The Elucidation And Application Of The Organic Wholeness Model Of Materialism

Ian Hunt,born in 1946 and current Head of the Department of Philosophy,Flinders University,Australia,is the most representative Australian Marxist scholar who remains active in the international academic arena.Ian Hunt,contending with the "September Group",is also a member of the "New Dialectics" school,which evolved from the "Leftist Philosophers’ Hegelian Reading Group".Following the “the period of 1989 Revolutions in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe”,Hunt witnessed a fervent ideological onslaught of capitalism against Marxism.He posited an analytical and dialectical Marxism to reaffirm,cultivate,and defend Marx’s intellectual insights.Hence,the genesis and redirection of the "September Group",the existence and evolution of the "Leftist Philosophers’ Hegelian Reading Group",and the intensified scrutiny of Marxism post the “the period of 1989 Revolutions in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe ”,constitute the historical context of Hunt’s analytical and dialectical Marxism.Hunt acknowledges the dialectics of classical German philosophy as the theoretical source of Marx’s philosophical dialectics.Hunt argues that the rejection of dialectics renders analytic Marxism unable to truly account for and clarify Marx’s thought.While upholding the clarity and rigor boasted by analytic Marxism,Hunt includes the “systemic dialectic” interpretation of Marx’s dialectics by the “new dialectic” school and sees “systemic dialectic” as a useful method for the analysis of conceptual structures.Therefore,the idealist dialectics of Kant and Hegel,the analytic path of analytic Marxism,and the “systemic dialectic” interpretation of Marx’s dialectics by the “new dialectic” school are the theoretical sources of the formation of Hunt’s analytical and dialectical Marxism.Hunt argues that the similarities and differences between classical German philosophy and Marxian philosophy revolve around three basic questions: First,is there a “contradiction in reality”? Hegel sees contradiction as providing a certain final resolution to “the expression of the variability of finite matters”.According to Marx,the systems constituted by the “unity of opposites” tend to deviate from their current being because of the conflicts in their inner nature.Second,what is the “unity of opposites”? Though the difference between Hegelian and Marxian dialectics is,first and foremost,ontological,Hunt argues that the ontological difference is also reflected in the difference in dialectic form.Third,what kind of connections unite the elements of a system into an “organic whole”? Both Marx’s model and Hegel’s model of the organic whole concur that the organic system transcends the mechanical system,but they differ in the understanding of how organic life transcends mechanical activity.Hunt brings up these three questions in order to explain,on top of the critique of Hegel’s idealist model of organic wholeness,Marx’s materialist model of organic wholeness that retains the appearance of Hegelian "direct identity of speculation",and thus to examine and confirm,in the relationship between wage labor and capital,a materialist model of organic wholeness without the appearance of Hegelian “direct identity of speculation”,but with only the “direct identity of opposites”.After elucidating the organic wholeness model of materialism,Hunt applies the model to the interpretation of Marx’s core ideas,namely,Marx’s theories of historical materialism,capitalism,and unfinished revolution.In his reading of Marx’s theory of historical materialism,Hunt combs through Marx’s divisions and connections between the forces and relations of production,the economic base and the legal and political superstructure.In his reading of Marx’s theory of capitalism,Hunt argues that the immediate objective of capitalism is profit and that the labor theory of value clearly reveals the nature of capitalist commodity production and exchange and the exploitation that lies therein.In his reading of Marx’s theory of revolution,through the explanation of the materialist model of organic wholeness,Hunt suggests a contemporary form of “reformist struggle” for the working class.Hunt argues that,if the working class movement can recognize in practice the goals of the revolutionary movement and its dialectic relationship with the objective base in society,the split between the two types of working-class political activity,reformism in the Western capitalist countries and the Soviet-style utopian revolution,can be overcome.With the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,the end of the Cold War was both a regret and a blessing for those who wanted Marx’s thoughts to be taken seriously.After the collapse of the Soviet Union,Hunt delved into Marx’s thoughts and articulated a materialist organic wholeness model.Hunt asserts that there is both a materialist and an idealist model or dialectic of the “unity of opposites”organic wholeness and that these two models or dialectics differ not only in their material or ideal ontology,but also fundamentally in the dialectic structure of the“unity of opposites”.In addition to the issue of the theoretical integrity of Marx’s thoughts,Hunt clarified Marx’s thoughts in theory when the international workingclass movement suffered setbacks in practice and made theoretical innovations based on the social realities of the developed capitalist countries in the West,proposing a“reformist struggle” of the contemporary working class.Two limitations,however,persist in Hunt’s thoughts: First,Hunt completely denies the significance of the October Revolution in Russia and considers the communist movement in the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries to be irredeemably utopian in nature.As a result,Hunt ignores the diversity of paths to socialism,Marx’s theoretical conception of leaping over the “Valle Caudina” of the capitalist system,and the great achievements of socialism with Chinese characteristics.Second,Hunt believes that the political experience of Bolshevism,inspired by the October Revolution in Russia,has brought the current working class political movement into its current plight.Consequently,Hunt diminishes the necessity of the Communist Party in leading the socialist revolution and fails to understand the gist of the Marxist theory of political parties as well as the historical inevitability of the Chinese Communist Party’s leadership of the Chinese people in revolution,construction,and reform.The theoretical innovation of Hunt’s analytical and dialectical Marxism is the articulation of a contemporary working-class “reformist struggle”,which is instructive and enlightening for our understanding and development of Marxism in contemporary China.Hunt’s “reformist struggle” of the contemporary working class helps us to understand socialist reforms with Chinese characteristics and the CPC’s need for courageous self-revolution in close contact with the masses.On the one hand,the“reformist” aspect of the contemporary working class’ s “reformist struggle” approach can be interpreted as “reform” in the context of the contemporary Chinese socialist system,which helps us understand that reform is the driving force behind the development of socialism with Chinese characteristics.On the other hand,the“struggle” aspect of the contemporary working class’ s “reformist struggle” approach means,in the context of the fundamental socialist system,the CPC’s courageous selfrevolution,which helps us understand that the CPC has to commit courageous selfrevolution in close contact with the masses.