![]() The development of differences between once identical (and precisely for this reason indifferently coexisting) households is the development, of mutual links between them, it is the process of their transformation into distinct and opposed elements, of a single economic whole, integral producing organism. The bond emerging.-here consolidates and further develops the difference and, along with it, the mutual connection. Where differences arise between subsistence households, the possibility for mutual exchange of labour products also arises for the first time. There are no strong links between them, for there is no division of labour, an organisation of labour under which one does something that someone else does not. Patriarchal subsistence households, each of which produces within itself everything that it needs, the same things that a neighbouring household produces, do not need one another. This contact, however, will not yield anything new at all until it elicits in each of them internal changes which will transform them into different and mutually opposed moments within a certain coherent whole. Of course, two completely identical phenomena may very well coexist side by side and even come into certain contact. It is even more important to take this point into account when we are dealing with links between two (or more) developing phenomena involved in this process. If one were to take a hypothetical case, quite impossible in reality-two phenomena absolutely identical in all their characteristics-one would be hard put to it to imagine or conceive a strong bond or cohesion or interaction between them. Where such a continually arising and continually disappearing difference does not exist, no cohesion or interaction exists either what we have is more or less accidental external contact. ![]() Each of them gravitates towards the other, because at each given moment its electron (or electrons) is within the other particle, the very same electron which it lacks for this precise reason. Each of the two particles actually bound in the molecule has its own complement in the other one: at each moment they exchange the electrons of their outermost shell, this mutual exchange binding them into a single whole. When two chemical particles, previously apparently identical, are ‘locked’ into a molecule, the structure of each of them undergoes a certain change. Two gears are locked exactly because the tooth of the pinion is placed opposite a space between two teeth of the drive gear rather than opposite the same kind of tooth. But the very essence of interconnection is not realised through sameness. ![]() ![]() ‘Sameness’ is always assumed, of course, as the premise or condition under which the link of interconnection is established. In general, interaction proves to be strong if an object finds in another object a complement of itself, something, that it is lacking as such. The analysis of the category of interaction shows directly, however, that mere sameness, simple identity of two individual things is by no means an expression of the principle of their mutual connection. We have thus established that thinking in concepts is directed at revealing the living real unity of things, their concrete connection of interaction rather than at defining their abstract unity, dead identity. The dialectics of the Abstract & the Concrete in Marx’s CapitalĬhapter One – Dialectical & Metaphysical Conception of the Concrete Soviet Psychology: Dialectics of the Abstract and the Concrete by Evald Ilyenkov ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |