Is DM a Religion?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The old thread of this name went past the 500 posts limit (and was closed) with many things unresolved.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectical-materialism-religioni-t132830/index.html

So, to begin again, here's a comment from one of our oldest resident mystics:

BTB:


I never knew shop-keepers and other small business owners were exponents of dialectical materialism. You live and learn.

This was in reply to Chris Koch, who alleged that DM is a 'petty-bourgeois' theory.

Clearly BTB has a defective understanding of Marx's theory of class. Chris clearly meant this in the same way that Lenin did when he reduced his opponents' therories to their class position -- as petty-bourgeois intellectuals (quoting Kautsky):


"The problem...that again interests us so keenly today is the antagonism between the intelligentsia and the proletariat. My colleagues [Kautsky is himself an intellectual, a writer and editor] will mostly be indignant that I admit this antagonism. But it actually exists, and, as in other cases, it would be the most inexpedient tactics to try to overcome the fact by denying it. This antagonism is a social one, it relates to classes, not to individuals. The individual intellectual, like the individual capitalist, may identify himself with the proletariat in its class struggle. When he does, he changes his character too. It is not this type of intellectual, who is still an exception among his class, that we shall mainly speak of in what follows. Unless otherwise stated, I shall use the word intellectual to mean only the common run of intellectual who takes the stand of bourgeois society, and who is characteristic of the intelligentsia as a class. This class stands in a certain antagonism to the proletariat.

"This antagonism differs, however, from the antagonism between labour and capital. The intellectual is not a capitalist. True, his standard of life is bourgeois, and he must maintain it if he is not to become a pauper; but at the same time he is compelled to sell the product of his labour, and often his labour-power, and is himself often enough exploited and humiliated by the capitalist. Hence the intellectual does not stand in any economic antagonism to the proletariat. But his status of life and his conditions of labour are not proletarian, and this gives rise to a certain antagonism in sentiments and ideas.

"...Quite different is the case of the intellectual. He does not fight by means of power, but by argument. His weapons are his personal knowledge, his personal ability, his personal convictions. He can attain to any position at all only through his personal qualities. Hence the freest play for his individuality seems to him the prime condition for successful activity. It is only with difficulty that he submits to being a part subordinate to a whole, and then only from necessity, not from inclination. He recognises the need of discipline only for the mass, not for the elect minds. And of course he counts himself among the latter...." [Kautsky quoted in Lenin (1947) One Step Forward, One Step Back, pp.121-23. Bold emphasis added; quotation marks altered to conform to the conventions adopted here.]

And:


"In a word, Comrade Martov's formula will either remain a dead letter, an empty phrase, or it will be of benefit mainly and almost exclusively to 'intellectuals who are thoroughly imbued with bourgeois individualism' and do not wish to join an organisation. In words, Martov's formulation defends the interests of the broad strata of the proletariat, but in fact it serves the interests of the bourgeois intellectuals, who fight shy of proletarian discipline and organisation. No one will venture to deny that the intelligentsia, as a special stratum of modern capitalist society, is characterised, by and large, precisely by individualism and incapacity for discipline and organisation (cf., for example, Kautsky's well-known articles on the intelligentsia). This, incidentally, is a feature which unfavourably distinguishes this social stratum from the proletariat; it is one of the reasons for the flabbiness and instability of the intellectual, which the proletariat so often feels; and this trait of the intelligentsia is intimately bound up with its customary mode of life, its mode of earning a livelihood, which in a great many respects approximates to the petty-bourgeois mode of existence (working in isolation or in very small groups, etc.). Nor is it fortuitous, lastly, that the defenders of Comrade Martov's formulation were the ones who had to cite the example of professors and high school students! It was not champions of a broad proletarian struggle who, in the controversy over Paragraph 1, took the field against champions of a radically conspiratorial organisation, as Comrades Martynov and Axelrod thought, but the supporters of bourgeois-intellectual individualism who clashed with the supporters of proletarian organisation and discipline." [Ibid., pp.66-67. Bold emphasis added.]

Clearly, Lenin forgot to note that he too was part of that class, and had derived his philosophical ideas from that arch-mystic and bourgeois 'theorist', Hegel.

It is in this sense that DM is a petty-bourgeois 'theory'.

Small wonder then that it has presided over 150 years of almost total failure...:(

I will respond to one or two other things in that earlier thread later this week.

[Hit The North]

Clearly BTB has a defective understanding of Marx's theory of class.Not as defective as those who think that someone occupied as a professional revolutionary, such as Lenin, can be designated as petite bourgeois - the class of small capital.

Btw, is we take Lenin seriously when he claims:
its mode of earning a livelihood, which in a great many respects approximates to the petty-bourgeois mode of existence (working in isolation or in very small groups, etc.) this would mean that most office cleaners approximate a petite bourgeois mode of existence.

That aside, my disagreement with Chris is that the contents of any ideas can be judged purely on the basis of the class origins of the individual who propounds them.

This mechanical correspondence between an individual's class position and the theories people hold about the world is not empirically sustainable. Otherwise we could not account for bourgeois revolutionary aristocrats or working class Tories.

The fact that Lenin could lapse into this reductive mode of thought is a 'so what?'

The fact that the analycticians on this website continually think in such mechanical terms is absolutely no surprise.

Besides, how any theory which begins with a pot of boiling water and works toward the world-historical conclusion that the proletariat will inherit the Earth, as DM does, can be described as petite bourgeois is beyond me. You might have a sociological theory about the role of intellectuals in capitalist society, but that is no substitute for taking on the content of the ideas you oppose.

And, anyway, isn't analytical philosophy (mostly all you prattle on about) the preserve of an intellectual elite?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Not as defective as those who think that someone occupied as a professional revolutionary, such as Lenin, can be designated as petite bourgeois - the class of small capital.

You failed to read the quotation carefully, or do you think those that Lenin described as petty-bourgeois were 'small capitalists'?


its mode of earning a livelihood, which in a great many respects approximates to the petty-bourgeois mode of existence (working in isolation or in very small groups, etc.)

Seems to me to describe the Bolshevik party pretty well. Or do you think they enjoyed mass support in 1903?


this would mean that most office cleaners approximate a petite bourgeois mode of existence.

Again, you read the quotation with less care than you usually devote to reading bus tickets:


Quite different is the case of the intellectual. He does not fight by means of power, but by argument. His weapons are his personal knowledge, his personal ability, his personal convictions. He can attain to any position at all only through his personal qualities. Hence the freest play for his individuality seems to him the prime condition for successful activity

I do not think this captures the life of office cleaners all that well. Perhaps you do...?


That aside, my disagreement with Chris is that the contents of any ideas can be judged purely on the basis of the class origins of the individual who propounds them.

This mechanical correspondence between an individual's class position and the theories people hold about the world is not empirically sustainable. Otherwise we could not account for bourgeois revolutionary aristocrats or working class Tories.

Who said this is a 'mechanical connection'? That's an invention of you mystics.

But, if Lenin (and Marx, and Kautsky) can derive the opinions of petty-bourgeois intellectuals from their class position, perhaps you should pick a fight with these 'master dialecticians' not me, or Chris.


Otherwise we could not account for bourgeois revolutionary aristocrats or working class Tories.

So, you are a voluntarist, not a historical materialist?


The fact that Lenin could lapse into this reductive mode of thought is a 'so what?'

But then, you must disagree with Marx too, who said social being determines consciousness?


The fact that the analycticians on this website continually think in such mechanical terms is absolutely no surprise

And yet you keep using the word 'mechanical'. In what way were Lenin, Kautsky and Marx 'mechanical'? Are you trying to tell us that, while these three weren't, you are the only genuine 'dialectician' here?


Besides, how any theory which begins with a pot of boiling water and works toward the world-historical conclusion that the proletariat will inherit the Earth, as DM does, can be described as petite bourgeois is beyond me. You might have a sociological theory about the role of intellectuals in capitalist society, but that is no substitute for taking on the content of the ideas you oppose.

And where does that appear in what Lenin, Marx or Kautsky were arguing?


And, anyway, isn't analytical philosophy (mostly all you prattle on about) the preserve of an intellectual elite?

Ah, but (as you have been told many times) my argument isn't: This is a ruling-class theory, therefore it is wrong, but, this theory is in error -- and no wonder, it depends on ruling-class concepts.

And, where have I defended analytic philosophy in general?

The (minority) tradition in analytic philosphy that I defend takes Marx's advice seriously:


The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life. [Marx and Engels (1970) The German Ideology, p.118. Bold emphases added.]

No doubt you will choose to ignore this too, prefering the mystical guff you have inherited from Hegel (whether you acknowledge this or not).

[Zanthorus]

Well I don't know what Lenin may or may not have regarded as 'petit-bourgeois'. When Marx himself referred to the class of 'small masters' in Capital, he referred to individuals who hired wage-labourers but who could not extract enough surplus-value from their workforce to live off of it, and so had to perform labour themselves.

The identification of intellectuals, artisans, the self-employed and other workers with 'individualised' modes of existence with the traditional petit-bourgeois is somewhat reductionist, as these 'individualised' modes of existence don't retain the aspect of domination over the workforce inherent in the 'small master'.


But then, you must disagree with Marx too, who said social being determines consciousness?

When Marx said that "social existence... determines consciousness" he was counterposing it to the Young Hegelian assertion that "It is... the consciousness of men that determines their existence". Note that in the initial (i.e Young Hegelian) assertion only 'consciousness' is spoken of, but in the 'upside down' version by Marx it now says 'social existence'. Peter Stillman notes that although 'social existence' is not actually defined, it is likely that this actually includes consciousness. This would make sense in light of Marx's assertion in The German Ideology that "the starting point... is real living individuals themselves, and consciousness is considered solely as their consciousness".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


The identification of intellectuals, artisans, the self-employed and other workers with 'individualised' modes of existence with the traditional petit-bourgeois is somewhat reductionist, as these 'individualised' modes of existence don't retain the aspect of domination over the workforce inherent in the 'small master'.

No more nor no less 'reductionist' than anything Marx said about this class fraction. In fact, I fail to see why what Lenin said was 'reductionist' at all. You fail to say why this is so.

And what is so bad about 'reductionism'?


When Marx said that "social existence... determines consciousness" he was counterposing it to the Young Hegelian assertion that "It is... the consciousness of men that determines their existence". Note that in the initial (i.e Young Hegelian) assertion only 'consciousness' is spoken of, but in the 'upside down' version by Marx it now says 'social existence'. Peter Stillman notes that although 'social existence' is not actually defined, it is likely that this actually includes consciousness. This would make sense in light of Marx's assertion in The German Ideology that "the starting point... is real living individuals themselves, and consciousness is considered solely as their consciousness".

Even so, I fail to see why this invalidates Lenin's analysis.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Here, I will reply to a response to me posted by Zanthorous in that thread:


Irrelevant, it's an aspect of Hegel that Marx appropriate whether or not he calls it "the dialectic method". I don't know if you've noticed this but we're actually trying to work out whether or not and to what degree Marx was influenced by Hegel, not whether or not he uncritically appropriated Hegel's dialectical method.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1784745&postcount=418

The whole point was to establish whether Marx appropriated anything at all from Hegel in Das Kapital -- upside down or the 'right way up'. To that end, I noted that Marx's called a summary a reviewer had written (in which there is not one atom of Hegel), the 'dialectic method'.

I alleged that this is the only summary we have, published (but not written ) by Marx, that he endorsed as the 'dialectic method'.

Now, I have never denied that Marx was influenced by Hegel, only that by the time he came to write Das Kapital he had waved all this 'goodbye'. You have yet to show otherwise.

Now, this quotation you have unearthed from Marx:


the outstanding achievement of Hegel's Phenomenology

come from his early work, and Ihave no doubt Marx believd this then.But, by the time he came to write Das Kapital, this had plainly changed his mind.

Not only did he not call this 'the dialectic method' he did not publish it. So, your search for evidence that supports your attempt to impose Hegel on Das Kapital goes on.

And good luck..., there is none.:)


It's questionable whether Marx was actually a "materialist" since he regards all hitherto existing materialism as defective. The interpretation of Marx as a mere "materialist" is in fact wrapped up in "dialectical materialism" specifically Plekhanov's interpretation of Marx as simply adding in the dialectical method to the contemplative materialism of Holbach and Helvetius

I disagree, but even if you are right, I am a (historical) materialist, which is all I wished to point out.


I only appeal to Feuerbach to give another example of starting from one concept and moving through step by step showing how each step is based in premises implicit in the previous one.

Fair enough, but I still fail to see how this helps you show that Marx preserved even one atom of Hegel (upside down or the 'right way up') in Das Kapital.

[Zanthorus]

No more nor no less 'reductionist' than anything Marx said about this class fraction. In fact, I fail to see why what Lenin said was 'reductionist' at all. You fail to say why this is so.

Although both the petit-bourgeoisie and artisans/professionals have 'individualised' modes of existence, the former exploits the working-class while the latter does not (Well, usually. Intellectual property rights could count I suppose).


And what is so bad about 'reductionism'?

It takes one aspect of a situation and ignores all the subtleties and complexities that come into play, leading to distorted analysis.


Even so, I fail to see why this invalidates Lenin's analysis.

It wasn't meant to, I was merely questioning your/CK's use of the word 'petit-bourgeoisie'.

I'm doing a bit of reading into Hegel at the moment so I'll come back in a bit and hopefully be able to establish more clearly the relation between Hegel's thought and Marx's.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Although both the petit-bourgeoisie and artisans/professionals have 'individualised' modes of existence, the former exploits the working-class while the latter does not (Well, usually. Intellectual property rights could count I suppose).

Not necessarily. There are single man/woman businesses.


It takes one aspect of a situation and ignores all the subtleties and complexities that come into play, leading to distorted analysis.

Not necessarily. There are forms of reductionism that do not do this. Atomic therory, for example.


I'm doing a bit of reading into Hegel at the moment so I'll come back in a bit and hopefully be able to establish more clearly the relation between Hegel's thought and Marx's.

Why bother? Marx waved that idiot 'goodbye'. So should you.

[Zanthorus]

Not necessarily. There are single man/woman businesses.

...which don't hire wage-labourers and cannot therefore reasonably be called 'petit-bourgeois' or 'small masters'.


Not necessarily. There are forms of reductionism that do not do this. Atomic therory, for example.

Thanks for the info, but this isn't the kind of reductionism we were discussing.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


which don't hire wage-labourers and cannot therefore reasonably be called 'petit-bourgeois' or 'small masters'.

But that's the point of calling them petty-bourgeois; they are part of the capitalist system and make/sell commodities. The exploit their own labour power, too.

If they employed workers, they be small scale capitalists not petty-bourgeois as such.


Thanks for the info, but this isn't the kind of reductionism we were discussing.

Well I asked what's wrong with reductionism (and I did not restrict its application in any way), and you offered a few general claims that do not apply to it everywhere.

But there are plenty of examples of reductionism that apply to humans, too.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Wow, these threads are just too much. I like DM, it has helped me in all different types of analysis, therefore I will stick to it. If you want to convince me otherwise, you're gonna have to make it more appealing than this!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Laird:


Wow, these threads are just too much. I like DM, it has helped me in all different types of analysis, therefore I will stick to it. If you want to convince me otherwise, you're gonna have to make it more appealing than this!

Well, I and other anti-dialecticians here have been asking (for a least five years) for examples of how DM can help any sort of 'analysis' and whether it has any practical applications at all. So far, all we have had from the other side is deafening silence.

Perhaps you can assist them out and explain exactly how this 'theory' has helped you?


If you want to convince me otherwise, you're gonna have to make it more appealing than this!

If entertainment is what you want, then you will have to look elsewhere, I'm affraid. But, if you want a simple and brief outline of my main objections to DM, check this out:

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

A more lengthy and detailed outline can be found here:

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

Or, you can always check this out:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/nti-dialectics-made-t132104/index.html

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Laird:



Well, I and other anti-dialecticians here have been asking (for a least five years) for examples of how DM can help any sort of 'analysis' and whether it has any practical applications at all. So far, all we have had from the other side is deafening silence.

Perhaps you can assist them out and explain exactly how this 'theory' has helped you?



If entertainment is what you want, then you will have to look elsewhere, I'm affraid. But, if you want a simple and brief outline of my main objections to DM, check this out:

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

A more lengthy and detailed outline can be found here:

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

Or, you can always check this out:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/nti-dialectics-made-t132104/index.html
I don't feel the need to argue in favour of DM though! Perhaps I am dogmatic with regards to it, but it has genuinely helped me in all kinds of analysis.

This is why I posted initially, I just don't see what is so bad about DM. It only ever seems to be criticized in huge pieces of text that no one will want to read anyway.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Laird:


I don't feel the need to argue in favour of DM though! Perhaps I am dogmatic with regards to it, but it has genuinely helped me in all kinds of analysis.

But, all I wanted to know is how it had helped you. You see I'm sceptical that this theory has any practical applications. I just wanted someone to show me I was perhaps wrong.


This is why I posted initially, I just don't see what is so bad about DM. It only ever seems to be criticized in huge pieces of text that no one will want to read anyway.

Well, the above links are to summaries of my ideas, and they are vastly shorter than, say, Anti-Duhring, which book most comrades plough through without a single murmur.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Laird:



But, all I wanted to know is how it had helped you. You see I'm sceptical that this theory has any practical applications. I just wanted someone to show me I was perhaps wrong.



Well, the above links are to summaries of my ideas, and they are vastly shorter than, say, Anti-Duhring, which book most comrades plough through without a single murmur.
Those reasons seem a bit too personal for me to speak of in this way, I'd appreciate it if you could just take my word for it. I am trying to keep my personal life seperate from internet forums.

I will read them eventually, comrade; I just feel that you may be using so much intellect and potential in discrediting DM; the energy you have applied in this field is energy I've never seen applied to the socialist movement, put it that way. Do you think that what you are doing is essentially as important as you make it out to be?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Laird:


Those reasons seem a bit too personal for me to speak of in this way, I'd appreciate it if you could just take my word for it. I am trying to keep my personal life seperate from internet forums.

Ok, fair enough. I suppose I will have to wait another five years then.:(


I will read them eventually, comrade; I just feel that you may be using so much intellect and potential in discrediting DM; the energy you have applied in this field is energy I've never seen applied to the socialist movement, put it that way. Do you think that what you are doing is essentially as important as you make it out to be?

Indeed. I have devoted at least 25 years to this, twelve of which have been full-time, and I have done this since I think I can show that this theory is part of the reason why Dialectical Marxism has been such a long-term failure. Since I want to see Marxism succeed, this theory has to be demolished.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Laird:



Ok, fair enough. I suppose I will have to wait another five years then.:(



Indeed. I have devoted at least 25 years to this, twelve of which have been full-time, and I have done this since I think I can show that this theory is part of the reason why Dialectical Marxism has been such a long-term failure. Since I want to see Marxism succeed, this theory has to be demolished.
Could you PM me with your views on materialism in general, and a general idea of why Marxism is doomed to failure as a result of DM? I would appreciate it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ok, done it.