Science and Technology Systems Science

Author: Jiang Jingshui / Country: Mainland China
Publisher:
Publishing Date: 2002-06-01
Features: It is pointed out that: "Reading from the left side of the equation, the cloth is in a relative value form, and the coat is in an equivalent form; reading from the right side of the equation, the coat is in an exchange value form. Here, it is very difficult to determine the opposition of the two poles." This is the situation in the "barter" stage of the commodity market. From this, it can be seen that in the "barter" stage, the contradiction between commodities and money is: the commodity side has already emerged and has taken an independent form. Therefore, the commodity is the positive thesis of the contradiction, i.e., the affirmative side. While the other side of the contradiction relative to the commodity—money—has not yet appeared and has not taken an independent form. It still exists as the antithetical factor of the dual factors within the commodity, in a concealed and latent state, directly united with the commodity as one, or directly hidden on the other side of the commodity. Because it is embedded within the commodity, it is forming, and it is differentiating from the commodity, this stage is called the "stage of difference and generation." The second stage of the historical process of the formation of the contradiction between commodities and money—the stage of separation and opposition—Marx refers to as the "circulation of commodities" stage in works such as Capital and Critique of Political Economy. So, from "barter" to "commodity circulation," how does the former transition to the latter? Marx writes: "The longer the series of equivalents of a commodity, or the wider its scope of exchange, the higher the degree to which its exchange value is expressed as an exchange value. Therefore, the gradual expansion of barter, the increase in the number of exchanges, and the increase in the variety of commodities entering barter, develop commodities as exchange values, promote the formation of money, and thus play a disintegrating role in barter."
This means: with the gradual development of productive forces, the structure of production also changes accordingly. If the production structure in the "barter" stage is only "for use value, not for exchange value," then the subsequent production structure gradually becomes: "for both use value and exchange value." This gradual change in the production structure inevitably leads to an increase in the amount of "use value exceeding the quantity of consumption needs." This, in turn, leads to "the gradual expansion of barter," "the increase in the number of exchanges," and "the increase in the variety of commodities entering barter." Thus, commodities as exchange values develop, and the formation of money is promoted. As a result, "barter" gradually disintegrates and is replaced by "commodity circulation."
To specifically illustrate the transition from the "barter" stage to the "commodity circulation" stage, and to explain the process of money separating from and becoming independent of the commodity, Marx conducted a rigorous and meticulous examination, revealing that in this transitional process, there exist four historical developmental forms. The equation for this historical developmental form is: "20 yards of cloth = 1 coat" or "10 pounds of tea = 20 yards of cloth," and so on. This form exists only in the early stage of the "barter" stage, i.e., before the first major social division of labor. At that time, the level of productive forces was low, and the goods people exchanged were only surplus products they had. Therefore, this form of exchange was accidental. In this exchange process, the value of one commodity could only be simply expressed in another commodity. Therefore, Marx calls this historical developmental form the "simple value form."
Given their "opposite sequence" and "opposite forms," according to the meaning of "opposite," since we can abstractly generalize the form of "commodity—money—commodity, W—G—W," i.e., the process of change in the commodity form, as the "process of change in the positive thesis," or the "process of change in the affirmative form," or the "positive process of contradiction," then here, we have sufficient reason and basis to abstractly generalize the form of "money—commodity—money, G—W—G," i.e., the transformation of money into capital, as the "process of change in the antithesis," or the "process of change in the negative form," or the "negative process of contradiction." This abstract generalization and designation is both consistent with Marx's scientific intention in analyzing and examining, and in line with the objective nature of the movement and development of the two sides of the contradiction.
Then, what is the specific content of the transformation of money into capital, i.e., the form of money—commodity—money, G—W—G? Marx analyzes: "It is like simple commodity circulation, passing through two opposite stages. In the first stage, G—W, or buying, money is transformed into a commodity. In the second stage, W—G, or selling, the commodity is transformed back into money. The unity of these two stages is a total movement: it makes money and commodity exchange, and then makes the same commodity exchange with money again. Buying a commodity because it needs to be sold. If we ignore the formal difference between buying and selling, it is to buy a commodity with money and then buy money with the commodity. The result of the entire process is an exchange of money for money, G—G."
From this analysis, we can see: Marx generalizes the process of money transforming into capital as "a total movement" and "two stages." This generalization is completely consistent with his generalization of the process of change in the commodity form as "a process that is a two-sided process." The "total movement" is "a process," and the "two stages" are "a two-sided process." The difference between the two is only that the "two stages" or "two-sided process" have exchanged their order or been inverted in position. Here, if we analyze G—W—G as a "two-stage" or "two-sided process," then the first stage or the first side of the process is G—W, or buying, which marks the transformation of money into a commodity, i.e., the antithesis transforming into the thesis, and negation transforming into affirmation. The second stage or the second side of the process is W—G, or selling, which marks the transformation of the commodity back into money (capital), i.e., the thesis transforming back into the antithesis (this antithesis is a synthesis, because it exists in the negative process of contradiction, so I call it "negative synthesis"), and affirmation transforming back into negation (this negation, I call "the negation of affirmation").
However, if analyzed as "a total movement" or "a process," then the first G and the second G, although both are money, have different forms. The former is the form of money, the form of the antithesis, or the form of negation. In Marx's words, it is "money as money." The latter is the second form of money, the second form of the antithesis—"negative synthesis" form, and the second form of negation—"the negation of affirmation" form. In Marx's words, it is "money as capital," which contains surplus value and is already in the form of capital. These two different forms of money are indirectly identical. The transformation from the former to the latter is completed through the medium or intermediary of the opposite of money—commodity (W, thesis, affirmation).
First, from a scientific history perspective, the emergence of marginal sciences is later than that of synthetic sciences. Generally, marginal sciences are produced only after the development of the fundamental sciences to a certain extent. In terms of time, marginal sciences mostly emerge after the 1880s. On the other hand, the emergence of synthetic sciences is earlier than that of marginal sciences. Generally, synthetic sciences are produced almost simultaneously with fundamental sciences, or they are differentiated at the same time. For example, in ancient times, there were both fundamental sciences such as mechanics, astronomy, and meteorology, and synthetic sciences such as mathematics, philosophy, and history. But in ancient times, there were no marginal sciences at all.
Second, from the perspective of the relationship between sciences. Currently, marginal sciences do not have a gap between various forms of movement in nature, or between various fundamental sciences in natural sciences. But marginal sciences still have a certain gap between various forms of movement in the natural and social domains, or between various fundamental sciences in natural and social sciences. However, synthetic sciences are not like this. They generally do not have any gaps, whether between various fundamental sciences in natural sciences or between various fundamental sciences in social sciences. This is determined by the research objects of synthetic sciences. Because the research objects of synthetic sciences are certain common phenomena and common characteristics of various basic and specific forms of material movement. These common phenomena and common characteristics are not only possessed by various forms of material movement in the natural domain but also by various forms of material movement in the social domain. Therefore, synthetic sciences do not have gaps either between various fundamental sciences in natural sciences or between various fundamental sciences in social sciences. This situation inspires people: to fill the gap between natural sciences and social sciences, it is not only necessary to actively research and establish new disciplines of marginal sciences but also more importantly, to actively research and establish new disciplines of synthetic sciences.
4. Inspiring the creation of new disciplines of applied sciences. Vertically, as fundamental sciences that study the essence and laws of various basic and specific forms of material movement, as marginal sciences that study the essence and laws of the relationship between two basic or specific forms of material movement, as fundamental sciences that study the essence and laws of the common phenomena and common characteristics of various basic and specific forms of material movement, and as fundamental sciences that study the essence and laws of the utilization, development, and management of various forms of movement, synthetic sciences, in the horizontal aspect, are basic sciences. Therefore, after describing how the scientific and technological system can inspire the creation of new disciplines of fundamental sciences, marginal sciences, and synthetic sciences, the question of how the scientific and technological system can inspire the creation of new disciplines of basic sciences should be omitted. What should be described here is the issue of how the scientific and technological system can inspire the creation of new disciplines of applied sciences.
According to the rational form of change process revealed earlier, i.e., the form between "practice—practice," namely "practice—theoretical rationality—theoretical sensibility—practical rationality—practice" (the first "practice" in this form refers to the observation, measurement, and exploration of material movement forms by people; the second "practice" refers to engineering technology; "theoretical rationality" refers to basic science or theoretical science; "practical rationality" refers to applied science or technological science), it can be clearly seen that as practical rationality knowledge, applied science is the transformed form of basic science (theoretical rationality knowledge). The basic path of transformation can be divided into three steps. The first step is: taking basic science as the theoretical basis, connecting the specific conditions of the practical (the second "practice," i.e., engineering technology) object, through the active function of the mind, to form and propose ideas, plans, schemes, blueprints, strategies, tactics, routes, policies, arrangements, methods, measures, etc., that guide practice or engineering technology, i.e., theoretical sensibility; the second step is: putting theoretical sensibility into practice and engineering technology, conducting experiments, experiments, and production; the third step is: analyzing, synthesizing, abstracting, generalizing, and summarizing the experience, materials, and data obtained from the experimental, experimental, and production process, and rising them to form applied science. In these three steps, generally, if the experiments, experiments, and production are successful, then the formed applied science is correct and reliable. If the experiments, experiments, and production are not successful or fail, then check whether the theoretical sensibility is correct, check whether the equipment, materials, and tools are applicable, then correct the theoretical sensibility, adjust the equipment, materials, and tools, and continue the experiments, experiments, and production until success.