“Lenin: Empirio-criticism and historical materialism – part fourteen”
Those unfinished domains of Marxian theory and practice include:
(1) that of the detailed nature of the Marxian dialectic method;
(2) that of the dialectic of Nature, and of the Marxian immanent critique of the ideology that pervasively compromises the modern sciences, including, not just the economic and other social sciences, but the natural sciences and mathematics as well;
(3) clarification, including clear and ‘quanto-qualitative’ definition, of the central Marxian concept of “the social forces of production” — of ‘the human-societal self-force of human-societal self-re-production’ — in relation to a ‘Meta-Darwinian’ concept of human-species ‘‘‘fitness’’’ in terms of the rate of human-societal self-reproduction, as well as the interrelated clarification of the core Marxian concept of “the social relations of production”, e.g., of the “capital-relation”, of the “money-relation”, of the “commodity-relation”, etc. This ‘Meta-Darwinian’ theory recognizes the role of ‘the human Phenome’ as well as of the ‘the human Genome’ in increasing the ‘self-force’, and thereby the rate, of the ‘‘‘self-motion’’’ of human society in accelerated expanded social self-reproduction;
(4) that of the detailed nature of the liberatory, Political-ECONOMIC-DEMOCRATIC society — founded upon a new, unprecedented social relation of production — which is the “lawful” higher successor system to [State-]Capitalism;
(5) that of the detailed causation-dynamics of the ever-worsening catastrophic global economic depression-crises, wars, and genocides that advise us all of the growing need for us to transcend [state-]capitalism, by creating that successor system, of grass roots Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY.
That group is Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [see http://www.dialectics.org ].”
Phil Stanfield, the author of the blog-entry under discussion, then kindly replied as follows --
“I think it is essential that this continuum be recognised for its further development – hence, from standing on its head (Plotinus through to Hegel) to standing on its feet (Marx) to a more profound explication of the latter.”
-- to which I responded approximately as follows --
“Hello, philstanfield, and thank you for your reply.”
“Yes, we too see that Marx's dialectical 'psychohistorical materialism', to remain true to itself, must remain open to further development.”
“It must be so because the development of science ["universal labor", Marx] and of technology, and of the human praxis surrounding and appriopriating that technology ["cooperative labor", Marx] -- and the development of the social forces of production in general -- gives rise to new 'human-social ontology', especially to new/modified 'social relations of production socio-ontology', and also to new kinds of use-values, and to new 'ideo-ontology' [some of which, especially within the capitalist integument, is also new IDEOLOGY]; new "memes" added to the human "memes-pool", i.e., to the 'human PHEnome', as well as to new kinds of means of production.”
That is where this dialogue stands to-date.