This article was written in response to a prisoner who submitted an
article about Huey Newton supporting Newton’s political line from the
later years of his life. MIM has written extensively about Newton’s
correct political line during the days of the Black Panther Party and
also criticism of his line from later in life. See
https://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/bpp/index.html
for writings by the BPP and MIM’s articles on them.
Greetings and my best to you. I read your piece, “Huey P. Newton -
revisited.” I found it extremely interesting although at this point the
depth of my knowledge of Newton’s writings is still insufficiently
shallow, so I’ll limit myself to those issues you raised.
Newton and those around him were by far the most theoretically advanced
within the settler empire at that time. Although they were not
infallible, and it is from their mistakes, as well as their successes,
that lessons must be drawn. There is an abundance of material written
and practical experiences to draw from. From the quotations that you
drew from in your piece, you emphasize in a favorable light, Newton’s
mistakes rather than criticizing them constructively in order to foster
the advancement of theory and practice.
I wasn’t aware that Newton was a steadfast adherent of the theory of
“the negation of the negation.” This is interesting considering that
Newton was not only a student and practitioner of Maoism, but well
versed in his works. You see Mao had a different take on this. In his
1964
“Talk
on questions of philosophy” he said, ‘…Engels talked about the three
categories but as for me, I don’t believe in two of those categories.
The juxtaposition, on the same level, of the transformation of quality
and quantity into one another, the negation of the negation, and the law
of opposites, is ’triplism’, not ‘monism.’ The most basic thing is the
unity of opposites. The transformation of quality and quantity into one
another is the unity of opposites quantity and quality. There is no such
thing of the negation of the negation. Affirmation, negation,
affirmation, negation. Slave holding society negated primitive society,
but with reference to feudal society it constitutes in turn, the
affirmation. Feudal society constituted the negation in relation to
slave holding society, but it was in turn the affirmation with reference
to capitalist society. Capitalist society was the negation in relation
to feudal society, but it is in turn, the affirmation in relation to
socialist society…’
Mao was asserting that the transformation of quantity and quality into
one another is not a separate process, but another aspect in the same
process in the struggle of opposites, i.e., the law of the unity of
opposites. In particular regards to the negation of the negation, I’ve
struggled with this for some time and I’m convinced Mao’s line on this
process is an accurate reflection of objective reality.
Dialectical materialism reveals to us that all objects and phenomena are
not only in motion in relation to other objects and phenomena, but of
greater significance, it reveals to us that all objects and phenomena
are in a reciprocal relationship, interpenetrating and exerting their
influence on one another’s development in a perpetual process of
internal qualitative transformation. I’m sure that you’re well aware of
this already, but it’s necessary to review as it is relevant to our
discussion.
To expand on this further is to understand that we humans will never
know the secrets of the “Beginning” or the “End” as Newton insisted,
because for objective matter there is no beginning or end, only an
endless process of transformation. This has been born out through
scientific experiments. So long as we humans are in existence as a
species, with each new transformation of matter, especially those
brought about by humans, new questions (and consciousness in general)
will reflect and arise in correspondence to these new transformations,
and more knowledge will continuously be gained, further penetrating the
nature of matter and its secrets.
This is reinforced with the law of conservation and transformation of
energy which was first discovered in the 19th century, thus confirming
Descartes 17th century principle that the quantity of motion in the
world is constant. This law and other discoveries have demonstrated that
all the various forms of motion of matter - magnetism, chemical energy,
heat, mechanical energy, light, solids, liquids, gases, … all transform
into one another under given conditions “without” any loss of energy,
i.e. matter.
Engels provided us with an accurate description of this process in his
“dialectics of nature,”: “… If we change heat into mechanical motion or
vise-versa, is not the quality altered while the quantity remains the
same? Quite correct. Change of form of motion is always a process that
takes place between at least two bodies, of which one loses a definite
quantity of motion of one quality, while the other gains a corresponding
quantity of motion of another quality (mechanical motion, electricity,
chemical decomposition)…”
The law of conservation and transformation of energy has successfully
demonstrated that matter can neither be created from nothing, nor can it
be reduced to nothing, it is infinite. There is no beginning and there
is no end, just an infinite process of transformation. This is
significant in that it not only “excludes” an external motive force as
the source and creation of matter and its motion, but it likewise,
reinforces an emphasis on internal contradictions (unity of opposites)
as the primary source of matters motion.
You quoted Newton in his “Intercommunalism” as saying: “…and then we
will move to an even higher stage. I like to think that we will finally
move to a stage called ‘godliness,’ where man will know the secrets of
the beginning and end and will have full control of the universe - and
when I say universe, I mean all motion and matter…”
Not only is Newton incorrect on this point for those reasons already
expounded upon, but it is also here that Newton departs from scientific
materialism and takes up a metaphysical position.
In opposition to scientific materialism are the proponents of
metaphysics and idealism, who contend that the source of all matter and
its motion is the result of external forces and influences. The
metaphysicians live in a static and mechanical “Q-Ball” universe where
“A” hits “B”, and “B” hits “C”, and “C” hits “D”, in an endless
succession, and the motion of each is the result of the others exertion.
If not an endless procession of internal transformation, what set “A” -
or in this case, all matter and the universe - into motion?” When Newton
promotes the concept of a “beginning” and an “end,” he’s removing the
opposing forces inherent in all matter as the primary source of motion
and promoting an external motive force as creating and setting into
motion this “Beginning,” which simultaneously swings the door wide open
for superstition, a divine creator, god(s), etc, a consciousness not
only separated and divorced from matter, but existing prior to it. No
doubt this is unintentional on Newton’s part, but nonetheless, it’s an
abandonment of scientific materialism and an adoption of metaphysical
idealism.
In particular, reference to the quotations you provided from Newton’s
“On the relevance of the church,” it is essential to understand that the
motion of matter proceeds through stages, periods of relatively slow
quantitative development, which at nodal points results in rapid
qualitative transformations. As we’re well aware of, the source of this
motion, quantitative and qualitative, is to be found within matter
itself as a result of the struggle of opposing tendencies inherent
within it.
It is the stage when quantitative developments transform into something
qualitatively new that the old contradictions struggling within the
quantitative stage have begun to resolve themselves and give rise to new
contradictions, that qualitative transformation arises.
Using a concrete example that I’m sure you’re familiar with, think of
slave holding society of antiquity. The principal contradiction inherent
within this stage of economic development which propelled society
forward giving it motion, was that between the slaves and the slave
holding state (not excluding the conflicting interests of other social
classes which developed out of this principal contradiction).
In various forms, sometimes manifesting itself through the conflicts of
other social classes, this struggle carried on for multiple centuries
without ever changing the essential nature of its production. It was
still an economic system based upon slave production with a
corresponding social system. That is, it was still in its “quantitative”
stage of development.
Although the contradiction between the productive forces on the one hand
(the instruments of production and those who do the producing), and the
relations of production on the other hand (property relations and the
social system that develop in correspondence to it), intensified to such
a degree that the continuity of slave holding societies could no longer
be sustained. These contradictions began to resolve themselves through
self-consuming internal eruptions and wars with neighboring states, thus
giving birth to qualitatively new contradictions in the process,
i.e. feudalist production and the struggle between the peasantry and
nobility as well as every other social class in between. A new stage of
economic development in human society had come into existence.
Getting close to the point at hand, in this struggle between the slaves
and the slave holding state, it was the slaves and lowest classes that
represented the most progressive and revolutionary aspect within society
struggling to transform and push society forward whereas the opposing
tendencies were the state and aristocracy who represented the most
“Reactionary” aspect of society as they only reacted to suppress those
progressive forces below in an attempt to preserve their material
existence as a social class.
Could we imagine Spartacus advocating the “need” and preservation of the
slave owning state for the sake of progress that would come as a result
of this struggle between the slaves and the state? Not only is this
tautology at its finest, its essentially reactionary irregardless of its
packaging. It would amount to perpetuating the oppression and misery of
the slaves for the progress that would come to the slaves as a result of
their oppression and misery.
On the other hand, it would be revolutionary for the slaves and lowest
classes to advocate and struggle for the destruction and transformation
of the slave holding state, because only through the destruction of this
particular mode of production could the possibility of something new
arise.
Although not as conspicuous, this is tantamount to Newton’s position on
the church and his avocation for its preservation, “…we believe it needs
to exist…religion perhaps, is a thing that man needs at this time
because scientists can not answer all of the questions…”
We need to understand that scientists will never know all of the answers
because with each new transformation of matter, new questions will
continuously arise. But more to the point, to promote the preservation
of a phenomenon that hinders knowledge and foments ignorance, is to
promote the preservation of the status-quo, prolonging the resolution of
those current contradictions and the development of something
qualitatively new. Despite good intentions, in essence, this is
reactionary.
And although the two are inseparably interconnected and influence one
another’s development, we must distinguish between something’s “form”
and its “essence.” A label doesn’t determine the nature of a process
anymore than a paint job on a car determines its make or model. The
nature of a given phenomenon is not determined by its external
appearances or the labels we attach to it, but by the objective
necessity existing within it and the laws which govern the direction and
development of its motion. Although the form in which a particular
phenomenon manifests itself will vary depending upon the conditions in
which it develops and interacts.
The same applies to the church. Within given conditions the church
manifests itself in progressive forms - such as clothing drives, food
programs for the poor, etc. But we must never lose sight of its
reactionary nature and promote its preservation.
In regards to focoism (foquismo), to fully comprehend the incorrectness
of this strategy, it is necessary to understand the relationship between
consciousness and matter, at least in a rudimentary way.
Matter is primary and consciousness is secondary. Objective matter is
not dependent on subjective consciousness for its existence. Matter can,
and does, exist without consciousness - ideas, thoughts, theories,
plans, ways of thinking, policies, etc. Although subjective
consciousness can not exist without matter because it is matter that is
reflected in our brains through our five sense organs giving shape to
our consciousness. Without matter there can be no consciousness. In fact
the brain itself is nothing more than a highly developed form of complex
matter with the ability of cognizing the external world around it.
Obviously people living under somewhat different material conditions
will develop somewhat different ideas and ways of thinking that more or
less correspond and reflect their material conditions.
Without the necessary objective conditions (widespread poverty,
oppression, etc) the development of the subjective conditions
(revolutionary consciousness) will be limited and not develop beyond the
point necessary to sustain a thorough revolutionary transformation.
There is a dialectical relationship, an inseparable struggle, between
our living conditions and the political consciousness of the people. In
society, the objective and subjective conditions are not only
interdependent on one another for their development, but they influence
one another’s motion and development as well, in a reciprocal
relationship. When objective conditions deteriorate, in search of
solutions to their deteriorating material conditions, people become more
receptive to political education (subjective preparations).
We can think of the objective conditions as the fertile soil necessary
for the subjective conditions to sprout and flourish. Although of
greater importance, objective conditions by themselves (poverty,
oppression, etc) will not automatically give rise to the subjective
conditions (a revolutionary consciousness) anymore than a fertile field
will automatically give growth to a flourishing crop. The subjective
conditions must be cultivated and nurtured within the people, like a
farmer cultivates and nurtures a crop. And only through this process can
a successful struggle develop.
The error of focoism is that it places a primary emphasis on armed
actions as a means to ignite the population to rebellion without first
“sufficiently” cultivating and nurturing a revolutionary consciousness
within the population. Moreover the focoists go so far as to contend
that if the objective conditions do not exist they can bring them into
existence through armed actions and a revolutionary consciousness within
the people will automatically develop in correspondence to these actions
and the states repressive reactions. As the author of “Blood In My Eye”
wrote, “…should we wait for something that is not likely to occur for
decades? The conditions that are not present must be manufactured…”
This strategy has proven time and time again to fail, within and outside
of U.S. borders. It has turned the very people it was intended to
mobilize against the adventurers themselves. This is because a
supportive revolutionary consciousness had not been developed within the
people first. With particular regards to the U.S., this was not possible
because the objective conditions were lacking on a large scale.
As politically advanced as Newton and those around him were, one of the
mistakes they made was practicing focoism, which Newton himself
acknowledges in the quotation you provided, “in conversation with
William F. Buckley Feb 11, 1973.” And although Newton recognized that
this adventurist approach was incorrect, others around him continued to
push this line, theoretically and in practice.
Their operating above ground the way they did was adventurist in that
the conditions for them to do so successfully were not (and are still
not) in existence. They not only unnecessarily exposed themselves
prematurely to internal and external enemies while they were still in a
weak embryonic stage, they couldn’t possibly maintain the support
necessary to survive being that the objective conditions necessary for
massive support did not exist on a large enough scale.
We see this same adventurist approach being repeated today with the
NABPP-PC. Never mind that their class analysis is incorrect, their
location of operation is adventurist in that “everything” that is
written must pass through the hands of the enemy, which is the
equivalent of allowing the pigs to sit in on central committee meetings.
To believe that democratic centralism can be practiced effectively from
a jail cell is not only naïve, it compromises others. Rather than
subject themselves, and many other comrades to unnecessary heat and
avoidable set backs, in the interest of developing a movement with a
correct political i.e., they should relegate their work and resources to
MIM.
