The internal cause is the decisive condition for the change of a thing, while the external cause is an auxiliary condition that accelerates or decelerates the change of the thing. External causes can influence the internal causes, which are the decisive conditions, and thus drive the change of the thing.
For example, the Roman Republic transformed into the Roman Empire. As a violent machine serving the needs of slaveholders to suppress slaves and rebellions, it weakened due to the Spartacus uprising, which reduced its ability to suppress slaves. This is an internal cause. It determined the shift of the Roman Republic towards a more reactionary and repressive Roman Empire.
The internal struggles of the slave-owning class, the power struggles between external slaveholders and the Senate, are external causes. Their struggles for power and internal conflicts made the Roman Republic, this violent machine, increasingly weaker, unable to continue serving the slaveholders’ needs to suppress slaves, thus accelerating the transition from republic to empire. This is precisely how external causes influence internal causes and drive the change of the thing.
I wonder if I understand this correctly.
The internal cause is the basis of change, and the external cause is the condition for change. Moreover, the internal cause refers to the contradictions within a thing, while the external cause refers to the mutual connection and influence between a thing and other things. Your understanding is completely incorrect.
In other words, the internal contradictions (differences) of a thing are the basis for its change, and the connections and mutual influences between this thing and other things are the prerequisites for its change.
The Roman Republic turned into the Roman Empire.
Within the Roman Republic, slave owners and slaves were fundamentally two opposing classes, and there were huge contradictions between them, which were the internal causes of change.
The Roman Republic conquered other ethnic regions and brought them under its control, and the slave owners in those conquered regions hoped to participate in the Roman Republic’s government. Additionally, the Spartacus uprising dealt a significant blow to the Roman Republic, weakening its dictatorship. Frequent struggles between slaves and slave owners occurred, and the slave owners urgently needed to change their internal democratic system to concentrate forces to suppress slave revolts. These are the external causes of change.
Is this understanding correct?
There are some issues with what is said here. Internal causes are the basis for the change of things, meaning that with a certain internal cause, a transformation in a certain direction is possible. Both internal and external causes can become decisive factors in the change of things. For example, during the Chinese revolution at that time, before Marxism was introduced, there were many failures. However, the internal causes of the Chinese New Democratic Revolution had already matured; workers and peasants could no longer tolerate the rule of comprador bourgeoisie and foreign imperialism in China. At this point, the introduction of Marxism as an external cause played a decisive role in the Chinese revolution.
It also doesn’t seem right, because the “external cause” you mentioned here is a specific manifestation of the above class contradictions. I think the internal cause here should be the Spartacist uprising, which indicates that the slave owners’ dictatorship organs can no longer maintain their original form. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be able to suppress the slave class’s resistance. Additionally, the increasing strength of other slave-owning classes also demands political rights, and they don’t want the slave-ownage aristocrats to hold all power. This is the internal cause. The external cause might be related to the failure of foreign wars.
First, clarify the following logic: internal cause is the basis of change, external cause is the condition of change; internal cause is the contradiction within the thing, external cause is the mutual connection and influence between things; basis is the fundamental reason for the development of a thing, condition is the second cause of the movement of a thing.
Regarding the transformation of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire, the intense contradictions between slave owners and the slave class you mentioned, the Spartacus slave uprising severely shook the Roman ruling order, thereby uniting the large slave-owning class in hopes of implementing strict military dictatorship, which was an internal cause; the external factors include the continuous conflicts of barbarian tribes at the Roman borders and Rome, as well as the military pressure from major powers like the Parthian Kingdom, which are external causes for Rome’s implementation of military dictatorship and imperial rule.
Here, the distinction between internal and external causes should be whether it is based on internal contradictions within Roman society or influences coming from outside Roman society.
What you mentioned earlier, that the Spartacus uprising dealt a huge blow to the Roman Republic, thereby weakening its dictatorship power, is precisely a manifestation of the struggle between the slave-owning and slave classes within Roman society. Of course, this still belongs to internal causes.
Regarding the relationship between internal and external causes, I recommend two books, both of which explain this. “A Small Dictionary of Philosophy” and “Explanation of ‘On Contradiction’”.
Small Dictionary of Philosophy (Part on Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism).pdf (20.3 MB)
Li Da - ‘On Contradiction’ Explanation.pdf (8.6 MB)
I inserted an image into your post, making it much more attractive now.
By the way, why use Augustus as the cover image?
Because the example mentioned is the transformation of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire.