Paradoxical Materialism — The Science that shall replace Dialectical Materialism

Paradoxical Materialism — The Science that shall replace Dialectics

Before understanding the main essence of Paradoxical materialism, we must first understand the logic behind paradox.

Such logic of paradox can be found in the ‘‘Liar paradox’’ — where the liar says the statement ‘‘I am lying’’ — but this true statement is contradictory, because the liar is being honest, so he is being truthful, on the other hand in saying that he ‘‘is lying’’ by being truthful, he is also indirectly lying. We cannot know therefore whether he is telling the truth or whether he is lying, we can only attest to say, that he is doing ‘‘both of them’’ — he is both lying and being truthful. How does a dialectician reconciled the liar paradox? — The simple answer is that he cannot, — if we consider truth as the ‘‘Thesis’’ and lies as the ‘‘Antithesis’’ — the synthesis would become a paradox in and of itself, — because it will become a ‘‘Liar’s truth’’ — henceforth rather than give us a ‘‘third possibility’’ — which dialectics give, the paradox is special because it gives us a ‘‘Third and a fourth possibility’’ — it gives us the possibility that a person can be both a truthful and a liar simultaneously. Dialectics provides us with ‘‘one answer’’ — Paradox provides us with ‘‘Two’’ — The paradox in itself is an advancement of dialectics, but it is also the thing which replaces dialectics. When an object has reached it’s full potential and cannot be reconciled any further, that object becomes a paradox. The object in a state of paradox has reached the climax of ‘‘Internal change’’ — however, this object also experiences ‘‘change’’ — but it experiences so, no longer in a dialectical manner, in which one thing is transformed into a completely other opposing thing, but one thing is transformed in two ways, both as opposing and non-opposing. Finally we shall make a distinction between ‘‘Dialectical Egoism and Paradoxical Egoism’’ — Egoism like socialism has gone through various phases.

Utopian Socialism passed through a phase of metaphysics, likewise the ‘‘absolute egoism’’ or the ‘‘absolute transcendent ego’’ of Fichte which Stirner Critique passed through a phase of metaphysics science. Scientific Socialism or Marxism passed through a phase of dialectical materialism, in the same manner, Egoism passes through a phase of dialectical egoism which we experience in Stirner’s writings, he had observed that egoism is a dialectical reality, but it is clear that in his writings we see small hints of his ‘‘paradoxical egoism’’. We therefore ask ourselves, ‘‘What distinguishes dialectical egoism from paradoxical egoism?’’ Dialectical Egoism motions throughout society — in fact it is through a dialectical egoist process that egoism will one day replace communism as the final stage of struggle in historical progression. When ‘‘ALL Contradictions’’ have been reconciled, when egoism is finally achieved world Wide, the dialectics is no longer used, because as Stirner said, when that point is reached, ‘‘Science itself dissolved into life’’ — and since all contradictions of class society have been reconciled, there is no longer need of the dialectic, of course we cannot deny that some material processes still experience dialectical change, however when the egoist world is achieved, most contradictions would have been reconciled, — class itself ceases to exist, the labourer and ragamuffing of communism clash as thesis and antithesis — this last unity of opposites becomes transformed into the synthesis which we describe as the ‘‘Owner Unique Egoist’’ who is both idler and playful. The Owner Unique Egoist can no longer be transformed dialectically, because he becomes a paradox, although the unique one changes, this change only causes him to be more unique, to be more owner and to be more egoist. What is there after the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie? The answer goes that the dictatorship of the proletariat replaces that of the bourgeoisie? What comes after the dictatorship of the proletariat? — It is said that the state withers away when social classes are abolished, thus bringing about the necessary conditions for communism — For Marx and Engels, this is the ‘‘Last Transformation’’ of society, but before them came Max Stirner who briefly argued that the conditions of communism will create a society of so much abundance, that it will create a society where people in themselves ‘‘own nothing’’ — therefore they will become Ragamuffin — ‘‘they labour’’ for society, but they neither own their labour, nor the means of production, they own nothing.

The means of production and the labour of the individual belongs to society at large divided amongst the members of society according to the need. This society of abundance will create a division between those who ‘‘idle’’ and those who ‘‘labour’’ — it can be briefly hinted at, that communism might even create it’s own classes despite claiming that it has ‘‘abolished all classes’’ — since it has divided society into two different categories, ‘‘Those who engage with the means of production as labourers’’ and those who do not engage with the means of production but extract the surplus value that is produced by society nonetheless. This creates a ‘‘contradiction’’ between those who idle and those who labour — therefore ‘‘communism’’ has not abolished all contradictions — while it may have abolished the contradictions of capitalism, it has nonetheless created contradictions of its own.

The unity of opposites and the clash between the thesis of labourer and ragamuffin will create a synthesis. The labourer will become ‘‘extinct’’ — he will be abolished, on the other hand, the ragamuffin will be transformed, — the ragamuffin is that ‘‘idler’’ who owns nothing in society and controls nothing, unlike the labourer who controls the means of production. It is precisely Max Stirner’s ideas that triggered Marx into a tantrum leading up to Marx’s critique of Stirner in the German Ideology — Marx thought that Stirner’s ideas could lead to the end of Marx’s own ideas.

The ragammufin from the ‘‘Owner of Nothing’’ will clash against the class of the masses, the proletarian class that ‘‘Owns the means of production’’ — it will challenge the proletarians and eventually disempower the proletariat. Before I remarked how ‘‘communism’’ might be creating it’s own ‘‘classes’’ — yet we must be careful when saying this, it is better to say that communism has abolished social classes. Only the class of proletarians remain which are struggling against the ‘‘classless, the masterless, the ragamuffin, the non-labouring idlers’’ — These classless ragamuffin are the very antithesis of the proletarian class — Hence there is a contradiction between those who are ‘‘classless’’ and those who belong to a class.

Therefore, the struggle in communist society is a paradox yet again! It is both a ‘‘class struggle’’ — because the proletarian class are indeed a social class and they are struggling against someone else, on the other hand it is also a ‘‘classless struggle’’ — because the ragamuffin that are ‘‘classless’’ — that have always been considered as such, even when they were called ‘‘Lumpen Proletarians’’ in capitalist conditions are struggling against those who pertain to a class. While struggle in feudalism, capitalism and socialism are only a ‘‘class struggle’’ — because these struggles follow the logic of dialectics, thesis, antithesis and synthesis, the struggle in a communist society follows the logic of paradox, because it is simultaneously a class struggle and a classless struggle. Henceforth, the logic is that after a thesis finds itself in a clash with an antithesis, rather than forming one synthesis, two ‘‘Syntheses’’ are created — one where social struggle is a class struggle, the other where social struggle is a ‘‘classless struggle’’ — Therefore I beg the reader not to confuse my words when I say that communism has created ‘‘New classes’’ — I do not mean that communism has reverted back to ‘‘socialism’’ — rather I mean that although communism has abolished all classes, ‘‘Class struggle still remains’’ — this time in a different form, rather than one class against another class, this time, one class against a propertyless, masterless and classless individuals. Marx himself considered the Lumpen Proletariat in industrial capitalist conditions as ‘‘classless’’ — of course he also argued that socialism would put an end to the Lumpen Proletariat — and this is true, the proletariat has a major victory against the Lumpen Proletariat in the socialist phase and the lumpen proletariat under socialism is on the brink of extinction.

When however, socialism is transformed into communism, there is what we call ‘‘the negation of the negation’’ — where by which the lumpen proletariat is reborn, this time not under industrial capitalist conditions, but under communist conditions, and we call these classless individuals, the ‘‘Ragamuffin’’ as popularized by Stirner. These Ragamuffins are very similar to the ‘‘Lumpen Proletariat’’ — but we cannot call them Lumpen Proletariat, because the Lumpen Proletariat were born in relation to the industrial proletariat in the industrial revolution, while the ragamuffin developed in relation to the industrial proletariat under communist conditions. Although they are very similar, they are also different.

According to this law we call the negation of the negation, development occurs in cycles, each of which consists of three stages: the original state of the object, its transformation into its opposite (that is, its negation), and the transformation of the opposite into its own opposite. We can therefore track the historical progress in cycles of the ‘‘Idler’’ — Under capitalism the Idler in his original state was the lumpen proletariat, in socialism this is negated, the lumpen proletariat is transformed into it’s opposite, namely he is transformed into the proletariat, the final stage of this law states, that the opposite is transformed into it’s opposite, therefore the proletariat of socialism once he enters into the stage of communism becomes the opposite of the proletariat — and the opposite of the proletariat is precisely the ragamuffin, the ‘‘One who owns nothing’’ — this creates a contradiction between the ragamuffins and the remaining proletariat, until eventually, applying the law of the negation again, the ragamuffin once more transforms into it’s opposite, but this time the ragamuffin is not transformed into a proletariat, rather since the ragamuffin is the one who owns nothing, the ragamuffin is therefore transformed into it’s opposite, ‘‘The Owner Unique Egoist’’. Up to this stage, we hit a brick wall, namely the ‘‘Paradox’’ — the unique Egoist is either strong enough to remain the ‘‘Owner’’ of property through his might, if he’s not strong enough and other egoists overtake his property, he will be transformed into the opposite of the opposite, hence the owner will revert back to being ragamuffin, propertyless.

This is the last phase of social evolution, and therefore this process of regaining back one’s property from others and losing one’s property to other egoists will take place in these negation cycles for as long as time itself exists. Dialectics itself is shown to validate egoism and nullify communism.

The one ‘‘Who owned nothing’’ will become the one that owns ‘‘everything’’ and the proletarians that owned the means of production under communism will become disempowered and they will own nothing. There will be a stage of struggle between these two, an insurrection by the ragamuffins will ensue. Once the ragamuffin wins and owns the means of production, he will be transformed into an ‘‘Owner’’ — furthermore he shall do away with ‘‘objective morality, altruism, collectivism, generalities, conformism in society’’ — he will become the antithesis of the ‘‘masses’’ and become an individual. He shall therefore dispel the ‘‘Humane’’ communist way of living and replace it with an egoist way of living, he will become ‘‘unhuman’’ — and thus become unique, and because he considers himself as the sole unique one, he would see the world as his own, his property. Once this occurs, only then is finally dialectical egoism transformed in itself and becomes ‘‘Paradoxical egoism’’ — this occurs to the law of dialectics itself — when the quantity of union of egoists in increase, there is a qualitative leap in society that transforms communist society into an egoist union, when this occurs, we reach the climax of dialectics — all those years of ‘‘dialectical change’’ have been accumulated up to this precise moment, all that ‘‘quantity’’ of years of ‘‘change’’ has lead to the dialectical method transforming itself into another different method in itself, that it changes its own ‘‘quality’’ and becomes a paradox. The dialectics is not ‘‘eternal’’ — the dialectic will one day be transformed fully into paradox