Should we allow philosophy to destroy our faith in the revolution? [Archive]

View Full Version : Should we allow philosophy to destroy our faith in the revolution?

Hit The North

25th April 2009, 17:58

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

25th April 2009, 20:42

Keep in mind I don't 100% understand dialectical materialism.

There is evidence to suggest humans are fairly malleable. Individuals can change according to reason and circumstance. Obviously, communism won't appear unless we can appeal to individual rationality or establish it dictatorially, which I wouldn't advocate and is a contradiction, as I see it. Socialism is arguably quasi-dictatorial, but the idea there is that "most" people will realize communism is beneficial, and the minority will need to see the results to believe.

Communism is desirable. Revolution is necessary. Assuming we believe this are truths, why assume people are too unreasonable to believe it? It's not a faith in humanity. It's an observation that people are capable of learning things if they are - in fact - true. I realize that religion, in particular, seems to deny this hypothesis. However, there are ways to approach individual cases. I've no reason to suspect an individual simply "can't" be rational. I am rational. Other people are rational. I induce that rationality is a human characteristic. I've never seen a religious person who simply can't perform minimally rational tasks.

As for dialectical materialism, I like some of the general ideas. However, optimism based on deductive "inevitability" is impractical. Scientific fact is available to humanity, but certain discoveries, right under our noses, have taken considerably long to discover. If we think communism is true, and people can discover this, will they eventually discover it? Not necessarily. If existence is infinite, it might reach the conclusion at infinity. Perhaps we can reason out something that, given that knowledge is exponential, truths will be reached 99.9% at time t. We can rationally assume revolution will be accepted.

Material changes don't work in a thesis, antithesis, synthesis manner given all circumstances, though. If a murderer wants to murder, and you disagree, society establishes law preventing his actions. He had a preference for murder that nobody else shares. It was simply power relations that prevented his choice from becoming the adopted standard. He had no common truth that we synthesized into a new proposition. We just dominated him.

No I don't think the general idea of Marx, that revolution "will" happen, is necessarily false. It's just not a deductive claim. It's an assumption like society "will slowly erase pay differences between genders." I have reason to believe the latter, based on evidence previously presented, but I haven't proven it.

Marx thought revolution was inevitable based on reasons accessible to us. It's simply probable. However, what access do we have to such probabilities? Let me go against my original argument.

We think communism is beneficial. Many people don't.
We think revolution is necessary. Many people don't.

In the first case, communism might not benefit those who hold power. In the long run, it's implied that even "the capitalist" will prefer communism, but is that true? Maybe. However, perhaps those with power prefer domination. Is communism better than being a dictator? Probably not. Is it better than being an oligarchy? Maybe not. Why does it suddenly stop being better to dominate at "capitalist." That's a question not answered by dialectical materialism.

Why revolution is necessary, though, is that "good or not" capitalists won't give up their domination. Maybe they are addicted to power, or maybe they logically suffer from communist implementation. Who knows. So we have to overthrown them to achieve a result, and we will overthrow them.

Revolution relies on power. Robert Nozrick pointed out that if half the world wants communism, and half the world wants capitalism, the capitalist offers 1% more than the communist can offer them (because the capitalist has the resources). Obviously, communism is supposed to offer something "more," but this needs to be qualified by Marx.

Furthermore, assume the majority dislikes capitalism. Revolution is risky. It has historically been during periods of hardship. People are unhappy, see injustice, and fight against it. Are people in Western nations really unhappy now? The Middle Class does fairly well. How to facilitate a revolution isn't exactly revealed by Marx, especially since our political climate wasn't present when he wrote. I have my won suspicions, however.

Dialectical materialism assumes that if X is true, and X is just and desired by the majority, it will happen. Grant the first points, but is it inevitable? Power relations are more than population. Capitalists could conceivably creating 1984, with citizens brainwashed entirely. We've seen propaganda work.

What guarantees that, if communism is desired, citizens will have the means to utilize their power and achieve that end? Nothing guarantees it, which is why we should be constantly trying to solidify our power.

I'm not sure where I stand on voting, but I've seen individuals advocate voting for the worst candidate - to facilitate anti-government sentiment and ignite a revolution. Giving individuals more power so you resent them is ridiculous unless you're somehow sure that resentment will achieve your result, which it hasn't.

I suspect that society becomes more egalitarian over time. This is I believe truth is eventually found, but assuming it is "always found" is a big generalization.

Cumannach

25th April 2009, 21:36

In another thread in the philosophy forum:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1425536&postcount=24

Rosa appears to take objection to dialectics on the basis that it helps to sustain our revolutionary optimism.

Is she correct in stating that it is adherence to dialectics which sustains our optimism or are their other sources?

Meanwhile, what is the alternative to "faith in humanity and its socialist future," apart from just throwing in the towel?

Discuss.

Dialectics was the particular method Marx used to analyse human history and society. His actual conclusions don't rest on dialectics, only on the scientific historical method. The discovery that the character of the relations of production always tend to conform to the character of the productive forces makes a socialist future inevitable, so the only question is how soon we want to make it happen. It requires no more faith to be a Marxist than to be a scientist, faith neither in Dialectics nor in humanity. Again, the only personal consideration is, to possibly hasten the end of capitalism through your efforts, or to probably prolong the duration of the crime that is capitalism by doing nothing.

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th April 2009, 00:49

Cummanach:

Dialectics was the particular method Marx used to analyse human history and society. His actual conclusions don't rest on dialectics, only on the scientific historical method. The discovery that the character of the relations of production always tend to conform to the character of the productive forces makes a socialist future inevitable, so the only question is how soon we want to make it happen. It requires no more faith to be a Marxist than to be a scientist, faith neither in Dialectics nor in humanity. Again, the only personal consideration is, to possibly hasten the end of capitalism through your efforts, or to probably prolong the duration of the crime that is capitalism by doing nothing.

i) As I have shown, Marx abandoned 'the dialectic' as you mystics understand it, in Das Kapital:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/scrapping-dialectics-would-t79634/index4.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1158574&postcount=73

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1158816&postcount=75

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1161443&postcount=114

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1163222&postcount=124

ii) As I have also shown, if dialectics were true, change would be impossible:

Quotes:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1401000&postcount=76

Argument:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1401001&postcount=77

iii) Since dialectics makes not one ounce of sense, it cannot be used to help understand, and thus change, the world.

iv) Hence, the only reason you mystics cling onto this 'theory' is because it provdes you with a form of consolation for the long-term failure of DM.

Here is what I have posted elsewhere on this:

There are several reasons why dialectics is deleterious to Marxism:

(1) It is easy to show it makes no sense, and so cannot be used to change the world (but it does succeed in confusing comrades).

(2) It has undeniable roots in ruling-class thought, and thus represents a non-working class view of the world (hence its other faults; see below).

(3) Because it makes a virtue out of 'contradiction', it can be, and has been used to defend all manner or counter-revolutionary and anti-Marxist political doctrines, and their opposites, sometimes 24 hours later.

(4) It insulates militant minds from the facts (thus preventing the scientific development of Marxism). For example, because it teaches that surface 'appearances' 'contradict' underlying reality, it prevents dialectically-distracted comrades from acknowledging the long-term failure of Dialectical Marxism. In many cases, because it encourages comrades to see failure as its opposite, its 'contradictory', 'success' (or 'success' about to happen any day soon), they refuse to admit (they won't even countenance the possibility) that their core theory (dialectics) has anything to do with the failure of Dialectical Marxism (even if they admit it has failed, which many do not)!

So, even though dialectics teaches that everything is interconnected, apparently the only two things in the entire universe that are not linked in any way at all are: a) the long-term decline of Dialectical Marxism and b) its core theory!

That is how much this 'theory' confuses otherwise alert miltant minds!

(5) It exacerbates (but does not cause) sectarianism.

(6) Because it is a source of consolation for the long-term failure of Dialectical Marxism (for reasons outlined in (4) above), its acolytes cling on to it like grim death, and become highly irrational and emotive in its defence. [Watch how they reply to this post!]

There are other reasons why this mystical creed is deleterious to Marxism, but these will do for now.

More details here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_02.htm

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20010_01.htm

George Novack records the following meeting with Trotsky in Mexico, in 1937:

"[O]ur discussion glided into the subject of philosophy.... We talked about the best ways of studying dialectical materialism, about Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, and about the theoretical backwardness of American radicalism. Trotsky brought forward the name of Max Eastman, who in various works had polemicized against dialectics as a worthless idealist hangover from the Hegelian heritage of Marxism.

"He became tense and agitated. 'Upon going back to the States,' he urged, 'you comrades must at once take up the struggle against Eastman's distortion and repudiation of dialectical materialism. There is nothing more important than this….'

"I was somewhat surprised at the vehemence of his argumentation on this matter at such a moment. As the principal defendant in absentia in the Moscow trials, and because of the dramatic circumstances of his voyage in exile, Trotsky then stood in the centre of international attention. He was fighting for his reputation, liberty, and life against the powerful government of Stalin, bent on his defamation and death. After having been imprisoned and gagged for months by the Norwegian authorities, he had been kept incommunicado for weeks aboard their tanker.

"Yet on the first day after reunion with his cothinkers, he spent more than an hour explaining how important it was for a Marxist movement to have a correct philosophical method and to defend dialectical materialism against its opponents! "[Novack (1978), pp.169-70. Bold emphases added. Spelling changed to conform to UK English.]

Given the mystical nature of this theory, and the emotional attachment to it displayed by DM-fans -- and Marx's own words about religious alienation and the need for consolation (see below) --, Trotsky's semi-religious fervour, his emotional attachment to the dialectic, and his irrationalism become much easier to understand.

The accuracy of Novack's memory is supported by the following comment of Trotsky's:

"...It would not be amiss, therefore, to refer to the fact that my first serious conversation with comrades Shachtman and Warde, in the train immediately after my arrival in Mexico in January 1937, was devoted to the necessity of persistently propagating dialectic materialism. After our American section split from the Socialist Party I insisted most strongly on the earliest possible publication of a theoretical organ, having again in mind the need to educate the party, first and foremost its new members, in the spirit of dialectic materialism. In the United States, I wrote at that time, where the bourgeoisie systematically in stills (sic) vulgar empiricism in the workers, more than anywhere else is it necessary to speed the elevation of the movement to a proper theoretical level. On January 20, 1939, I wrote to comrade Shachtman concerning his joint article with comrade Burnham, 'Intellectuals in Retreat':

'The section on the dialectic is the greatest blow that you, personally, as the editor of the New International could have delivered to Marxist theory.... Good. We will speak about it publicly.'

"Thus a year ago I gave open notice in advance to Shachtman that I intended to wage a public struggle against his eclectic tendencies. At that time there was no talk whatever of the coming opposition; in any case furthest from my mind was the supposition that the philosophic bloc against Marxism prepared the ground for a political bloc against the program of the Fourth International." [Trotsky (1971), p.142. Bold emphases added.]

And further support comes from Max Eastman's testimony:

"Like many great men I have met he [Trotsky] does not seem altogether robust. There is apt to be a frailty associated with great intellect. At any rate, Trotsky, especially in our heated arguments concerning the 'dialectic' in which he becomes excited and wrathful to the point of losing his breath, seems to me at times almost weak. He cannot laugh at my attacks on his philosophy, or be curious about them -- as I imagine Lenin would -- because in that field he is not secure....

"...Yesterday we reached a point of tension in our argument about dialectics that was extreme. Trotsky's throat was throbbing and his face was red; he was in a rage...." [Eastman (1942), p.113.]

Anyone who has discussed dialectics face-to-face with certain leading comrades alive today (whose names I will not divulge, to save their blushes), or on the internet (say at RevLeft) and who has challenged this 'theory', will no doubt recognise in the above something all too familiar: the highly emotive and irrational response one gets from dialecticians when the source of their 'opiate' is attacked. [This follows my own experience, recorded elsewhere at my site (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2001.htm).]

However, Eastman is surely wrong about Lenin; anyone who reads Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, for example, can see how irrational he, too, was in this area. [On this see, Essay Thirteen Part One (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page_13%2001.htm).]

Faith in this theory is not confined to the past; here is part of the Preface to the new edition of RIRE [Reason In Revolt, published in the summer of 2007]:

"Ted Grant was an incorrigible optimist all his life. Marxists are optimistic by their very nature because of two things: the philosophy of dialectical materialism, and our faith in the working class and the socialist future of humanity. Most people look only at the surface of the events that shape their lives and determine their destiny. Dialectics teaches one to look beyond the immediate, to penetrate beyond the appearance of stability and calm, and to see the seething contradictions and ceaseless movement that lies beneath the surface. The idea of constant change, in which sooner or later everything changes into its opposite enables a Marxist to rise above the immediate situation and to see the broader picture." [Rob Sewell, quoted from here (http://www.marxist.com/preface-engels-nature-wellred.htm). Bold emphases added.]

It looks, therefore, like this rather low grade opiate is continuing to do its job, finding new pushers and yet more junkies by the week.

Nevertheless, for all their differences, Trotsky and Stalin both loved the 'dialectic'.

Ethan Pollock records a revealing incident in the Kremlin just after the end of World War Two:

"In late December 1946 Joseph Stalin called a meeting of high-level Communist Party personnel.... The opening salvos of the Cold War had already been launched. Earlier in the year Winston Churchill had warned of an iron curtain dividing Europe. Disputes about the political future of Germany, the presence of Soviet troops in Iran, and proposals to control atomic weapons had all contributed to growing tensions between the United States and the USSR. Inside the Soviet Union the devastating effects of the Second World War were painfully obvious: cities remained bombed out and unreconstructed; famine laid waste to the countryside, with millions dying of starvation and many millions more malnourished. All this makes one of the agenda items for the Kremlin meeting surprising: Stalin wanted to discuss the recent prizewinning book History of Western European Philosophy [by Georgii Aleksandrov -- RL]. [Pollock (2006), p.15. Bold emphasis added.]

Pollock then outlines the problems Aleksandrov had experienced over his interpretation of the foreign (i.e., German) roots of DM in an earlier work, and how he had been criticised for not emphasising the "reactionary and bourgeois" nature of the work of German Philosophers like Kant, Fichte and Hegel --, in view of the fight against Fascism (when, of course, during the Hitler-Stalin pact a few years earlier, the opposite line had been peddled). Pollock also describes the detailed and lengthy discussions the Central Committee devoted to Aleksandrov's previous work years earlier at the height of the war against the Nazis!

It is revealing, therefore, to note that Stalin and his henchmen considered DM to be so important that other more pressing matters could be shelved or delayed in order to make way for discussion about it. In this, of course, Stalin was in total agreement with Trotsky and other leading Dialectical Marxists.

Once more, Marx's comments about religious consolation (see below) make abundantly clear why this is so.

We can see something similar occurring in the case of Nikolai Bukharin. Anyone who reads Philosophical Arabesques will be struck by the semi-religious fervour with which he defends dialectics. In view of Bukharin's serious predicament, this is hardly surprising. But it is nonetheless revealing, since it confirms much of the above: this theory holds the dialectical personality together even in the face of death.

The old saying, "There are no atheists in a foxhole", may be incorrect, but it looks like there might not have been many anti-dialecticians in the Lubyanka waiting on Stalin's mercy. Even hard-headed dialecticians need some form of consolation.

As Helena Sheehan notes in her introduction:

"Perhaps the most remarkable thing about his text is that it was written at all. Condemned not by an enemy but by his own comrades, seeing what had been so magnificently created being so catastrophically destroyed, undergoing shattering interrogations, how was he not totally debilitated by despair? [B]Where did this author get the strength, the composure, the faith in the future that was necessary to write this treatise of Philosophy, this passionate defense of the intellectual tradition of Marxism and the political project of socialist construction?

"Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin was a tragic true believer...." [Sheehan (2005), pp.7-8. Bold emphases added.]

Once again, Marx, I think, had the answer:

"Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again.... Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification....

"...Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions...." [Bold emphases added.]

[Substitute "dialectics" for "religion" in the above to see the point.]

The fact that this doomed comrade chose to spend his last weeks and days expounding and defending this Hermetic theory (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/magee.htm) (albeit, one that had been given a bogus materialist flip) -- pleading with Stalin not to destroy this work --, just about says it all.

References and more details here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_02.htm

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th April 2009, 01:03

BTB:

Rosa appears to take objection to dialectics on the basis that it helps to sustain our revolutionary optimism.

Is she correct in stating that it is adherence to dialectics which sustains our optimism or are their other sources?

Meanwhile, what is the alternative to "faith in humanity and its socialist future," apart from just throwing in the towel?

There is nothing wrong with 'faith in humanity'; the problem you mystics have is that you need faith in a mysterious process that not one of you can explain, as a substitute.

This creed also helps separate you all from humanity (since they plainly do not 'understand' dialectics, even if they have ever heard of it), because it helps 'confirm' your allegedly central role in history, and thus your presumed superiority (as philosophical prophets) over the mass of the dialectically-ignorant, thus providing the ideological 'justification' for substitutionism. [In fact, dialectics is the ideology of substitutionist layers in revolutionary socialism -- hence its appeal to petty-bourgeois theorists like Engels, Lenin and Trotsky.]

And, as with theologians, anyone who disagrees is simply said not to 'understand dialectics'.

But, since no one understands this dogma (and just like the Christian Trinity, which also arose from ancient Greek Neo-Platonist swamp as 'the dialectic'), this accusation can be thrown at anyone and everyone. So, when it comes down to specifics, you all disagree among yourselves. The Stalinists and Maoists accuse each other of 'not understanding' the dialectic, and they accuse us Trots of the same 'crime'. We accuse them in return, just as each of the many hundreds of Trotskyists sects accuse one another of not 'understanding' the dialectic.

Proof of all this can be found here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_02.htm

[Use the 'Quick Links' to go to section (7): Case Studies. Most of the evidence can be found in the End Notes.]

Hit The North

26th April 2009, 02:10

R:
There is nothing wrong with 'faith in humanity'; the problem you mystics have is that you need faith in a mysterious process that not one of you can explain, as a substitute.

Not at all. There is no mysterious process. If a belief in the dialectical view of history sustains our optimism it has nothing to do with Engels 3 laws or any of Hegel's tortuous logic.

The dialectic view of history establishes two scientific truths:

1. That all modes of production are historically transient.

2. That human societies change on the basis of human praxis.

These are the two insights which give us hope that whatever reversals we face in the present, as long as the proletariat continues to exist, the overthrow of this rotten system is always possible in the future.

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th April 2009, 06:01

BTB:

Not at all. There is no mysterious process. If a belief in the dialectical view of history sustains our optimism it has nothing to do with Engels 3 laws or any of Hegel's tortuous logic.

In that case, you must reject the use of 'contradiction', 'unity of opposites' and 'negation of the negation' -- all of which appear in Das Kapital

Let's see you get this 'Revisionist' view of yours past your fellow members of the 'Dialectical Materialist' group.

[And before you say it, I reject these terms anyway; but it would be interesting to see if you do.]

The dialectic view of history establishes two scientific truths:

1. That all modes of production are historically transient.

2. That human societies change on the basis of human praxis.

This is Historical Materialism, not 'Materialist Dialectics', and it is certainly not what Engels, Lenin or Trotsky meant by 'dialectics'.

These are the two insights which give us hope that whatever reversals we face in the present, as long as the proletariat continues to exist, the overthrow of this rotten system is always possible in the future.

Maybe so, but it still ain't 'dialectics'.

Hit The North

26th April 2009, 10:53

R:

In that case, you must reject the use of 'contradiction', 'unity of opposites' and 'negation of the negation' -- all of which appear in Das Kapital

No, I'm merely arguing that it is not the formulae proffered to capture general patterns of change which is the component which sustains our optimism, but the general spirit of the dialectical view.

Meanwhile, no I don't reject the concept of contradiction driving social change which we find all over Das Kapital; I merely restrict its usage to the social.

This is Historical Materialism, not 'Materialist Dialectics', and it is certainly not what Engels, Lenin or Trotsky meant by 'dialectics'.

It most certainly is.

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th April 2009, 15:47

BTB:

No, I'm merely arguing that it is not the formulae proffered to capture general patterns of change which is the component which sustains our optimism, but the general spirit of the dialectical view.

What 'general spirit' of 'the dialectical view' are you talking about? Without change through 'internal contradiction' (but see below), based on the 'unity and interpenetration of polar opposites', guided by the 'negation of the negation' and the transformation of 'quantity into quality' (all of which terms appear in Das Kapital, which jargon I claim Marx's was using non-seriously, to which allegation you took great exception), there is no 'dialectic' as the 'great dialecticians' (including Tony Cliff) understood this 'theory'.

Now, it's all the same to me if you have resiled from your earlier unwise acceptance of this mystical creed under my relentless attack, but at least have the decency to admit that your 'spirit of the dialectic' is little more than a ghostly apparition hovering over what is left of its dead and decaying corpse.

Meanwhile, no I don't reject the concept of contradiction driving social change which we find all over Das Kapital; I merely restrict its usage to the social.

In that case, you must reject the 'unity and interpenetration of polar opposites' (and thus the thesis that the proletariat is the dialectical 'opposite' of the capitalist class), the 'negation of the negation' (a term that also appears in Das Kapital) and the alleged transformation of 'quantity into quality' (ditto).

Unless, like me, you think that Marx was using these obscure terms non-seriously.

If so, on what basis do you think he was using 'contradiction' in a non-'coquettish' manner?

It strikes me that you are uncomfortably like those theologians who look at the miracles of the Bible (and the rest of the rubbish that book contains), and then at modern science, shrug their shoulders and just appeal to the 'spirit' of the 'good book', cherry-picking which bits they find acceptable, not realising that in adopting such an intellectually bankrupt compromise, the game is up.

As I said, try running your 'revisionist' ghost of a theory past your fellow coven-hounds in the Dialectical Materialist Group. You will soon be subject to the same sort of abuse and emotive response that has been directed at yours truly.

It most certainly is.

Indeed, but it is not 'dialectics' as Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky, Tony Cliff, Chris Harman, Alex Callinicos..., understand it.

In fact, it is about as accurate to describe your ghostly theory as 'dialectics' as it is to call Tony Blair a 'socialist'.

Hit The North

30th April 2009, 01:08

What 'general spirit' of 'the dialectical view' are you talking about?

I'm referring to the "spirit" rather than the "letter". I'm referring to the rational kernel which lies at the heart of the methodological approach used by Marxists. And just because I appeal to the "spirit" does not mean I necessarily reject the "letter" so the rest of your post, which is an attempt to put words in my mouth and force me into a corner is irrelevant.

Meanwhile, why don't you answer the question of this thread: if a sin of dialectics is that it maintains our revolutionary optimism, what would be your corrective?

Rosa Lichtenstein

30th April 2009, 01:22

BTB (after a half-dozen reminders):

I'm referring to the "spirit" rather than the "letter". I'm referring to the rational kernel which lies at the heart of the methodological approach used by Marxists. And just because I appeal to the "spirit" does not mean I necessarily reject the "letter" so the rest of your post, which is an attempt to put words in my mouth and force me into a corner is irrelevant.

But, your 'spirit' resembles dialectics about as much as Blair resembles a socialist, as I pointed out. It certainly bears no relation to dialectics as Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky, Cliff (whom you called a great dialectician), Harman, Callinicos..., understand it, nor to this 'theory' as it is accepted by the members of your coven -- the DM group.

In fact, if you run your 'spirit of the dialectic' past them, you'll get the same sort of abuse I get.

Meanwhile, why don't you answer the question of this thread: if a sin of dialectics is that it maintains our revolutionary optimism, what would be your corrective?

Nothing at all. If you need something to 'keep you going', then you are always going to be ripe for this:

Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again.... Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification....

...Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.... [Bold emphases added.]

Cumannach

30th April 2009, 15:56

Rosa, you keep moving the goal posts- what ACCORDING TO YOU is a concise summary of the dialectics shared by Marx, Engels, Lenin and the majority of Marxists that endorse dialectics?

Rosa Lichtenstein

30th April 2009, 19:07

Cummanach:

Rosa, you keep moving the goal posts-

You've no room to talk. For example, I quoted a whole page of passages from the dialectical classics that showed that the dialectical prophets believed that things changed into their opposites and also struggled with them, in order to show that this 'theory' makes change impossible -- but you re-interpreted/sanitised the awkward passages as 'metaphorical;' and then introduced a new word of your own, 'overwhelmed'.

what ACCORDING TO YOU is a concise summary of the dialectics shared by Marx, Engels, Lenin and the majority of Marxists that endorse dialectics?

You can find several in the bibliography I prepared for Random Precision, over at the Dialectical Coven:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=1172

[Except, of course, that Marx rejected this Hermetic 'theory'.]

Decolonize The Left

3rd May 2009, 19:54

In another thread in the philosophy forum:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1425536&postcount=24

Rosa appears to take objection to dialectics on the basis that it helps to sustain our revolutionary optimism.

Is she correct in stating that it is adherence to dialectics which sustains our optimism or are their other sources?

Like religion, dialectics is used to sustain one feeling or another. No one is claiming that it is the sole source, but it certainly plays a large role.

Meanwhile, what is the alternative to "faith in humanity and its socialist future," apart from just throwing in the towel?

Discuss.

Abandoning dialectics is by no stretch of the imagination "throwing in the towel," though it may appear that way to a dialectician. In fact, abandoning dialectics appears to be a honing of one's understanding, a 'making sharper the blade' by removing excess and unnecessary components. There may be aspects of those components which we enjoy and find encouraging, but true courage comes from being able to shed that which is not necessary.

As a historical materialist, shedding unnecessary theoretical baggage is of up-most importance when we consider that it is our responsibility to communicate revolutionary leftism to the working class - we should like it to be as simple and coherent as possible, no?

- August

MilitantAnarchist

3rd May 2009, 20:23

What revolution?
It'll never fucking happen because the masses are happy and always will be with western goverment. That is my opinion because you cannot rely on the masses when the masses couldnt give two fucks about a thing.
However, that does not mean there can't be a revolutionary movement or change of some kind, and in my oppinon that can only be taken in 'baby steps'. You cant run a revolution if you cant walk a change (sounds cheesey, sorry).
How many years have you lefties (no offence) been chatting away about this revolution? what the fuck has changed?
I beleive in somthing along the lines of a seperate society inside this one, through open houses, communes, squatting and the like, and eventually, once people see our movement prosper, it will spread, and the people left behind can live their pointless bullshit lives with their heads up their arse.

mykittyhasaboner

3rd May 2009, 20:35

3rd May 2009, 20:42

What revolution?
It'll never fucking happen because the masses are happy and always will be with western goverment. That is my opinion because you cannot rely on the masses when the masses couldnt give two fucks about a thing.

You have no idea what you are talking about, history and the situation in greece and a couple of other countries is in total disagreement with you.

However, that does not mean there can't be a revolutionary movement or change of some kind, and in my oppinon that can only be taken in 'baby steps'. You cant run a revolution if you cant walk a change (sounds cheesey, sorry).

um ok..

How many years have you lefties (no offence) been chatting away about this revolution? what the fuck has changed?
I beleive in somthing along the lines of a seperate society inside this one, through open houses, communes, squatting and the like, and eventually, once people see our movement prosper, it will spread, and the people left behind can live their pointless bullshit lives with their heads up their arse.

Fraid not.

MilitantAnarchist

3rd May 2009, 21:21

You have no idea what you are talking about, history and the situation in greece and a couple of other countries is in total disagreement with you.

Im afriad i do. I do agree the greek people and the french people no how to stand up and say 'fuck off'.... but in the UK? We even dont care when coppers kill innocent people, Jean Charles De Menezes? Ian Thomlinson? amongst countless others? I still see no change. They say 'dont smoke' and we dont smoke in pubs. They raise taxes and give banks more millions? I see no change? And dont say G20 protests because it changed nothing.
Where i live is PRIME EXAMPLE of how soft as shit we are, there is OBVIOUS corruption in local politics, and the amount of yuppy flats built without planning permission (well fixed permission, but 100% local opposition), did anyone do anything? no... and fuck me the amount of RACISTS FUCKERS there are about, still in this day and age. People are to scared, and if you dont see that, where the fuck is your head?
You rely on these people who couldnt give to fucks? whats up with you?

um ok..
Yea it is ok, because i want no part of this sick society.

Fraid not.
Fraid so, what have you done to further revolution? What have any of us done?
Are we all meeting up to discuss tactics? Are we putting funds together to get the infomation out there? Any pirate radio stations, or tv stations to let the truth be known?
Where's all that? Anywhere? NO! Cos its 'talk talk talk talk talk', no action.
Go ahead, deny it. In the UK, and US, what is there? Except the odd small action.
Even iff all of us here, and all the other like minded people across UK and US stood up, it would be a fart in the wind. Because WE ARE MINORITIES!
So either carry on down the road to no where, or just opt out of it and tell the system and the supporters of the system to bollocks.

mykittyhasaboner

3rd May 2009, 22:10

Im afriad i do. I do agree the greek people and the french people no how to stand up and say 'fuck off'.... but in the UK? We even dont care when coppers kill innocent people, Jean Charles De Menezes? Ian Thomlinson? amongst countless others? I still see no change. They say 'dont smoke' and we dont smoke in pubs. They raise taxes and give banks more millions? I see no change? And dont say G20 protests because it changed nothing.
Where i live is PRIME EXAMPLE of how soft as shit we are, there is OBVIOUS corruption in local politics, and the amount of yuppy flats built without planning permission (well fixed permission, but 100% local opposition), did anyone do anything? no... and fuck me the amount of RACISTS FUCKERS there are about, still in this day and age. People are to scared, and if you dont see that, where the fuck is your head?
You rely on these people who couldnt give to fucks? whats up with you?

You really seem to complain a lot.

Yea it is ok, because i want no part of this sick society.Neither does anyone else, yet is impossible to change society by alienating yourself from it. So too bad.

Fraid so, what have you done to further revolution? What have any of us done?
Are we all meeting up to discuss tactics? Are we putting funds together to get the infomation out there? Any pirate radio stations, or tv stations to let the truth be known?
Where's all that? Anywhere? NO! Cos its 'talk talk talk talk talk', no action.
Go ahead, deny it. In the UK, and US, what is there? Except the odd small action.
Even iff all of us here, and all the other like minded people across UK and US stood up, it would be a fart in the wind. Because WE ARE MINORITIES!
So either carry on down the road to no where, or just opt out of it and tell the system and the supporters of the system to bollocks.What the fuck are you on about? Who are you to accuse anyone else of not doing anything?

Frankly, you sound like an idiot who is fed up with society, but doesn't know how, or doesn't want to change it. Maybe if you were to offer your opinions on how to work towards socialism (instead of ranting on about pirate radio stations) then you could get somewhere.

Hit The North

4th May 2009, 15:38

Like religion, dialectics is used to sustain one feeling or another.
- August

Aesthetic theory, or any normative theory, is used to sustain one feeling or another. This does not mean it is reducible to the status of a religion. So what is your point, except to damn dialectics, by association with religion, as inherently irrational, in place of providing a substantive argument to that effect (and thereby reproducing Rosa's intent and tactic)?

No one is claiming that it is the sole source, but it certainly plays a large role.
The question is what that role is. Rosa implies that it is through fostering illusion, hence her association with religious consolation.

I've already stated that if dialectics provides us with a source for sustaining revolutionary optimism it is through a number of normative assumptions about the social world which are open to evidential analysis. In other words, it is not sustained through illusion or through 'faith', but through analysis of the facts. Is this how religious consolation is produced within theistic systems?

Abandoning dialectics is by no stretch of the imagination "throwing in the towel," though it may appear that way to a dialectician. The question I posed is based on Rosa's apparent disregard for having a means of sustaining revolutionary optimism - again because she views it as having roots in a mystical view and therefore "revolutionary optimism" becomes, in her eyes, as degraded as "religious consolation".

In fact, abandoning dialectics appears to be a honing of one's understanding, a 'making sharper the blade' by removing excess and unnecessary components.
It may appear that way to an anti-dialectician. ;)

There may be aspects of those components which we enjoy and find encouraging, but true courage comes from being able to shed that which is not necessary.I agree. The question I would ask is how we decide what is necessary from what is unnecessary. From my point of view, as I understand dialectics, to deny that the social world is dialectical is to deny that it is historically emergent and develops through the unfolding of necessary and primary relations which give it a certain logic. In other words, it is to deny the key arguments of Das Kapital. So from that point of view, I think dialectics is very necessary.

As a historical materialist, shedding unnecessary theoretical baggage is of up-most importance when we consider that it is our responsibility to communicate revolutionary leftism to the working class - we should like it to be as simple and coherent as possible, no?
Well, comrade, I'm not too sure how much real world activity you have experienced amongst Marxists, but the quaint scenario that we spend our time talking to workers about dialectics is a polemical fantasy conjured up by Rosa Lichtenstein. You may also have noticed that the majority times dialectics is discussed on RevLeft is when she incites it.

Rosa Lichtenstein

4th May 2009, 16:49

BTB:

Rosa implies that it is through fostering illusion, hence her association with religious consolation.

Marx actually says the following:

Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again.... Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification....

...Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.... [Bold emphases added.]

If Marx is right, then religion is a "universal basis of consolation", which means that if you lot look to dialectics to console you for the last 150 years of almost unremitting failure, and hope for the future (the dialectical equivalent of 'pie in the sky'), then for you (plural) it does indeed work like a religion.

Of course, Marx could be wrong, but I doubt whether you (singular) will want to go down that route.

In other words, it is not sustained through illusion or through 'faith', but through analysis of the facts. Is this how religious consolation is produced within theistic systems?

But, you lot refuse to face the 'facts' -- you (plural) won't even admit that Dialectical Marxism has been a long-term failure --, nor will you (plural) even countenance the fact that your core theory (dialectics) has got anything to do with it.

In that respect alone, you lot resemble theists who wont even allow the thought to cross their minds that evil in the world implies either that there is no 'god' or that if there is 'he' is a bastard. They too bury their heads in the sand.

The question I posed is based on Rosa's apparent disregard for having a means of sustaining revolutionary optimism - again because she views it as having roots in a mystical view and therefore "revolutionary optimism" becomes, in her eyes, as degraded as "religious consolation".

Not my view, but Marx's.

From my point of view, as I understand dialectics, to deny that the social world is dialectical is to deny that it is historically emergent and develops through the unfolding of necessary and primary relations which give it a certain logic. In other words, it is to deny the key arguments of Das Kapital. So from that point of view, I think dialectics is very necessary.

But yours is a maverick version of 'dialectics'; few other dialecticians at RevLeft will agree with it, and, worse still, few in the SWP-UK will agree with it. Engels, Lenin, Plekhanov, Trotsky, Tony Cliff, Chris Harman..., certainly wouldn't.

In fact, your version of 'dialectics' is rather like those versions of Christianity that have edited out the miraculous and the supernatural (and in some cases even belief in 'god'), but whose supporters still think they are Christians.

Indeed, your version is a Cheshire Cat (from Alice in Wonderland) sort of 'dialectics' -- the more you are pressed about it the more of it disappears!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire_Cat

Well, comrade, I'm not too sure how much real world activity you have experienced amongst Marxists, but the quaint scenario that we spend our time talking to workers about dialectics is a polemical fantasy conjured up by Rosa Lichtenstein. You may also have noticed that the majority times dialectics is discussed on RevLeft is when she incites it.

[I]Where have I 'conjured up' this alleged fantasy?

In fact, I have asserted the opposite: that you can't talk to workers about this 'theory' since 1) You lot do not understand it to begin with (since not one of you can explain it in coherent terms), and 2) They'd regard you as nut cases if you tried.

That is one of the reasons it appears so very rarely in Socialist Worker and Socialist Review.

Here is part of what I have said about it:

The UK-SWP's 're-discovery' of DM is more recent, however. The line taken in Socialist Review in the early 1980s, for example, was that while there might be a dialectic operating in class society, there isn't one at work in nature.

As Ian Birchall put things:

"The trouble with…[the 'negation of the negation' and a 'dialectics of nature' -- RL] is that [they] oversimplif[y] and mystif[y]…. To derive the laws of dialectics from inanimate nature leads to denying the role of human agency in the historical process." [Birchall (1982), pp.27-28.]

Even Chris Harman did not think DM important enough to mention in print (as far as I am aware) until the late 1980s. For instance, in his reply to an article written by Alex Callinicos [Callinicos (1983b)], Harman largely restricted his use of the term "contradiction" to the following (adding other revisionary comments to Alex's take on Althusser):

"Contradiction then becomes contradiction inside capitalist society. The transformation of quantity into quality becomes the way in which bourgeois society itself throws up new elements it cannot control. The negation of the negation becomes the creation of a class by capitalist production which is driven to react back upon that production in a revolutionary way." [Harman (1983), pp.73-74.]

Harman was strangely silent about the 'dialectic' in nature in this article, as were Alex Callinicos and the late Peter Binns in the same debate. Harman pointedly restricted dialectics to human social development. [Cf., Callinicos (1983b) and Binns (1982).]

This is quite inexplicable if we are now supposed to accept the current line that DM is central to Marxist Philosophy. Indeed, it is even more puzzling when it is recalled that Alex Callinicos had been severely critical of several core DM-theses in the book under discussion [i.e., Callinicos (1982)]. Comrades in the SWP-UK might not have noticed it, but WRP writers certainly picked up on this and laid into Callinicos's 'anti-Marxist heresies' with no little vehemence, as noted above (i.e., earlier in this Essay). But, why didn't Peter Binns or Chris Harman spot these glaring dialectical infelicities in that work?

Furthermore, Tony Cliff's earlier work, as far as I am aware, does not mention DM, and his political biographies of Lenin and Trotsky are deafeningly silent on the issue.

In fact, Cliff mentioned this execrable theory in print only 3 times in 60 years (and even then only in passing)!

[However, since writing the above, I have discovered a handful of references to dialectics (the 'materialist dialectics' version, applied to society, but not DM, applied to nature) in Cliff's classic book, Cliff (1988); on this see here. Even so, dialectical concepts are nowhere near as prominent in his work as they are in, say, Ted Grant's. (On the latter, see below.) However, I am assured by older members of the UK-SWP that Cliff used to lecture on DM in earlier decades -- but apparently he did not think it important enough to put these ideas into print. The point is that DM only became an overt mantra in SWP publications after 1984/5.]

The same goes for other SWP theorists. For example, Duncan Hallas does not mention this 'theory' at all in any of his writings. All this is rather odd if DM is as 'central' to SWP thought as some now maintain. Cf., Cliff (1975-79, 1982, 1988, 1989-93, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003); Hallas (1984).

[Correction: I have come across one mention of DM in Duncan's writings --, an article, oddly enough, on sectarianism! Anyway, he is merely quoting Trotsky, and does nothing with the term himself.]

The change in line was heralded by two short articles; one was written by Chris Harman and appeared in Socialist Review in 1988 [Cf., Harman (1988)], the other was authored by John Molyneux, and appeared in Socialist Worker (see below).

Since then, several other comrades have joined the stampede back to the ancient past: John Rees [Rees (1989, 1990, 1994, 1998, 2008)], John Molyneux [Molyneux (1987); see also his blog], Paul McGarr [McGarr (1990, 1994)], and Phil Gasper [Gasper (1998)] (although, now that the US wing (the ISO) of the IST has been expelled, Phil is no longer an SWP/IST-theorist!). Cf., also Paul Kellogg's review of a recent book on Engels, 'The Demon Marxist', and subsequent letters. See also my letter to the International Socialist Review, in response to an article by Brian Jones. [Jones (2008)]. Comrade Jones attempted to mount a weak and rather superficial defence of dialectics, to which I have replied here. [Readers need to be made aware of the fact that my response was based on a typed copy of comrade Jones's response to me posted at RevLeft by another comrade who made several typing errors. A more considered version of that reply has been published here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Engels_and_mickey_mouse_science.htm).] A similar letter sent to Socialist Review by a supporter of this site was not published. It can be accessed here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/SR_Letter_001.htm).

Even Alex Callinicos has softened his anti-DM stance of late. [Callinicos (1998) and (2006); on the latter, see here.] Before this, he had been openly critical of DM; see, for example, Callinicos (1976), pp.11-29; (1978), pp.135-84; (1982), pp.55, 112-19; (1983a), pp.54-56, 61-62; (1987), pp.52-53; (1989a), pp.2-5.

It is quite clear that the downturn in the movement since the 1970s has meant that the above comrades have felt a pressing need to enrol themselves on a sufficiently powerful Dialectical Methadone programme.

Mercifully, DM has yet to appear in Socialist Worker on a regular basis. As far as I am aware, it has only featured once in the paper in the last 20 years -- in an article written by John Molyneux (the reference for which I have unfortunately lost, although Petersen gives it as January 1984) -- subsequently reprinted in Molyneux (1987), pp.49-51. [Cf., Petersen (1994), p.158. Petersen also references a letter to Socialist Review written (by a comrade and old friend of mine, *****), in response to Harman's article, pp.160-61.]

At one level, this is difficult to explain -- at another, the opposite is in fact the case. Given the fact that workers are 'supposed' to assent to DM readily when confronted with it, or they are said to use its concepts unwittingly/"unconsciously" all the time -- according to Trotsky --, this omission is highly puzzling, especially if DM is as central to revolutionary theory as SWP-theorists would now have us believe. Why then hasn't Socialist Worker assumed the Dialectical Mantle once worn so proudly by Newsline?

The answer to this is not difficult to work out. The editors of Socialist Worker are not idiots, unlike their counterparts at Newsline; they surely know that DM is a complete turn-off for workers. Even Socialist Review largely ignores this allegedly central tenet of Marxism -- probably for the same reason. [However, in November 2008, Socialist Review published an article on "Quantity and Quality" by John Rees (i.e., Rees (2008). More about that later.] But, if DM is to be brought to workers, how might this happen if their revolutionary press totally ignores it? It is not easy to see how DM could one day "seize the masses" if Socialist Worker omits all mention of it.

International Socialism now appears to be the only SWP publication 'radical' enough to expound DM-ideas. Admittedly, few workers read this otherwise excellent journal -- and that probably explains why the editors find they can (sometimes) retail dialectical theses there.

In addition, meetings at Marxism (the annual SWP theoretical conference) regularly discuss this 'theory'. [Some of this material can be found here. A report of the discussion of dialectics at Marxism 2007 can also be found here.]

This is less easy to explain -- except perhaps: this is probably a gesture toward orthodoxy. However, to be truthful, there are relatively few such meetings, and their content relates to little of the political content of other meetings (which, given the criticisms advanced here and in Part One, is not surprising). Nevertheless, the contrary view (i.e., anti-dialectics) is certainly not allowed adequate time to mount an effective case for the prosecution (or any at all).

[Added by a supporter of this site ('Nemesis'):

At Marxism 1990, I was given two, three minute impromptu slots. It is only possible to make highly superficial points in such short intervals, ones which, because they challenge fundamental beliefs, are quite easy to dismiss. However, the level of argument in response to what I had said was lamentable; in fact it was difficult to believe that one comrade (Seth Harman) had listened to a word I had said, given the irrelevant comments he made. (Indeed, at the end after the meeting had finished, I put him on the spot by shouting across the auditorium: "Hey, Seth! Is that the best you can do?")

The main speaker (John Molyneux) even took it upon himself to interrupt me several times at the start of my first three minute spell, until I silenced him with a joke. In my opening remarks, I was in the middle of saying that my attack on DM was not an attack on HM, when he interjected loudly over the microphone that it was. I denied it. He re-asserted it. I denied it again. He re-asserted it once more. I then turned to the audience and said "There you go, comrades, a contradiction within the first thirty seconds!" The subsequent laughter drowned out any further response John thought to make.

However, the reception I received for my brief intervention (a loud and prolonged applause --, upon request, the audience even voted for me to be given an extra minute) suggested that there were many comrades in the SWP who held similar views to me. There is no way I'd experience such a reception these days.]

Of late (i.e., circa 2003-8), even International Socialism has dropped this hot topic (except for this article written by Chris Harman in his review of a recent book by Alex Callinicos, i.e., Harman (2007a), and possibly this one, too -- i.e., Harman (2007b)).

[Added March, 2009: See also Harman's comments about a recent article (by Carchedi) on Marx's mathematical manuscripts. Harman is clearly unaware of the serious flaws in Marx's analysis (as is Carchedi); on that, see here.]

This is probably because of the international situation brought on by a resurgence of US and UK Imperialism, and the massive anti-war response this has produced. It is hard to argue with newly radicalised youth that "Being is identical with but at the same time different from Nothing, the contradiction resolved in Becoming..." and hope to appear relevant.

And yet, one would have thought that this would have been an ideal opportunity to bring DM to the masses. In which case, it is even more difficult to explain why Socialist Worker is currently silent about DM. The masses are on the street, why isn't their paper informing them of John's universal masculinity, the friable fighting skills of Mamelukes, seeds which negate plants, and the logical tryst between 'Being' and 'Nothing' -- with 'Becoming' acting as a sort of metaphysical Cupid?

The question answers itself; DM is an irrelevance. [On that, see here.]

One should be able to predict that, as the recent wave of radicalisation declines, and as the fortunes of recently fragmented Respect, and the hastily-formed Left List, continue to fade, dialectics should rear its ugly head in SWP publications again. The above reappearance in International Socialism (and those recorded below) are an early conformation of this trend.

Hence, of late dialectics has re-surfaced in Socialist Worker! [The details can be found here.] Once more, this is probably a result of the fact that the UK-SWP has not made a significant political break-through, despite their prominent role in the UK Anti-war movement, and because the latter is in steep decline. Another example is a recent article on Engels by Simon Basketter. [Basketter (2008). I have already sent a letter into the paper about this -- we'll see if it's published. (Added, later: No luck there, either. In fact, my e-mails have been blocked!)]

More details, references and missing links (indicated by the use of the word "here" in the above) can be found here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_02.htm

Use the 'Quick Links' to go to Section 2c.

Hit The North

4th May 2009, 17:28

R:
If Marx is right, then religion is a "universal basis of consolation", which means that if you lot look to dialectics to console you for the last 150 years of almost unremitting failure, and hope for the future (the dialectical equivalent of 'pie in the sky'), then for you (plural) it does indeed work like a religion. Whether Marx is right about religion is not the issue. It is whether you are right to argue, firstly, whether we "look to" the dialectic for consolation in the same manner a Christian "looks to" the promise of eternal life for consolation. I deny it! These are your words and they spring from your embittered imagination. But if you can prove that Marxists gather together and chant the three laws of the dialectic and kiss their copies of Anti-Duhring in order to extirpate their sense of failure (a sin you appear to want us to bare, for your own self-aggrandising reasons), then please publish this evidence.

Secondly, if Marx is right and religion is a "universal basis for consolation", this does not mean it is the only basis for consolation. Thirdly, I dispute that revolutionary optimism has anything to do with consolation as understood theistically. Again, these are your words.

But, you lot refuse to face the 'facts' -- you (plural) won't even admit that Dialectical Marxism has been a long-term failure --, nor will you (plural) even countenance the fact that your core theory (dialectics) has got anything to do with it.
Yet more self-aggrandisement. The proper phrasing is that we refuse to accept the facts as presented by one woman and her anti-dialectics blog. :lol: Nevertheless, Marxists are in a constant process of assessing the prospects in the here and now and reflecting on the lessons of defeat for our class in the past (in case you need reminding, it is our class which fights the class struggle, not Marxists bearing philosophy or anti-philosophy).

But yours is a maverick version of 'dialectics'; few other dialecticians at RevLeft will agree with it, and, worse still, few in the SWP-UK will agree with it. Engels, Lenin, Plekhanov, Trotsky, Tony Cliff, Chris Harman..., certainly wouldn't.Well, I agree with Ian Birchall for one. But, anyway, I dispute your assertion that any of those Marxist you mention would oppose the view that I put forth. But feel free to point out where they deny "the social world is dialectical... that it is historically emergent and develops through the unfolding of necessary and primary relations which give it a certain logic."

Where have I 'conjured up' this alleged fantasy?
I'm not your analyst.

Rosa Lichtenstein

4th May 2009, 22:38

BTB:

Whether Marx is right about religion is not the issue. It is whether you are right to argue, firstly, whether we "look to" the dialectic for consolation in the same manner a Christian "looks to" the promise of eternal life for consolation. I deny it! These are your words and they spring from your embittered imagination. But if you can prove that Marxists gather together and chant the three laws of the dialectic and kiss their copies of Anti-Duhring in order to extirpate their sense of failure (a sin you appear to want us to bare, for your own self-aggrandising reasons), then please publish this evidence.

1) Well, I think Marx is right.

2) The prominent dialecticians I quoted certainly look to DM for consolation.

3) The fact that the vast majority of you lot react emotively and irrationally to my (and other) attacks on this theory confirms that assessement. [Another example below.]

4) The additional fact that you lot are immune to the facts about Dialectical Marxism further confirms this.

5 Not every religionist 'kisses the Bible, but you lot (saving perhaps you) regularly regurgitate the same old stuff year in year out:

This helps explain why we still encounter the constant rehearsal of the same tired old examples in DM-texts, involving the following hardy perennials: balding heads, John and his manhood, boiling water, Mendeleyev's Table, wave/particle duality, contradictory motion, "A is equal to A", a character from Molière who has spoken "prose all his life without knowing it", "Yea, Yea" and "Nay Nay", seeds negating plants, living/dying cells, Mamelukes, who have a somewhat ambiguous fighting record against the French, and so on -- despite it having been pointed out many times (and not just in my Essays) that none of these specially-selected examples work to begin with.

Secondly, if Marx is right and religion is a "universal basis for consolation", this does not mean it is the only basis for consolation. Thirdly, I dispute that revolutionary optimism has anything to do with consolation as understood theistically. Again, these are your words.

Maybe so, maybe not, but since it is the 'universal' basis, it covers you lot too.

Thirdly, I dispute that revolutionary optimism has anything to do with consolation as understood theistically.

Again, the quotations I gave suggest it certainly is for leading Marxists; moreover, the origin of this theory in mystical Christianity (and the class origin of those most heavily influenced by this 'theory') stongly support my allegations.

Again, these are your words

Full marks for stating the bleeding obvious.

Yet more self-aggrandisement. The proper phrasing is that we refuse to accept the facts as presented by one woman and her anti-dialectics blog. Nevertheless, Marxists are in a constant process of assessing the prospects in the here and now and reflecting on the lessons of defeat for our class in the past (in case you need reminding, it is our class which fights the class struggle, not Marxists bearing philosophy or anti-philosophy).

1) It's not a blog.

2) You haven't read these 'facts' -- since, like your fellow religionists (and not just the DM-sort, the genuine type, too), you refuse to allow your tender eyes to look up such heathen material.

3) And you are right, Dialectical Marxists are constantly re-assessing the class struggle as you say, but the truth is that the vast majority (certainly of us Trots) constantly paint a rosey picture (for example, continually lying about their party's size). Once more, the evidence is at my site -- but, be warned, for true believers like yourself, your tender eyse might not be able to cope with what they see.

in case you need reminding, it is our class which fights the class struggle, not Marxists bearing philosophy or anti-philosophy).

I hardly need reminding, since that is a central claim at my site! [The quotation above from my site is just one example of this.]

It's you mystics who seem to think philosophy is of any use.

Well, I agree with Ian Birchall for one.

But, as he will tell you, he is in a vanishingly small minority in the SWP (but the opposite was true in 1982 when he wrote that). Indeed, leading SWP-ers have given him a hard time over his stance.

But, anyway, I dispute your assertion that any of those Marxist you mention would oppose the view that I put forth. But feel free to point out where they deny "the social world is dialectical... that it is historically emergent and develops through the unfolding of necessary and primary relations which give it a certain logic."

It's not that they deny this, it's that they also go on to defend classical DM as it's applied to nature -- as well you know.

I'm not your analyst.

Then withdraw the lie if you can't substantiate it.

Or, is this yet another example of the irrational way in which you deal with critics of your sacred dogma?

Decolonize The Left

5th May 2009, 06:04

The question is what that role is. Rosa implies that it is through fostering illusion, hence her association with religious consolation.

I think Rosa's point, although I'm sure she's expressed it numerous times, is not that the primary problem with dialectics is it's result in certain revolutionaries, rather, it is that dialectics simply cannot be verified as it involves the positing of forces/workings beyond that of the material world.

If this is incorrect please let me know - this is only my understanding.

I've already stated that if dialectics provides us with a source for sustaining revolutionary optimism it is through a number of normative assumptions about the social world which are open to evidential analysis. In other words, it is not sustained through illusion or through 'faith', but through analysis of the facts. Is this how religious consolation is produced within theistic systems?

It depends on the relationship of the individual and the 'facts.' Some religious individuals viewed 9/11 as proof that god is vengeful. Is this the case?

The point I am trying to make here is that dialectians are creating connections which may not exist. This is not to say that event X did not have a relationship to event Y, it is to say that this relationship may not be dialectical.

The question I posed is based on Rosa's apparent disregard for having a means of sustaining revolutionary optimism - again because she views it as having roots in a mystical view and therefore "revolutionary optimism" becomes, in her eyes, as degraded as "religious consolation".

Revolutionary optimism ought to be sustained through the courage of the people - not a crutch of theory. You may ask how this courage is developed? I would respond through hard work; yet at the same time, I don't wish to preach to you about revolutionary activities.

I merely wish to say that dialectics can be left out to no dismay.

It may appear that way to an anti-dialectician. ;)

Well check and mate sir...

I agree. The question I would ask is how we decide what is necessary from what is unnecessary. From my point of view, as I understand dialectics, to deny that the social world is dialectical is to deny that it is historically emergent and develops through the unfolding of necessary and primary relations which give it a certain logic. In other words, it is to deny the key arguments of Das Kapital. So from that point of view, I think dialectics is very necessary.

Interesting. I have issues with: "to deny that the social world is dialectical is to deny that it is historically emergent and develops through the unfolding of necessary and primary relations which give it a certain logic."

I do not see why I can't accept that and yet still deny dialectics.

Well, comrade, I'm not too sure how much real world activity you have experienced amongst Marxists, but the quaint scenario that we spend our time talking to workers about dialectics is a polemical fantasy conjured up by Rosa Lichtenstein. You may also have noticed that the majority times dialectics is discussed on RevLeft is when she incites it.

Point taken. I would only like to note that our conversations and discussions on this forum are, in no form, an adequate representation of how I conduct myself discussing politics in everyday life.

Most of us are relatively well-educated in revolutionary theory and can sustain a discussion on topics while someone I meet on the street will have had no, or little, prior knowledge regarding these issues. The discussion of dialectics is relatively unimportant in the everyday development of class consciousness (that with which I am most concerned); on the other hand, it is extremely important in regards to the theoretical development of the revolutionary left.

It is here, on this forum, that I choose to engage the latter.

- August

black magick hustla

5th May 2009, 21:56

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th May 2009, 22:38

Hyacinth:

If this is the case—and, alas, it is the case at least among the people I know, most of whom do theory and criticism—I'm curious as to why? Why has the left sought to ally itself with a patently nonsensical and bankrupt pseudo-philosophical movement that can, in no way, actually assist in either bringing about revolution nor in understanding the world. Likewise for dialectics, there seems to be a history of this sort of thing. It has—rightly—make much of the left the laughing stock of our opponents.

Lenin, in fact, explained why --, summarised for us by John Rees and Tony Cliff:

"[T]he defeat of the 1905 revolution, like all such defeats, carried confusion and demoralisation into the ranks of the revolutionaries…. The forward rush of the revolution had helped unite the leadership…on strategic questions and so…intellectual differences could be left to private disagreement. But when defeat magnifies every tactical disagreement, forcing revolutionaries to derive fresh strategies from a re-examination of the fundamentals of Marxism, theoretical differences were bound to become important. As Tony Cliff explains:

"'With politics apparently failing to overcome the horrors of the Tsarist regime, escape into the realm of philosophical speculation became the fashion….'

"Philosophical fashion took a subjectivist, personal, and sometimes religious turn…. Bogdanov drew inspiration from the theories of physicist Ernst Mach and philosopher Richard Avenarius…. [Mach retreated] from Kant's ambiguous idealism to the pure idealism of Berkeley and Hume….

"It was indeed Mach and Bogdanov's 'ignorance of dialectics' that allowed them to 'slip into idealism.' Lenin was right to highlight the link between Bogdanov's adoption of idealism and his failure to react correctly to the downturn in the level of the struggle in Russia." [Rees (1998) The Algebra of Revolution, pp.173-79, quoting Cliff (1975) Lenin, Volume One, p.290. Bold emphases added. (However, I can find no reference to "dialectics" in Cliff's book; RL)]

As Cliff goes on to argue:

"With politics apparently failing to overcome the horrors of the Tsarist regime, escape into the realm of philosophical speculation became the fashion. And in the absence of any contact with a real mass movement, everything had to be proved from scratch -- nothing in the traditions of the movement, none of its fundamentals, was immune from constant questioning.

"...In this discussion Bogdanov, Lunacharsky, Bazarov and others tried to combine marxism with the neo-Kantian theory of knowledge put forward by Ernst Mach, and Richard Avenarius. Lunacharsky went as far as to speak openly in favour of fideism. Lunacharsky used religious metaphors, speaking about 'God-seeking' and 'God-building'. Gorky was influenced by Bogdanov and Lunacharsky....

"Lenin's reaction was very sharp indeed. He wrote to Gorky, 'The Catholic priest corrupting young girls...is much less dangerous precisely to "democracy" than a priest without his robes, a priest without crude religion, an ideologically equipped and democratic priest preaching the creation and invention of a god.'" [Cliff (1975), pp.290-91. Bold added.]

It is quite clear from this that the experience of defeat (and the lack of materialist input from a mass working-class movement) redirected the attention of certain revolutionaries toward Idealism and to searching for a mystical explanation for the serious set-backs Russian Marxists had witnessed after 1905. Plainly, that search provided these comrades with some form of consolation -- just as Marx alleged of religion pure and simple.

But, there is another outcome that Rees and others have clearly failed to notice: this major set-back turned Lenin toward Philosophy and dialectics, too. These were subjects which he had largely ignored up until then. While it is true that Bogdanov and the rest turned to Mach, Berkeley, Subjective Idealism, and other assorted irrationalisms, is equally clear that Lenin reverted to Hegel and 'objective' Mysticism.

Now, the same sort of thing happened after the massive defeats of the 1930s, the revelations in Khrushchev's 1956 'secret speech' and the major set-backs of the 1970s -- petty-bourgeois and de-classé Marxists turned toward idealism, mysticism, Frankfurt School style 'dialectics' (etc.) and French 'Philosophy' as a form of consolation -- on the lines that, if we can't change the world, at least we can change how we think about it, or how we perceive it.

Worse still, because these forms of thought are not based on the material world, or on the relation between Marxists and the working class, they are immune from refutation, and their adherents hold onto them for non-rational reasons.

So, no matter how obvious the long-term decline of Dialectical Marxism is to the rest of us, its adepts cannot see this, nor can they even bring themselves to blame (even partially) their core theory! In fact, they get quite abusive if you try to suggest even the remotest sort of connection (BTB being an excellent example of this emotive type of response).

I mean, as if their core theory has no had no role to play here -- what use is it then, if it has had no practical import!?

Radical dislocation from the material world around us of this order of magnitude requires psychological and sociological explanation. It is indeed like that which afflicts Christians, who, no matter how 'evil' the world gets, will not bring themselves either to blame 'god' or allow it to affect their belief in 'his' alleged goodness. DM-fans are that seriously afflicted too.

And ready confirmation for that allegation can be found here, in these threads, as our resident mystics find that not only can they not explain their ideas (on the lines that Chomsky outlined above), they can't defend them without lying or getting abusive and emotional.

Rosa Lichtenstein

6th May 2009, 15:57

On this topic, comrades should check out the comments I have just posted here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1435931&postcount=23

Hit The North

6th May 2009, 17:41

Originally posted by Rosa
But, there is another outcome that Rees and others have clearly failed to notice: this major set-back turned Lenin toward Philosophy and dialectics, too. These were subjects which he had largely ignored up until then. While it is true that Bogdanov and the rest turned to Mach, Berkeley, Subjective Idealism, and other assorted irrationalisms, is equally clear that Lenin reverted to Hegel and 'objective' Mysticism.
Yes, and it is quite clear that it was Lenin's journey back to what Cliff calls "the fundamentals" of Marxism, which allowed him to denounce and expose those, like Bogdanov and Lunacharsky, who wandered off into idealism. I'll leave it to you to explain how dialectics nonetheless allowed Lenin to retain fidelity to a revolutionary, materialist project.

Plainly, that search provided these comrades with some form of consolation -- just as Marx alleged of religion pure and simple.Not plainly. You prefer your gloss of "religious consolation" and ignore the actual point Cliff is making, which is that it is tactically necessary in the face of a major defeat to go back critically to the fundamentals of Marxism because, in order to stand a chance of rebuilding a mass movement, "everything must be proved from scratch".

If the SWP and other revolutionary groups were forced to retreat back into theory after the 1980s defeat of the working class - which, by the way, is not how the SWP responded; they responded by retreating into activism - it may be a necessary response politically, organizationally or even psychologically, but it does not make it identical with a religious reflex to find consolation. Your own anti-dialectical work is a similar retreat into philosophy, informed by the same conditions of downturn; it has no political presence in the real world or any organizational imperatives for the working class.

But let's pretend you are right. Perhaps you too, then, are experiencing your own religious reflex, disguised as anti-dialectics rather than dialectics. Perhaps the only difference between the two is that dialectics is used by those who need to justify continuing engagement in the revolutionary movement; whereas anti-dialectics is used by those, like you, who need to justify their distance.

Now, the same sort of thing happened after the massive defeats of the 1930s, the revelations in Khrushchev's 1956 'secret speech' and the major set-backs of the 1970s -- petty-bourgeois and de-classé Marxists turned toward idealism, mysticism, Frankfurt School style 'dialectics' (etc.) and French 'Philosophy' as a form of consolation -- on the lines that, if we can't change the world, at least we can change how we think about it, or how we perceive it.Interesting. But if we want to engage in fatuous historical comparisons, we could amuse ourselves and argue that those in the 70s and 80s who turned to French philosophy correspond to Bogdanov et al.; whilst those who turned to the Marxist dialectic, are in the company of Lenin. Indeed the intellectual debate on the left in the past thirty years has been a more or less staunch defence of orthodox Marxism against the claims of po-mo mo-fo's and "new movement" acolytes. Moreover, it is those who would make dalliance with the Parisian Left Bank who are more likely to reject the dialectical core of Marxism.

I mean, as if their core theory has no had no role to play here -- what use is it then, if it has had no practical import!?Perhaps it's because we line-up with you when you admit that the retreat into theory is a symptom of defeat rather than a cause. As materialists we recognise that history is determined by class struggle not the struggle of "theories".

But, anyway, you have already told us what practical import it has: it enabled Lenin to avoid idealism and steer a course back to revolutionary politics.

And ready confirmation for that allegation can be found here, in these threads, as our resident mystics find that not only can they not explain their ideas (on the lines that Chomsky outlined above), they can't defend them without lying or getting abusive and emotional.The problem with your conclusion is that dialectics can be explained and often has been in various ways. The fact that you find these explanations unconvincing is another matter. The truth-value of a claim does not depend on whether it can be explained or not.

Rosa Lichtenstein

6th May 2009, 18:43

BTB, as if to prove this assessment of you correct:

So, no matter how obvious the long-term decline of Dialectical Marxism is to the rest of us, its adepts cannot see this, nor can they even bring themselves to blame (even partially) their core theory! In fact, they get quite abusive if you try to suggest even the remotest sort of connection (BTB being an excellent example of this emotive type of response).

you say:

Yes, and it is quite clear that it was Lenin's journey back to what Cliff calls "the fundamentals" of Marxism, which allowed him to denounce and expose those, like Bogdanov and Lunacharsky, who wandered off into idealism.

1) It is entirely possible to defend Marxism without recourse to the lamentably defective 'philosophy' Lenin indulged in.

2) If other revolutionaries (with a similar class background) were in need of consolation (according to Lenin, not me!) and were thus susceptible to mysticism in the face of defeat, then so was Lenin. And we need not speculate about this, since Lenin provided us with abundant evidence to that effect in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism [MEC], but even more so in his Notebooks -- [PN] much of the content of which you would have to reject, since it is openly Hegelian, and thus mystical, if you are to remain consistent with other things you have said here -- some hope!

I'll leave it to you to explain how dialectics nonetheless allowed Lenin to retain fidelity to a revolutionary, materialist project.

This is in fact a problem for you, since you reject much of what Lenin was committed to in PN.

Not plainly. You prefer your gloss of "religious consolation" and ignore the actual point Cliff is making, which is that it is tactically necessary in the face of a major defeat to go back critically to the fundamentals of Marxism because, in order to stand a chance of rebuilding a mass movement, "everything must be proved from scratch".

Well, this is the story you mystics like to tell yourselves on dark and windy nights, but we already know from Marx that religious affectation is the universal source of consolation, and the 'god-seeking' of individuals like Bogdanov was just another example of this phenomenon. But then, so was Lenin's return to Hegel (a philosopher you vociferously reject anyway), and so it is plain that Cliff's analysis, accurate though it is, did not go far enough. The defeats and set-backs after 1905 turned Lenin toward a theory -- 90% of which you yourself reject as mystical anyway! -- one that he had largely ignored up to that point.

And far from going back to fundamentals, as you see things, this return to philosophy you must (if you are consistent) regard as a wrong turn, given the harsh things you have had to say about the latter discipline (especially the tradition that has descended from Hegel) in these threads.

If the SWP and other revolutionary groups were forced to retreat back into theory after the 1980s defeat of the working class - which, by the way, is not how the SWP responded; they responded by retreating into activism - it may be a necessary response politically, organizationally or even psychologically, but it does not make it identical with a religious reflex to find consolation. Your own anti-dialectical work is a similar retreat into philosophy, informed by the same conditions of downturn; it has no political presence in the real world or any organizational imperatives for the working class.

In the 1980s, after the downturn and the defeat of the miners, SWP theorists clearly needed their own form of consolation -- so it is not surprising that they returned to DM, a theory that they had almost totally been silent about in the previous 25 years.

And this mirrors the careers of other revolutionaries. For example, Engels only became a fan of this Hermetic theory after the 1860s, with the demise of the Chartist movement, and the defeat of the Paris commune (indeed, he had been brought up in the German Pietist, Lutheran tradition, a tradition that owed much of its belief structure to Jacob Boehme, the major German Hermeticist before Hegel, and one of the most important influences on Hegel himself -- see below -- which tradition Engels openly abandoned in the early 1840s, but returned to in the 1870s).

Similarly with Lenin; he was almost totally silent about dialectics until after 1905. Trotsky too only showed an overt interest in this 'theory' after his expulsion from the former USSR and his political isolation, and the defeat of the Chinese and Spanish revolutions. Before this, he was almost totally silent about DM. Same with Stalin and Mao (but you can read the details at my site, link below). Indeed, Hegel himself only became a dialectician after the decay of the French revolution.

Indeed, we have already seen how prominent Marxists talk in quasi-religious terms about their precious 'dialectic':

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1425979&postcount=4

On Boehme and the Hermetic influences on Hegel, see this article at the Marxist Internet archive:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/magee.htm

More details here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_02.htm

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Summary_of_Essay_Fourteen_Part_One.htm

But let's pretend you are right. Perhaps you too, then, are experiencing your own religious reflex, disguised as anti-dialectics rather than dialectics. Perhaps the only difference between the two is that dialectics is used by those who need to justify continuing engagement in the revolutionary movement; whereas anti-dialectics is used by those, like you, who need to justify their distance.

This just shows how desperate you are getting, for this 'argument' of yours resembles the creationist jibe which goes: "You atheists say you reject faith, but you lot have faith in science, so you are just as religious as we are...", or the cappies who say "You socialists say you reject capitalism, but you all use money, and many of you belong to parties that own printing plants, sell books and papers and employ workers -- so you are closet capitalists, too!"

To call it 'pathetic' would be to praise it far too highly.

The fact that I reject all forms of consolation (unlike you mystics), and all forms of philosophy (again unlike you mystics) somehow, in your twisted mind, becomes proof that I am secretly seeking consolation!

But, as unbiased readers will note, my allegations were backed-up with evidence and argument, not just bald assertions -- even if you think one or both of these is inadequate.

So, where is your evidence and argument to back up this baseless allegation of yours?

Interesting. But if we want to engage in fatuous historical comparisons, we could amuse ourselves and argue that those in the 70s and 80s who turned to French philosophy correspond to Bogdanov et al.; whilst those who turned to the Marxist dialectic, are in the company of Lenin. Indeed the intellectual debate on the left in the past thirty years has been a more or less staunch defence of orthodox Marxism against the claims of po-mo mo-fo's and "new movement" acolytes. Moreover, it is those who would make dalliance with the Parisian Left Bank who are more likely to reject the dialectical core of Marxism.

And yet, as Marx noted, this sort of affectation is the universal source of consolation, so one and all of the things you mention are of the same cloth.

Moreover, the SWP's identification with Lenin that you speak of cannot include you, for you reject much of it!

Or, rather, you become rather vague, often silent, when pressed to tell us which parts of classical DM you reject/accept.

Moreover, it is those who would make dalliance with the Parisian Left Bank who are more likely to reject the dialectical core of Marxism.

1) Once more, this applies to you, too, for you reject this 'core' 'theory'.

2) Different forms of such ruling-class opiates, be they derived from traditional or French 'Philosophy', or from this Hermetic source, are all the same when it comes to consolation -- it matters not which brand it is.

Perhaps it's because we line-up with you when you admit that the retreat into theory is a symptom of defeat rather than a cause. As materialists we recognise that history is determined by class struggle not the struggle of "theories".

Maybe so, but it is remarkable how irrational and emotive you lot become when your precious 'dialectic' is attacked (in your case, see below).

Abundant evidence here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/RevLeft.htm

But, anyway, you have already told us what practical import it has: it enabled Lenin to avoid idealism and steer a course back to revolutionary politics.

This is in fact the opposite of what I alleged.

But, thanks again for showing the rest of us just how irrational you become in defence of Lenin's theory (much of which you reject anyway), and how you are quite prepared to lie to that end.

The problem with your conclusion is that dialectics can be explained and often has been in various ways. The fact that you find these explanations unconvincing is another matter. The truth-value of a claim does not depend on whether it can be explained or not.

There have been several weak attempts to that end, but no one has been able to explain, for example, what a 'dialectical contradiction' is.

If you think otherwise, perhaps you can post the link, or explain this obscure phrase yourself (for the first time in 200 years)?

Cue tumbleweed; cue rustling leaves; cue distant church bell...

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/tumbleweed_004.jpg

Hit The North

6th May 2009, 21:52

This just shows how desperate you are getting, for this 'argument' of yours resembles the creationist jibe which goes: "You atheists say you reject faith, but you lot have faith in science, so you are just as religious as we are...", or the cappies who say "You socialists say you reject capitalism, but you all use money, and many of you belong to parties that own printing plants, sell books and papers and employ workers -- so you are closet capitalists, too!" Actually, that is your argument in a nutshell - making phoney equivalences such as:

If other revolutionaries (with a similar class background) were in need of consolation (according to Lenin, not me!) and were thus susceptible to mysticism in the face of defeat, then so was Lenin. I'm merely turning the tables and applying your own logic against you. But according to you, even though Lenin could not resist the drift into mysticism, not Engels or any other major revolutionary figure, the mighty thinker known as Rosa Lichtenstein is able to resist the pull. Your arrogance is ridiculous!

But the best is yet to come:

The fact that I reject all forms of consolation (unlike you mystics), and all forms of philosophy (again unlike you mystics) somehow, in your twisted mind, becomes proof that I am secretly seeking consolation!
Look at your site! You only use philosophy! :lol: And if you don't require consolation, when, according to you, the rest of us revolutionaries, including Lenin, do require it, we can only conclude that you are not one of us and therefore need nothing to console yourself during our defeats.

But you have still to explain how Lenin's investigation into the dialectic roots of Marxism allowed him to expose and confound those who, "out of consolation", turned to various forms of idealism. Not that your explanation is particularly important.

Rosa Lichtenstein

6th May 2009, 22:44

Moved from the other thread:

BTB:

Actually, that is your argument in a nutshell - making phoney equivalences such as:

Not so. Not only have we got Marx's declaration that religious affectation is the universal source of consolation, we have Lenin's own words that revolutionaries are just as susceptible, in times of defeat and set-back, to turn to philosophy, 'god'-seeking and other forms of mysticism/irrationalism as are genuine god-botherers. In addition, it is plain from the biographies of great revolutionaries (and Hegel, too) that they turned to this sort of material at such times -- as indeed the SWP-UK did in the 1980s -- openly spouting DM-theses, when, only years before, they had largely been silent over such matters.

Furthermore, we have seen how prominent revolutionaries are emotionally attached to this theory, and become irrational in its defence -- again, rather like you (see below).

And, as it that is not enough, the 'theory' that revolutionaries appropriated was not based on scientific observation or theory, nor on a relation with the working class, nor even on the experience of the party, but on the mystical ruminations of a ruling-class, Hermetic thinker.

Moreover, as I argued in another thread, there are good reasons why DM-theorists and ruling-class hacks prefer a theory that tells them that there is a secret world behind appearances, accessible to thought alone, which is more real than the world we see around us:

There are two interconnected reasons, I think.

1) The founders of this quasi-religion weren't workers; they came from a class that educated their children in the classics and in philosophy. This tradition taught that behind appearances there is a hidden world, accessible to thought alone, which is more real than the material universe we see around us.

This way of seeing things was invented by ideologues of the ruling class, who viewed reality this way. They invented it because if you belong to, benefit from or help run a society which is based on gross inequality, oppression and exploitation, you can keep order in several ways.

The first and most obvious way is through violence. This will work for a time, but it is not only fraught with danger, it is costly and it stifles innovation (among other things).

Another way is to persuade the majority (or a significant section of "opinion formers" and administrators, at least) that the present order either works for their benefit, is ordained of the 'gods', or that it is 'natural' and cannot be fought, reformed or negotiated with.

Hence, a world-view is necessary for the ruling-class to carry on ruling in the same old way. While the content of this ruling ideology may have changed with each change in the mode of production, its form has remained largely the same for thousands of years: Ultimate Truth is ascertainable by thought alone, and it can therefore be imposed on reality dogmatically.

So, these non-worker founders of our movement, who had been educated to believe there was this hidden world that governed everything, looked for principles in that invisible world that told them that change was inevitable, and part of the cosmic order. Enter dialectics, courtesy of the dogmatic ideas of a ruling-class mystic called Hegel.

2) That allowed the founders of this quasi-religion to think of themselves as special, as prophets of the new order, which workers, alas, could not quite grasp because of their defective education and reliance on ordinary language and 'common sense'.

Fortunately, history had predisposed these prophets to ascertain the truth about reality for the 'masses', which implied they were their 'naturally-ordained' leaders. That in turn meant these 'leaders' were also teachers of the 'ignorant masses', who could thus legitimately substitute themselves for the unwashed majority -- in 'their own interests', you understand, since the masses were too caught up with 'commodity fetishism' to see the truth for themselves.

And that is why DM is a world-view.

It is also why dialecticians cling on to this theory like grim death (and become very emotional (and abusive!) when it is attacked by yours truly), since it provides them with a source of consolation that, despite outward appearances to the contrary, and because this hidden world tells them that dialectical Marxism will one day be a success, everything is in fact peachy, and nothing in the core theory needs changing -- in spite of the fact that that core theory says everything changes! Hence, DM is ossified into a dogma, and imposed on reality. A rather nice unity of opposites for you to ponder.

So, this 'theory' insulates the militant mind from the facts.

In that case:

Dialectics is the sigh of the depressed dialectician, the heart of a heartless world. It is the opiate of the party. The abolition of dialectics as the illusory happiness of the party hack is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

Unfortunately, these sad characters will need (materialist) workers to rescue them from themselves.

So, your alleged parody is nothing like my argument, as I noted earlier:

The fact that I reject all forms of consolation (unlike you mystics), and all forms of philosophy (again unlike you mystics) somehow, in your twisted mind, becomes proof that I am secretly seeking consolation!

But, as unbiased readers will note, my allegations were backed-up with evidence and argument, not just bald assertions -- even if you think one or both of these is inadequate.

So, where is your evidence and argument to back up this baseless allegation of yours?

Since you haven't posted any evidence, it is safe to assume that you have none, but are quite content to revert to type, and lie about me and my ideas.

Which is, of course, consistent with the irrational defence of this mystical creed we have seen from you and your fellow acolytes over the last three years, and reminiscent of the tactics used by the genuinely religious themselves.

Indeed, for this alone I must thank you: for confirming my allegations that this Hermetic virus has such a hold on you lot, not for rational reasons, but, just like the genuinely religious, because it acts as a form of consolation.

Keep it up, the more you lie and prevaricate, the more you confirm these suspicions.

I'm merely turning the tables and applying your own logic against you. But according to you, even though Lenin could not resist the drift into mysticism, not Engels or any other major revolutionary figure, the mighty thinker known as Rosa Lichtenstein is able to resist the pull. Your arrogance is ridiculous!

And yet, as we have seen, you have no evidence to support these allegations.

And, as we also know, that will not stop you from continuing to advance them in defence of your supply of Dialectical Opiates.

But what about this:

But according to you, even though Lenin could not resist the drift into mysticism

1) Fortunately, members of my class (the proletariat) in general are not susceptible to the 'attractions' of philosophical mysticism, for the reasons spelt out above (in that long quotation from an earlier post of mine).

2) Once more you have to make stuff up, for nowhere have I said this:

Lenin could not resist the drift into mysticism

Nor would I. Lenin could have resisted this drift (just as younger members of the Bolshevik party in fact did in the early 1920s), but he chose not to -- for he too was in need of dialectical consolation, as you are.

Look at your site! You only use philosophy! And if you don't require consolation, when, according to you, the rest of us revolutionaries, including Lenin, do require it, we can only conclude that you are not one of us and therefore need nothing to console yourself during our defeats.

Yet more invention.

That is about as brainless an argument as if a cappie were to say "You socialists are hypocrites since you use money and operate capitalist enterprises in order to try to destroy capitalism. So, you too are capitalists."

Any philosophy I use, I employ in order to destroy the entire enterprise, as well you know (since you have been told several times). Moreover, unlike you and your fellow mystics, I accept not one single philosophical thesis as true or useful (except in so far as it might help facilitate in its own demise). Indeed, I have argued this line here consistently for the last three-and-a-half years, and received much criticism and abuse for it.

But you have still to explain how Lenin's investigation into the dialectic roots of Marxism allowed him to expose and confound those who, "out of consolation", turned to various forms of idealism. Not that your explanation is particularly important.

But, he didn't; he failed, and quite miserably, too, since Lenin was a p*ss poor philosopher.

Proof here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2012_01.htm

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page_13%2001.htm

Anyway, since you reject much of what Lenin had to say (for example in his Notebooks) we are still waiting for you to respond to this:

Or, rather, you become rather vague, often silent, when pressed to tell us which parts of classical DM you reject/accept.

Once more: Cue tumbleweed; cue rustling leaves; cue distant church bell...

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/tumbleweed_004.jpg

Hit The North

7th May 2009, 02:22

Not so. Not only have we got Marx's declaration that religious affectation is the universal source of consolation, we have Lenin's own words that revolutionaries are just as susceptible, in times of defeat and set-back, to turn to philosophy, 'god'-seeking and other forms of mysticism/irrationalism as are genuine god-botherers. In addition, it is plain from the biographies of great revolutionaries (and Hegel, too) that they turned to this sort of material at such times -- as indeed the SWP-UK did in the 1980s -- openly spouting DM-theses, when, only years before, they had largely been silent over such matters. This is circumstantial evidence at best. In fact, it is a narrative construction you've pieced together which can easily be contested.

Not so. Not only have we got Marx's declaration that religious affectation is the universal source of consolationBut not the only source. I could find consolation at the bottom of a bottle of whisky. How is that religious? I could find consolation in the love of my family. How is that religious?

we have Lenin's own words that revolutionaries are just as susceptible, in times of defeat and set-back, to turn to philosophy, 'god'-seeking and other forms of mysticism/irrationalism as are genuine god-botherers. Yes, we do. He was explaining how some erstwhile comrades had succumbed to idealism and mysticism. He was not referring to those who stuck with revolutionary Marxism or, indeed, himself - and as you readily admit in your last post, there is no inevitability that revolutionaries will succumb to this process.

In addition, it is plain from the biographies of great revolutionaries (and Hegel, too) that they turned to this sort of material at such times -- as indeed the SWP-UK did in the 1980s -- openly spouting DM-theses, when, only years before, they had largely been silent over such matters.
It is plain that political defeat leads to reassessment. We could call this a retreat into theory. You have yet to prove that all theory is theological or that the retreat is primarily a search for consolation. Does Lenin claim to find consolation in the materialist dialectic? No, he claims to find proper orientation. Of course, as we know from your analysis of the 2nd Preface to Das Kapital, you have the tendency to treat some comments as gospel and infer their meaning beyond their context, whilst ignoring or dismissing those comments which don't serve you.

Rosa Lichtenstein

7th May 2009, 04:04

BTB:

This is circumstantial evidence at best. In fact, it is a narrative construction you've pieced together which can easily be contested.

How can this be 'circumstantial' if we have Marx's declaration that religious affectation is the universal source of consolation, and Lenin's own words that revolutionaries are susceptible, in times of defeat and set-back, to turn to philosophy, 'god'-seeking and other forms of mysticism/irrationalism? It is plain from the biographies of great revolutionaries (and Hegel, too) that they turned to this sort of material at such times -- as indeed the SWP-UK did in the 1980s -- openly spouting DM-theses, when, only years before, they had largely been silent over such matters. All this confirms Marx and Lenin's assessment.

But not the only source. I could find consolation at the bottom of a bottle of whisky. How is that religious? I could find consolation in the love of my family. How is that religious?

You just get dulled senses with whiskey, which might explain a lot.

He was explaining how some erstwhile comrades had succumbed to idealism and mysticism. He was not referring to those who stuck with revolutionary Marxism or, indeed, himself - and as you readily admit in your last post, there is no inevitability that revolutionaries will succumb to this process.

Maybe he wasn't referring to himself and the rest of the 'faithful', as you say, but his admission that revolutionaries are susceptible to mysticism during such junctures unfortunately ropes him in with the others.

It is plain that political defeat leads to reassessment. We could call this a retreat into theory. You have yet to prove that all theory is theological or that the retreat is primarily a search for consolation. Does Lenin claim to find consolation in the materialist dialectic? No, he claims to find proper orientation. Of course, as we know from your analysis of the 2nd Preface to Das Kapital, you have the tendency to treat some comments as gospel and infer their meaning beyond their context, whilst ignoring or dismissing those comments which don't serve you.

In the case of the SWP, it turned them toward DM, a subject about which they had almost entirely been silent before 1985, and we can see from the history of Marxism, similar set-backs have re-directed other revolutionaries in the same way.

You have yet to prove that all theory is theological

Still making stuff up I see? Where have I claimed this?

And where have I claimed this?

that the retreat is primarily a search for consolation

What I [I]have said is that in retreat, as the record clearly shows, revolutionaries seek out mystical explanations for the many set-backs they have faced.

Indeed, if you can, get hold of Eric Petersen's book The Poverty Of Dialectical Materialism -- Petersen is an IS comrade in Australia, who has roughly the same view of 'dialectics' as you have, as far as can be ascertained, that is (he is not ashamed to tell us wat he believes here, whereas you are); and yet he makes the same claims as I do (concerning revolutionaries who turn to DM in times of defeat, etc.), and he appeals to similar evidence and argument.

Does Lenin claim to find consolation in the materialist dialectic?

He might not have claimed it, but that does not mean he did not find it there. Why else did he ignore this 'theory' almost totally pre-1905, and between 1917 and 1921? He only returned to it between 1905 and 1916, and then again post 1921.

Trotsky displayed a similar pattern, only later. So did Engels, Stalin and Mao (and SWP theorists).

Of course, as we know from your analysis of the 2nd Preface to Das Kapital, you have the tendency to treat some comments as gospel and infer their meaning beyond their context, whilst ignoring or dismissing those comments which don't serve you.

In fact, you are the expert at ignoring stuff you do not like or cannot answer, such as this:

Or, rather, you become rather vague, often silent, when pressed to tell us which parts of classical DM you reject/accept.

Once more: Cue tumbleweed; cue rustling leaves; cue distant church bell...

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/tumbleweed_004.jpg

To say nothing of your incapacity to explain your own 'theory'...

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th May 2009, 00:36

OK, BTB, since you would not answer this in the Learning thread, when can we expect an answer to this (from earlier in this thread):

By the way, we are still waiting for a response to this:

BTB:

No, I'm merely arguing that it is not the formulae proffered to capture general patterns of change which is the component which sustains our optimism, but the general spirit of the dialectical view.

What 'general spirit' of 'the dialectical view' are you talking about? Without change through 'internal contradiction' (but see below), based on the 'unity and interpenetration of polar opposites', guided by the 'negation of the negation' and the transformation of 'quantity into quality' (all of which terms appear in Das Kapital, which jargon I claim Marx's was using non-seriously, to which allegation you took great exception), there is no 'dialectic' as the 'great dialecticians' (including Tony Cliff) understood this 'theory'.

Now, it's all the same to me if you have resiled from your earlier unwise acceptance of this mystical creed under my relentless attack, but at least have the decency to admit that your 'spirit of the dialectic' is little more than a ghostly apparition hovering over what is left of its dead and decaying corpse.

Meanwhile, no I don't reject the concept of contradiction driving social change which we find all over Das Kapital; I merely restrict its usage to the social.

In that case, you must reject the 'unity and interpenetration of polar opposites' (and thus the thesis that the proletariat is the dialectical 'opposite' of the capitalist class), the 'negation of the negation' (a term that also appears in Das Kapital) and the alleged transformation of 'quantity into quality' (ditto).

Unless, like me, you think that Marx was using these obscure terms non-seriously.

If so, on what basis do you think he was using 'contradiction' in a non-'coquettish' manner?

It strikes me that you are uncomfortably like those theologians who look at the miracles of the Bible (and the rest of the rubbish that book contains), and then at modern science, shrug their shoulders and just appeal to the 'spirit' of the 'good book', cherry-picking which bits they find acceptable, not realising that in adopting such an intellectually bankrupt compromise, the game is up.

As I said, try running your 'revisionist' ghost of a theory past your fellow coven-hounds in the Dialectical Materialist Group. You will soon be subject to the same sort of abuse and emotive response that has been directed at yours truly.

It most certainly is.

Indeed, but it is not 'dialectics' as Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky, Tony Cliff, Chris Harman, Alex Callinicos..., understand it.

In fact, it is about as accurate to describe your ghostly theory as 'dialectics' as it is to call Tony Blair a 'socialist'.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1426383&postcount=9

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1430054&postcount=30

Earlier you said:

I don't recall you asking me this question before and I can't think why I would object to answering it.

So, what is your reason for not answering this question?

[Except we all know why -- it will brand you as a 'Revisionist!' among your fellow Coven-hounds, and a renegade in the SWP-UK (and you will be ostracised like I was, and still am).]

Once more, cue tumbleweed, cue rustling leaves, cue distant church bell...

Hit The North

14th May 2009, 00:39

You can't bully me Rosabot. I'll answer when I'm ready.

*wish I had a two-fingers smiley*

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th May 2009, 00:46

BTB:

You can't bully me Rosabot. I'll answer when I'm ready.

Which, in this case, means 'never.

And we both know why:

1) Your fellow initiates over at the Dialectical Monastery will brand you a 'Revisionist!'

2) You will be ostracised in the SWP-UK, as I was.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th May 2009, 00:49

Is this the sort of smiley that best expresses your character?

http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/mad/mad0044.gif

Hit The North

14th May 2009, 00:54

BTB:

Which, in this case, means 'never.

That's an a priori assumption. :lol:

And we both know why:

1) Your fellow initiates over at the Dialectical Monastery will brand you a 'Revisionist!'

2) You will be ostracised in the SWP-UK, as I was. Wow, I don't think any of that would happen. In fact, slagging off John Rees for being a shit philosopher (or shit anything else, for that matter) would win me some favour in the party at the moment. :lol:

If you want the truth, it's because I'm still working it out and loads of it is still fuzzy (as you no doubt would point out with glee - but then I'm not afraid of the fuzziness, as you are.). So you'd only be disappointed. I don't have your stone tablets.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th May 2009, 01:04

BTB:

That's an a priori assumption

No, it's an a priori allegation, which i will be happy to withdraw just as soon as you answer those questions.

Wow, I don't think any of that would happen. In fact, slagging off John Rees for being a shit philosopher (or shit anything else, for that matter) would win me some favour in the party at the moment.

I did not mention John Rees (as well you know), and purposely so -- to forestall this sort of response from you.

In fact, I mentioned these comrades:

Indeed, but it is not 'dialectics' as Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky, Tony Cliff, Chris Harman, Alex Callinicos..., understand it.

BTB:

If you want the truth, it's because I'm still working it out and loads of it is still fuzzy (as you no doubt would point out with glee - but then I'm not afraid of the fuzziness, as you are.). So you'd only be disappointed.

You mean, after ten or fifteen (or more) years in the party, you still haven't worked out what your core theory is yet?

I don't have your stone tablets.

No, yours are made of dialectical methadone.

Hit The North

14th May 2009, 01:25

R:

You mean, after ten or fifteen (or more) years in the party, you still haven't worked out what your core theory is yet?

Well I don't call it my core theory. But, yeah, crazy innit. I must have been busy doing other stuff.

Anyway, there's nowt wrong with being 'in development' - in fact its a core facet of the dialectic.

No, yours are made of dialectical methadone.

Now you're just being cruel and if I didn't have a serious drug habit, I'd take exception to that.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th May 2009, 01:33

BTB:

Well I don't call it my core theory.

Then, this is just one more area where you differ from Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky, Cliff, Harman, Callinicos...

Anyway, there's nowt wrong with being 'in development' - in fact its a core facet of the dialectic.

1) When I try this excuse, you object.

2) How do you know that "it's a core facet of the dialectic" if you haven't 'developed' yet?

3) It's a core facet of prevarication, too.

Now you're just being cruel and if I didn't have a serious drug habit, I'd take exception to that.

We already know you have a serious drug habit: the opiate of 'dialectics'.

Hit The North

14th May 2009, 01:58

R:
2) How do you know that "it's a core facet of the dialectic" if you haven't 'developed' yet? I don't expect to be 'developed', only 'developing'. it's an open dialectic.

We already know you have a serious drug habit: the opiate of 'dialectics'.

It's not as good as heroin. But, then, what is?

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th May 2009, 11:14

BTB:

it's an open dialectic.

Once more, how do you know if you haven't 'developed' enough yet?

It's not as good as heroin. But, then, what is?

Doesn't need to be; all that is required is that it provides you with the consolation you need for the fact that Dialectical Marxism is such an abject and long-term failure.

Hit The North

14th May 2009, 11:23

R:
Once more, how do you know if you haven't 'developed' enough yet?

Good point.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th May 2009, 11:34

BTB:

Good point.

Once more, how do you know this is 'good point' if you are still in the developmental stage?

Hit The North

14th May 2009, 13:30

Another good point.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th May 2009, 16:18

BTB:

Another good point.

For a non-'developed' mystic, you seem to know a lot.