Rosa Lichtenstein, the letter kills the spirit.

[( R )evolution]

Rosa, I am making an open thread for a philosophical debate about Hegel's dialectics.

I emphasize Hegel in the above statement, because most of what I have read (though limited) of your work on your website and the thread at the top of the Philosophy section has been cluttered with other peoples interpretation and application of Hegel's philosophy, who you critique as a representation of Hegel himself. I cant count the number of times I saw "dialetictian" in the thread stickied. It is dangerous to attack an Idea presented by Hegel on the grounds of other individuals interpretation and continuance. You neglect the essence of Hegel's argument and destroy the credibility of your own. If you have qualms with others interpretation of Hegel dialectics then make it an attack of their individual interpretation of Hegels thought, not of his entire philosophy. You are mixing and matching the (mis) interpretation of individuals who have only thought to understand Hegel, to prove your argument which is suppose to be an attack on Hegel's original contribution to philosophy. This takes up much of your impressive quantity of work available on the internet.

Your "anti-dialectics" is no more than anti-"what (Rosa) I perceive to be dialectics, grounded in the thought of others structured to support my argument against Hegel's dialectics."

The letter kills the spirit and your forest of essays/internet pages/RevLeft threads does nothing but bury your pseudo-philosophical argument to the depths of incomprehension. If your argument applies to the mis-condition of man by Hegel's take, then let it speak for itself, and it surely should do this in less than thousands of internet pages and 29k word essays.

In light of this, I put forth a request to have a discussion in this thread, viewed and participated by the members of RevLeft, over your interpretation of Hegel's thought. I suppose we chose over PM of a few passages from Hegel's major works or the moderator of the Philosophy section can chose. We then would engage in an a discussion over our interpretation.

The letter, and the internet text, will surely damage the essence of our discussion but nonetheless it will be fun and engaging.

Nothing Human is Alien to Me.

[Kotze]

Some people have claimed what you are claiming here before, without actually demonstrating, instead it was an endless back and forth of YOU ARE WRONG - NO YOU. Humanity doesn't need another thread like that. It also doesn't need another thread about how serious or jokey Karl Marx was about dialectical thinking, because this doesn't prove whether it makes sense or not. Marx may have been wrong about some stuff. So if you can show that Hegel's dialectics is different from what Rosa Lichtenstein claimed and that it makes sense, you don't need to wait for her to post or for anybody's permission. Just say what it is. I'm all ears (as long as I don't have to play Where's Wally with your arguments in yet another twenty page shitfest).

[Dean]

Your "anti-dialectics" is no more than anti-"what (Rosa) I perceive to be dialectics, grounded in the thought of others structured to support my argument against Hegel's dialectics."
Oh, wow. Rosa has directly critiqued Hegel. This will be interesting *grabs bowl of popcorn*

[Zanthorus]

Um, Rosa's site deals mostly with criticisms of Dialectical Materialism not Hegelian dialectics proper. Those "(mist)interpretations" of Hegel's thought she attacks were not intended to be direct representations of Hegel anyway. I don't see why she or anyone else would feel the need to show the errors of a man whose "philosophy" was more or less a form of religion.

[( R )evolution]

So if you can show that Hegel's dialectics is different from what Rosa Lichtenstein claimed and that it makes sense, you don't need to wait for her to post or for anybody's permission. Just say what it is. I'm all ears (as long as I don't have to play Where's Wally with your arguments in yet another twenty page shitfest).

That is precisely it. I dont have a full idea of what Rosa is attempting to say. I cant get through her "twenty page shitfest" of internet pages, abbreviations, posts, threads, etc to get to what she is actually saying against dialectics.

I am in much as a position as someone who is confused as fuck about what is her anti-dialectics. That is why I envisioned this thread/discussion as a place to not just go back and forth but to really get into the essence of not only her argument but also hopefully into Hegels and my own. This should help the newcomers to philosophy comprehend both sides and come to conclusion or understanding of their own discover not of my or Rosa's argument.

[syndicat]

well, is anyone but Marxists interested in "dialectics" these days? If not, the discussion takes on a rather cultish air. the word "dialectic" was introduced originally by Aristotle in "Topics". he uses "dialectic" to refer to any situation where a person is trying to persuade some interlocutor, and advances some reasoning to do so. He distinguishes this from what he calls "demonstration" -- valid deduction of a conclusion from first principles, necessary truths or statements known to be true. so "dialectic" for Aristotle is just any sort of reasoning presented in a social context of argumentation or disputation.

Hegel's "dialectic" on the other hand is the reputed topic of his "Logic." now, you might ask yourself the question, How well is this work regarded among logicians? After all, this is the science this work was intended to be a contribution to. Well, one indication is William Kneale's 740 page history of logic, "The Development of Logic." Hegel is never mentioned. And neither is the "dialectic" of Hegel.

There are those who claim that Marx's interpretation of Hegel is derived from Fichte...along with the whole thesis, antithesis, synthesis bit. But nowadays there are some new interpretations of Hegel around that claim that Fichte misinterpreted Hegel. Hegel is very obscure so this is quite possible.

[Zanthorus]

From what I can recall, Marx only used the "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" formula once in the Poverty of Philosophy which was a reply to Proudhon who used that formula quite a lot as a representation of "dialectics". I also think it's highly unlikely that Marx's understanding of Hegel stretched no further than "thesis, antithesis, synthesis".

[Dean]

From what I can recall, Marx only used the "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" formula once in the Poverty of Philosophy which was a reply to Proudhon who used that formula quite a lot as a representation of "dialectics". I also think it's highly unlikely that Marx's understanding of Hegel stretched no further than "thesis, antithesis, synthesis".

Considering that Hegel was his 'teacher,' I think it is unlikely indeed ;-)

[Broletariat]

Rosa's been gone since like the 26th, when shall she return, I miss her and her ways.

[BAM]

I don't see why she or anyone else would feel the need to show the errors of a man whose "philosophy" was more or less a form of religion.

least of all a certain Dr. Karl Heinrich Marx, eh? ;)

[S.Artesian]

Rosa's been gone since like the 26th, when shall she return, I miss her and her ways.

I think you're in a rather distinct minority.......

[Zanthorus]

least of all a certain Dr. Karl Heinrich Marx, eh? ;)

Shush you :tt2:

If we're discussing just Hegel's philosophy on it's own though, even if you can gain insight from what Hegel says, it's pretty clear that, taking things undialectically as it were, the man is flat out wrong.

[BAM]

Shush you :tt2:

If we're discussing just Hegel's philosophy on it's own though, even if you can gain insight from what Hegel says, it's pretty clear that, taking things undialectically as it were, the man is flat out wrong.

We're not treating Hegel as "a dead dog", are we? :D

[Zanthorus]

Well reading him gives about the same level of enjoyment :D

[BAM]

Well reading him gives about the same level of enjoyment :D

I once sat an exam on Hegel's Philosophy of Right

[Zanthorus]

I once sat an exam on Hegel's Philosophy of Right

I tried reading it yesterday, got to the chapter page, and couldn't even bring myself to start the book :laugh:

[BAM]

I tried reading it yesterday, got to the chapter page, and couldn't even bring myself to start the book :laugh:

that's probably for the best :)

[JazzRemington]

I tried reading it yesterday, got to the chapter page, and couldn't even bring myself to start the book :laugh:

I tried reading one of Hegel's books years ago (I don't remember which one) and I had the same feeling. I have no patience for reading any of that kind of bullshit.

[Hit The North]

As far as I'm concerned, Marx read Hegel so we didn't have to.

[S.Artesian]

Well, that settles it then. JR can't remember which book it was that he didn't read; Zanthorus gave up at the chapter page.... too bad Marx didn't have that sort of erudition so he could have dispensed with the Phenomenology, the Logic, and The Philosophy of Right, History, etc.

Look at how much time he could have saved-- how much paper and ink. Why, he could have gotten a regular job probably and actually made some money rather than writing about and borrowing it all the time. Would have made Mrs. Marx and the kids a lot happier. Hell, maybe a few more would have survived.

This is exactly what is meant by treating Hegel like a dead dog. Not that I give a flying rat's ass. My concern is Marx's dialectic, and how he extracts his from Hegels, give the dialectic its grounding in the labor process; locates all those esoteric items that Hegel writes about-- contradiction, estrangement, alienation, inversion, antagonism, conflict, immanence, determination, negation-- in the opposition of labor to the conditions of labor.

As for Hegel's philosophy being a form of religion-- yeah, and just for that reason the critique of Hegel's philosophy is the basis for Marx's critique of actual conditions, the materiality of the social relations of labor. Didn't Marx say somewhere that the criticism of religion is the foundation for all criticism? Something like that. I forget the exact words every now and then.

Here's what I think.. one of my least favorite courses of study was in something called 20th century philosophy-- Russell, Whitehead, the atomists, postivists, etc. and least unfavorite philosopher in that group we were studying was this guy named Wittgenstein, who was no slouch when making some pretty radical changes and transformations himself.

One day the professor said something that summed it all up for me, and why I was forcing myself to read all this stuff that I thought was pretty much obsolete and pointless after reading Marx's The German Ideology and economic manuscripts...

The professor said that somebody was asking Wittgenstein about the abrupt dissonance and contradiction between his later work and his earlier work and Wittgenstein said something to the effect of "Once you climb the ladder, you can throw it away." This obviously is not verbatim, but what I recall after many years.

But I like that image, that notion. Once you climb that ladder, you can throw it away. Hegel's that ladder. Marx climbed it. Before you throw the ladder away, you might want to consider just exactly how you intend to get to any place of elevated examination and explanation of real honest-to-goodness capitalism.

I mean it's not easy, I know.

[JazzRemington]

Well, that settles it then. JR can't remember which book it was that he didn't read; Zanthorus gave up at the chapter page.... too bad Marx didn't have that sort of erudition so he could have dispensed with the Phenomenology, the Logic, and The Philosophy of Right, History, etc.

Look at how much time he could have saved-- how much paper and ink. Why, he could have gotten a regular job probably and actually made some money rather than writing about and borrowing it all the time. Would have made Mrs. Marx and the kids a lot happier. Hell, maybe a few more would have survived.

This is exactly what is meant by treating Hegel like a dead dog. Not that I give a flying rat's ass. My concern is Marx's dialectic, and how he extracts his from Hegels, give the dialectic its grounding in the labor process; locates all those esoteric items that Hegel writes about-- contradiction, estrangement, alienation, inversion, antagonism, conflict, immanence, determination, negation-- in the opposition of labor to the conditions of labor.

As for Hegel's philosophy being a form of religion-- yeah, and just for that reason the critique of Hegel's philosophy is the basis for Marx's critique of actual conditions, the materiality of the social relations of labor. Didn't Marx say somewhere that the criticism of religion is the foundation for all criticism? Something like that. I forget the exact words every now and then.

Here's what I think.. one of my least favorite courses of study was in something called 20th century philosophy-- Russell, Whitehead, the atomists, postivists, etc. and least unfavorite philosopher in that group we were studying was this guy named Wittgenstein, who was no slouch when making some pretty radical changes and transformations himself.

One day the professor said something that summed it all up for me, and why I was forcing myself to read all this stuff that I thought was pretty much obsolete and pointless after reading Marx's The German Ideology and economic manuscripts...

The professor said that somebody was asking Wittgenstein about the abrupt dissonance and contradiction between his later work and his earlier work and Wittgenstein said something to the effect of "Once you climb the ladder, you can throw it away." This obviously is not verbatim, but what I recall after many years.

But I like that image, that notion. Once you climb that ladder, you can throw it away. Hegel's that ladder. Marx climbed it. Before you throw the ladder away, you might want to consider just exactly how you intend to get to any place of elevated examination and explanation of real honest-to-goodness capitalism.

I mean it's not easy, I know.

Cool story bro.

[Blackscare]

Honestly, I think what Marxism could use today is a healthy indifference to that abstract nonsense, not fanatical obsession on either side of the issue. All it does is re-direct good neurons towards distracting and impractical mental masturbation.

[JazzRemington]

As far as I'm concerned, Marx read Hegel so we didn't have to.

Well, that's the thing. It really depends on how you look at it. If you want to understand Marx's critiques of Hegel, then maybe you should read Hegel. This isn't any different from becoming a scholar on a particular subject (Beowulf scholars can't get away with just reading other scholars' works on the text, for example). I was never interested in Marx's criticisms of Hegel, or Stirner even. I have a general idea of Hegel and I know how he and Marx are related, but I was never interested in Hegel or Marx's critiques of him. I was more interested in his writings of history and society, because that was my interest (and still is my interest).

[syndicat]

The professor said that somebody was asking Wittgenstein about the abrupt dissonance and contradiction between his later work and his earlier work and Wittgenstein said something to the effect of "Once you climb the ladder, you can throw it away." This obviously is not verbatim, but what I recall after many years.



that's a quote from the Tractatus, at the end, as I recall.

[JazzRemington]

that's a quote from the Tractatus, at the end, as I recall.

Specifically, 6.54: "My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.) He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly."

[S.Artesian]

Specifically, 6.54: "My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.) He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly."


Sounds downright mystical to me.

[JazzRemington]

Sounds downright mystical to me.

Irrelevant; I don't subscribe to the Tractatus. Especially considering the fact Wittgenstein effectively rejected his earlier writings and was about to publish his rejection before he died.

[S.Artesian]

Irrelevant; I don't subscribe to the Tractatus. Especially considering the fact Wittgenstein effectively rejected his earlier writings and was about to publish his rejection before he died.


But did he publish that rejection? Because Rosa hinges a big part of her argument on-- if it hasn't been published, it doesn't count if it contradicts what has been published. That might not be your position, so feel free to disagree with that.

[JazzRemington]

But did he publish that rejection? Because Rosa hinges a big part of her argument on-- if it hasn't been published, it doesn't count if it contradicts what has been published. That might not be your position, so feel free to disagree with that.

He actually submitted the first part of Philosophical Investigations for publication, but withdrew it and only authorized its publication posthumously. The second part was added posthumously from Wittgenstein's notes and wasn't really written in full by him. I don't believe he intended for them to be part of his work, even. The key is that at least the first part of Philosophical Investigations was fully prepared for publication and not just a bunch of notes.

[Hit The North]

If you want to understand Marx's critiques of Hegel, then maybe you should read Hegel. This isn't any different from becoming a scholar on a particular subject (Beowulf scholars can't get away with just reading other scholars' works on the text, for example).

I disagree. If one wanted to understand Marx's critique of Hegel one must read Marx. If one then wants to check the veracity of Marx's interpretation of Hegel, then one would need to turn to Hegel. As for me, I am only interested in what Marx extracts from Hegel - the rational kernel. So even if Marx's interpretation of Hegel was faulty, it wouldn't matter because what he ends up with, i.e. his materialist conception of history, works for me anyway.

[S.Artesian]

I disagree. If one wanted to understand Marx's critique of Hegel one must read Marx. If one then wants to check the veracity of Marx's interpretation of Hegel, then one would need to turn to Hegel. As for me, I am only interested in what Marx extracts from Hegel - the rational kernel. So even if Marx's interpretation of Hegel was faulty, it wouldn't matter because what he ends up with, i.e. his materialist conception of history, works for me anyway.

Whoa, comrade, and I do mean comrade,and I do mean whoa-- that's real close to a utilitarian justification for Marxism, which is itself close to turning Marxism into an ideological as opposed to a critical weapon for the emancipation of labor.

If Marx's critique, not interpretation, of Hegel is wrong, since it is that critique that is the rational kernel which interests you, then we've got bigger than big problems.

I don't argue that one has to read Hegel to be a Marxist, but one has to understand his critique of Hegel to understand the history to the development of Marx's materialism.

If Marx's critique of Hegel is wrong, then his, Marx's, critique of alienated, estranged labor [and here, Marx is explicit that "alienated" and "estranged" refer to social relations of production, not psychological states] is wrong. If Marx's critique of estranged labor is incorrect, then his analysis of surplus labor time is incorrect... usw [und so weiter, as is said auf Deutsch].

Needless to say, Marx's critique of Hegel is not wrong. It is, as much as the weapon of criticism can be, revolutionary, transposing dialectic-- contradiction, negation, inversion, opposition, transcendence, overcoming, determinant, ground-- into history, into the labor process and locating the immanent critique of capitalism in the opposition of labor and the conditions of labor, i.e. private property.

[ZeroNowhere]

I don't think that he was saying that the critique may be flawed, but rather than it may not accurately represent Hegel's ideas, while still being a valid critique of the ideas critiqued. In other words, the critique would be fine, simply not as a critique of Hegel. That is how I read that post, anyhow. I suppose that, given the treatment of Marx by people whom have not read him, it would make sense not to condemn Hegel if one was not sure what exactly he believed. Of course, if one does know quite well what he believed, it does not make much sense not to be critical.

[S.Artesian]

I don't think that he was saying that the critique may be flawed, but rather than it may not accurately represent Hegel's ideas, while still being a valid critique of the ideas critiqued. In other words, the critique would be fine, simply not as a critique of Hegel. That is how I read that post, anyhow. I suppose that, given the treatment of Marx by people whom have not read him, it would make sense not to condemn Hegel if one was not sure what exactly he believed. Of course, if one does know quite well what he believed, it does not make much sense not to be critical.

You've lost me, comrade. The critique doesn't accurately represent Hegel's philosophy, but is still a valid critique of the philosophy critiqued? Then how can Marx, or anyone claim that Marx has, extract[ed] the rational kernel of Hegel's system?

[ZeroNowhere]

That is not my view. Although yes, it would be somewhat problematic to claim that, given uncertainty as to Marx's interpretation of Hegel, he extracted Hegel's rational kernel (although if Marx's interpretation of Hegel was wrong, which it was not, he could have still claimed to extract the rational kernel). I suppose we should wait for BtB to clarify.

[Hit The North]

I'm not suggesting that Marx's critique of Hegel is wrong, in terms of how I understand that critique beginning with the Paris manuscripts. I'm suggesting that I don't need to read Hegel in order to understand Marx's critique of his system, or to agree with its results which is historical materialism. I mean, I don't agree with Lenin that one needs to read and understand Hegel's logic before one can understand The Capital. I agree that Marx takes something from Hegel which enables his critique of capitalism to supercede all hitherto attempts, but Marx's dialectical and material analysis stands up on its own. That's why I wrote that as far as I'm concerned, Marx read Hegel so I don't have to.

Perhaps this is the thin rationalisation of a philistine attempting to justify his laziness, but, shit, I've got a job and just don't have the time to read Hegel - not if I want to continue reading actual Marxists. I'm not a philosopher, I'm a revolutionary socialist. I'm not an Hegelian, I'm a Marxist.

Hope that clears up my not particularly philosophical intervention.

[S.Artesian]

I'm not suggesting that Marx's critique of Hegel is wrong, in terms of how I understand that critique beginning with the Paris manuscripts. I'm suggesting that I don't need to read Hegel in order to understand Marx's critique of his system, or to agree with its results which is historical materialism. I mean, I don't agree with Lenin that one needs to read and understand Hegel's logic before one can understand The Capital. I agree that Marx takes something from Hegel which enables his critique of capitalism to supercede all hitherto attempts, but Marx's dialectical and material analysis stands up on its own. That's why I wrote that as far as I'm concerned, Marx read Hegel so I don't have to.

Perhaps this is the thin rationalisation of a philistine attempting to justify his laziness, but, shit, I've got a job and just don't have the time to read Hegel - not if I want to continue reading actual Marxists. I'm not a philosopher, I'm a revolutionary socialist. I'm not an Hegelian, I'm a Marxist.

Hope that clears up my not particularly philosophical intervention.

Well, I agree.. one never has to read Hegel, but one certainly should read Marx on Hegel. Lenin was wrong. Not the first time, and certainly not the last time. Lenin's greatest strength, not being afraid to be wrong-- not being afraid of critique.

I've read Hegel, and I couldn't make sense of it until I read Marx.

[ChrisK]

Rosa, I am making an open thread for a philosophical debate about Hegel's dialectics.

I emphasize Hegel in the above statement, because most of what I have read (though limited) of your work on your website and the thread at the top of the Philosophy section has been cluttered with other peoples interpretation and application of Hegel's philosophy, who you critique as a representation of Hegel himself. I cant count the number of times I saw "dialetictian" in the thread stickied. It is dangerous to attack an Idea presented by Hegel on the grounds of other individuals interpretation and continuance. You neglect the essence of Hegel's argument and destroy the credibility of your own. If you have qualms with others interpretation of Hegel dialectics then make it an attack of their individual interpretation of Hegels thought, not of his entire philosophy. You are mixing and matching the (mis) interpretation of individuals who have only thought to understand Hegel, to prove your argument which is suppose to be an attack on Hegel's original contribution to philosophy. This takes up much of your impressive quantity of work available on the internet.

Your "anti-dialectics" is no more than anti-"what (Rosa) I perceive to be dialectics, grounded in the thought of others structured to support my argument against Hegel's dialectics."

The letter kills the spirit and your forest of essays/internet pages/RevLeft threads does nothing but bury your pseudo-philosophical argument to the depths of incomprehension. If your argument applies to the mis-condition of man by Hegel's take, then let it speak for itself, and it surely should do this in less than thousands of internet pages and 29k word essays.

In light of this, I put forth a request to have a discussion in this thread, viewed and participated by the members of RevLeft, over your interpretation of Hegel's thought. I suppose we chose over PM of a few passages from Hegel's major works or the moderator of the Philosophy section can chose. We then would engage in an a discussion over our interpretation.

The letter, and the internet text, will surely damage the essence of our discussion but nonetheless it will be fun and engaging.

Nothing Human is Alien to Me.

At least you admit to having a limited reading of her writing. Most of her essay's take apart passages from Hegel's writings. She also has some very direct criticisms of Hegel.

In here she goes after his tendency to use the "is" of predication as the "is" of identity:
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2003_01.htm

Hegel's Logical Errors:
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Outline_of_errors_Hegel_committed_01.htm

If you look through her other essay's you'll see more of the same.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I'm sorry I have been absent from this debate, but my computer has imploded. I am writing this on a friend's machine. Can't say when I will be back to normal.

However, it was my understanding that threads about me (and others) were 'frowned upon', and up until recently had been deleted.

Have things changed?

Now, it is worth recalling that my work is only half complete, and I have only published about 75% of what I have already written. I haven't published much about Hegel directly since my site is aimed at Dialectical Materialsm, not Hegel. I will however be devoting two essays to Hegel; they will be published in a year or so.

Having said that, I have published a summary of a few of my core objections to Hegel. I have posted a link to that essay several times here, but as I do not have access to my computer (or rather, I only have access to it's remains!), I can't re-post it. However, I have just noticed Chris has posted it above.

In addition, it's also a central plank of my case against dialectics and Hegel that not only does no one 'understand' his work, it is not possible for anyone to do so (upside down or 'the right way up'). That's because his work amounts to a systematic capitulation the misuse of language. Part of my reasoning for that can be found in the links Chris added above, but mainly (and at more than PhD length) in Essay Twelve Part One.

Finally, I have published a lengthy criticism of the best Marxist account of Hegel I have read in over 25 years of research on this topic. In the course of that critique, I quote Hegel extensively and show where his 'arguments' (if such they may be called) fall apart; i.e., Essay Eight Part Three.

If Chris can post a link to that essay, I'd be very grateful.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

S Artesian is right, Wittgenstein did say what he alleges (in the Tractatus, as Syndicat points out). However, his later work, which, as Jazz also points out, was being prepared for publication just before he died.

Now, that work, the Philosophical Investigations, does not contradict the Tractatus, it suppliments it. Indeed, he wanted the two books to be re-published together so that readers could see how far he had advanced. As he himself said, that earlier work was like a stopped clock which told the right time, but only twice a day. What his later work did was to introduce an 'anthropological' account of language -- something he learnt from Pierro Sraffa, who introduced him to Marxist accounts of discourse.

As far as the 'kicking the ladder away' quote is concerend, this has been put to considerable use in the work of Cora Diamond (and her collaborators) -- much of which agrees with the way I read Wittgenstein -- the so-called 'New Wittgensteinians' (and/or 'Left Wittgensteinians').

Having said that, my criticisms of Hegel do not depend on Wittgenstein! Had he never written a word, I'd still be arguing the same. Indeed, I rejected Hegel's work (as incomprehensible gobbledygook) a few years before I had even heard of Wittgenstein.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

(R)evolution:


That is precisely it. I dont have a full idea of what Rosa is attempting to say. I cant get through her "twenty page shitfest" of internet pages, abbreviations, posts, threads, etc to get to what she is actually saying against dialectics.

That's a bit rich coming from someone who seems to be promoting the work of a Christian mystic whose collected works dwarf my own, and by a least one order of magnitude.

For those with short attention spans, like the above comrade, I have written several summaries of my work, of shorter and shorter lengths (so that those like him can sink to their own level of tolerance).

Can't say that Hegel ever did that.

[I'd post links, but I do not have access to my files.]

Perhaps this comrade can summarise Hegel for us in less than 1000 words...?

[S.Artesian]

In addition, it's also a central plank of my case against dialectics and Hegel that not only does no one 'understand' his work, it is not possible for anyone to do so (upside down or 'the right way up'). That's because his work amounts to a systematic capitulation the misuse of language. Part of my reasoning for that can be found in the links Chris added above, but mainly (and at more than PhD length) in Essay Twelve Part One.



Marx, then, doesn't understand Hegel? And his critique of Hegel amounts to what, time wasted? And the critique is not essential then to any of Marx's subsequent work?

That would seem to be the "rational kernel" of your argument Rosa, if there was a rationality to your argument. For Marx however, reason is history, is the concrete material development of the object of analysis, in all its relations. For Marx that "reason" is the labor process-- and specifically regarding the investigation of capital, the estrangement of that labor process through the opposition of labor to the conditions of labor.

Marx in his critiques of Hegel clearly recognizes that estrangement [a social process of expropriation, not a psychological effect] as manifesting conflict, opposition, negation, determination, grounding, contradiction, being, becoming... all those qualities that Hegel locates in consciousness apprehending itself as "self-consciousness."

For Marx, the rational kernel to Hegel is the determinants, the composition, of history even if, even as, Hegel's reason, history, becomes irrational in its capitulation before the inverted rationality of the state.

The other point in all this being-- it is quite possible to reject Hegel as being illogical and a mystic. Marx himself does so, all the rejection is not a disavowal of all that Hegel's work represented. It is not accurate, historically, to argue that Marx was enmeshed, circumscribed, limited, delayed by his critique of Hegel until some sort of magical and undocumented epiphany occurs at the time of the publication of volume 1 of Capital.

[ChrisK]

If Chris can post a link to that essay, I'd be very grateful.

Essay 8 part 3:
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2008_03.htm

For those interested Essay 12 part 1:
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2012_01.htm

[ChrisK]

(R)evolution:



That's a bit rich coming from someone who seems to be promoting the work of a Christian mystic whose collected works dwarf my own, and by a least one order of magnitude.

For those with short attention spans, like the above comrade, I have written several summaries of my work, of shorter and shorter lengths (so that those like him can sink to their own level of tolerance).

Can't say that Hegel ever did that.

[I'd post links, but I do not have access to my files.]

Perhaps this comrade can summarise Hegel for us in less than 1000 words...?

Anti-dialectics for Beginners
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm

Anti-dialectics for Dummies
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Anti-D_For_Dummies%2001.htm

What is wrong with Dialectical Materialism
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/disclaimer.htm

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

S Artesian:


Marx, then, doesn't understand Hegel? And his critique of Hegel amounts to what, time wasted? And the critique is not essential then to any of Marx's subsequent work?

It's not possible to understand gobbledygook. So, not even Marx understood Hegel. Not even Hegel did!

You can find out why here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2004.htm

Use the 'Quick Links' to jump to section (11) And About Ordinary Language.

And here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_01.htm

Use the 'Quick Links' to jump to section (10) Hegel and Double Meanings.


That would seem to be the "rational kernel" of your argument Rosa, if there was a rationality to your argument.

Considerably more than yours, since yours depends on invention.


For Marx however, reason is history,

Where does Marx say such a ridiculous thing?


For Marx that "reason" is the labor process

Ditto


Marx in his critiques of Hegel clearly recognizes that estrangement [a social process of expropriation, not a psychological effect] as manifesting conflict, opposition, negation, determination, grounding, contradiction, being, becoming... all those qualities that Hegel locates in consciousness apprehending itself as "self-consciousness."

And he later waved all this gobbledygook 'goodbye', as I have shown.


For Marx, the rational kernel to Hegel is the determinants, the composition, of history even if, even as, Hegel's reason, history, becomes irrational in its capitulation before the inverted rationality of the state.

So you say, but Marx begs to differ.


The other point in all this being-- it is quite possible to reject Hegel as being illogical and a mystic. Marx himself does so, all the rejection is not a disavowal of all that Hegel's work represented. It is not accurate, historically, to argue that Marx was enmeshed, circumscribed, limited, delayed by his critique of Hegel until some sort of magical and undocumented epiphany occurs at the time of the publication of volume 1 of Capital.

Not 'undocumented'. Perhaps you haven't seen this before?


"After a quotation from the preface to my 'Criticism of Political Economy,' Berlin, 1859, pp. IV-VII, where I discuss the [B]materialistic basis of my method, the writer goes on:

'The one thing which is of moment to Marx, is to find the law of the phenomena with whose investigation he is concerned; and not only is that law of moment to him, which governs these phenomena, in so far as they have a definite form and mutual connexion within a given historical period. Of still greater moment to him is the law of their variation, of their development, i.e., of their transition from one form into another, from one series of connexions into a different one. This law once discovered, he investigates in detail the effects in which it manifests itself in social life. Consequently, Marx only troubles himself about one thing: to show, by rigid scientific investigation, the necessity of successive determinate orders of social conditions, and to establish, as impartially as possible, the facts that serve him for fundamental starting-points. For this it is quite enough, if he proves, at the same time, both the necessity of the present order of things, and the necessity of another order into which the first must inevitably pass over; and this all the same, whether men believe or do not believe it, whether they are conscious or unconscious of it. Marx treats the social movement as a process of natural history, governed by laws not only independent of human will, consciousness and intelligence, but rather, on the contrary, determining that will, consciousness and intelligence. ... If in the history of civilisation the conscious element plays a part so subordinate, then it is self-evident that a critical inquiry whose subject-matter is civilisation, can, less than anything else, have for its basis any form of, or any result of, consciousness. That is to say, that not the idea, but the material phenomenon alone can serve as its starting-point. Such an inquiry will confine itself to the confrontation and the comparison of a fact, not with ideas, but with another fact. For this inquiry, the one thing of moment is, that both facts be investigated as accurately as possible, and that they actually form, each with respect to the other, different momenta of an evolution; but most important of all is the rigid analysis of the series of successions, of the sequences and concatenations in which the different stages of such an evolution present themselves. But it will be said, the general laws of economic life are one and the same, no matter whether they are applied to the present or the past. This Marx directly denies. According to him, such abstract laws do not exist. On the contrary, in his opinion every historical period has laws of its own.... As soon as society has outlived a given period of development, and is passing over from one given stage to another, it begins to be subject also to other laws. In a word, economic life offers us a phenomenon analogous to the history of evolution in other branches of biology. The old economists misunderstood the nature of economic laws when they likened them to the laws of physics and chemistry. A more thorough analysis of phenomena shows that social organisms differ among themselves as fundamentally as plants or animals. Nay, one and the same phenomenon falls under quite different laws in consequence of the different structure of those organisms as a whole, of the variations of their individual organs, of the different conditions in which those organs function, &c. Marx, e.g., denies that the law of population is the same at all times and in all places. He asserts, on the contrary, that every stage of development has its own law of population. ... With the varying degree of development of productive power, social conditions and the laws governing them vary too. Whilst Marx sets himself the task of following and explaining from this point of view the economic system established by the sway of capital, he is only formulating, in a strictly scientific manner, the aim that every accurate investigation into economic life must have. The scientific value of such an inquiry lies in the disclosing of the special laws that regulate the origin, existence, development, death of a given social organism and its replacement by another and higher one. And it is this value that, in point of fact, Marx's book has.'

"Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method?" [Marx (1976), pp.101-02. Bold emphases added.]

In the passage not a single Hegelian concept is to be found -- no "contradictions", no change of "quantity into quality", no "negation of the negation", no "unity and identity of opposites", no "interconnected Totality" --, and yet Marx calls this the "dialectic method". So, Marx's "method" has had Hegel completely excised --, except for the odd phrase or two here and there with which he merely "coquetted".

So glad I could help... :)