Dialectics and Learning

[bailey_187]

(Rosa, please do not turn this into another debate on dialectics. If Rosa does can a mod give her a warning for trolling please?)

So i was reading Lenny Wolff's The Science of Revolution and on pg.26 he says "Knowledge, contrary to conventional (bourgeois) wisdom, does not advance through the gradual accumulation of facts alone, but even more importantly through the struggle between...contending theories"

So the debate between two ideas is what we learn from?

If we accept this as true, why do Marxists not print more books of debates between Marxists? For example i am reading the debate between Sweezy and Dobb in The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism,and i think have learnt more about the subject than from reading other books on the subject. If knowledge comes from the struggle between two schools of thought, why do more Marxists not publish books with debates and polemics between themselves?

Maybe this thread belongs somewhere else?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^This is an open forum, so I'll post what I like.

But, I fail to see what your post has got to do with this mystical 'theory'.

[syndicat]

his post has more to do with dialectic in the original Aristotelian sense of a debate.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I'm OK with that.:)

[red cat]

(Rosa, please do not turn this into another debate on dialectics. If Rosa does can a mod give her a warning for trolling please?)

So i was reading Lenny Wolff's The Science of Revolution and on pg.26 he says "Knowledge, contrary to conventional (bourgeois) wisdom, does not advance through the gradual accumulation of facts alone, but even more importantly through the struggle between...contending theories"

So the debate between two ideas is what we learn from?

If we accept this as true, why do Marxists not print more books of debates between Marxists? For example i am reading the debate between Sweezy and Dobb in The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism,and i think have learnt more about the subject than from reading other books on the subject. If knowledge comes from the struggle between two schools of thought, why do more Marxists not publish books with debates and polemics between themselves?

Maybe this thread belongs somewhere else?

Comrade, can you explain your statement a bit ? I don't see how wisdom can advance alone through the struggle between Trotskyites and Maoists, for example.

[red cat]

I think it would be better to say that we learn from correctly analyzing material conditions in the real world rather than merely from debates between ideas. After all, different ideas are nothing but different analyses of some real thing.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by red cat
I think it would be better to say that we learn from correctly analyzing material conditions in the real world rather than merely from debates between ideas. After all, different ideas are nothing but different analyses of some real thing.

However, the polemic has always played a vital role in Marxism, from Marx's polemics against the Young Hegelians, Proudhon, etc.; or Lenin's polemics against the Machists; Luxemburg's polemics against Bernstein; the list goes on.

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

[bailey_187]

Comrade, can you explain your statement a bit ? I don't see how wisdom can advance alone through the struggle between Trotskyites and Maoists, for example.

You dont think so? Not always when trots and maoists clash on this board, but when there is a good debate between two ideologies on revleft i always feel i have learnt more than if just one of the ideologies was to post their views.

Sorry, i should have specified, this is in reference to Aristotle "dialectic of debate" thing. Am i right in thinking this use of dialectics (not sure if thats worded properly) is also accepted by Marxists who accept Materialist Dialectics?

[S.Artesian]

Comrade, can you explain your statement a bit ? I don't see how wisdom can advance alone through the struggle between Trotskyites and Maoists, for example.

I think comrade Bailey has hit on something quite important and I think comrade Red Cat has shown why it is so hard to do what Bailey identifies as a very productive process-- and that is when Bailey points to an example of the Dobbs-Sweezy debate over the transition to capitalism, comrade Red Cat reacts by making any interrogatory about material history a question of ideology, including the use of the pejorative term "Trotskyite."

As such, we have an answer to comrade Bailey's question as to why that debate seems to be lacking-- and the answer is the piss-poor condition of Marxism today, a reflection of the fact that for the last 30 + years the bourgeoisie have been kicking the snot out of the working class, to the point that discussions of the actual historical development of capitalism, or an aspect of capitalism, have become the [almost exclusive] realm of academics.

The Dobbs-Sweezy dialectic re-emerged in the 70s as the "Brenner Debate" referring to Robert Brenner's insightful work into the transition to capitalism in England and the difficulties in making that transition in France, Germany, Prussia etc. in the [mainly] 16th, 17th, and early 18th centuries.

The debate has continued, inflamed a bit by Brenner's article in NLR [I think] identifying the "neo-Smithian Marxists" of the left, who are convinced that the not just the origins but the maintenance of modern capitalism depends on enforced underdevelopment of less advanced countries.

That debate has been pretty lively as a matter of fact. I've participated in it fairly often, and it has branched into debates about the fundamental relations of northern US captialism and the plantation slavery in the US South, arguments about the differing trajectories of development of England and China etc.

Still... those discussions get bogged down in ideological charges about "first world" "Euro-centric" Marxists... depressing really when that happens.

OK, that's my contribution.

[blake 3:17]

To get back to the OP, I totally agree. Debates and sharpened debates can be thr grounds for much greater clarity. One of the things I like about activist intellectuals (and by that I'd include both those engaged in practical politics and those who present ideas and research to inform movements) is that they write to be read. Some of the clearest articulations of socialist thought are often formulated in quite specific instances -- a great deal of "orthodox" Marxism comes from responses to the pushes and pulls of particular movements and different schools of thought. To codify that into some eternal truth is silly and sectarian.

I'm a big fan of Q and A type interviews - which if they are good do challenge the interviewee.


If we accept this as true, why do Marxists not print more books of debates between Marxists? For example i am reading the debate between Sweezy and Dobb in The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism,and i think have learnt more about the subject than from reading other books on the subject. If knowledge comes from the struggle between two schools of thought, why do more Marxists not publish books with debates and polemics between themselves?


I'd love it! There are left publications that do represent alternate points of view and try to provoke debate. Often it's easier to present these debates well after the fact -- the polemics seem a little less harsh and less is immediately at stake.

I'm currently involved in a couple of left unity/solidarity groups, and maintaining respectful debate and discussion is very difficult. Sometimes we minimize our differences, sometimes we exaggerate our differences. Often the differences are expressed as clash of ideologies, when they're really personal clashes.


However, the polemic has always played a vital role in Marxism, from Marx's polemics against the Young Hegelians, Proudhon, etc.; or Lenin's polemics against the Machists; Luxemburg's polemics against Bernstein; the list goes on.
Absolutely. What I'm wary of is assuming that one side is 100% right and the other 100% wrong.

The only reason I've ever heard of the Machists is because of Lenin -- were they all that bad?

From what I understand the SPD were pretty manipulative and basically used Luxemburg for their own ends. She did write a pretty amazing document that inspires. In terms of really understanding the debate, it would be more useful to have had a proper debate.


You dont think so? Not always when trots and maoists clash on this board, but when there is a good debate between two ideologies on revleft i always feel i have learnt more than if just one of the ideologies was to post their views.
It's good. I have way more in common with many Maoists (the ones who actually do something) than I do with sectarian Trotskyists.

Edited to add:
As such, we have an answer to comrade Bailey's question as to why that debate seems to be lacking-- and the answer is the piss-poor condition of Marxism today, a reflection of the fact that for the last 30 + years the bourgeoisie have been kicking the snot out of the working class, to the point that discussions of the actual historical development of capitalism, or an aspect of capitalism, have become the [almost exclusive] realm of academics.


Yes! I got introduced to the Brenner debates through folks actually involved in class struggle politics. I have a very hard time following Brenner, but have appreciated Ellen Wood's contributions on the subject. Here's a link to her article in Against The Current on Eurocentric Anti-Eurocentrism: http://www.solidarity-us.org/current/node/993

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bailey:


Am i right in thinking this use of dialectics (not sure if thats worded properly) is also accepted by Marxists who accept Materialist Dialectics?

There is no connection at all between Aristotle's use of 'dialectic' and the use of a typographically similar word in 'materialist dialectics'.

Aristotle was a first rate logician.

In contrast, the most that the vast majority of 'materialst dialecticians' know about logic is how to spell the word.

[bailey_187]

No one reply to Rosa, just neg her if you wish, and lets get back to the intended topic

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Or, even simpler, just stop using this word.

[syndicat]

Ellen Wood's contributions on the subject.

in her book on democracy she rejects the "base/superstructure" distinction because she says, correctly, that it's merely a vague metaphor.


There is no connection at all between Aristotle's use of 'dialectic' and the use of a typographically similar word in 'materialist dialectics'.

Aristotle was a first rate logician.



Right. In logic people sometimes talk about the "dialectical strength" of a particular interlocutor in a debate. This refers to things like the cogency and clarity of their arguments, the strength of their evidence and so on.

Hegel was an idealist. in the 18th and 19th century idealists were so-called because they beliieved that reality was ultimately mental or reducible to "experience" or "ideas". Since debates reflect different beliefs or viewpoints, Hegel then posited the existence of something akin to the "conflict of ideas" of a debate in nature itself. It's a pretty wooly idea if you think about it. But this is how Aristotle's term "dialectic" got perverted.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Indeed, and then the Marxist/dialectical classicists came along and screwed with it even more.

[Rjevan]

Alright everybody, keep the discussions about "Trotskyite" and "Stalinist" tribes and about who is entitled to troll the trolls and similar awesome topics to yourselves or to Chit Chat. If this is your way to illustrate why nobody could learn from debates between Marxists I think we all got the point and don't need any further examples. This is already the second warning, the third time it won't be a simple warning anymore.

[S.Artesian]

Alright everybody, keep the discussions about "Trotskyite" and "Stalinist" tribes and about who is entitled to troll the trolls and similar awesome topics to yourselves or to Chit Chat. If this is your way to illustrate why nobody could learn from debates between Marxists I think we all got the point and don't need any further examples. This is already the second warning, the third time it won't be a simple warning anymore.

WTF? What is this, grammar school? You're a day late and a dollar short, as we more or less resolved this ourselves and had moved on before you intervened to turn the thread back to this waste of time.

And love the red font; that's truly precious. What's next? Detention? Notes home to our parents.

Maybe the "moderators" need to moderate the moderating, waiting until one or more of the participants in a thread actually feels the need to appeal to a moderator.

What a waste of time.

[Rjevan]

WTF? What is this, grammar school?
Pretty much what I was thinking, too.


You're a day late and a dollar short, as we more or less resolved this ourselves and had moved on before you intervened to turn the thread back to this waste of time.
Oh, really? I'm indeed sorry that I didn't see this earlier but tell me: how comes that the off-topic stuff goes on after Bob The Builder already issued a warning? Must be a hallucination but just after the warning I still see posts distracting the thread and the OP asking people to get back to topic. Cool that things were "more or less" resolved for you but the thread didn't seem to go back to normal. And in case you missed my point: I asked people to stop "this waste of time", the only one I see turning it back to merry distraction is you ranting about and asking for a justification of a simple mod action.


And love the red font; that's truly precious. What's next? Detention? Notes home to our parents.
I'm very glad you like it. And it even seems to fulfill its purpose: it gets noticed. That's why the mods and admins use the red front, in case you missed that. And I can tell you precisely what's next if this derailing goes on as it does just now: an infraction.


What a waste of time.
Indeed, absolutely.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I'm sorry, I did not see BTB's warning.:(

[S.Artesian]

Oh, really? I'm indeed sorry that I didn't see this earlier but tell me: how comes that the off-topic stuff goes on after Bob The Builder already issued a warning? Must be a hallucination but just after the warning I still see posts distracting the thread and the OP asking people to get back to topic. Cool that things were "more or less" resolved for you but the thread didn't seem to go back to normal. And in case you missed my point: I asked people to stop "this waste of time", the only one I see turning it back to merry distraction is you ranting about and asking for a justification of a simple mod action.




Must have missed that "warning" by BTB; looked back in the thread and still didn't see it... but hey that might just be my old age.

Anyway, in the issue at hand, I think Brenner was dead on, spot on as our UK comrades say, in his analysis of the transition to capitalism and.. in his characterization of the neo-Smithian Marxists, who thought capitalism was the "natural" trend of all societies.

[blake 3:17]

Anyway, in the issue at hand, I think Brenner was dead on, spot on as our UK comrades say, in his analysis of the transition to capitalism and.. in his characterization of the neo-Smithian Marxists, who thought capitalism was the "natural" trend of all societies.

I get that much. I'm unclear what's at stake politically in the Brenner debate.

[S.Artesian]

I get that much. I'm unclear what's at stake politically in the Brenner debate.


Well, there is the point of historical accuracy; and there is another point that in examining the actual origins of capitalism, the relations of land, labor, and landed labor we just might be able to tell if a) it's actually the case that the origin of capitalism is in the "plundering" of what we now call the 3rd world b) if in fact the 'weakened' state of the indigenous capitalism in the past of countries like Ecuador, Bolivia, or even China is the result of imperialism, colonialism, or is the result of the "pre- imperial capitalist" relations.

Referring to the point of the OP, the debate is a way of sharpening the tools of historical analysis.