Materialism, Idealism and General Philosophy

[PoliticalNightmare]

I am researching dialectical materialism at the moment and am struggling to see how the concepts of the philosophy fit in with the ongoing class struggle or a future revolution or communist society. Anyone care to help?

[Broletariat]

This will probably be moved to philosophy later.

Philosophy fits in with class-struggle as a means of impairing and slowing down class-struggle. It's a distortion of language primarily intended to interpret the world and place interpretation as the goal instead of changing the world as the goal. Marx himself was an anti-philosopher his opposition to such things can be seen here.

"We have shown that thoughts and ideas acquire an independent existence in consequence of the personal circumstances and relations of individuals acquiring independent existence. We have shown that exclusive, systematic occupation with these thoughts on the part of ideologists and philosophers, and hence the systematisation of these thoughts, is a consequence of division of labour, and that, in particular, German philosophy is a consequence of German petty-bourgeois conditions. 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."
The German Ideology

[scarletghoul]

Well philosophical ideas have a big impact on peoples' decisions and actions, and this is important especially in conjunctions in history (like revolutionary situations).

Materialism is about seeing the material, objective situation as the defining feature of history, rather than idealism. This is important because it means we have to keep the objective material situation in mind as revolutionaries and not just jump ahead with our socialist ideals. If a revolutionary is divorced from the material situation, they will never succeed.

Dialectics is concerned with motion, the way things change each other and develop. If you want to change the world it's important to know the laws of change, no ?

For example, Mao used dialectical reasoning and applied it to the material situation to make his decisions when fighting Chiang Kaishek and the Japanese. He saw that the principle contradiction was between the Japanese empire and the whole Chinese people, so he allied with the Chinese bourgeoisie (led by the Goumindang) to fight the imperialists. When they were defeated the war between the bourgeoisie and proletariat (between GMD and CPC) resumed, and he was able to win because the CPC had grown so much and gained so much support from fighting the Japanese. If he hadn't studied the material situation and evaluated the contradictions correctly, he could have just said "fuck this i will fight japan and the GMD at once!", and the CPC could well have been crushed and there would have been no Chinese revolution.

Thats just an example of how philosophy can affect the revolutionary movements. I'm not sure if thats what you meant though, if you have other questions ask them more specifically

[PoliticalNightmare]

This will probably be moved to philosophy later.

I didn't know whether it would be "allowed" (I don't have any particular theoretical or philosophical insight to offer, just a n00b question, lol). But any mod may do so, if desired.

Thanks for the input, fellows. To explain my question further I will provide you with my (misguided) definition of materialism; the connection between mind (the highest product of matter) and the material world. The idea that we can actively change the world. There are no mystical ideals or concepts that are not a product of the material world; no God, no heaven. The mind is produced as a result of the complex organism that is the brain (matter, influenced by genetics and so forth). We can study and gain a deeper understanding of the material world through science.

Dialectics (as I understand it) is the idea of quantitative change into qualitative change; all evolution of nature and society is a result of a series of radical change on a crooked and iperfect line rather than a smooth, consistent line of slow and gradual evolution. This, I suppose effectively explains Marx's view of history as class conflict whereby the underclass rises up and overthrows the elite (for instance in the French Revolution where the bourgeois class of businessen overthrew the ruling elite aristocracy and monarchs and made the government accountable to society).

So, this is all very nice and I can see where certain elements fit in; the necessity of revolutionary leaps to overthrow the ruling classes (inspired by the theme of quantity into quality) and the revolutionary mindset that we can understand the world. But. I still don't really understand the need to develop these ideas into a complex series of books. Its just, the ideas often describe such abstract ideas (that in themselves are detable - do we really know that much about material circumstances?) and also, if the idea is to influence a revolutionary mindset, surely it would be better to describe the ideas on a much less complex down-to-earth level to everyday workers. Where does all the theory come into it?

The main question here, though, is, what's the whole idea of the philosophy (or anti-philosophy) and what exactly is its relevance to a critique of the capitalist economic system, authoritarian social relationships, the means of production? Many of the latter issues seem much more concrete and far less abstract than the concept of philosophy. But to understand Marx, I need to understand what his views were on philosophy (as most of his works are underpinned with abstract references to dialectics and so forth).

Also, forgive my ignorance, but aren't these theories just a complicated way of stating the obvious; that mind is a product of the material world and that the material world is not static?

I can't really phrase my questions much better than that (its philsophy we're dealing with here).

[Broletariat]

Thanks for the input, fellows. To explain my question further I will provide you with my (misguided) definition of materialism; the connection between mind (the highest product of matter) and the material world. The idea that we can actively change the world. There are no mystical ideals or concepts that are not a product of the material world; no God, no heaven. The mind is produced as a result of the complex organism that is the brain (matter, influenced by genetics and so forth). We can study and gain a deeper understanding of the material world through science.

I don't necessarily agree with how you say the mind is the highest product of matter. Nor with how you say there is a connection between the mind and the material world, as if the two are separated and have a small bridge/connection between the two.


Dialectics (as I understand it) is the idea of quantitative change into qualitative change; all evolution of nature and society is a result of a series of radical change on a crooked and iperfect line rather than a smooth, consistent line of slow and gradual evolution. This, I suppose effectively explains Marx's view of history as class conflict whereby the underclass rises up and overthrows the elite (for instance in the French Revolution where the bourgeois class of businessen overthrew the ruling elite aristocracy and monarchs and made the government accountable to society).

I think I'm going to just let Rosa tear apart the dialectics part of this post.


So, this is all very nice and I can see where certain elements fit in; the necessity of revolutionary leaps to overthrow the ruling classes (inspired by the theme of quantity into quality) and the revolutionary mindset that we can understand the world. But. I still don't really understand the need to develop these ideas into a complex series of books. Its just, the ideas often describe such abstract ideas (that in themselves are detable - do we really know that much about material circumstances?) and also, if the idea is to influence a revolutionary mindset, surely it would be better to describe the ideas on a much less complex down-to-earth level to everyday workers. Where does all the theory come into it?

The main question here, though, is, what's the whole idea of the philosophy (or anti-philosophy) and what exactly is its relevance to a critique of the capitalist economic system, authoritarian social relationships, the means of production? Many of the latter issues seem much more concrete and far less abstract than the concept of philosophy. But to understand Marx, I need to understand what his views were on philosophy (as most of his works are underpinned with abstract references to dialectics and so forth).Do not confuse dialectical materialism with anti-philosophy. Dialectical materialism is a type of philosophy, so anti-philosophers would naturally oppose it.

But you yourself are already starting on an anti-philosopher road questioning how these things are relevant and why they matter at all.


Also, forgive my ignorance, but aren't these theories just an obvious way of stating the obvious; that mind is a product of the material world and that the material world is not static?

I can't really phrase my questions much better than that.That quote from the German Ideology basically sums it up. Philosophy distorts language to try and explain things that ordinary language already has covered.

[PoliticalNightmare]

I don't necessarily agree with how you say the mind is the highest product of matter. Nor with how you say there is a connection between the mind and the material world, as if the two are separated and have a small bridge/connection between the two.

I think I'm going to just let Rosa tear apart the dialectics part of this post.

Woah...note that I said "Dialectics (as I understand it)" and "my (misguided) view of materialism". If you have a better explanation, please enlighten me but from what I understand about the philosophy (and philosophy in general), is that it is extremely vague and deals with such incredibly abstract ideas but perhaps that is just my ignorance shining through.


Do not confuse dialectical materialism with anti-philosophy. Dialectical materialism is a type of philosophy, so anti-philosophers would naturally oppose it.

Ok. The other poster said it was anti-philosophy.


But you yourself are already starting on an anti-philosopher road questioning how these things are relevant and why they matter at all.

I am?


That quote from the German Ideology basically sums it up. Philosophy distorts language to try and explain things that ordinary language already has covered.

Cool... But why? :confused:

[Zanthorus]

But to understand Marx, I need to understand what his views were on philosophy (as most of his works are underpinned with abstract references to dialectics and so forth).

Have you ever found a work by Marx or Engels expounding dialectics in an 'abstract' way and seperated from the analysis of actual situations? I personally have not. This basic fact is pretty much the essence of Marx and Engels views on philosophy. Essentially, the point made throughout most of their work is that the dialectical method as such is a good method, but the way Hegel does it, forming his concepts as a 'logic' which can then be applied to nature and society (See for example the subsections of Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences where Logic comes first followed by the philosophies of nature and spirit). This is Marx's critique of Hegel as far back as his 1843 Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right:


Thus the transition of the family and civil society into the political state is this: the mind of those spheres, which is the mind of the state in its implicit moment, is now also related to itself as such, and is actual to itself as their inner reality. Accordingly, the transition is not derived from the specific essence of the family, etc., and the specific essence of the state, but rather from the universal relation of necessity and freedom. Exactly the same transition is effected in the Logic from the sphere of Essence to the sphere of Concept, and in the Philosophy of Nature from Inorganic Nature to Life. It is always the same categories offered as the animating principle now of one sphere, now of another, and the only thing of importance is to discover, for the particular concrete determinations, the corresponding abstract ones... With the exclusion of these concrete determinations, which can just as well be exchanged for those of another sphere such as physics which has other concrete determinations, and which are accordingly unessential, we have before us a chapter of the Logic.

From The German Ideology:


Where speculation ends – in real life – there real, positive science begins: the representation of the practical activity, of the practical process of development of men. Empty talk about consciousness ceases, and real knowledge has to take its place. When reality is depicted, philosophy as an independent branch of knowledge loses its medium of existence. At the best its place can only be taken by a summing-up of the most general results, abstractions which arise from the observation of the historical development of men.

And from his 1858 letter to Engels on the subject of Lassalle's book on Heraclitus:


It is plain to me from this one note that, in his second grand opus, the fellow intends to expound political economy in the manner of Hegel. He will discover to his cost that it is one thing for a critique to take a science to the point at which it admits of a dialectical presentation, and quite another to apply an abstract, ready-made system of logic to vague presentiments of just such a system.

Engels from the chapter on Dialectics in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:


...modern materialism is essentially dialectic, and no longer requires the assistance of that sort of philosophy which, queen-like, pretended to rule the remaining mob of sciences. As soon as each special science is bound to make clear its position in the great totality of things and of our knowledge of things, a special science dealing with this totality is superfluous or unnecessary. That which still survives of all earlier philosophy is the science of thought and its law — formal logic and dialectics. Everything else is subsumed in the positive science of Nature and history.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Have you ever found a work by Marx or Engels expounding dialectics in an 'abstract' way and seperated from the analysis of actual situations? I personally have not.

I didn't mean it like that (nor did I mean to criticise his work); I just meant that it seems that in order to understand Marx's work, you need to already have a general idea of what dialectics is all about. I will read the rest of the post in a sec though. Also, I think that philsophy in general is abstract because it deals with issues like "what is moral", "does morality exist", etc. I tend to think much more in a concrete way about everything - the fact that people need to get up everyday to work or go to the supermarket and buy food to eat - just, in general, what our material circumstances are. The abstract concepts of "the mind", "rationality", "emotions" and so forth confuse me, lol. I will read the rest of your post in a second.

[Broletariat]

Woah...note that I said "Dialectics (as I understand it)" and "my (misguided) view of materialism". If you have a better explanation, please enlighten me but from what I understand about the philosophy (and philosophy in general), is that it is extremely vague and deals with such incredibly abstract ideas but perhaps that is just my ignorance shining through.

Rosa, I, and several others on this board are anti-dialectics. We hold that it is impossible to understand Dialectics because it is hopeless philosophy.


Ok. The other poster said it was anti-philosophy.

That other poster was me, and Dialectical Materialism is definitely NOT anti-philosophy. It continues to commit many of the same mistakes as did all older ruling class ideologies. For more (and by god do I mean A LOT MORE) on this see Rosa's page here.

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2012_01.htm


I am?

A little, here.


I still don't really understand the need to develop these ideas into a complex series of books.
and here.

The main question here, though, is, what's the whole idea of the philosophy (or anti-philosophy) and what exactly is its relevance to a critique of the capitalist economic system, authoritarian social relationships, the means of production? Many of the latter issues seem much more concrete and far less abstract than the concept of philosophy.




Cool... But why? :confused:

Because philosophy is a ruling class form of thought, of course the ruling class isn't going to want to develop things that will change society.

[Broletariat]

I didn't mean it like that (nor did I mean to criticise his work);
I think Zanthorus was attempting to shine some light on the issue of philosophy by showing how, if it were important, Marx would have obviously dedicated some sort of work to describing his philosophy no?



Also, I think that philsophy in general is abstract because it deals with issues like "what is moral", "does morality exist", etc. I tend to think much more in a concrete way about everything - the fact that people need to get up everyday to work or go to the supermarket and buy to eat - just, in general, what our material circumstances are. The abstract concepts of "the mind", "rationality", "emotions" and so forth confuse me, lol. I will read the rest of your post in a second.This is where you start down an anti-philosopher path again. What exactly is the use of philosophy? What advances have we made because of it?

[PoliticalNightmare]

Rosa, I, and several others on this board are anti-dialectics. We hold that it is impossible to understand Dialectics because it is hopeless philosophy.

But Marx himself was a dialectical materialist, though, right?


That other poster was me, and Dialectical Materialism is definitely NOT anti-philosophy. It continues to commit many of the same mistakes as did all older ruling class ideologies. For more (and by god do I mean A LOT MORE) on this see Rosa's page here.

I will check it out in a bit but it does seem rather complicated with a brief glance over.



A little, here.


and here.

Well perhaps I am just a tad anti-philosophy in that until I am "enlightened" about the general ideas of its relative schools of thought I just won't be able to "see the point" in it.


Because philosophy is a ruling class form of thought, of course the ruling class isn't going to want to develop things that will change society.

I see, so what your saying is that, like with economics, the core of it is rather simple but they try to cover it up with complex logical puzzles as a complex exterior in an attempt to hide the "truth". If that is not the case, then why not just come out and say "this is the actual case" rather than trying to tackle all of the nonsense on the outside of it?


This is where you start down an anti-philosopher path again. What exactly is the use of philosophy? What advances have we made because of it?

Apart from helping us to determinine moral values I cannot really see (even then, surely it only requires a bit of common sense to determine what will and what won't harm your fellow neighbour?); it hasn't helped to build bridges or construct roads, as far as I can see. But, again, that is just my ignorance shining through.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scarlet:


Well philosophical ideas have a big impact on peoples' decisions and actions, and this is important especially in conjunctions in history (like revolutionary situations).

I'd like to see you give one example, just one, in which 'peoples' decisions' are based on 'philosophical ideas'.

Before comrades get too excited over this issue, it's worth recalling that not one single philosophical 'problem' has been solved in the last 2400 years, and we are no nearer to a single solution than Plato. We do not even know what the right questions are.

Outside of theology, a greater waste of human time and effort it impossible to find -- and the reason for that was given in the quotation Broletariat added to his post: the entire subject is bogus from beginning to end, since it is based on the systematic distortion of language.

Novices can find a summary of dialectical materialism, written for absolute beginners, along with my objections to it, here:

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

A more involved and detailed set of objections can be found here:

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

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PoliticalNightmare:


But Marx himself was a dialectical materialist, though, right?

No, he wasn't. The subject wasn't invented until Plekhanov put pen to misuse, many years after Marx died. On the extent of Marx's adherence to this theory, see here:

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

http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectics-and-political-t118934/index.html

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scarlet:


Dialectics is concerned with motion, the way things change each other and develop. If you want to change the world it's important to know the laws of change, no ?

Well, we have already seen that if dialectical materialsm [DM] were true, change would be impossible:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectical-theory-change-t144536/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1761300&postcount=31


For example, Mao used dialectical reasoning and applied it to the material situation to make his decisions when fighting Chiang Kaishek and the Japanese. He saw that the principle contradiction was between the Japanese empire and the whole Chinese people, so he allied with the Chinese bourgeoisie (led by the Goumindang) to fight the imperialists. When they were defeated the war between the bourgeoisie and proletariat (between GMD and CPC) resumed, and he was able to win because the CPC had grown so much and gained so much support from fighting the Japanese. If he hadn't studied the material situation and evaluated the contradictions correctly, he could have just said "fuck this i will fight japan and the GMD at once!", and the CPC could well have been crushed and there would have been no Chinese revolution.

In fact, he used a revisionist version of DM to justify class-collaboration with the Guomindang.

[Broletariat]

Well perhaps I am just a tad anti-philosophy in that until I am "enlightened" about the general ideas of its relative schools of thought I just won't be able to "see the point" in it.

I would argue it has no point and that you are closer to "the truth" going down your anti-philosopher path.




I see, so what your saying is that, like with economics, the core of it is rather simple but they try to cover it up with complex logical puzzles as a complex exterior in an attempt to hide the "truth". If that is not the case, then why not just come out and say "this is the actual case" rather than trying to tackle all of the nonsense on the outside of it?I think a better analogy would be to say that bourgeoisie economics hold no real relation to reality in the same vein that philosophy holds no relation to reality either.


Apart from helping us to determinine moral values I cannot really see (even then, surely it only requires a bit of common sense to determine what will and what won't harm your fellow neighbour?); it hasn't helped to build bridges or construct roads, as far as I can see. But, again, that is just my ignorance shining through.That's not ignorance, it's common sense.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

We have discussed the total uselessness of philosophy, and Marx's anti-philosophical stance, over in Philosophy recently:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/you-ask-question-t145440/index.html

[Zanthorus]

I didn't mean it like that (nor did I mean to criticise his work);

I wasn't implying that you were criticising Marx. My point was that if Marx and Engels concieved of dialectics as a philosophical method of the kind you describe, they would've written some kind of book saying, "this is step one, this is step two" and so on, in the same way that Hegel wrote his Science of Logic. That they did not suggests that this is not the way they thought of the dialectical method.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


My point was that if Marx and Engels concieved of dialectics as a philosophical method of the kind you describe, they would've written some kind of book saying, "this is step one, this is step two" and so on, in the same way that Hegel wrote his Science of Logic. That they did not suggests that this is not the way they thought of the dialectical method.

Except, we already know that Marx meant something completely different by 'dialectical method' from Engels.

[Paulappaul]

But Marx himself was a dialectical materialist, though, right? No, he wasn't. The subject wasn't invented until Plekhanov put pen to misuse, many years after Marx died. On the extent of Marx's adherence to this theory, see here:I'm pretty sure Joseph Dietzgen invented the Dialectical Materialism before Marx died, not Plekhanov and not after marx died.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

It's a matter of emphasis who actually invented this 'theory'. The core of it was laid down by Engels in Anti-Duhring (among other works), later codified by Plekhanov and then thoroughly scrambled by Dietzgen.

But, you are right, the term 'dialectical materialism' was first used by Dietzgen -- in 1887, I believe, which was after Marx died.

[PoliticalNightmare]

So since you folks are anti-philosophy, do you reject core concepts like positive and negative liberty? Rosa, that link looks great I'll check it out in just a sec...

[Broletariat]

So since you folks are anti-philosophy, do you reject core concepts like positive and negative liberty? Rosa, that link looks great I'll check it out in just a sec...
Depends on what you mean by positive and negative liberty, but most assuredly yes.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Depends on what you mean by positive and negative liberty, but most assuredly yes.

Well, again my definitions are flawed but as I understand it:

"Positive Liberty: Liberty is maximised by the presence of one's own material surroundings." - You can't maximise your personal liberty without food, water, a house, social relationships, etc. I believe that some authoritarians interpret this as an excuse to intervene in a third person's actions and decisions in order to maximise their utility ("that boy needs authority for his own good!" kind of idea) but I don't see the concept in that sort of way. Some social democrats also use the idea of positive liberty as a justification of the welfare state and taxation to provide the correct material circumstances for the poor but with a communistic system of free associations, I don't believe taxes would be needed any longer and people would have the material circumstances (education, libertarian social relationships, allocation of goods and services from society, etc., etc.) needed to enhance liberty through a system of worker's solidarity.

"Negative Liberty: Liberty is maximised without the presence of external influence." - Any external influence by a third body that restricts an individual's ability to perform actions or make decisions have the effect of minimising his/her negative liberty. This only counts, I believe, to the extent that others may enjoy similar liberties so if someone was to stop a potential murderer with physical force and, in thus doing, protect his potential victim, the potential murderer would not have his negative liberty minimised. By coincidence, the potential murderer would also be infringing upon his victim's negative liberty if he was able to successfully carry out the attack. Violence in self-defence is not an infringement of negative liberty either. Again, possible under communism as there is no need to intervene with another person's life as long as he isn't hurting anyone.

Do you reject these concepts?

How about rule utilitarianism, the idea (as I understand it) that an action's moral worth is determined by its ability to maximise overall utility and minimise negative utility?

[Broletariat]

Well, again my definitions are flawed but as I understand it:

"Positive Liberty: Liberty is maximised by the presence of one's own material surroundings." - You can't maximise your personal liberty without food, water, a house, social relationships, etc. I believe that some authoritarians interpret this as an excuse to intervene in a third person's actions and decisions in order to maximise their utility ("that boy needs authority for his own good" kind of idea) but I don't see the concept in that sort of way.

"Negative Liberty: Liberty is maximised without the presence of external influence." - Any external influence by a third body that restricts an individual's ability to perform actions or make decisions have the effect of minimising his/her negative liberty. This only counts, I believe, to the extent that others may enjoy similar liberties so if someone was to stop a potential murderer with physical force and, in thus doing, protect his potential victim, the potential murderer would not have his negative liberty minimised.

Do you reject these concepts?

How about rule utilitarianism, the idea (as I understand it) that an action's moral worth is determined by its ability to maximise overall utility and minimise negative utility?
Yea it just kind of sounds nonsensical. All of these things are social constructs that change with society.

[Hit The North]

So since you folks are anti-philosophy, do you reject core concepts like positive and negative liberty?

Not everyone on RevLeft, or the Left generally, are anti-philosophy and whilst some have a well thought out set of objections to philosophy, such as Rosa, you get the impression that with some others it is little more than a pose and a way of not engaging with things they find difficult - such as Broletariat's response above.

[ZeroNowhere]

Yea it just kind of sounds nonsensical. All of these things are social constructs that change with society.
What, ethical views?

[PoliticalNightmare]

Not everyone on RevLeft, or the Left generally, are anti-philosophy

No, of course, I was referring specifically to Rosa and Broletariat.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^And Marx.

[ZeroNowhere]

This is the Learning forum. We answer questions here.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Political Nightmare:


Do you reject these concepts?

These were characterised this way by a bourgeois philosopher and anti-communist, Isaiah Berlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Berlin).

The problem is that they represent a rather narrow set of options, and certainly do not cover the full range of how the words "liberty" and "free" (and associated terms) are used. And this is no surprise, since the essay in which he broached these terms was ideological from beginning to end -- even if it was beautifully written.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


This is the Learning forum. We answer questions here.

I'm sorry, but who is this aimed at?

[PoliticalNightmare]

This is probably a silly question but is it possible to remain an anarchist and adopt a new anti-philosophical approach such as yours? Also, how do you view the concepts of moral and ethical values such as the concept of "liberty"? Are you a moral nihilist, Rosa?

[cb9's_unity]

I may as well sneak in a question for the anti-philosophers here. When Marx talks about dialects what does he mean?

What are the differences between the dialects of Marx, or simply the theory of Marx, and Dialectical Materialism?

[syndicat]

I think positive and negative liberty are useful concepts. but these are about social institutions and relationships. they are useful insofar as we have concrete examples or approximations of them, or advocate them as aspects of a revolutionary program.

negative liberty is understood as the absence of coercion or restraint for a person's course of action from others or from institutions. within liberal political philosophy and pro-capitalist ideology this is the way "liberty" is defined.

positive liberty includes two things, both of which are quite important: control over your life, that is, over the decisions that affect you, so that you, individually and collectively with others, are self-governing. within the libertarian left this is called self-management.

the second aspect of positive liberty is the development of your potential, development of skills, protection of your existing abilities (such as your health). so a socialist commitment is to equal access to the real means for this. this second aspect of positive liberty is a precondition for the first, that is, for self-management.

in philosophy the word "materialism" is now obsolete. that's because the 18th and 19th century use of this term was highly ambiguous. it could refer either to belief in, or advocacy of, the reality of the physical world external to the senses or independent of human consciousness. nowadays philosophers call this "realism."

the second meaning of "materialism" in 19th century philosophy was advocacy of, or belief in, all the things that exist ultimately being material or physical in nature, where this might be understood as everything being ultimately composed of the things the physical sciences take to be basic or ultimate. nowadays this view is called "physicalism".

for Marx it was probably the first of these two meanings that was more important. in philosophy "idealism" is defined in opposition to realism.

[Paulappaul]

It's a matter of emphasis who actually invented this 'theory'. The core of it was laid down by Engels in Anti-Duhring (among other works), later codified by Plekhanov and then thoroughly scrambled by Dietzgen.

But, you are right, the term 'dialectical materialism' was first used by Dietzgen -- in 1887, I believe, which was after Marx died.


^^^And Marx.

If Marx was Anti - Philosophy, and anti "Dialectical Materialism" why did he call Joseph Dietzgen the "Philosopher of Socialism" as a positive connotation? I think the term was coined after Marx died yes, but the ideas were surely around in his lifetime, I read on wikipedia (yes I know, not the best source of info) that "By 1870, Marx had embraced Dietzgen as a friend, and later praised him and his theory of dialectical materialism in the 2nd edition of the first volume of Das Kapital."

Could you shed some light on this?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Paul:


If Marx was Anti - Philosophy, and anti "Dialectical Materialism" why did he call Joseph Dietzgen the "Philosopher of Socialism" as a positive connotation? I think the term was coined after Marx died yes, but the ideas were surely around in his lifetime, I read on wikipedia (yes I know, not the best source of info) that "By 1870, Marx had embraced Dietzgen as a friend, and later praised him and his theory of dialectical materialism in the 2nd edition of the first volume of Das Kapital."

Could you shed some light on this?

Here's what Marx said in Das Kapital about Dietzgen:


The learned and unlearned spokesmen of the German bourgeoisie tried at first to kill “Das Kapital” by silence, as they had managed to do with my earlier writings. As soon as they found that these tactics no longer fitted in with the conditions of the time, they wrote, under pretence of criticising my book, prescriptions “for the tranquillisation of the bourgeois mind.” But they found in the workers’ press — see, e.g., Joseph Dietzgen’s articles in the Volksstaat — antagonists stronger than themselves, to whom (down to this very day) they owe a reply.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm

I do not see there any endorsement of Dietzgen's 'philosophy'.

You will also need to post the exact reference to this:


why did he call Joseph Dietzgen the "Philosopher of Socialism" as a positive connotation?

However, I'll now search through my copy of Marx's Collectred Works to see if I can find it for you.

Contrast this with the unambiguously negative things Marx said about Philosophy, which I have posted here before:


Ok, here are a few of Marx's negative comments on Philosophy.

Philosophy is based on distorted languge:


"One of the most difficult tasks confronting philosophers is to descend from the world of thought to the actual world. Language is the immediate actuality of thought. Just as philosophers have given thought an independent existence, so they were bound to make language into an independent realm. This is the secret of philosophical language, in which thoughts in the form of words have their own content. The problem of descending from the world of thoughts to the actual world is turned into the problem of descending from language to life.

"We have shown that thoughts and ideas acquire an independent existence in consequence of the personal circumstances and relations of individuals acquiring independent existence. We have shown that exclusive, systematic occupation with these thoughts on the part of ideologists and philosophers, and hence the systematisation of these thoughts, is a consequence of division of labour, and that, in particular, German philosophy is a consequence of German petty-bourgeois conditions. 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 Geramn Ideology, p.118. Bold emphases added.]

We must "leave Philosophy aside" since it is akin to Onanism (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/onanism):


"One has to “leave philosophy aside” (Wigand, p. 187, cf. Hess, Die letzten Philosophen, p. 8), one has to leap out of it and devote oneself like an ordinary man to the study of actuality, for which there exists also an enormous amount of literary material, unknown, of course, to the philosophers. When, after that, one again encounters people like Krummacher or “Stirner”, one finds that one has long ago left them “behind” and below. Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relation to one another as onanism and sexual love." Collected Works, Volume 5, p.236.

Philosophy is based on empty abstractions


"The mystery of critical presentation…is the mystery of speculative, of Hegelian construction….

"If from real apples, pears, strawberries and almonds I form the general idea 'Fruit', if I go further and imagine that my abstract idea 'Fruit', derived from real fruit, is an entity existing outside me, is indeed the true essence of the pear, the apple, etc., then -- in the language of speculative philosophy –- I am declaring that 'Fruit' is the 'Substance' of the pear, the apple, the almond, etc. I am saying, therefore, that to be an apple is not essential to the apple; that what is essential to these things is not their real existence, perceptible to the senses, but the essence that I have abstracted from them and then foisted on them, the essence of my idea -– 'Fruit'…. Particular real fruits are no more than semblances whose true essence is 'the substance' -– 'Fruit'….

"Having reduced the different real fruits to the one 'fruit' of abstraction -– 'the Fruit', speculation must, in order to attain some semblance of real content, try somehow to find its way back from 'the Fruit', from the Substance to the diverse, ordinary real fruits, the pear, the apple, the almond etc. It is as hard to produce real fruits from the abstract idea 'the Fruit' as it is easy to produce this abstract idea from real fruits. Indeed, it is impossible to arrive at the opposite of an abstraction without relinquishing the abstraction….

"The main interest for the speculative philosopher is therefore to produce the existence of the real ordinary fruits and to say in some mysterious way that there are apples, pears, almonds and raisins. But the apples, pears, almonds and raisins that we rediscover in the speculative world are nothing but semblances of apples, semblances of pears, semblances of almonds and semblances of raisins, for they are moments in the life of 'the Fruit', this abstract creation of the mind, and therefore themselves abstract creations of the mind…. When you return from the abstraction, the supernatural creation of the mind, 'the Fruit', to real natural fruits, you give on the contrary the natural fruits a supernatural significance and transform them into sheer abstractions. Your main interest is then to point out the unity of 'the Fruit' in all the manifestations of its life…that is, to show the mystical interconnection between these fruits, how in each of them 'the Fruit' realizes itself by degrees and necessarily progresses, for instance, from its existence as a raisin to its existence as an almond. Hence the value of the ordinary fruits no longer consists in their natural qualities, but in their speculative quality, which gives each of them a definite place in the life-process of 'the Absolute Fruit'.

"The ordinary man does not think he is saying anything extraordinary when he states that there are apples and pears. But when the philosopher expresses their existence in the speculative way he says something extraordinary. He performs a miracle by producing the real natural objects, the apple, the pear, etc., out of the unreal creation of the mind 'the Fruit'….

"It goes without saying that the speculative philosopher accomplishes this continuous creation only by presenting universally known qualities of the apple, the pear, etc., which exist in reality, as determining features invented by him, by giving the names of the real things to what abstract reason alone can create, to abstract formulas of reason, finally, by declaring his own activity, by which he passes from the idea of an apple to the idea of a pear, to be the self-activity of the Absolute Subject, 'the Fruit.'

"In the speculative way of speaking, this operation is called comprehending Substance as Subject, as an inner process, as an Absolute Person, and this comprehension constitutes the essential character of Hegel's method." [Marx and Engels (1975) The Holy Family, pp.72-75.]


"Is it surprising that everything, in the final abstraction…presents itself as a logical category? Is it surprising that, if you let drop little by little all that constitutes the individuality of a house, leaving out first of all the materials of which it is composed, then the form that distinguishes it, you end up with nothing but a body; that if you leave out of account the limits of this body, you soon have nothing but a space -– that if, finally, you leave out of account the dimensions of this space, there is absolutely nothing left but pure quantity, the logical category? If we abstract thus from every subject all the alleged accidents, animate or inanimate, men or things, we are right in saying that in the final abstraction the only substance left is the logical categories. Thus the metaphysicians, who in making these abstractions, think they are making analyses, and who, the more they detach themselves from things, imagine themselves to be getting all the nearer to the point of penetrating to their core…." [Marx (1978) The Poverty of Philosophy, p.99.]

And, as Hegel noted, all traditional philosophy is idealism:


"Every philosophy is essentially an idealism or at least has idealism for its principle, and the question then is only how far this principle is carried out." [Hegel (1999) The Science of Logic, pp.154-55; § 316.]

I have explained in detail why this is so, here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1924027&postcount=5

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1924628&postcount=12

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CB9's_Unity:


I may as well sneak in a question for the anti-philosophers here. When Marx talks about dialectics what does he mean?

In fact, he tells us himself:


"After a quotation from the preface to my 'Criticism of Political Economy,' Berlin, 1859, pp. IV-VII, where I discuss the 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.]

This is from the Afterword to the second edition of Das Kapital:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm

As I have alleged here, at Revleft, many times, Marx's 'dialectic method' more closely resembles that found in Aristotle, Kant and the Scottish Historical Materialists (Smith, Ferguson, Hume, Millar, Robertson and Stewart):

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

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

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1693775&postcount=260

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1693776&postcount=261


What are the differences between the dialects of Marx, or simply the theory of Marx, and Dialectical Materialism?

In the long passge above that Marx quotes, 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", and says of it that it is "my method". So, Marx's "method" has had Hegel completely excised -- except for the odd phrase or two here and there with which he says he merely "coquetted".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Political Nightmare:


This is probably a silly question but is it possible to remain an anarchist and adopt a new anti-philosophical approach such as yours?

I have no idea since I'm not an anarchist.


Also, how do you view the concepts of moral and ethical values such as the concept of "liberty"?

I prefer not to call them 'values', since that term has nothing to do with ethics.


Are you a moral nihilist, Rosa?

Not at all. Whatever gave you that idea?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Syndicat:


in philosophy the word "materialism" is now obsolete. that's because the 18th and 19th century use of this term was highly ambiguous. it could refer either to belief in, or advocacy of, the reality of the physical world external to the senses or independent of human consciousness. nowadays philosophers call this "realism."

I don't think 'realism' is much of an advance, since, like all such philosophical theories, it is non-sensical:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1924027&postcount=5

By way of contrast, of course, historical materialsim is a scientific theory, not a philosophy.

[syndicat]

By way of contrast, of course, historical materialsim is a scientific theory, not a philosophy.

well, i don't think it is possible to provide a clear distinction between what is "philosophy" and what is "science."

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Quote: Have you ever found a work by Marx or Engels expounding dialectics in an 'abstract' way and seperated from the analysis of actual situations? I personally have not. Unquote

Hey, Political Nightmare, stop wasting your time with the Neander-Stals. Read Marx's "Feuerbach Theses," which is two pages long, and the most succinct explication of Marxism (even beyond the Manifesto), and which the Stals have tried to sweep under the carpet since Leader Joe. And which does exactly what the quote above says Marx never did. AND, in passing, ends with the line about philosophers only describing the world.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Quote: Have you ever found a work by Marx or Engels expounding dialectics in an 'abstract' way and seperated from the analysis of actual situations? I personally have not. Unquote

Hey, Political Nightmare, stop wasting your time with the Neander-Stals. Read Marx's "Feuerbach Theses," which is two pages long, and the most succinct explication of Marxism (even beyond the Manifesto), and which the Stals have tried to sweep under the carpet since Leader Joe. And which does exactly what the quote above says Marx never did. AND, in passing, ends with the line about philosophers only describing the world.

Ok. Who are the Neander-Stals? Do you mean "neanderthal"? Lol.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Syndicat:


well, i don't think it is possible to provide a clear distinction between what is "philosophy" and what is "science."

Begin a thread in Philosophy, and I will.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Paulappaul -- I have now trawled through Volumes 41-46 of the Collected Works (the volumes that contain the entire Marx-Engels correspondence, with each other and with many others), using the name index, and I can find only two relevant comments by Marx:


"You will see form the enclosed letter from Dietzgen that the unhappy fellow has 'progressed' backwards and arrived at the Phenomenology (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/phindex.htm). I regard the case as an incurable one."

Marx to Engels 05/01/1882.


"My view is that J Dietzgen would do best if he condensed all his ideas into 2 printed sheets and had them printed in his name as a tanner. If he publishes at the intended length, he will make a fool of himself because of the lack of dialectical development and the running in circles."

Marx to Engels 04/10/1868.

These do not look like endorsements to me. Quite the reverse in fact.

There are many other references to Dietzgen in the correspondence, but they are either merely passing comments (where Marx or Engels tell us they have been in contact with him, or have recieved a letter from him), or they are comments about him being a tanner who has taught himself philosophy.

By the way, I'd post links to the Marxist Internet Archive on this, but they have only published a few of these letters.

[Paulappaul]

You will also need to post the exact reference to this:


why did he call Joseph Dietzgen the "Philosopher of Socialism" as a positive connotation? However, I'll now search through my copy of Marx's Collectred Works to see if I can find it for you.From this webpage (http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/dietzgen.html) on Joseph Dietzgen it says:


By the early I870s Dietzgen was already a prominent figure in the German socialist movement. Karl Marx who, according to some reports, visited him at his home in Siegburg, praised him in his preface to the second edition of the first volume of Capital and at the Hague congress of the First International introduced him to the other delegates with the words: "Here is our philosopher."

Frederick Engels also saluted the "workingman philosopher" in his Essay on Feuerbach, and credited him with the independent discovery of materialist dialectics.Otto Ruhle in his Biography on Marx says this:



There is good ground for the supposition that his unsatisfactory general condition was as much dependent upon psychi. cal as upon physical causes. His illness was characterized b} profound depression, both bodily and mental. The collapse of the International had seemed to him tantamount to a failure of his life work, although his reason told him that the break-up of the organization had been the outcome of objective necessities, just as its foundation had been. Furthermore, he had hoped that Capital would have a signal success, and the reality iagged far behind his expectations. The book was to have proved a lever which would lift the world out of its old rut; but the world went rolling along in that rut just as before, and as if the book had never been written. For years, Capital was ignored; and when “these tactics were no longer accordant with the conditions of the time,” it was mauled uncomprehendingly by “the mealy-mouthed babblers of German vulgar economics.” Even such a man as Freiligrath could find nothing better to say than that “on the Rhine many merchants and factory owners will display great enthusiasm for the book.” In view of such widespread lack of understanding, it was a poor consolation to Marx to find “one reader who really understood Capital,” Joseph Dietzgen, a man of proletarian origin, making his livelihood in Russia as a tanner.From Marx's letter to Ludwig Kugelmann:


Have you got Dietzgen’s address? Quite a while ago he sent me a fragment of a manuscript on ‘intellectual capacity’, which, despite a certain confusion and too frequent repetitions, contained much that was excellent, and — as the independent product of a worker — even admirable. I did not reply immediately after reading it through, since I wanted to hear Engels’ opinion so I sent him the manuscript. A long time passed before I got it back. And now I cannot find Dietzgen’s letter with his new address. He wrote me, to wit, in his last letter from Petersburg, that he would return to the Rhine and settle there. Have you perhaps received his address from him? If so, be so kind as to send it to me by return. My conscience — one never becomes completely free of this sort of thing — is pricking me for leaving Dietzgen so long without a reply. You also promised to tell me something about his personality.He writes to Kugelmann alot about Dietzgen in 1868 it would seem. Which would make sense, my guess is he sent Marx a manuscript of "The Nature of Human Brainwork" which - from what I read - contained info on Dialectical Materialism. There is some correspondence with Engels too where he criticizes Dietzgen for not being familiar enough with Hegal.

From the cover of this book (http://books.google.com/books?id=Vhm4om-2m0cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Joseph+Dietzgen&hl=en&ei=2-ETTZyuJJHSsAPincimDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false) it quotes to Marx saying "Here is our Philosopher". Reviews of Dietzgen's work often quote Marx as saying "Philosopher of Socialism" but I searched MIA and found basically nothing - my guess is that its a paraphrase of a large piece.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that. Can you give me the exact reference to the letter to Kugelmann so I can check it. That letter is either not in the Collected Works, or the Index to each volume is defective.

But, what does it tell us?


Have you got Dietzgen’s address? Quite a while ago he sent me a fragment of a manuscript on ‘intellectual capacity’, which, despite a certain confusion and too frequent repetitions, contained much that was excellent, and — as the independent product of a worker — even admirable. I did not reply immediately after reading it through, since I wanted to hear Engels’ opinion so I sent him the manuscript. A long time passed before I got it back. And now I cannot find Dietzgen’s letter with his new address. He wrote me, to wit, in his last letter from Petersburg, that he would return to the Rhine and settle there. Have you perhaps received his address from him? If so, be so kind as to send it to me by return. My conscience — one never becomes completely free of this sort of thing — is pricking me for leaving Dietzgen so long without a reply. You also promised to tell me something about his personality.

This is plainly not about philosophy, but about Dietzgen's ruminations on 'intellectual capacity', whatever that is.

And Dietzgen was not a worker, as many believe -- including Marx (details supplied on request).

What about this, though?


In view of such widespread lack of understanding, it was a poor consolation to Marx to find “one reader who really understood Capital,” Joseph Dietzgen, a man of proletarian origin, making his livelihood in Russia as a tanner.

Where have I doubted he understood Das Kapital? What this has to do with philosophy is still unclear, however.

The Wikki quote is not much use, either, since it's a secondary source.

Of course, even if it were accurate, as the correspondence I have quoted above shows, Marx clearly meant this epithet tongue in cheek.


He writes to Kugelmann alot about Dietzgen in 1868 it would seem. Which would make sense, my guess is he sent Marx a manuscript of "The Nature of Human Brainwork" which - from what I read - contained info on Dialectical Materialism. There is some correspondence with Engels too where he criticizes Dietzgen for not being familiar enough with Hegal.

Indeed, as I pointed out above, but much of it is inconsequential or irrelevant.

We do not know what Marx thought of that awful book "The Nature of Human Brainwork" -- and I'd like to see the evidence it contains any 'dialectical materialism' -- or perhaps I missed something when I painfully worked my way throught it a while back.


From the cover of this book it quotes to Marx saying "Here is our Philosopher". Reviews of Dietzgen's work often quote Marx as saying "Philosopher of Socialism" but I searched MIA and found basically nothing - my guess is that its a paraphrase of a large piece.

Again, this is not much use, since it is plainly a secondary source.

[Paulappaul]

Can you give me the exact reference to the letter to Kugelmann so I can check it.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_12_05.htm

I would actually read some of 67 - 68 letters between Marx and Kugelmann, they seem to draw up Dialectics and Hegel quite a bit - although I have only skimmed them.


Where have I doubted he understood Das Kapital? What this has to do with philosophy is still unclear, however.

More that Marx was a follower of Dietzgen and vis versa.


My view is that J Dietzgen would do best if he condensed all his ideas into 2 printed sheets and had them printed in his name as a tanner. If he publishes at the intended length, he will make a fool of himself because of the lack of dialectical development and the running in circles.

Can you source that? It was my understanding that this was from Engels, not Marx. Besides couldn't you use that defense for Dietzgen?



We do not know what Marx thought of that awful book "The Nature of Human Brainwork" -- and I'd like to see the evidence it contains any 'dialectical materialsim' -- or perhaps I missed something when I painfully worked my way throught it a while back.

As I said, I think Marx was critical of it for not being sufficiently researched in Hegel or in the Dialectical Method but that I was still admirable considering his position and that it was basically his first published piece.


Again, this is not much use, since it is plainly a secondary source.

It would be worthwhile asking someone at Marxist Internet Archive or the Author of the big where in Marx's works this is quoted from, as I said it is my guess it comes from a larger pieces wherein it is basically said that Dietzgen is the Philosopher of Socialism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Thanks for the reference. It was in fact one of the letters I looked up, but decided it wasn't relevant to the point at issue.


I would actually read some of 67 - 68 letters between Marx and Kugelmann, they seem to draw up Dialectics and Hegel quite a bit - although I have only skimmed them.

Indeed. We have discussed them in Philosophy many times, and decided they were inconsequential.


More that Marx was a follower of Dietzgen....

I don't think so! What gave you that idea?


Can you source that? It was my understanding that this was from Engels, not Marx. Besides couldn't you use that defense for Dietzgen?

Marx and Engels, Collected Works, Volume 43, page 121.


As I said, I think Marx was critical of it for not being sufficiently researched in Hegel or in the Dialectical Method but that I was still admirable considering his position and that it was basically his first published piece.

Well, we do not know which parts Marx thought were:


excellent, and — as the independent product of a worker — even admirable.

So, little can be inferred from this with confidence.

However, having read that execrable book myself, I scratch my head and wonder what on earth Marx saw in it that even merited the description "rather poor".


It would be worthwhile asking someone at Marxist Internet Archive or the Author of the big where in Marx's works this is quoted from, as I said it is my guess it comes from a larger pieces wherein it is basically said that Dietzgen is the Philosopher of Socialism.

But, even if you locate this alleged remark, it's clear that Marx had a low opinion of Dietzgen, and probably meant this tonge-in-cheek. As poor as he was, Engels was a far superior thinker/philosopher than Dietzgen, something Marx would have known. So, he had no good reason to describe Dietzgen this way -- that is, if he did do so.