MALA ŠKOLA KULTURE I SUBKULTURE GOVORA

 

MARKS, ENGELS I LENJIN O OKOLIŠU I RAZVOJU (2/2)

MARX, ENGELS AND LENIN ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT (2/2)

 

Aleksandar Knežević

Spoznaja kao uslov gospodarenja nad prirodom Engels piše: »Hegel je prvi pravilno postavio odnos slobode i nužnosti. Sloboda je za njega shvatanje nužnosti«. Nužnost je slijepa samo ukoliko je nismo pojmili . Sloboda se ne sastoji u sanjarijama o nezavisnosti od prirodnih zakona, nego u saznanju tih zakona i u tome datoj mogućnosti da njihovo djejstvo planski primenjujemo u određene svrhe. Ovo važi kako za zakone spoljne prirode tako i za zakone koji upravljaju telesnom i duhovnom egzistencijom samog čoveka - dve vrste zakona koje možemo da razdvojimo jedne od drugih u najboljem slučaju u mislima, a ne u stvarnosti. Otuda sloboda volje ne znači ništa drugo do sposobnost da donosimo odluke na osnovu poznavanja stvari. Dakle, ukoliko je slobodniji sud nekog čoveka o određenom pitanju, utoliko će većom nužnošću biti određena sadržina tog suda... Sloboda se sastoji u vlasti nad nama samima i nad spoljnom prirodom, zasnovanoj na saznanju prirodnih nužnosti (naturnotwendigkeiten)...«  Analizirajmo na kakvim se gnoseološkim postavkama zasniva čitavo to razmatranje. Prvo, još u samom početku svojih razmatranja Engels priznaje zakone prirode, zakone spoljne prirode, nužnost u prirodi - tj. sve ono što Mah, Avenarijus, Pecolt i komp. proglašavaju za »metafiziku«. Kad bi Lunačarski htio malo bolje da razmisli o »divnim« Engelsovim razmatranjima, on bi morao da vidi fundamentalnu razliku između materijalističke teorije saznanja – i agnosticizma i idealizma, koji poriču zakonitost u prirodi ili je proglašavaju samo »logičkom« itd. i t.sl. Drugo, Engels se ne bavi izmišljanjem »definicija« slobode i nužnosti, onih sholastičkih definicija kojima se najviše bave reakcionarni profesori (kao Avenarijus) i njihovi učenici (kao Bogdanov). Engels uzima saznanje i volju čovekovu — s jedne strane, nužnost u prirodi — sa druge i umjesto svake odredbe, svake definicije prosto kaže da je nužnost u prirodi primarna, a da su volja i svijest čovekova sekundarne. Volja i svijest se moraju, neminovno i neophodno, prilagođavati nužnosti u prirodi; Engels smatra da je to tako samo po sebi razumljivo da ne troši suvišne reči za objašnjenje svog gledišta. Samo su ruski mahisti mogli da se požale na Engelsovu opštu definiciju materijalizma (priroda je primarna, svijest sekundarna: sjetite se samo Bodanovljeve »nedoumice« u vezi s tim!)1.14 i da u isti mah označe kao «divnu» i «izvanredno tačnu» jednu od Engelsovih posebnih primjena te opšte i osnovne odredbe! Treće, Engels ne sumnja u postojanje «slijepe nužnosti». On priznaje postojanje nužnosti koju čovjek nije saznao. To se iz navedenog odlomka vidi jasno, da ne može biti jasnije. Međutim, kako može čovek, s gledišta mahistâ, znati da postoji nešto što on ne poznaje? Znati da postoji nesaznata nužnost? Zar to nije «mistika», «metafizika», priznavanje   «fetiša» i «idola», «Kantova nesaznatljiva stvar po sebi»? Kad bi se mahisti udubili u stvar, morali bi zapaziti potpunu istovjetnost između Engelsovog razmatranja o saznajnosti objektivne prirode stvari i o pretvaranju «stvari po sebi» u «stvar za nas» - s jedne strane, i njegovog razmatranja o slepoj, nesaznatoj nužnosti - sa druge strane. Razvitak svijesti svake pojedine ljudske jedinke i razvitka kolektivnih znanja čitavog čovečanstva pokazuje nam na svakom koraku pretvaranje nesaznate «stvari po sebi» u saznatu «stvar za nas», pretvaranje slijepe, nesaznate nužnosti, «nužnosti po sebi» u saznatu «nužnost za nas». Gnoseološki nema apsolutno nikakve razlike između jednog i drugog pretvaranja, jer je osnovno gledište i ovde i tamo isto, naime: materijalističko, priznavanje objektivne realnosti spoljnog sveta i zakona spoljne prirode, pri čemu su i taj svet i zakoni za čoveka potpuno saznatljivi, ali ih on nikada ne može saznati do kraja. Mi ne poznajemo prirodnu nužnost u meteorološkim pojavama, i utoliko smo neizbežno robovi tih pojava. Ali, ne poznajući tu nužnost, mi znamo da ona postoji. Otkuda nam to znanje? Otuda dakle potiče i znanje da stvari postoje van naše svijesti nezavisno od nje, naime: iz razvitka naših znanja koji svakome čoveku milionima puta pokazuje da se neznanje zamenjuje znanjem kad predmet deluje na naše čulne organe i, obrnuto, da se znanje pretvara u neznanje kad ne postoji mogućnost za takvo delovanje Četvrto, u navedenom razmatranju Engles očigledno primenjuje «saltovitalni» metod u filozofiji, tj. vrši skok od teorije k praksi. Nijedan od tih učenih (i glupih) profesora filozofije, koje slijede naši mahisti nikada ne dozvoljava sebi takve skokove, nedostojne predstavnika «čiste nauke». Za njih je jedna stvar teorija saznanja, u kojoj treba što lukavije fabrikovati «definicije», a praksa - sasvim druga stvar. Kod Englesa čitava živa ljudska praksa probija sebi put u samu teoriju saznanja pružajući objektivni kriterij istine: dok ne poznajemo zakon prirode on postoji i deluje mimo i izvan naše svijesti, čini nas robovima «slepe nužnosti». Čim upoznamo taj zakon, koji djeluje (kako je to hiljadu puta ponovio Marks) nezavisno od naše volje i od našeg saznanja, mi smo gospodari prirode. Gospodarenje nad prirodom, koje se ispoljava u praksi čovečanstva, rezultat je objektivno tačnog odražavanja pojava i procesa prirode u ljudskoj glavi, ono je dokaz da je to odražavanje (u granicama onoga što nam praksa pokazuje) objektivna, apsolutna, večita istina. Svesni čovek izdvaja sebe iz prirode Kako ovo da se razume? Pred čovekom je mreža prirodnih pojava. Instinktivni čovek, divljak, ne izdvaja sebe iz prirode. Svjesni čovek izdvaja, kategorije su stupnjevi izdvajanja, tj. saznavanja sveta, čvorne tačke u mreži koje pomažu da se ona sazna i da se njome ovlada. O otpadu S kapitalističkim načinom proizvodnje širi se iskorišćavanje ekskremenata  proizvodnje i potrošnje. Pod prvim razumijemo otpad industrije i poljoprivrede, pod posljednjim dijelom ekskremente koji potiču iz prirodne čovekove razmjene materije, dijelom oblik u kome upotrebni predmeti preostaju poslije njihove upotrebe. Ekskrementi proizvodnje jesu, dakle, u hemijskoj industriji oni sporedni proizvodi koji kod malog razmjera proizvodnje propadaju; željezne strugotine koje otpadaju pri izradi mašina i koje opet ulaz kao sirovina u proizvodnju željeza itd. Ekskrementi potrošnje jesu i prirodne materije čovjekovih lučenja, ostaci odjeće u obliku krpa itd. Ekskrementi potrošnje najvažniju su za poljoprivredu. Što se tiče njihove upotrebe, u kapitalističkoj privredi vlada kolosalno rasipanje; u Londonu, na primer, ona ne zna ništa bolje da uradi s đubretom koje potiče od 4 ½ miliona ljudi nego da ga uz ogromne troškove upotrebi za zagađivanje Temze. Podstrek za iskorišćavanje otpada dolazi, naravno, od poskupljivanja sirovina. Komunizam je sovjetska vlast plus elektrifikacija Komunizam je sovjetska vlast plus elektrifikacija cele zemlje. Ako je drukčije, zemlja ostaje sitnosopstvenička i potrebno je da mi to jasno shvatimo. Mi smo slabiji od kapitalizma ne samo u svetskim razmerama nego i unutar zemlje. Svima je to poznato. Mi smo to shvatili i dovešćemo stvar dotle da sitnoseljačka privredna baza pređe na krupnoindustrijsku. Tek tada, kad zemlja bude elektrificirana, kada se industrija, poljoprivreda i transport budu tehnički bazirali na savremenoj krupnoj industriji, tek tada ćemo konačno pobjediti.

K nowledge as a condition for mastery over nature Engels writes: "Hegel was the first to correctly posit the relationship between freedom and necessity. For him, freedom is the understanding of necessity." Necessity is blind only if we have not understood it. Freedom does not consist in daydreams about independence from natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws and the possibility given by them to apply their action in a planned manner for certain purposes. This applies both to the laws of external nature and to the laws that govern the physical and spiritual existence of man himself - two types of laws that we can separate from each other at best in thought, and not in reality. Hence, freedom of will means nothing more than the ability to make decisions based on knowledge of things. Therefore, the freer a man's judgment on a certain issue is, the greater the necessity will determine the content of that judgment... Freedom consists in the power over ourselves and over external nature, based on the knowledge of natural necessities (naturnotwendigkeiten)..." Let us analyze what epistemological premises this entire discussion is based on. First, at the very beginning of his considerations Engels recognizes the laws of nature, the laws of external nature, necessity in nature - i.e., everything that Mach, Avenarius, Pecolt and comp. declare to be "metaphysics". If Lunacharsky wanted to think a little better about Engels's "wonderful" considerations, he would have to see the fundamental difference between the materialist theory of knowledge - and agnosticism and idealism, which deny the lawfulness in nature or declare it only "logical", etc. and so on. Secondly, Engels does not concern himself with inventing "definitions" of freedom and necessity, those scholastic definitions which reactionary professors (like Avenarius) and their students (like Bogdanov) are most concerned with. Engels takes knowledge and the will of man - on the one hand, necessity in nature - on the other and instead of every stipulation, every definition simply says that necessity in nature is primary, and that the will and consciousness of man are secondary. Will and consciousness must, inevitably and necessarily, be adapted to necessity in nature; Engels considers this so self-evident that he does not waste any unnecessary words explaining his point of view. Only the Russian Machists could complain about Engels's general definition of materialism (nature is primary, consciousness secondary: just remember Bodanov's "confusion" on this point!)1.14 and at the same time describe as "wonderful" and "extraordinarily accurate" one of Engels's specific applications of this general and fundamental provision! Thirdly, Engels does not doubt the existence of "blind necessity". He recognizes the existence of a necessity that man has not known. This is clear from the passage cited, it could not be clearer. However, how can man, from the Machist point of view, know that there is something that he does not know? Know that there is an unknowable necessity? Is this not "mysticism", "metaphysics", the recognition of "fetishes" and "idols", "Kant's unknowable thing in itself"? If the Machians were to delve into the matter, they would have to notice the complete identity between Engels's consideration of the cognizable nature of things and the transformation of the "thing in itself" into a "thing for us" - on the one hand, and his consideration of blind, uncognized necessity - on the other. The development of the consciousness of each individual human being and the development of the collective knowledge of all mankind shows us at every step the transformation of the uncognized "thing in itself" into a cognized "thing for us", the transformation of blind, uncognized necessity, "necessity in itself" into a cognized "necessity for us". Epistemologically there is absolutely no difference between the one and the other transformation, because the basic point of view is the same in both cases, namely: materialist, recognition of the objective reality of the external world and the laws of external nature, whereby both this world and the laws are completely cognizable to man, but he can never fully know them. We do not know the natural necessity in meteorological phenomena, and to that extent we are inevitably slaves of these phenomena. But, without knowing this necessity, we know that it exists. Where does this knowledge come from? Hence, the knowledge that things exist outside our consciousness independently of it, namely: from the development of our knowledge, which shows every man millions of times that ignorance is replaced by knowledge when an object acts on our sense organs and, conversely, that knowledge is transformed into ignorance when there is no possibility of such an action. Fourth, in the above discussion, Engels obviously applies the "saltovital" method in philosophy, i.e., makes a leap from theory to practice. None of those learned (and stupid) professors of philosophy, followed by our Machists, ever allows themselves such leaps, unworthy of representatives of "pure science". For them, the theory of knowledge, in which "definitions" should be fabricated as cunningly as possible, is one thing, and practice is quite another. For Engels, the entire living human practice makes its way into the theory of knowledge itself, providing an objective criterion of truth: until we know the law of nature, it exists and acts beyond and beyond our consciousness, making us slaves of "blind necessity". As soon as we get to know that law, which works (as repeated a thousand times by M  Conscious man separates himself from nature How is this to be understood? Before man is a network of natural phenomena. Instinctive man, a savage, does not separate himself from nature. Conscious man separates, categories are degrees of separation, i.e., of knowing the world, nodal points in the network that help to know it and master it. On waste With the capitalist mode of production, the exploitation of the excrements of production and consumption is spreading. By the former we understand the waste of industry and agriculture, by the latter partly the excrements that originate from man's natural exchange of matter, partly the form in which usable objects remain after their use. Excrements of production are, therefore, in the chemical industry those by-products that deteriorate in small-scale production; iron filings that fall off during the manufacture of machines and which again enter as raw materials in the production of iron, etc. Excrements of consumption are also natural substances of human excretions, remnants of clothing in the form of rags, etc. Excrements of consumption are most important for agriculture. As for their use, there is colossal waste in capitalist economy; in London, for example, it knows nothing better to do with the garbage of 4½ million people than to use it at enormous expense to pollute the Thames. The incentive for the utilization of waste comes, of course, from the rise in the price of raw materials. Communism is Soviet power plus electrification Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country. Otherwise, the country will remain small-scale, and we must clearly understand this. We are weaker than capitalism not only on a world scale but also within the country. Everyone knows this. We have understood this and we will bring matters to a point where the small-scale economic base will be transferred to a large-scale industrial one. Only then, when the country is electrified, when industry, agriculture and transport are technically based on modern large-scale industry, we will finally win.  .