian notes and m% scribbling them down. ' still have the noteboo&. 4hat the% are not published means one thing = contempt for the masses. 7es, precisel%. "hey don:t need it, they are not up to it. And therefore the part% does not need it. Onl% when %ou have respect for the masses do %ou have respect for the part%. 4here is nothing in these notes for 8oo& the academician. 4here is plent% for us in seeing what struc& the mind of the great revolutionar% as he read, with the %ears of 6ussian /olshevism stored up in his mind and the perspective of world revolution before him. 4here is space for onl% a few things. /ut the% stand out. 'n reading on ?ualit% in the )octrine of /eing, ,enin writes in ver% large writing+ ,5A$ ,5A$ ,5A$ ,5A$ 4his obviousl% hit him hard. 8e wanted it stuc& down in his head, to remember it, alwa%s. 8e ma&es a note on it as follows+ At the basis of the concept of gradualness of emergence lies the idea that the emerging is alread% sensuousl% or reall% in e istence, onl% on account of its smallness not %et perceptible and li&ewise with the concept of the gradualness of disappearance.

,et us loo& up the e tract itself+ 4he gradualness of arising is based upon the ideas that that which arises is alread%, sensibl% or otherwise, actuall% there, and is imperceptible onl% on account of its smallness- and the gradualness of vanishing on the idea that Not9being or the Other which is assuming its place e"uall% is there, onl% is not %et noticeable- there, not in the sense that the Other is contained in the Other which is there in itself, but that it is there as )eterminate /eing, onl% unnoticeable. 4his altogether cancels arising and passing awa%+ or the 'n9itself, that inner somewhat in which something is before it attains )eterminate /eing, is transmuted into a smallness of e ternal )eterminate /eing and the essential or conceptual distinction into a difference e ternal and merel% magnitudinal. 4he procedure which ma&es arising and passing awa% conceivable from the gradualness of change is boring in the manner peculiar to tautolog%- that which arises or passes awa% is prepared beforehand, and the change is turned into the mere changing of an e ternal distinction- and now it is indeed a mere tautolog%. 4he difficult% for such Jnderstanding which attempts to conceive consists in the "ualitative transition of something into its Other in general and into its opposite- Jnderstanding prefers to fanc% identit% and change to be of that indifferent and e ternal &ind which applies to the "uantitative. Jnderstanding once more gets the blows. 4his is a passage of great importance and ,enin has summarised it perfectl% with his ,5A$ ,5A$ ,5A$ ,5A$. 4he new thing ,5A$* out. 7ou do not loo& and see it small and growing larger. 't is there, but it e ists first in thought. 4hought &nows it is the ob@ect. 7ou haven:t to see it Cthough if %ou &now it is there %ou can see signs and point them outD. 8egel is bored to tears at people who &eep loo&ing for e ternal signs and the mere magnitudinal( as proof. ,enin did not fasten on this for nothing. 8e said+ 4urn the 'mperialist ;ar into !ivil ;ar.( 8ow man% sincere opponents of imperialism recoiled in horror. 4oo rash, too crude, not now.( C4rots&% was among themD. ,enin would not budge. 4he socialist movement against imperialism would establish itself on the concrete transition = the opposition to the monstrous evil of the war. 8e didn:t have to wait to see an%thing. 4hat was there. 't would ,5A$ up. ' was particularl% struc& b% this in ,enin. 8egel is ver% irritating. 8e stic&s to method. 8e does not shout. /ut ever% single one of his transitions involves a leap. 8e tal&s ver% "uietl% about impulse, etc. /ut %ou can go on reading for a long time and not get the true significance of the leap. ' did not emphasise it. 8e held on to it. On the )octrine of 5ssence, ,enin fastens on to precisely the same thing. ,oo& at this remar&able note on Observation F. Movement and self9movement( CN/ this. An independent spontaneous, internally necessary movementD, alteration(, movement and life(, principle of ever% self9movement(, impulse(, CdriveD to movement( and to activit%( = opposite of dead being( = who would believe that this is the core of 8egelianism(, of abstract and abstruse Cdifficult, absurd?D 8egelianism. ;e must uncover this core, grasp it, save( unveil, purif% it = which Mar and 5ngels have also accomplished. 4hat is something vital. *elf9movement. *pontaneous activit%. ;e shall meet them again. 7ou wait. 4his is what we must hold on to, grasp, unveil, purif%(. ;e can sa% that we have done some. 4his movement, activit%, spontaneous, internall% necessar%. 4he man of organisation &new what moved the world, especiall% the social world. 8egel could write about thoughts for decades, but this was the drive, and it made ,5A$* Cfour of them at onceD. On Observation F see notes among other things+

N/ 0. 4he usual perception comprehends the difference and the contradiction but not the transition from one to the other, which however, is the most important. ;e shall come bac& to ,enin again. /ut let us sit and write in large print on our notes+ ,5A$, *$ON4AN5OJ* A!4'M'47, *5,B9MOM5M5N4, etc. etc. ;here he wrote it four times, we should write it fort%9four. 4he past point from ,enin is important not onl% in itself but for us, in this study. And it comes right in here. 4hese last notes of ,enin that we must ta&e up will be rather length%. 4hat is because the% have tremendous value for us, CaD in themselves as a review of the past, CbD as teaching the interconnectedness of the various parts of the Logic and the underl%ing unit% of the method at all stages, CcD illuminate the closing parts of the )octrine of 5ssence %et to come, CdD show us the 8egelian method of thought and action of ,enin+ i.e. of a revolutionar%P and CeD prepare us for the last historical stage of this essa%+ ,enin:s own wor&, for which and from which alone we can @ump off and fl% for ourselves. 4hat is a mouthful but ever% bit of it is @uic%. And ' hope no one is impatient. ,et us see where we are. ;e did the )octrine of 5ssence up to #round. ;e discussed the "uestion of how %ou arrive at 'nevitabilit%, the Absolute. ;e promised to ta&e up onl% Appearance and Actualit% as two further stages of the Notion. ;e then went into a ,eninist interlude and review. ;e saw ,enin:s emphasis on the ,5A$ Cfour timesD- and on constant movement, spontaneous internall% necessar% self9activit% . ;e noted that the whole Logic itself, the continuous transitions from this #round to that #round, to the other #round to !omplete #round, was @ust this continuous self9generating, spontaneous activit%, though the activit% had a certain order which it was the business of thought to organise in accordance with the laws immanent in it, i.e. the laws of its own development. #ood. ;e are now about to ta&e up a note of ,enin:s which opened up a formidable perspective of benefits, both for the past review and future developments. ;ho now is tired can ta&e a rest, and after a nap, can start off afresh. ,et:s go. 4he note itself is ver% slight. 't arises from *ection ' of the larger Logic on ?ualit%. 't sa%s+ 4he idea of the transformation of the ideal into the real is profound- ver% important for histor%. /ut also in the personal life of a man, it is evident that in this there is much truth. Against vulgar materialism. N/+ 4he difference between idea and material is in an% case, not unconditional, not e travagant. 4hat:s all. ' loo&ed up the section and glanced through it again. 't is some hundred pages long. 't is in the )octrine of /eing, mind %ou, the first section, in fact, the real beginning of the Logic. 8egel is grappling with words that he alwa%s has in mind, finite and infinite. ;hat is the true infinit%? Binite( is a fi ed, limited determination or categor%. 4he infinite is not simpl% something that is beyond the finite. 4hat he sa%s is nothing, a bad infinite. C#et %our thin&ing muscles in order. *it up and ta&e noticeD. 4he infinite is not something in general that is be%ond what we &now as actual. 't is the fact that what is be%ond the finite comes bac&, and accomplishes a return to the finite and &eeps on doing this, that ma&es it a true infinit%. 4he be%ond, the infinite, is not abstract or indeterminate /eing, something we &now nothing about, our old monster, Nothing. 't, the infinite, the be%ond, is self9related /eing, because to come into e istence at all the infinite is going to have to negate the finite. 't is thus a negating force. And whatever negates is something present. 'f we ma% here use a metaphor+ 'nfinite is the Other of the finite. /ut 'nfinite is not negation in general. 't is the bad infinite which negates the e isting and puts nothing in its place. 4hat is vague fanc%, caprice, and nonsense Cor mere reflectionD. *ocialism is not a vague, ros%9coloured picture of infinite beaut% and truth and love,

something be%ond our miserable life. *ocialism, the be%ond, is the concrete negation of what we have = *talinism. 4he overcoming of *talinism is the ne t stage of infinit% = and for m% part the wor&ing class toda% when it overcomes *talinism, i.e. the +capitalising, of the concept of the proletarian party, that wor&ing class, having overcome this, is trul% socialistic. Bor that matter when it overcomes its main enem%, capital, and the brutalities of fascism, inflation, imperialist war, the destructive, the class elements in modern industr%, that is socialism = the onl% infinite that there is. /ut wh% does the infinite for some people remain a /e%ond, a far distant? And then comes a &noc&9out blow. 4hat is in the last anal%sis, based on the fact that the finite as such is held fast as e istent.( 4hat is the mentalit% which sees socialism in the far distance and is reall% chained to the idea that what the wor&ers want is a higher standard of living, a full dinner9pail(, peace(, securit%(, full emplo%ment(. All he has done is to hold fast to the e istent, ma&ing it tolerable b% patching up the holes. 4hat is the ne t stage of socialism. *hachtman is that type complete. 4he opposition, the socialism that lies in the struggle and overcoming of *talinism is be%ond him. /ut that does not e haust the t%pe. At the other end of its scale is 4rots&%. 8e holds fast to another t%pe of e istent, the world of 010H. After twent%9one %ears of the 6ussian revolution all he could sa% was+ revive the soviets- revise the plan in the interests of the toilers- free the unions. 'f *hachtman is 'magination, which thin&s onl% with what is familiar, 4rots&% is Jnderstanding, which thin&s onl% with what is familiar to it. 4o both, the ne t stage is excluded. 7es, to both of them. And precisel% because of that, the present eludes them. 4hus earl%, at the beginning, in ?ualit%, in the )octrine of /eing, 8egel was sa%ing, in general, on a ver% abstract level, what he will be sa%ing on a more developed level in 5ssence, and on a still higher level in the )octrine of the Notion. 8ere then is the complete e tract. 4he phrase progress to infinit%( is characteristic of those who do not see the real nature of infinit%. 4he% see infinit% as a straight line. 8egel sa%s it is a series of circles, each circle, however, including and %et e cluding the previous circle, thus+ 4his infinite is the accomplished return upon itself. As such it is self9relation or /eing- but not abstract or indeterminate /eing, for it is posited as negating negation- and thus it is also )eterminate /eing, for it contains negation as such, and, therefore, determinateness. 't e ists, and e ists as a )eterminate /eing, present and before us. 't is onl% the bad infinite which is the be%ond, because it is the negation, and nothing more, of the finite posited as real- it is thus abstract and first negation- it is determined as merel% negative, and is without the affirmation implicit in )eterminate /eing- and if held fast as mere negative it is even supposed to be non9e istent and be%ond reach. /ut to be thus be%ond reach is not its glor% but its shame- which, ultimatel%, is based on the fact that the finite as such is held fast as e istent. 4hat which is untrue is be%ond reach- and it is evident that such an infinite is the untrue. 4he image of the progress to infinit%( is the straight line, the infinite still remaining at its two limits and there onl% where the line is not- now the line is )eterminate /eing, which passes on to this its contradictor%, that is, into the indeterminate. /ut as true infinit%, turned bac& upon itself, it has for image the circle, the line which has reached itself, closed and wholl% present and having neither beginning nor end. Now having said this he proceeds to sa% the most astonishing things, for those who thin& in terms of common sense. 8e sa%s, for e ample, that it is not the finite, the fi ed limited, concrete, which is real. 't is the 'nfinite which is real. And ' trust no one reading this is so dumb as not to be aware that this is the ver% point we dug into on #round where we discussed the Absolute in terms of the /eing and Not9 /eing of the finite. 7et that is Molume '', page H3 about, and this is Molume ', page 0LE. 4here are some four hundred pages in between. 'sn:t this fellow marvellous? And far awa% in the centre of Molume '' he will come bac& to it again, and end up once more with it in the final section, on methods of in"uir%, or the 'dea of !ognition. 8e himself practises the continuall% enlarging circles.

4rue infinit% thus ta&en, in general, as )eterminate /eing opposed affirmativel% to abstract negation, is 6ealit% in a higher meaning than is that infinit% which before was determined as simple- it has here received concrete content. 't is not the finite which is the real, but the infinite- and thus 6ealit% is further determined as 5ssence, Notion, 'dea, and so forth. 't is however, superfluous to repeat these earlier and more abstract categories, such as 6ealit%(, when the more concrete has been reached, and to emplo% them for determinations more concrete than these are in themselves. A repetition, such as is made when we sa% that 5ssence or the 'dea is the 6eal, has its reason in the fact that, to uncultivated thought, the most abstract categories, such as /eing, )eterminate /eing, 6ealit%, and Binitude, are the most familiar. ' leave that to %ou, and hurr% on to the last passage+ 8ere there is a more definite reason for recalling the categor% of realit%, for the negation to which it stands in the relation of affirmative is here the negation of negation+ it is thus itself opposed to this realit%, which is finite )eterminate /eing. Negation is thus determined as idealit%- that which parta&es of the ideal nature is the finite as it is found in true infinit%, as a determination or content, which though distinct does not e ist independentl%, but onl% as moment. 'dealit% has this more concrete meaning, which is not full% e pressed b% negation of finite )eterminate /eing. 7es. 4he real is onl% a moment, though fi ed, limited, finite, in the 'deal. )on:t ignore it. 't is distinct(. /ut it has no independent e istence. 'dentit% now has a more concrete meaning, and it is not sufficient to sa% that the 'nfinite, the be%ond will negate the finite+ socialism will do awa% with all this in general. No, sir. 4hat onl% means that %ou have not done awa% with all this and cannot see the forces that are doing awa% with it. /ut there are some people who do not understand this. 8egel continues+ /ut with relation to realit% and idealit% the opposition to finite and infinite is ta&en in this manner, that the finite is ta&en as real and the infinite as of ideal nature- and such, indeed, and onl% such, the Notion is later on ta&en to be- whereas )eterminate /eing in general is ta&en as real. 7ou ma% tr% to change the phrasing to help them. 7ou can:t. 4he% remain fi ed in the affirmative )eterminate /eing of the finite. 4hat is the aim of the Logic, for the thousandth time+ how to &eep out of the fi ed, limited, finite categories. 8egel is doing @ust this, in a constantl% more concrete manner, page after page. 4hat is all. /ut what an all< 4o get out of the clutching hands of fi ed categories. 't isn:t eas%. $recisel% because we have to get them fi ed and precise before we can do an%thing. ;e can remain fi ed in them when the% are grabbed on to b% people who are ob@ectivel% satisfied to remain there. ;orse still, we can remain fi ed in them when they no longer exist. 4he result is complete frustration, and blindness to realit%. ;ithin those categories 4rots&%ism wor&s. *talinism, however, has found the ob ective basis for those categories as fi ed and static, finite and limited forms. C' have been searching for this for wee&s and ' have itD. *talinism has found the ob@ective basis for the fi ed categories of ,eninism. 8ence it operates on a material basis. 4he games it pla%ed with 4rots&% over socialism in a single countr% were the concretisation, the stabilising of its ideolog%9 Bor *talinism, this was a real ideolog%. Bor 4rots&% it was in essence a fiction without an% realit%. Now we can go ahead and select a few sentences which contain the core of 8egel:s 'dealit%. 4he proposition that the finite is of ideal nature constitutes 'dealism.

7ou see here the close connection between the ideal and the real. 4he real is constantl% creating an ideal which tomorrow becomes the real and so on. 8egel curses those people for whom the ideal is in their own heads and their own caprice. 8ow he hates them. /% that which is of ideal nature( the form of imagination is meant primaril%- and this name is given to whatever is in m% imagination in general, or in the concept, in the idea, in the fanc%, and so forth- so that it comes to be counted e"uivalent onl% to fancies = imaginations which are not onl% distinct from the real, but are supposed in their essence to be not real. 8egel has no use for that. 4he idea for him is in such close connection with the real that %ou cannot separate them. A genuine ideal toda% is the real of tomorrow. And that is the wa% life, and the logic, move. *o we go bac& to ,enin:s modest but pregnant note about 8egel. 4he transformation of the ideal into the real is profound, ver% important for histor%. 7ou remember in 'ialectical !aterialism and the (ate of )umanity ' "uoted a section from an old article in the $ew &nternational showing how ideal became real, etc., owing to the aims and ob@ective consolidations and compromises of classes and sections of classes. /ut this ver% thing will become in time for us the basis of long overdue theoretical investigation and then concrete practical politics. ;e have now CaD reviewed the past, CbD seen the interconnection and underl%ing unit% of the parts of the Logic. ;e promised also to CcD illuminate the closing parts of 5ssence %et to come = the rest will have to wait. On now to the last parts of the )octrine of 5ssence. CAfter terrible hours of labour, ' am feeling prett% good. ' thin& we have got some place, and are on the road to some better placesD.

A))earance an& Act*alit'

Now, having leapt over #round, and ta&en a vacation with ,enin, we find ourselves in Appearance. ' want to ta&e up Appearance for a particular reason. One of our most important pieces of wor& is the e posure of the anal%sis of the *talinist parties as tools of the Kremlin(. ;e sa% that it is true that the% are tools of the Kremlin(. /ut that, we sa%, is onl% the appearance of things. ;e sa% that in essence the% are a product of labour and capital at this stage, as Menshevism was a product of labour and capital at that stage. ;e clinch it b% sa%ing+ if there

had been no 6ussian revolution, no Kremlin, but capitalism had continued to degenerate without being overthrown b% socialism, then there would have appeared such a part% as *talinism, preaching revolution, read% to @oin up across national boundaries with other wor&ers, repudiating private propert% and national defence, but mortall% afraid of the wor&ers and rushing for protection and refuge to a larger imperialism, bureaucratic, corrupt, monolithic, reflecting capitalism in its stage of state capitalism. Our opponents continue with these tools of the Kremlin(. 't is disgusting. 7et, curiousl% enough, the% do not call the present Menshevi&s tools of ;ashington(. 4he% have ,enin to go b% and the% at least tr% to relate these to labour and capital = falsel%, but at least the% tr%. 4he importance of our anal%sis is obvious. 't enables us to characterise *talinism as a stage of transition = we are not in the ridiculous position of e plaining wh% these tools of the Kremlin( for no #od9damn reason fasten themselves on the Kremlin. ;e place the responsibilit% on capitalism. ;e paint them ob@ectivel% and not sub@ectivel%. *o much in general. 'n particular, we rid ourselves of the 6ussian hangover. *ocialism in a single countr%( originated from 6ussia and has never held the slightest interest for the world proletariat = never. ' remember the da%s when we nourished ourselves on the illusion = ' said it often = that when the wor&ers understood at last that the communist parties were merel% agents of *talin:s foreign polic%, the% would turn to us. 5ver%bod% &nows this truth now. 4he% turn to the *talinists more than ever. 4he whole method of thin&ing was wrong. *ocialism in a single countr% did not produce( communist parties that turned to their own bourgeoisie. 4hat socialism could not be built was as great an abstraction as 4rots&%:s theor% of the permanent revolution. 't was a continuation of his old struggle with /olshevism, b% this time corrupted under *talin. All this, the theor% of the permanent revolution, the whole debate about socialism in a single countr%, the masses would turn to us when the% understood, etc., all this is the purest sub@ective thin&ing with no ob@ective contact with realit%. 4ools of the Kremlin( is Appearance, the specific labour organisation of the epoch of state capitalism is 5ssence. 4hat is onl% in general. ,et us arm ourselves with some dialectical logic. 5ssence is a movement. 4his movement has to appear. 'ts immediate appearance 8egel calls 5 istence. *omething e ists, but it is transitor%, unimportant, mere *how, until it persists and becomes Appearance. Appearance is e istence which has become essential( 5ssence accordingl% is not something be%ond or behind appearance, but @ust because it is the essence which e ists = the e istence is Appearance CBorth9shiningD. /ut %ou have to be careful with appearance. 7ou cannot dismiss it = this is only a mere appearance. 8egel sa%s+ Appearance is in ever% wa% a ver% important grade of the logical idea. 't ma% be said to be the distinction of philosoph% from ordinar% consciousness that it sees the merel% phenomenal character of what the latter supposes to have a self9subsistent being. 4he significance of appearance, however, must be properl% grasped, or mista&es will arise. 4o sa% that an%thing is a mere appearance ma% be misinterpreted to mean that, as compared with what is merel% phenomenal, there is greater truth in the immediate, in that which is. Now in strict fact, the case is precisel% the reverse. Appearance is higher than mere /eing, a richer categor% because it holds in combination the two elements of reflection9into9 self and reflection9into another+ whereas /eing Cor immediac%D is still mere relationlessness, and apparentl% rests upon itself alone. *till, to sa% that an%thing is onl% an appearance suggests a real flaw, which consists in this, that Appearance is still divided against itself and without intrinsic stabilit%. /e%ond and above mere appearance comes in the first place Actualit%, the third grade of 5ssence, of which we shall afterwards spea&.

'n the histor% of Modern $hilosoph%, Kant has the merit of first rehabilitating this distinction between the common and the philosophic modes of thought. 8e stopped halfwa% however, when he attached to Appearance a sub@ective meaning onl%, and put the abstract essence immovable outside it as the thing9 in9itself be%ond the reach of our cognition. Bor it is the ver% nature of the world of immediate ob@ects to be appearance onl%. Knowing it to be so, we &now at the same time the essence, which, far from sta%ing behind or be%ond the appearance, rather manifests its own essentialit% b% deposing the world to a mere appearance. One can hardl% "uarrel with the plain man who, in his desire for totalit%, cannot ac"uiesce in the doctrine of sub@ective idealism, that we are solel% concerned with phenomena. A good passage. ;orth wor&ing over. /ut its importance for us is both theoretical and practical. 4heoretical because we have @ust been sa%ing at some length that the real is onl% a moment of the ideal. #ood. /ut that was in general. Now 8egel is sa%ing that the whole world is Appearance but that Appearance is a manifestation of 5ssence. And when he warned us that the real was real distinct(, he now warns us that appearance is no mere( appearance. 't if were, it would be a show Cone of the cheap &inds of show, for 8egel, blast him, has man% shows(D. 4he warning means+ %ou must relate appearance to 5ssence. A salutar% warning< 4ools of the Kremlin( is the onl% wa% in which 5ssence could appear in the contemporar% world. 't was not this appearance b% chance. 4his is the truest value of 8egel. 8e ma&es %ou wrestle with the problems, probe into them, see deeper and more complicated relations Cwhich, however, tend to a greater simplicit%D, and help %ou to re9e amine the ob@ect. A true appearance is one that must be that wa%. )oubtful? ,et:s see. 'f a bureaucrac% is convinced that capitalism as it has &nown it is hopeless and helpless, if it feels the pressure of the revolutionar% masses, if it lives in mortal terror of the mass upheaval which seems to it to mean chaos and the destruction of civilisation, then with its own bourgeoisie offering no perspective, it must turn to another. 't must turn to the revolutionar% proletariat or to the bourgeoisie. 'n fundamental crisis there is no other place for it to go. 't therefore turns to the opposite ma@or imperialism. 't creates an idealised version of its patron, it fastens upon what it thin&s will ma&e clear to its followers the necessit% of supporting it. 't becomes its advocate, it adopts its ideolog%- in its own defence it becomes defender of its patron. 4he proof of this can be seen b% observing those who oppose the 6ussian regime. *talinism has one phrase for them+ tools of American imperialism(. 'n all the satellite countries and in 6ussia no doubt the opposition which is not able to turn to the revolutionar% masses but finds the 6ussian regime intolerable has fundamentall% the same attitude to American democrac%( and industrial power( that the opposition, the *talinists in the ;estern world, have to 6ussian planned econom%(. ;ere it not for the merciless totalitarian regime, we should find in all probabilit% the opposition leadership in 6ussia and certainl% in the satellite countries, such as it ma% be, as bold, as fanatical, for democrac%( as the *talinists are for planned econom%(. ($lanned econom%( seems to be something new and is more in harmon% with the present stage of capitalism, but the opposition is as fanatical as the *talinists are, and given the opportunit% of time, American mone%, and the freedom the *talinists have in the democracies, the leaders would create an ideolog% and a practice which would enable their enemies to call them tools of the ;hite 8ouse( in the same wa% that the *talinists are called tools of the Kremlin(. 4he% could do this ver% well without advocating the return to private propert% of heav% industr%. 't is precisel% for this reason that *talin allows nothing in, not a peep of even a foreign newspaper. Opposition to the regime which is not revolutionary must seek the ideology of the opposing imperialism. 4his is the logical movement. 't is, however, as a logical movement alwa%s is, modified b% all sorts of circumstances. An old, historicall%

powerful countr% li&e /ritain, with its own deepl%9rooted traditions and a powerful and united wor&ing class, cannot preach Americanism( as the *talinists preach *talinism. 4he labour bureaucrac%, however, acts in subservience to American imperialism in all important matters. )e #aulle, that powerful trumpeter of Brench nationalism, has now become a genuine American admirer. /ut in wea&er countries li&e 6umania, 8ungar%, etc., the opposition to *talinism is without this combination. 4he socialists are for American democrac%(, and combine this with proposals for nationalisation . *o that appearance is no mere appearance. 't is the onl% wa% in which in the present comple of conditions 5ssence can shine forth. And 8egel means precisel% that. Otherwise Appearance is not Appearance. 't is show or 5 istence or some damn thing. /ut when its "ualit% grows and grows until it settles down into Appearance, then %ou have something. And as %ou learn to read the larger Logic and his pages upon pages of apparentl% abstruse and m%stif%ing @argon, %ou will find him forcing %ou to see movement, pattern, connection, order, inevitabilit% where formerl% %ou saw nothing or mere chance. 4he implications of all this are enormous for thought in relation to the modern world. 4he idea that the 6ussian revolution attracted so man% fades into the sub@ectivit% that it is. 4his relation of Appearance and 5ssence teaches us to see that it is hopelessness in capitalism and hopelessness in the revolution which drove anti9capitalists to the Moscow bureaucrac%. 4he% found an ob@ective basis and function and fought off their enemies. 4hat is wh% the defeat in #erman% in 01FF and the coincident degradation of the masses strengthened American imperialism. 5ach group boasted its own nationalisation( or democrac%(, some combining both, but &nowing where the emphasis la%. 4hese were the traps laid for the masses. 4rots&%:s arguments on socialism in a single countr% not onl% led to false conclusions. 't cut him off from an% serious possibilit% of e amining what was ta&ing place in ;estern 5urope. 't is impossible to sta% here now and e amine all the implications. ,et us go on with 8egel. 8e sa%s that after Appearance the ne t stage is Actualit%, and he tells us what Actualit% is. ;hen Appearance is no longer the e pression of 5ssence but assumes an independent e istence of its own, and 5ssence too comes out in its own name and right, then we have Actualit%. 4he veils are torn awa%, two totalities face each other. 8egel writes+ 4here is no transition. 'n actualit% this unit% is e plicitl% put, and the two sides of the relation identified. 8ence the actual is e empted from transition, and its e ternalit% is its energising. 'n that energising it is reflected into itself+ its e istence is onl% the manifestation of itself, not of another. 4here is now no internal transition, no reflection. Bundamental forces are in conflict in the open. 'n Actualit%, essence, the movement to realisation, is seen plain. Appearance that was, the wa% 5ssence used to shine forth, is now something in its own right. 'n the organism we have been following, the proletariat, Actualit% is as plain as da% to a dialectician. 4he movement of the proletariat, its see&ing after the realisation of its potentialities is plain, even *hachtman can see it. /ut the bureaucracies, the organisations, the parties, these no longer e press the movement. 4he% have now ac"uired an independent e istence of their own within the totalit%. 4he conflict is at its most acute. 4here is no transition. 4here is due now the total reorganisation into something new. As Marcuse remar&s in Reason and Revolution, the categor% of Actualit% means merciless struggle. ' have to leave it to %ou to wor& out with 8egel how a stage li&e Actualit% e presses itself in *ubstance, then in !ausalit% where, contrar% to Jnderstanding which perpetuall% sees cause here and effect there, 8egel sees cause as measurable onl% b% effect. 4his cause is that effect. /ut that effect is another cause. 5ffect is incited into action b% cause. /ut cause too is incited b% effect. 7ou cannot

separate them. 4he opposing units are @ammed too tight. Brom causalit%, the step is eas% to action and reaction, what 8egel calls 6eciprocit%. 't is a more intensive stage of !ause and 5ffect. Of 6eciprocit% 5ngels writes+ ;hat 8egel calls reciprocal action is the organic bod%, which therefore forms the transition to consciousness, i.e. from necessit% to freedom, to the idea+ see Logic '', !onclusion.:: And under the stress of this violent pressure bac& and forth, for neither can give wa%, the organism boils over into the Notion. 't &nows itself for what it is. 4hat stage is not far off for the proletariat. As %ou wor& through *ubstance, $ossibilit%, Necessit%, !ontingenc%, etc., do not handicap %ourself b% tr%ing to fit every paragraph into some phase of the development of the proletariat to socialism. 't is not necessar%. 8egel e amined all the available material of his own da%, in all the ma@or spheres of nature and societ% to abstract this essential blueprint. ;hat we should do is to note what he sa%s about Actualit% and the 'dea. 8e wants %ou to &eep them as close as %ou &ept Appearance and 5ssence. 8e warns against ma&ing an% great separation between Actualit% and 'dea. 4he% are close. ;e should remember that toda%. 8is comment is eas%, collo"uial, ver% different from that in the larger Logic. 't nevertheless sa%s what he wants to sa%. Note how the 'dea hugs the Actualit% = the ideal and the real C%ou remember our interlude with ,enin?D in the abstract generalities of /eing have now become more concentrated in the more developed sphere of 5ssence. Actualit% and thought Cor 'deaD are often absurdl% opposed. 8ow commonl% we hear people sa%ing that, though no ob@ection can be urged against the truth and correctness of a certain thought, there is nothing of the &ind to be seen in actualit%, or it cannot be actuall% carried out < $eople who use such language onl% prove that the% have not properl% apprehended the nature either of thought or of actualit%. 4hought in such a case is, on one hand, the s%non%m for a sub@ective conception, plan, intention or the li&e, @ust as actualit%, on the other, is made s%non%mous with e ternal and sensible e istence. 4his is all ver% well in common life, where great la it% is allowed in the categories and the names given to them+ and it ma% of course happen that e.g. the plan, or so9called idea, sa% of a certain method of ta ation, is good and advisable in the abstract, but that nothing of the sort is found in so9 called actualit%, or could possibl% be carried out under the given conditions. /ut when the abstract understanding gets hold of these categories and e aggerates the distinction the% impl% into a hard and fast line of contrast, when it tells us that in this actual world we must &noc& ideas out of our heads, it is necessar% energeticall% to protest against these doctrines, ali&e in the name of science and of sound reason. Bor on the one hand 'deas are not confined to our heads merel%, nor is the 'dea, upon the whole, so feeble as to leave the "uestion of its actualisation or non9actualisation dependent on our will. 4he 'dea is rather the absolutel% active as well as actual. And on the other hand actualit% is not so bad and irrational, as purblind or wrong9headed and muddle9brained would9be reformers imagine. *o far is actualit%, as distinguished from mere appearance, and primaril% presenting a unit% of inward and outward, from being in contrariet% with reason, that it is rather thoroughl% reasonable, and ever%thing which is not reasonable must on that ver% ground cease to be held actual. 4he same view ma% be traced in the usages of educated speech, which declines to give the name of real poet or real statesman to a poet or statesman who can do nothing reall% meritorious or reasonable. /etween us, it is ver% meritorious and reasonable when 8egel discusses these things in that wa%. 4he translators of the larger Logic sa% that at times in that wor& he seemed to be obscure and m%sterious in his language for sheer devilr%. /ut here he is "uiet and eas%. 4his for us is the end of 5ssence. ;e have seen it grow from *how, we dug into its #round Cwe didn:t dig too deepD, we s&ipped over to Appearance. ;e saw in Actualit% the different elements come out

into the open. 8enceforth no compromise is possible. ;ar to the end. Another time, %ou will see the philosophical investigations and method which 8egel used to get this. 7ou will tac&le perhaps the fascinating problem of how this philosophical development too& place, and how it compares to an intelligent man unphilosophicall% e amining an ob@ect and learning more and more experience. 7ou will see later how gifted individuals, e pressing their own ps%chosomatic idios%ncrasies proved unable to go further than a certain stage in thought, and how classes, or sections of classes made them their spo&esmen. All this is for the future. /ut now we have, in accordance with out practice, to use 5ssence, lift ourselves a stage, @ust one more stage further. ' propose to do two things+ C0D e amine ,enin:s wor&, for until we go through that and ma&e it our own, we cannot go on- CED after doing that step forward a little, in general, on our own, &eeping well within 5ssence. ;hen %ou read !ause and 5ffect in 5ssence, a ver% high stage of 5ssence, %ou will remember that in the Logic 8egel had also e pounded on !ause and 5ffect, in general, stage b% stage, step b% step. 4hat ' have learnt.

The Doctrine of the Notion

4he )octrine of the Notion is *ub ective ,ogic, the logic of Mind, of thought itself. 'n the )octrine of /eing, we dealt with thought as it watched and felt the influence of simple determinate ob@ects. 'n 5ssence we e amined a more comple process, ob@ects were reflected( b% thought into thought determinations representing parts of the ob@ect- transition from stage to stage. Now we go over into the Notion. 4he ob@ect is no longer plain and simple being. 't is no longer divided into thought9 determinations. 't is a whole once more, but a whole enriched b% our previous wrestling with it. And the ob@ect being now a whole, thoroughl% e amined, the e amination moves over not to the logic of thought in relation to the ob@ect, but to the logic of thought itself, of the concept, as a concept.

And so too the notion ma%, if it be wished, be st%led abstract, if the name concrete is restricted to the concrete facts of sense or of immediate perception. Bor the notion is not palpable to the touch, and when we are engaged with it, hearing and seeing must "uite fail us. /ut 8egel insists, the notion is concrete, a true concrete( for thought though it is, there has been incorporated into it all the wealth of being and essence merged in the unit% of thought(. 4he previous doctrines had a triple movement. 4hus the )octrine of /eing moved between ?ualit%, ?uantit% and Measure. 4he )octrine of 5ssence moves between 'dentit%, )ifference and Opposition Cwhich passes bac& into #roundD- there is a relation between ?ualit% and 'dentit%- between ?uantit% and )ifference- between Measure and Opposition Cor #roundD. 'n the )octrine of /eing the dialectical movement was confined to transition into something else. 'n the )octrine of 5ssence the dialectical movement is confined to transition into something which belonged to the ver% thing we were e amining = the something else( is the something itself- but its Other, we dug it out. All these are connected together, opposition, higher stages, etc. ' shall not do a damned thing about that. 4his is not a summar% of e position of the Logic. 't is an introduction to the Logic, an illustration of how we should use it, and a demonstration of its validit%. /ut we should be prepared now to loo& for a triple movement in the Notion. 't is there, and these divisions are ver% old in the e aminations of thought. 4he% are Jniversal, $articular and 'ndividual. 4hen 8egel is going to spend long pages on Judgment, on the s%llogism+ All men are mortal, #aius is a man, therefore #aius is mortal. 8e pursues them into all their different shapes and forms, but the% are not abstract, formal, finite, fi ed, limited. 8e shows how the% developed out of one another, b% contradiction, etc., using all the laws he has wor&ed out in the ob ective logic. 4a&e the Judgment. ;hen %ou sa%, a house is good, according to its character(, %ou ma&e one sort of @udgment- when %ou sa% the house, if of such and such a character, is good(, %ou have developed that @udgment and so on. 8e has four main classes of Judgment, the Judgment of 'nherence, the Judgment of *ubsumption, the Judgment of Necessit%, the Judgment of the Notion- but the Judgment of 'nherence, for instance, is divided into the $ositive Judgment, the Negative Judgment, the 'nfinite Judgment- and each of the others has its three divisions. ' have not wor&ed through the Judgments, but ' &now that the Judgment of 'nherence corresponds to ?ualit% in the )octrine of /eing and to 'dentit% in the )octrine of 5ssence- that the Judgment of *ubsumption and Necessit% correspond to ?uantit% in the )octrine of /eing and )ifference in the )octrine of 5ssence. 4he same with the s%llogism and so on. 8egel sa%s, in ordinar% logic boo&s the% tell %ou, here are these forms+ appl% them or learn them or do something with them. )e sa%s+ the% didn:t @ust fall from the s&%, the% each came from somewhere, at a certain stage of development- the% moved to higher and more complicated forms, the% proceeded to these higher forms b% a certain process. 'n 'ialectics of $ature, 5ngels has what is in m% modest opinion a ver% satisf%ing passage on the Judgment. Now if %ou have been pa%ing attention %ou will now &now what the )octrine of the Notion is about- it deals with this development of the standards of consciousness as such. 7ou remember the $reface and the 'ntroduction to the Phenomenology, the thing tested and the testing thing. Notion deals with the testing thing = the apparatus of thought. And despite all 8egel:s raptures about how now we are in the blue sphere of the ;orld9*pirit, etc., in the *ub@ective ,ogic he traces as logicall% ob@ective a development as %ou could wish. /ut it is well to remember that we are in the realm of thought. 'ts destructive character is development, b% which 8egel means that it shows onl% what is immanent in it, for e ample, the plant is developed from its germ. Nothing appears in the plant which is not contained in the germ. 'dentical twins show that ver% clearl%. At fift% the% often loo& e actl% ali&e, which means that their germ contained all that the% afterwards became. 8egel is sa%ing that whereas in the )octrine

of /eing the thing changes into something else, but something else which though else( is reall% a part of it, it reflects an interior other- in the )ialectic of the Notion, the small thing, the abstract beginning, constantl% e pands and develops into broader and broader, more concrete, a more rich, more complicated, more all9embracing stages, which were in it from the ver% beginning. 4hought, remember? 4hought. 'deas as ideas. ;ith this ver% modest contradiction we can now begin. ' shall interpret freel% and then stic& the passage down. Nowhere, not even in Mar , have ' been so thrilled at the sheer logical divining and interpretative power of the human intellect. 'f %ou want to tr% it out %ourself the passage is on p. EGE of the larger Logic where he is ta&ing up the $articular- he has alread% dealt with Jniversal. -e haven:t to deal speciall% with Jniversal. ;e are familiar with it. *tate is a universal = it embraces ever% &ind of political government. 't is entirel% concrete. 't is entirel% abstract. *uch another is the revolution(. Another universal is socialism. 't means ever%thing. 7et it means nothing in particular. *ocialism, then, is a Jniversal Cin thought, mind %ou, a conceptD. 't is as a germ, it contains a lot of things in it. 4his germ ta&es determinate form, a particular form. 4his is its being, as for e ample in "he Communist !anifesto or in the Manifesto of the Birst 'nternational. 4he Notion as Jniversal becomes a determinate notion. /ut in the )octrine of /eing when nothing became something, it was a simple immediate(. Not so in the Notion. ;hen the Jniversal of socialism becomes determinate, this is no simple immediac%. 't is e"ual to itself(. 't is a form of mediation which is absolute. C7ou have to feel this.D 't is not there onl% waiting to be transformed into some Other. 4rue it contains 'ntro9 6eflection or 5ssence. 't is not going to sta% there forever. 't will change, it will move. /ut to give some rough examples+ when Mar wrote his concepts down and defined them, he did not do this loo&ing to see contradictions in them, from which he would find a higher truth. No, that was determinate socialism. ,eninism as concept and doctrine was concrete socialism. 7ou see this in the distinction between the bourgeois revolution and the proletarian revolution Ce amples onl%D. 4he bourgeois revolution in 6ussia as ,enin saw it, aimed at doing something which would create, unloose the possibilit% of the proletariat organising freel% Cas in 5uropeD and struggling for socialism. 4hat was a transition. /ut the proletarian revolution is the proletarian revolution. 't is not fundamentall% a transition to an%thing else. 4rue it has at a given time wea&nesses, defects- these will be removed. /ut it is posed in its own right. 't is a mediation, it does not comprise the Jniversal in its full totalit%, but it is an absolute mediation. 't is the Notion in principle(, a word 8egel uses often in this section, and he sa%s that an% Notion whose particular form is not the Notion in principle is no good. 't is barren(. Now comes a brilliant use of dialectic, which will give amaAing results. *ocialism is a Jniversal which in 02LG ta&es a determinate, concrete form. /ut, sa%s 8egel, it is clothed( in the Jniversal. 4he determinate form, what Mar writes, has certain wea&nesses, defects, differences( with the Jniversal. 8e and ever%bod% else who has an% sense &nows that. 4he doctrines are concrete but the% are not complete socialism. /ut the% are written in terms of the .niversal+ this and that and that are socialism. 4herefore the doctrines of 02LG become content and the Jniversal becomes form, and therefore abstract. 'n the pure Jniversal it is @ust absolute negativit%, socialism which we &now will have to negate and negate until it finds it total realisation. /ut when it finds in principle a determinate content, this content is determinate, which ma&es the Jniversal in it abstract. 8ere is the complete paragraph+ 4he determinateness of the particular is simple as principle Cas was seenD- but it is simple also as moment of totalit% = as determinateness against the other determinateness. 4he Notion, in so far as it determines or distinguishes itself, points negativel% at its unit% and ta&es the form of one of its moments Cwhich is of ideal natureD of being+ as determinate Notion it has a )eterminate /eing in general. /ut this /eing no longer signifies bare immediac% but Jniversalit% = immediac% which

through absolute mediation is e"ual to itself and e"uall% contains the other moment, 5ssence or 'ntro9 6eflection. 4his Jniversalit% which clothes the determinate is abstract Jniversalit%. 4he particular contains Jniversalit% as its 5ssence- but, in so far as the determinateness of the difference is posited, and thereb% has /eing, this Jniversalit% is related to the difference as form, and the determinateness as such is content. Jniversalit% becomes form in so far as the difference e ists as the essential9 whereas in the purel% universal it e ists onl% as absolute negativit%, and not as difference which is posited as such. Now to go on. 4he first sentence ' cannot understand = give me a few moments = but after that it is plain sailing. C;h% all this e citement? /ecause @ust over the page Jnderstanding gets a going over, is e posed, in a manner that does the heart good.D 'n the determinate Notion, the Notion is outside itself. 't is socialism, the pure negativit%. /ut it is determinate. Mar :s doctrines, ideas, are concrete enough. 4he% will appear in the !ommune in a few %ears. And though there are differences between socialism, as a pure universal, and socialism in its determinate form, %et there is no other socialism and the identit% is close enough. /ut the identit% is merel% immediate(. 't is not the totalit%, in 02LG, not the full, complete idea. C4oda% we are much closer to this. One world, international socialism, etc.D &n itself, it is this completeness as the germ is in itself the plant. 't is for itself, in the determinate form, for itself in principle. /ut although there is mediation, there are going to be further stages, %et these stages are not posited(, the main business is not to develop what is inherent and bound to appear. 4he main business is what is. /ut precisel% because we are dealing with something in principle, the content has the form of indifference to its Jniversalit%. 't is not the totalit%. OK. /ut it is not, as in the )octrine of 5ssence, unable to move a step without loo&ing bac& to see what it reflects, and loo&ing forward to see what will come. *ure we are going to mediate, but this thing here and now is good enough for us. And now, m% friends, we approach. ,et the maestro spea& for himself now and we shall trail along behind. C7ou will get some shoc&s, though.D 4his is the proper place also to mention the circumstance which has caused Jnderstanding latterl% to be held in such small esteem and to be ran&ed after 6eason = namel% the fi it% which it imparts to the determinatenesses, and hence to the finitudes. 4his fi it% consists in the form of abstract Jniversalit% which has @ust been considered+ b% virtue of it the% become immutable. 4rots&%ism, seeing that *econd CreformistD 'nternational and 4hird CrevolutionaryD 'nternational and enem%9of9private propert% bureaucrac% were embodiments in principle( of socialism, of the Jniversal, which the% undoubtedly were completel% failed to stud% p. EGG of the Logic and recognise that these, concrete as the% were, were %et abstract Jniversals in the sense that 8egel has so carefull% e plained. 4he% were onl% a form. 4he% were not totalit%. And precisel% because the% were abstract Jniversalit%, the% could become fearfull% fi ed and ferociousl% finite. 4he ver% fact that the% are Jniversals is what gives them their toughness and their sta%ing power. 'n simple /eing and reflective 5ssence, movement is easier. Bor "ualitative determinateness, and )etermination of 6eflection, e ist essentiall% as limited, and, in their barrier, have a relation to their Other- the% thus contain the necessit% of transition and passing awa%. /ut Jniversalit% Cwhich the% have in JnderstandingD gives them the form of 'ntro96eflection, which withdraws them from the relation to other and renders them imperishable. *ocialism< A world socialism, a revolutionar% international an international that is reformist, m% #od < 4hese are not perfected e amples, but they are not ordinary manifestations. 4hese are .niversals. And

so Jnderstanding gets stuc& with them. Jniversals the% were, but limited Jniversals. As 8egel sa%s, Jnderstanding pa%s these things a respect which belongs onl% to the pure( Notion and onl% to a determinateness which was itself Jniversal. Now in the pure Notion this eternit% belongs to its own nature, and so its abstract determinations would be eternal essentialities onl% according to their form- but their content is not ade"uate to this form, and conse"uentl% the% are not truth and imperishabilit%. 4heir content is not ade"uate to the form, because it is not determinateness itself as universal- that is, it is not as totalit% of the differentia of the Notion, or not itself the whole form . . . Now ' don:t &now, but it seems to me that 8egel, having e amined phenomena and totalities of all &inds, has here e tracted the process of the thought of Jnderstanding in a manner which ma&es us see our problems in a new and infinitel% richer light. 4here are others coming which will startle and illuminate us. /ut 8egel is a dialectician. 4here is not onl% difference, there is identit%, there is a connection. *ee how 8egel, who has been belabouring Jnderstanding, now shows us that it has an indisputable = %es, sir = indisputable place in dialectic+ Jnderstanding then represents the infinite force which determines the Jniversal, or conversel% imparts fi ed persistence through the form of Jniversalit% to what in determinateness has in and for itself no stabilit%- and it is not the fault of understanding if no further progress is made. 4hat is clear enough. Jnderstanding then even in the Notion is the &ind of thought which determines the Jniversal. 't is a positive "ualit%. 't sa%s+ bo%s, this is it. ,oo& how this embodies the Jniversal. *ee how it represents socialism here, and there, and over there. *ee how this reformist 'nternational is reformism incarnate. Jnderstanding in fact is genuinel% revolutionar%, and in the establishment of a determinate Jniversal, %ou cannot tell the difference between it and 6eason. 6eason in fact uses Jnderstanding for this purpose. C'sn:t this wonderful < 4he arriere-pensee, the things ' am sa%ing and not sa%ing.D /ut Jnderstanding is overwhelmed b% these magnificent principled determinatenesses. 8e wants to settle down now and get to wor&. ;hen Jniversal begins to wish to get out of this $articular, Jnderstanding rages furiousl%. 4his, m% friends, he sa%s, is Jniversal. 't has faults, but it is .niversal. At last, when Jnderstanding can sta% there no longer he moves, but to do what? 8e sa%s+ M% friends, we have no troublesome thin&ing to do. 4he plans are here. 4he great architect of our now regrettabl% degenerated Jniversals, he left us the final blueprints. All we have to do is to push aside the impostors and Qerect the old structure afresh:.( Jnderstanding then imparts fi ed persistence(. /ut, sa%s 8egel, and this is salutar% if totall% une pected+ 't is a sub@ective impotence of reason which allows these determinatenesses to count in this manner, and is unable to lead them bac& to unit% through the dialectic force which is opposed to this abstract Jniversalit%, that is, through the peculiar nature Cin other words, the NotionD of these determinatenesses. 8ere are two ideas of substantial importance for us. 6eason leaves poor Jnderstanding stuc& in its finitudes. *ub ective 6eason is responsible. 't is too wea& to overcome the gap. 4he effort has to be made. And how? /y seeing the peculiar nature, i.e. the Notion of these fi ed, limited determinatenesses. 4hat is plain enough. 4he Notion is a free, creative wor&ing class, a wor&ing class which is not what it is in capitalism. 4he determinate Notion does its best, but when this is e hausted %ou have to get bac& to socialism, to %our Jniversal of the beginning, and thus get rid of an e hausted, finite, limited particular. A new particular is needed.

Jnderstanding is mischievous. 4hat is correct. 't is true that through the form of abstract Jniversalit% understanding gives them what ma% be called such a hardness of /eing as the% do not possess in the spheres of ?ualit% and of 6eflection- but b% this simplification understanding also spiritualises them and so sharpens them that the% receive onl% at this e treme point the capacit% of dissolving and passing over into their opposite. Jnderstanding, b% its obstinac%, its stic&ing to the finite categories, prepares them for the stage where the% must be dissolved and pass over into their opposite. /ear in mind that the Jniversal uses a particular. ;hen that particular is no good it throws it over. 4hat particular perishes. 4he highest maturit% or stage which an% *omething can reach is that in which it begins to perish. 't is at this stage that sub@ective 6eason is compelled0 !OM$5,,5), to intervene. ;e shall need that idea often. /ut this is the peculiar propert% of the Notion. Jnderstanding commits the blunder of blunders b% ma&ing the determinate Notion imperishable. 4he onl% thing imperishable is the Jniversalit% of the Notion. 4hat "ualit% belongs to the Notion alone and conse"uentl% the dissolution of the finite lies e pressed in it itself, and in infinite pro imit%. 't is the Jniversal which ma&es it clear that finite categories are going to be destro%ed, principled though the% are. 4his Jniversalit% immediatel% argues the determinateness of the finite and e presses its inade"uac% to itself. Or rather, the ade"uac% of the finite is alread% given- the abstract determinate is posited as being one with Jniversalit%, and as not for itself alone, for then it would be onl% determinate, but onl% as unit% of itself and of the universal, that is, as Notion. 4he general argument is clear. 'f not, wor& it out %ourself. *a%s 8egel, 4he ordinar% practice of separating Jnderstanding and 6eason must therefore be condemned in ever% respect. .nderstanding has its place. 't is the abuse of the fi ed, limited categor% which is criminal. And 8egel pla%s on a sad but salutar% note. Jnderstanding, b% carr%ing the thing to the heights it does, thereby prepares the wa% for 6eason to ma&e the @ump. 'f %ou are not able to sa% that our ver% principled categor%, nationalised propert%, and a principled categor% it can seem to be, if %ou are not able to sa%+ 'n view of what socialism is, ' have to repudiate this categor% and get bac& to fundamentals and create a new criterion,( if %ou cannot do that, then %ou persist in the determination and end b% ma&ing false determination the means b% which %ou destro% ever%thing. ' don:t see how an% reasonable person can den% this much+ that 8egel, faced with the wor&ers: state theorists, would be able to sa%, ' &now those people. ' have seen that sort of thing happen doAens of times. ' wrote about it in the Notion.( /ut that is not all. 4he Notion has, %ou remember, a third division, 'ndividual. 7ou remember the three, Jniversal, $articular, &ndividual. 4he individual is the same as 1ctuality. 4he concrete. C/ut we

are dealing with thought, the concrete is the concrete stage of thought.D As ' see it, we have socialism, the Jniversal, loo&ing for somewhere to place itself. Mar ism, in general, puts forward a general programme. ,et us form an 'nternational of such and such principles. 4hat is a $articular. /ut on 0G Ma% 02H0, Karl Mar not in general but concretel% wrote a document about the $aris !ommune, and e pressed certain concrete ideas, proposals, and forecasts. 'n the sphere of thought this document is a concrete, an 'ndividual. Now the $articular is midwa% between the Jniversal and the 'ndividual ;hen %ou move out of it, %ou can move out of it, either bac& to the Jniversal = then the Jniversal, disregarding the particular, ascends to higher and highest genus( = or %ou descend( C8egel:s wordD into the concrete 'ndividual. ' hope the point is clear. And then comes a superb statement+ At this point the divagation occurs b% which abstraction leaves the road of the Notion and deserts the truth.R 4his is precisel% 4rots&%:s theor% of the permanent revolution. 4he concrete struggle in 6ussia he ignored. ;as it a bourgeois revolution? ,enin said it was and concretel% waged proletarian war against the liberal bourgeoisie and the Menshevi&s, their agents. 8is programme, his ideas, his Notion of socialism, %es, of socialism, could find its deepest profundit% precisel% because of that concreteness. /ut 4rots&%:s theor% of the permanent revolution? 8egel immediatel%, immediately nails it. At this point he said occurs the divagation from the truth. And what form does it ta&e? 'ts higher and highest universal to which it rises is but the surface which has less and less content. $recisel%. 4he permanent revolution had no content at all. 4he onl% concrete thing that came from it was the fact that it drove 4rots&% always towards the Menshevi&s and against ,eninism, in all the long, hard, difficult %ears in which /olshevism was hammered out. 8e scorned the concrete. As 8egel continues+ 4he 'ndividualit% which it scorns is that profundit% in which the Notion comprehends itself and is posited as Notion. 'f anybody can understand this, we can. 4rots&% soared into the thin abstractions of the permanent revolution. $othing came of it. Nothing. And it was ,enin:s concrete theories, dealing with the actual, the 'ndividual, from which came all the wonderful insights and illumination which enriched the notion of socialism. 4he Notion is concrete. 't is thought but it is concrete. 't is a @udgment, a decision, an action, an intervention. 't is not &nowledge in the head for the sa&e of the head. Matter, societ%, acts b% impulse, ma&es its &nots, the &nots form old categories, old categories ma&e new categories, new categories clarif% matter and societ%, for thought teaches me intelligent action. 4he categories are the highest form of matter, at an% rate inseparable from matter, the form of toda%, which will be content tomorrow because it is content alread%, content posited. ;ithout this concreteness the Notion gets no place. 7ou cannot apprehend it b% abstraction. Abstraction remains motionless without individualit%. ,ife, *pirit, #od, and also the pure Notion cannot therefore be apprehended b% abstraction, because it &eeps off from its products 'ndividualit%, the principle of singularit% and personalit%, and thus reaches nothing but universalities lac&ing both life and spirit, colour and content.

4rots&%:s theor% of the permanent revolution was precisel% lac&ing in these. ,enin it was who got from the concrete life, spirit, colour, content. /ut it is not onl% the struggles of 013I90H. 4he struggles of today illuminate these absolutel% incredible anal%ses of 8egel, incredible because so universall% valid. 4he official Bourth 'nternational has no concept whatever of socialism. All 4rots&% can sa% about 6ussia after twent%9five %ears is+ revise the plan, reinstate the soviets. 8e has learnt nothing. 4he same old content, no life, no spirit, no colour. And we, have we an% special life, spirit, colour? 4hat others will have to @udge. ' shall go at that problem before we are done. /ut ' repeat now as we said in "he &nvading *ocialist *ociety+ 'f %ou reprint *tate and Revolution, "he "hreatening Catastrophe, Can the /olsheviks Retain *tate Power2 and "he &mmediate "asks of the *oviet 3overnment, %ou get a clearer picture of concrete socialism, concrete perspectives, concrete action for the wor&ers to follow than in all the writings of the Bourth 'nternational for twent%9five %ears. 8egel is remorseless. And ' constantl% marvel at the amount of wor& he must have done to get the thing down so pat, in abstractions. 8e continues as follows to tear Jnderstanding apart+ 7ou cannot escape the conse"uences of the Notion. A Notion is a Notion. 't embraces all the parts and the% are inseparable. Jnderstanding first of all gets Jniversalities lac&ing all colour, content, life and spirit. /ut these products of abstraction which have scorned the 'ndividual, the concrete, are individuals themselves. Jnderstanding ta&es the concrete and ma&es that into a Jniversal. 't therefore sees the Jniversal onl% as determinate Jniversalit%+ and therefore the concrete, the 'ndividual, which it has elevated into this position has ta&en upon itself the tremendous tas& of determining itself Cself9 relationD. Bor this the concrete thus pushed up into the situation of Jniversal is "uite unfitted. )oes this sound rather abstract? Not to me. ;e have seen nationalised propert%, the concrete in 6ussia, ta&en and pushed into the position of Jniversal. ;hat socialism is, what it aims at, what it means for me, all that has gone b% the board. 4hat has become the purest abstraction+ the wor&ers: parties competing peacefull% in their soviets, the plan revised in the interests of the toilers, etc. etc. ;hen %ou protest, %ou are invited to observe how much coal, steel, oil, and literac% there is. 7ou point out that in 01E2 when the% were bac& at the 010H level there were onl% ma%be a few thousand, or even more, in concentration camps, etc. /ut ever% time the coal, steel, etc., are increased, the totalitarianism and the corruption increase, and so we have a graph. As production under planning increases, so ever% bourgeois evil increases until we have fifteen to twent% millions in concentration camps, forced labour camps, etc., and such a monstrous state as no mortal had ever imagined. 't is surel% time to thin& about socialism = e amine what we meant b% it and we mean b% it. No, not for them. 4he whole thing revolves around nationalised propert% and if0 if nationalised propert% continues to preserve the bureaucrac% and commit these monstrosities, then shall we at last go bac& to re9e amine our universal, socialism? /% !hrist, no. (inish away with !arxism instead. 4hrow it out. &t has failed us. Nationalised propert% remains master of the field. 8ere is the e tract, @udge for %ourself+ /ut the unit% of the Notion is so inseparable that even these products of abstraction, while the% are supposed to omit 'ndividualit%, are individuals themselves. 't raises the concrete into Jniversalit%, and ta&es the universal onl% as determinate Jniversalit%+ but then this is @ust 'ndividualit% which has resulted in the shape of self9relating determinateness. !onse"uentl% abstraction is a separation of the concrete and an isolation of its determinations+ it seiAes onl% individual properties and moments, for its product must contain that which it is itself. 7ou get the last sentence? 4his Abstract Jniversal tears up the concrete into pieces. 't ta&es isolated pieces of it, and with this as the basis of its thin&ing all it can now produce is what it too& up and made

into a Jniversal. 4hat is the whole procedure of the wor&ers: statists. #ermain thin&s onl% in terms of nationalised propert%, plan, dual character of the bureaucrac%. 8e could sa%+ in $oland nationalisation had ta&en place before the 6ussians came in. 4he 6ussians destro%ed the power which the wor&ers had their hands on and brought bac& elements of the bourgeois class. All #ermain has to sa% is+ it is or is not nationalised propert% e actl% and behold at an% rate the dual character of the bureaucrac%. 8is Jniversal is not the careful elaboration of the basic concept which Mar and 5ngels made after an% event = Mar on the !ommune, ,enin in *tate and Revolution. No, sir. 8is Jniversal is now nationalised propert% and all its products bear that stamp. *ee now what happens. 4his Jniversal has ta&en up the concrete, the 'ndividual, into itself, pushing the real Jniversal into the thin air of the most abstract of abstractions. 4he individual as content and the Jniversal as form are distinct from each other. 7ou remember that at the beginning the Jniversal entered freel% into the Birst 'nternational. 4hat programme, that conception was not perfect, but such as it was %ou could tal& about in terms of socialism. 7ou too& the Jniversal as a form in which %ou placed, wor&ed out the particular content which %ou had. 7ou remember too that this made the Jniversal abstract, but an abstraction which clothed( the particular content. /ut here Jniversal as form is one thing. !ontent is another. Not even #ermain can use the terms of socialism to describe the 6ussian barbarism, and nobod% toda% has the nerve to sa% an% more that the proletariat in 6ussia is the ruling class. 4he Jniversal of Jnderstanding, of #ermain, is not absolute form. 't cannot even tal& in terms of those absolute necessities of socialism, wor&ers, power, independent action, wor&ers as masters of themselves, in fundamental opposition to capitalism, where the industrial s%stem is their slave9driver. No. #ermain cannot do it e cept as an abstraction. 8owever inade"uate the Birst 'nternational was, as a conception, it could clothe( itself in these things. C4his ' ta&e to be the general sense of the passage. 4he original should be loo&ed up in the #erman.D /ut as we continue the e amination we see finall% that this abstract Jnderstanding has produced a peculiar &ind of Jniversalit%. /% ma&ing it so abstract and then t%ing it up with the concrete, the abstract Jniversal itself has become a concrete. 8ere is the e tract+ 4he distinction between this individualit% of its products and the 'ndividualit% of the Notion is that, in the former, the individual as content and the universal as form are distinct from each other = @ust because the former does not e ist as absolute form, or as the Notion itself, nor the latter as the totalit% of form. /ut this closer consideration shows the abstract itself as unit% of the individual content and abstract Jniversalit%, that is, as concrete = which is the opposite of what it is supposed to be. And in 01G2 we do not operate in the void. 4he moment %ou lose the socialist Jniversal, no power on earth can save %ou from state9capitalist barbarism. Now for the final passage. 't offers us a good opportunit% to sum up. 6emember the movement of the Notion is development. 't is free power. 't is thought, mind %ou, the concept see&ing fulfilment in thought. 4he Communist !anifesto, the!anifesto and Programme of the (irst &nternational, Mar on the !ommune, ,enin in *tate and Revolution. 4his is the concept developing itself. ,enin:s *tate and Revolution is a particular form of the Jniversal as is the programme of the !ommunist 'nternational and the E0 points. /ut the 'ndividual concrete is the da%9to9da% laws, decisions, articles, decrees, speeches, etc. 4hat is the concrete, the individual notion. *o that the Jniversal of socialism and the particular form of *tate and Revolution become concrete in the individual acts, ideas, places, programmes and conflicts etc. 4he abstract is the soul of the 'ndividual, the concrete. ;h%? /ecause without the Jniversal and $articular, the concrete ma&es no sense. 4his is an advanced case of the relation between the 'dea and Actualit% which we dealt with in the )octrine of 5ssence.

8ere is the e tract+ /ut 'ndividualit% is not onl% the return of the Notion into itself- it is also immediatel% its loss. 'n 'ndividualit% it is in itself- and, because of the manner in which it is in itself, it becomes e ternal to itself and enters into actualit%. Abstraction is the soul of 'ndividualit%, and, as such, is the relation of negative to negative- and it, as has been seen, is not e ternal to the universal and the particular but immanent- and the% through it are concrete, content, and individual. And 'ndividualit% as this Negativit% is determinate determinateness, is distinguishing as such- through this intro6eflection of distinction it becomes fi ed- the determining of the particular ta&es place onl% through 'ndividualit%, for it is that abstraction which now, as 'ndividualit%, is posited abstraction. ' advise %ou to be in no hurr%. 6ead the passages over and over again, especiall% the difficult ones. Bamiliarise %ourself with them. 4here is a great temptation. 't is to read these, get onl% a general idea, and then fasten on to what is familiar = the purel% social and political anal%sis that ' ma&e following these technical sections. 'f %ou do that %ou will never learn to handle the Logic. ;or& at these technical passages for what the% teach but also as e ercises, until the% sin& in, and %ou begin to thin& in those terms. ;e now have to do one last passage from this 'ntroduction to the Notion. )o not be misled b% m% hopping and s&ipping and @umping as ' have to do, into forgetting that the internal consistenc%, the structural logic of the logic itself is marvellous. )evelopment into development, in general, then split into its parts, and the development of the first gone over again, but now at a higher level and a deeper penetration, to e plode, leap into something higher, whereupon the old processes gain new depths, etc. 4his is precisel% logic. 't is not life, i.e. histor%. And onl% when logic is a logical, impeccable movement, can %ou then deal with the innumerable manifestations of life. 4his ' can onl% mention and motion to here and there in passing. /ut to demonstrate that, no, not me. *o before he ends the Notion in general, 8egel goes bac& to something which has alwa%s concerned him. 8e began it in the )octrine of /eing = ?ualit% = with the real infinite and the dead infinite. 8e went bac& at it in the )octrine of 5ssence in #round, and the /eing or not9/eing of the Binite as the basis of #round. Now he has shown us how the Jniversal ta&es a particular from in the $articular and becomes concrete in the 'ndividual9 7ou cannot understand the 'ndividual unless %ou see it as a concreting of the Jniversal, and positing further abstraction of the Jniversal because from it the Jniversal will find the basis of still further abstractions. Bor the 'ndividual is going to move on. Now+ 4he individual, then, as self9relating negativit%, is immediate selfidentit% of the negative- it is9for9self. 'n other words it is abstraction which determines the Notion, according to its moment Cwhich is of ideal natureD of /eing, as immediate. 4hus the individual is a "ualitative One or 4his. 8e ta&es it bac& to "ualit%, the )octrine of /eing. Now remember %our )octrine of /eing+ According to this "ualit% it is, first, self9repulsion, b% which process the man% other Ones are presupposed- and secondl%, it is negative relation against these presupposed others- and, in so far, the individual is e clusive. /ut = as 6osa ,u emburg used to write = attention< Jniversalit% must watch its relation to these concrete Ones. Jniversalit% is a moment of the concrete, the 'ndividual. /ut it is not merel% an element of the 'ndividual.

'f b% the universal is meant that which is common to more than one individual, then the beginning is being made from their indifferent persistence, and the immediac% of /eing is mi ed with the determination of the Notion. 4he lowest possible image of the universal in its relation to the individual is this e ternal relation of it as a mere common element. 7ou sa% that whatever form a concrete wor&ers: state ma% ta&e, it is distinguished alwa%s b% nationalised propert%. 't is the lowest possible form of the Jniversal. 4he rest of the section ta&es this up in detail. 8egel, particularl% here in the Notion, insists that 'ndividualit% is posited not in the e ternal but in a notional distinction( = nationalised propert% is to be seen in the light of %our notion of what socialism is. 'on4t do that. )on:t ma&e the mista&e of ta&ing this concrete, this merel% common persistent element as the Jniversal< 7ou then will, as sure as da%, end b% ma&ing it all %our notion. 4hen %ou sa%+ the world has now reached a stage where capitalism can no longer continue. Brom this %ou sa% that this econom% must obviousl% be nationalised and planned. 7ou then sa% that if the 6ussian bureaucrac% continues for a long time, after the war, it is obviousl% the precursor of a new ruling class. 4hen we have to agree that the Mar ist e pectation of socialism is a Jtopia. 4hat is where %ou land in thought and we are dealing with thought. 4hat 4rots&% as an individual would have thrown himself on the side of the masses and would have repudiated pessimism and defeatism in the heat of the class struggle, that we haven:t to argue about. /ut the whole methodolog% had within it the destruction of the basis on which he stood. Bor he stated most precisel% that the 6ussian bureaucrac% would restore private propert%. *o that although the time of its continuance is not too important Cthe world situation being what it isD the obvious determination of the bureaucrac% to maintain nationalised propert% and fight another world war for it, this, eats at the heart of those who insist on carr%ing on 4rots&%:s method. 8e made a finite into an infinite. 8e too& the being of the finite and made it into an Absolute. 8e too& a moment of the Jniversal, and made it into the Jniversal itself. ;hence these tears. 8egel is not finished with this b% the wa%. 'n his last section of the 'dea of !ognition, he ta&es this finite and finite, being and not9being of the Absolute, common persistence in the Notion and finall% la%s it to rest in a masterl% displa% on the )efinition. /ut ' can tell %ou in advance that ' shall leave out the )efinition. 4oo much is involved. And now before we go on, do me a little favour, friends. Just sit down and read this whole previous section over. No? OK. As Mar said in the last paragraph of the Critique of the 3otha Programme, do what %ou li&e now. ' have saved m% own soul.

Leninism an& the Notion

4he discerning reader Cthe sceptical reader we ma% ignore, the hostile reader we are stri&ing murderous wounds at in ever% paragraphD, the discerning reader will now be sa%ing+ AmaAing, ' agree. 4his 8egel seems to have wor&ed out a wa% b% which men, once the% slip off the rails, can be seen to follow as if bewitched certain patterns of thought. 7our illustrations directed against 4rots&%ism certainl% illuminate 4rots&%ism. /ut on the whole, this, valuable as it is, is in this instance negative. 7ou sa%, for instance, 4rots&%Rs Jniversal is without colour, content, etc. = pure abstraction. ;hat is %ours, using the dialectic method? *how me how %ou, b% not ascending to higher and highest genus( but b% stic&ing to 'ndividualit% enrich your Jniversal. 7ou sa%, ,enin did in 6ussia before 010H. ' agree, more or less. ' am a discerning reader. ' see that %ou are wor&ing up, stage b% stage, a positive position. ' thin& it is about time that we paid more attention to that and less to 4rots&%ism.( !orrect on the whole, but only on the whole. /ut we are now going to settle down to a concrete and not a general e position of dialectical thin&ing which will show us the Notion in action. 4he proof will

be the result. And to set all doubt at rest, let me sa% here at once+ ' propose, step b% step, to build up a positive line of development, ' have been doing this, which will end in an unmista&abl% concrete Notion of socialism as Jniversal and the revolutionar% struggle toda%, and tomorrow, not tomorrow in general, but our tomorrow. 4his wor& would be useless, in fact reactionar% C' cannot sta% to e plainD if it did not do that. /ut the correct method of doing that is the method ' am following. 't will be easier for those who follow after. ' am starting from scratch. /ut this @ob is preliminar% to that. $atience. $atience. $atience. ;or& %our wa% in. ;e have to get a notion of socialism, the notion of 01G2. /ut we have to wor& through ,eninism. "oday our movement is not beyond Leninism. 4he proletariat is far be%ond the proletariat of ,eninRs da%. /ut our movement is not. 4o get be%ond him, we have to go into and through him. /ut the process demands, for us, the complete, the patient e posure of 4rots&%ism from all sides. ;e are not finished with that. ,earn from 8egel. ,earn how to go bac& and bac& and bac& again to Jnderstanding, until the method becomes part of the structure, the structure of the mind. *trive to get "uite simple insight( into the whole business. 7ou will read the Logic and find out things for %ourself. 'f %ou havenRt the time or energ% for that great tas&, read these e tracts, over and over again, wor&ing out the interpretations, ma&ing new ones, getting to &now them almost b% heart. 't would be a catastrophe if %ou read this with the idea that it was onl% a @ustification, a preparation for our concrete theories. ;orse still, if when it was all over someone said+ #ood. Now what do we do now. 8ow do we put it into practice in the class struggle?( #od help us, that attitude would be prett% awful. ' donRt thin& an% of us will have it. /ut ' am writing en famille and as these ideas stri&e me, ' put them down. ' am a bit nervous, %ou see, that as we e pand our theor%, and clarif% ourselves politically, all the wor& on the Logic will seem to have been done with this purpose. 5nough of that. ,ogic for theor%, but at this stage also, for us, logic for logicRs sa&e. 4his being said, however, we can now move in the theoretical sphere. ;e are now e"uipped to tac&le ,eninism, the highest point of our movement so far. ;e have to mount to that height to move on into the infinite, the uncharted infinite that faces us. 'f the discussion rages around the political conclusions as such, and not around the political conclusions in lgical terms, then, immediatel% at least, the time has been wasted.