Dialectical Materialism help!!

[goldenboy2421]

Hey every one. Well im trying to nail downt he concept of dialectical materialism and ive read like the little articles on it but i still feel like im not grasping it. What should i read ? i really want to get this down . thanks

[Robespierre Richard]

There's a computer technician with no irl friends on here who has a website that resembles the Time Cube website. You could ask him, he has very strong opinions on it.

[Broletariat]

It's quite actually impossible to understand Dialectical Materialism because it is non-sensical as are all philosophical "theories."

For more, just wait for Rosa.

[graymouser]

Ignore anything Rosa Lichtenstein says on this.

Introduction to the Logic of Marxism (http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Marxism-George-Novack/dp/087348018X) by George Novack is an excellent, short book that will give you the basics. The relevant chapters of Anti-Duhring (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/index.htm) aren't as easy reading as Novack but give a good overview. Then you should read Capital volume 1, which is a masterpiece in dialectical thought.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

GM:


Ignore anything Rosa Lichtenstein says on this.

In that case: Please believe whatever Greymouser posts on this subject.:)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Goldenboy2421:


Hey every one. Well im trying to nail downt he concept of dialectical materialism and ive read like the little articles on it but i still feel like im not grasping it. What should i read ? i really want to get this down . thanks

I have written a very basic introduction to this theory, for absolute beginners, along with my objections to it (the one's Greymouser above could not answer, which is why he is advising you to steer clear of my posts), here:

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

The first book Greymouser has recommended (by Novack) is far too difficult for a beginner, and contains more errors than paragraphs, especially about logic, so I'd recommend you read it only if you want to come away thoroughly confused.

The other book (Anti-Duhring) is little better, but far longer, and has been taken apart here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-duhring-t80412/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/newbie-question-important-t96329/index.html

[graymouser]

The first book Greymouser has recommended (by Novack) is far too difficult for a beginner, and contains more errors than paragraphs, especially about logic, so I'd recommend you read it only if you want to come away thoroughly confused.
The idea that Novack's book is "far too difficult" for anyone is a hell of a stretch. It's been a while since I actually sat through and read it, but it is written in a relatively popular style, and this accusation simply comes off as bizarre. If Rosa is telling you that it's to be avoided, I can only take that as an endorsement.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

GM:


The idea that Novack's book is "far too difficult" for anyone is a hell of a stretch.

Fine, but the OP will soon see I am right if he/she attempts to read it.


It's been a while since I actually sat through and read it, but it is written in a relatively popular style, and this accusation simply comes off as bizarre.

It does present a superficially popular style, but it is dealing with such abstract ideas that a beginner will not find at all easy.


If Rosa is telling you that it's to be avoided, I can only take that as an endorsement.

Where did I say he/she should avoid it?

I merely said that it should be read only by those beginners who want to come away from it thoroughly confused.

[Lyev]

I would recommend reading an introduction to Hegel, but be careful of the interpretations that reduce his dialectical method to simply: 'thesis-antithesis-synthesis'. It's not so simple (Peter Singer, for example, in his intro to Hegel does this). Be careful of those who present 'dialectical materialism' as a science, or as having 3 hard and fast, immutable laws (a lot of communists do this). The concept of 'aufheben' is key to this, anyway. It has the translation of null, negate which has negative connotations, but also can be translated as supersede, transcend, which is positive. 'Communism is the abolition (aufheben) of the private property'. The next kind of property in which tomorrow's mode of production will wrap itself will resolve the antagonisms of the social relations that define prehistory (capitalism, slavery etc.) Capitalism creates its own supersession in the working class; its own gravediggers. Maybe that explanation was a bit incoherent, but you get my drift, right?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Are you serious!? No novice should go anywhere near Hegel. Even Lenin got a headache from reading him! And most introductions are either inaccurate or are too difficult.

What you say about the thesis/antithesis etc. triad is, however, correct. On that, check this out (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=707195&postcount=7).

[Robespierre Richard]

I agree with Rosa. goldenboy you are a beginner and don't know anything so read Rosa's website/forum posts and not anything that's said to deal directly with the subject because that's for the elites.

[Sun at Eight]

Ignore anything Rosa Lichtenstein says on this.

Introduction to the Logic of Marxism by George Novack is an excellent, short book that will give you the basics.

Since I've looked it up before when graymouser has mentioned it, but don't have enough posts to make links, if you google "introduction to the logic of marxism", the full online text is available on the first page (NB not at marxists.org now, but at reocities, a geocities salvage mirror).

[S.Artesian]

Hey every one. Well im trying to nail downt he concept of dialectical materialism and ive read like the little articles on it but i still feel like im not grasping it. What should i read ? i really want to get this down . thanks

Read Marx. Marx has no "concept of dialectical materialism," which is not to say Marx has no concept of dialectic.

Marx has his critique of capitalism; his historical analysis of the conflict of the labor process with the social organization of labor as property.

Read The German Ideology, Poverty of Philosophy, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, and my personal favorites, the [unpublished] economic manuscripts of 1857-1864, found in vol. 28,30,33,34 of the collected works.

[Sixiang]

Stalin's "Dialectical and Historical Materialism" was what introduced me to it in an easy to understand manner.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Unfortunately, Stalin made all the usual mistakes (http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalin-materialism-t66588/index.html), with a few new ones of his own thrown in for good measure.

But his account does have the merit of being extremely simple and easy to read.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

S Artesian:


Read Marx. Marx has no "concept of dialectical materialism," which is not to say Marx has no concept of dialectic.

Well we already know that by the time Marx came to write Das Kapital he had abandoned 'the dialectic' as you and others here understand it:

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

[Lyev]

^^^Are you serious!? No novice should go anywhere near Hegel. Even Lenin got a headache from reading him! And most introductions are either inaccurate or are too difficult.Where should someone interested in Hegel's philosophy (and his dialectic method, dare I say it!) go for an introduction? Your post basically leaves no room for a decent study of Hegel, even if someone has no interest in dialectics. We can't read half of the introductory texts because they're too simple, and on the other hand, the next lot of introductions to Hegel are too difficult. Well, gee, you have to start somewhere!

OP: I think the dialectic method is probably most clear when Marx uses it to critique: The German idealist philosophers; the English political economists; the French utopian socialists. In this sense, it is very true when Lenin says the three main components of Marxism are taken from these schools of thought. Critique is an example of Aufheben -- this is quite clear in something like the Poverty of Philosophy, which is a response to the petit-bourgeois socialism of M. Proudhon, when he wrote the System of Economic Contradictions which elucidates his economic and philosophical ideas.

The utopian socialists (from Marx's and Engels' view, Proudhon was one of these) did not necessarily connect all the features of capitalism, like generalized commodity production to regular crises or money as a universal commodity, so therefore fell into the trap of reformism. Further, they only pointed to the working class as a vindication of how bad and irrational capitalism was/is -- they did not see the proles as an agent for the overthrow of the system. Marx was the first guy to do this.

All of this is what points towards his application of the dialectic. To put it simply, a dialectical progression, for Hegel, was where one mode of consciousness would give way - supersede, transcend, negate - another one, the next mode being more satisfactory or workable than the previous. This is project he undertook in the Phenomenology of Spirit, which, as I understand (although obviously I'm no Hegel scholar!) is a kind of journey of the world spirit - the absolute idea.

So for Marx - he examined modes of production - capitalism creates its own gravediggers (its own supersession (aufheben); dialectical progression), in the proletariat. Centralisation of production and building up of the production forces (though the former criterion is quite contentious nowadays, I reckon) create capitalism's own demise. For capitalism to create its own supersession (aufheben), workers abolish it themselves - a dialectical progression is where the previous mode of production (Marx) or mode of consciousness (Hegel) is transcended into the next one, where the core of the previous mode is kept intact, but the next mode resolves the contradictions inherent in the previous. This is the 'rational within the actual' for Hegel (I think, though I am not 100% sure). That's basically my understanding of the dialectical method. Hope that helps a bit

Edit Rosa: I think one contributory factor as regards Lenin's struggle with Hegel is that when Lenin was reading and studying philosophy, hardly any of the really important, early philosophical texts of Marx's youth had not been discovered and published. These include, to the best of my knowledge: The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844; The Grundrisse; The German Ideology. Maybe if he had had some of these to hand, his reading of Hegel vis-a-vis Marx's own philosophical outlook would have gone a bit smoother? I dunno, just an idea.

[Sixiang]

^^^Unfortunately, Stalin made all the usual mistakes (http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalin-materialism-t66588/index.html), with a few new ones of his own thrown in for good measure.

But his account does have the merit of being extremely simple and easy to read.

Right. That's what I meant. It was simple and easy to read and understand... Yeah. I'm not going to argue over the specific points in it because I honestly am not as well read on the subject as you are. I was just recommending it because I found it easy to read.

[Chimurenga.]

Christ, Rosa. No one gives a shit.

Stick to the goddamn theory section or else you'll just end up confusing more people who are genuinely interested in learning. Believe it or not, no one really cares about your website or your walls of text "debunking Hegelism".

Back to the thread, Graymouser and a few other posters have offered sound advice (particularly about staying away from Rosa's posts). My contribution is this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm), this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/granat/ch02.htm) and this (http://fuckyeahmarxismleninism.tumblr.com/post/369172745/science-and-change-an-introduction-to-dialectical). This should give you a better understanding.

[Lyev]

Christ, Rosa. No one gives a shit.

Stick to the goddamn theory section or else you'll just end up confusing more people who are genuinely interested in learning. Believe it or not, no one really cares about your website or your walls of text "debunking Hegelism".Hey man there's no need to be so rude or grumpy. We're all here to learn, and Rosa offers a valuable critique of 'dialectical materialism', at least how its found in Kautsky et al. Also, there's honestly nothing contentious about critiquing Hegelian dialectic/logic itself -- it's what Marx did more than 150 years ago. But anyway, there's honestly no need to swear or get angry; chill out a bit.

[Rooster]

Since I've looked it up before when graymouser has mentioned it, but don't have enough posts to make links, if you google "introduction to the logic of marxism", the full online text is available on the first page (NB not at marxists.org now, but at reocities, a geocities salvage mirror).

http://www.reocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/1602/textosmarxistas/trottext/logic/index.htm

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

You can actually find a link to this book at my site (use the link at the end).

But, still, that book is far too difficult for novices.

In addition, it will teach them a load of falsehoods about logic, all but one of which Novack fails to source (mainly because he made them up), and even that one he gets wrong.

More details here:

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

Use the Search function in your browser to look for "Novack" (without the quotes).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Proletarian Revolution:


Christ, Rosa. No one gives a shit.

Ah, yet another abusive mystic with an anal fixation.


Stick to the goddamn theory section or else you'll just end up confusing more people who are genuinely interested in learning. Believe it or not, no one really cares about your website or your walls of text "debunking Hegelism".

They'll actually learn more from my introductions than they will from the books referenced here.


Back to the thread, Graymouser and a few other posters have offered sound advice (particularly about staying away from Rosa's posts). My contribution is this, this and this. This should give you a better understanding.

All of which I have debunked at my site, and in many threads at RevLeft (http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/RevLeft.htm).

And the more you tell people to stay away from my posts and my site, the more they access them. So, thanks!:thumbup1:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lyev:


Where should someone interested in Hegel's philosophy (and his dialectic method, dare I say it!) go for an introduction? Your post basically leaves no room for a decent study of Hegel, even if someone has no interest in dialectics. We can't read half of the introductory texts because they're too simple, and on the other hand, the next lot of introductions to Hegel are too difficult. Well, gee, you have to start somewhere!

Well this is in fact a thread about DM, not Hegel. But if anyone wants to immerse themselves in his work, the best intoduction I know of is the following:

F. Beiser, (2005), Hegel (Routledge).

Unfortunately, Beiser ignores the serious mistakes Hegel made, which I have outlined (for beginners) here (http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Outline_of_errors_Hegel_committed_01.htm).


Edit Rosa: I think one contributory factor as regards Lenin's struggle with Hegel is that when Lenin was reading and studying philosophy, hardly any of the really important, early philosophical texts of Marx's youth had not been discovered and published. These include, to the best of my knowledge: The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844; The Grundrisse; The German Ideology. Maybe if he had had some of these to hand, his reading of Hegel vis-a-vis Marx's own philosophical outlook would have gone a bit smoother? I dunno, just an idea.

Well, even if he had access to these, I'm not sure it would have made much difference, since Lenin was philosophically incompetent, whereas Marx wasn't.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PatBuck:


Right. That's what I meant. It was simple and easy to read and understand... Yeah. I'm not going to argue over the specific points in it because I honestly am not as well read on the subject as you are. I was just recommending it because I found it easy to read.

Fair enough; you are right it is very easy to read.

[S.Artesian]

Hey every one. Well im trying to nail downt he concept of dialectical materialism and ive read like the little articles on it but i still feel like im not grasping it. What should i read ? i really want to get this down . thanks


Is it "dialectical materialism" you are specifically interested as "world outlook," or is it Marx's use of, and concept of dialectic in his own critiques of capital?

If it's the former, then certainly you should start with Engels' remarks, and then follow up with Dietzgen, Plekhanov etc etc etc.

And IMO, if you're looking to grasp Marx's analysis of capitalism then following up with Dietzgen, Plekhanov, etc is a waste of time, since none of them understood Marx's critique except in superficial ways.

If you want to know how Marx, and Engels, developed their critique of idealism, not simply to replace it as a philosophy with another philosophy of "dialectical materialism," but rather as a representation of the alienation, the estrangement of social beings in the midst of their very society, as derivative of estranged and expropriated labor, the necessarily would be overthrown.... then read Marx and Engels and stick with Marx's own practice of "merciless criticism of everything in existence."

[Gorilla]

Dialectical materialism (or diamat) is one of those tricky words that means more than it looks like it should mean.

Like Marxist-Leninist: by all rights it should just mean "Marx + Lenin" but in practice it actually means "Marx + Lenin + Stalin".

So, with dialectical materialism, Marx was a materialist and he used a dialectic, but 'dialectical materialism' referes to a specific style of Marxist thinking that was developed in the Soviet Union. Read Stalin's paper on it if you want to know about that.

There's also the section on dialectics in Engel's Anti-Duhring, which I personally think is kind of reductive and pedantic.

On the relationship between Marx and Hegel, diamat assumes that Hegel invented a nifty kind of meat grinder (dialectic) but being a bourgeois chump, all he did was feed it old socks (idealism). But Marx put fatty pork and spices (materialism) into it and produced delicious sausage (the materialist conception of history).

A lot of people find that account unsatisfactory.

This is a pretty good article on the relationship between Marx and Hegel:

marxistsDOTorg/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/articles/cyrilDOThtm

[ChrisK]

Hey every one. Well im trying to nail downt he concept of dialectical materialism and ive read like the little articles on it but i still feel like im not grasping it. What should i read ? i really want to get this down . thanks

Read the introductory essay that Rosa linked. After that you should read the Anti-Durhing. That is the first work that dialectical materialism was ever worked out in.

However, make sure you pay attention to Rosa's critiques. Reading those and noticing that no one can respond to her criticisms certainly turned me off to DM.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gorilla:


This is a pretty good article on the relationship between Marx and Hegel:

marxistsDOTorg/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/articles/cyrilDOThtm

Smith's articles are very good, but he does not push his argument far enough. For example, relying on the work of American Hegel scholar Glenn Magee (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/magee.htm), he shows that Hegel derived most of his ideas from Hermetic mystics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeticism), but he fails to note that this compromised much of what Engels had to say.

Engels was brought up in the German Pietist faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietism) which was heavily influenced by the writings of German mystic Jakob Boehme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakob_B%C3%B6hme), who in turn heavily influenced Hegel (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hp/hpboehme.htm), and this prompted him into creating a 'world-view', later called 'Dialectical Materialism' [DM].

This allowed ruling-class ideology to enter Marxism as this new 'world-view'.

As I have posted here before (in answer to the question "Why is DM a World-View?):


There are two interconnected reasons, I think.

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

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

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

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

Hence, a world-view is necessary for the ruling-class to carry on ruling in the same old way. While the content of this ruling ideology may have changed with each change in the mode of production, its form has remained largely the same for thousands of years: Ultimate Truth is ascertainable by thought alone, and it can therefore be imposed on reality dogmatically (http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2002.htm).

This ancient world-view dominates practically every ideology, as Marx noted:


"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch." [Marx and Engels (1970), The German Ideology, pp.64-65. Bold added.]

So, these non-worker founders of our movement, who had been educated before they became revolutionaries to believe there was just such a hidden world that governed everything (and in Engels case, it was part of his religious upbringing), when they became revolutionaries, would naturally look for principles in that invisible world that told them that change was inevitable, and part of the cosmic order. Enter dialectics, courtesy of the dogmatic ideas of a ruling-class mystic called Hegel.

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

'Fortunately', history has predisposed these 'prophets' to ascertain the truth about reality for the rest of us, which means that they must be our 'naturally-ordained' leaders. That in turn meant these 'leaders' were also 'Teachers' of the 'ignorant masses', who could 'legitimately' substitute themselves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionism) for the unwashed majority -- in 'their own interests', you understand. This is because the masses are too caught up in 'commodity fetishism' to see the truth for themselves.

And that is why Dialectical Materialism is a world-view.

It is also why dialecticians cling on to this theory like grim death (and become very emotional (and abusive!) when it is attacked by yours truly, and who even warn comrades not to read my work), since it provides them with a source of consolation that, despite outward appearances to the contrary, and because this hidden world tells them that Dialectical Marxism will one day be a success, everything is in fact OK, and nothing in the core theory needs changing -- in spite of the fact that that core theory says everything changes! Hence, it is ossified into a dogma, and imposed on reality. A rather nice unity of opposites for you to ponder.

So, this 'theory' insulates the militant mind from the facts (http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_01.htm); it tells such comrades that reality 'contradicts' outward appearances. Hence, even if Dialectical Marxism appears to be a long-term failure, those with the equivalent of a dialectical 'third eye' can see that the opposite is in fact the case: Dialectical Marxism is a ringing success!

In that case, awkward facts can either be ignored or they can be re-configured into their opposites.

Unfortunately, this means that the theoretical problems that afflict Dialectical Marxism, and which help engineer its long-term failure (http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%20010_01.htm), are never addressed; dialectical comrades just stick their heads in the non-dialectical sands.

That, of course, helps guarantee its continual failure, thus requiring yet more Dialectical Consolation -- and further into these sands the dialectical head is thrust.

Hence, to paraphrase Marx on religion:

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

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

I stand no chance...

I have outlined the philosophical background this world-view here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/all-philosophical-theories-t148537/index.html).

[Gorilla]

Smith's articles are very good, but he does not push his argument far enough. For example, relying on the work of American Hegel scholar Glenn Magee, he shows that Hegel derived most of his ideas from Hermetic mystics, but he fails to note that this compromised much of what Engels had to say.

1. The specific Smith article I cited does not touch on the Hegel/Hermetic question at all.

2. Engel's schoolboy account of dialectic is of limited value for a number of reasons, its author's upbringing in the Prussian Union church being pretty far down the list.

[Lyev]

It is interesting that you quote that little bit on religion their ('heart of heartless creature' etc.) --- I always thought that passage was hinting at some kind of dialectical method. For example: The abolition of dialectics as the illusory happiness of the party hack is required for their real happiness. This 'abolition' is surely translated as aufheben which is something Marx got from Hegel, right? I know we have had similar discussions on this before, but what is so controversial about a transcending, sublating or negating religion? It is the heart of a heartless world. Whilst keeping the rational core of religion alive, and instead of just throwing all of religion away without further consideration, we must revolutionize the factors that first gave birth to religion. But keeping the inner rationality - the heart - of religion intact. And actually, just looking back over that quote, this seems to go even deeper because Marx says:
The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is indeed the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man, state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world.He puts society and the state together with religion since they're all expressions of a topsy-turvy, inverted world. The communists project lies in inverting our society. I don't understand what is so controversial about this. Also, as regards Marx and Engels being 'bourgeois', why should we not reject all their other ideas because of this? It's a sad fact that neither of them would have been able to get the education they got if they weren't born into such a privileged background -- but you can easily interpret that as a vindication of our ideas, too, right? I dunno, your the philosopher Rosa, tbh, I'm not great at philosophy. Just my two cents

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lyev:


It is interesting that you quote that little bit on religion their ('heart of heartless creature' etc.) --- I always thought that passage was hinting at some kind of dialectical method. For example: The abolition of dialectics as the illusory happiness of the party hack is required for their real happiness. This 'abolition' is surely translated as aufheben which is something Marx got from Hegel, right? I know we have had similar discussions on this before, but what is so controversial about a transcending, sublating or negating religion? It is the heart of a heartless world. Whilst keeping the rational core of religion alive, and instead of just throwing all of religion away without further consideration, we must revolutionize the factors that first gave birth to religion. But keeping the inner rationality - the heart - of religion intact. And actually, just looking back over that quote, this seems to go even deeper because Marx says:

Well, as you no doubt know, that was a paraphrase, not a quotation from Marx.

And, whatever Marx meant by "abolition", I just mean "anihilation", not 'sublation'.


Also, as regards Marx and Engels being 'bourgeois', why should we not reject all their other ideas because of this?

Of course, not. My reference to their class origin was merely to show where they derived their non-scientific and ruling-class ideologies from.

Moreover, I do not reject ideas because they originate from a different class, I do so only if they are non-sensical, as I have show here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/all-philosophical-theories-t148537/index.html).


It's a sad fact that neither of them would have been able to get the education they got if they weren't born into such a privileged background -- but you can easily interpret that as a vindication of our ideas, too, right?

In some respects yes, but when they import non-sensical, ideological ideas into Marxism, that's where I draw the line.

[Rooster]

I don't think reading Hegel is important to understanding what Marx had to say. If people want to read about dialectics and what's been termed dialectical materialism then they can do that if they want. If you want to understand the methodolgy that Marx employed then I think it's best just to read Capital. As to what that methodolgy was is the source of this dicussion, yes?

[Gorilla]

I don't think reading Hegel is important to understanding what Marx had to say. If people want to read about dialectics and what's been termed dialectical materialism then they can do that if they want. If you want to understand the methodolgy that Marx employed then I think it's best just to read Capital. As to what that methodolgy was is the source of this dicussion, yes?

This.

Anyone who devotes half a second of thought to it can see that the meat-grinder model of dialectical materialism is plainly bogus. On the other hand, that doesn't necessarily mean Marx became some kind of logical positivist. (Surely that's not what Rosa is arguing, is it?)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gorilla:


On the other hand, that doesn't necessarily mean Marx became some kind of logical positivist. (Surely that's not what Rosa is arguing, is it?)

Not at all. Whatever makes you think so?

[Gorilla]

Not at all. Whatever makes you think so?

I don't specifically think so. But I have been looking at your site to find the essay where you say what Marx was actually up to in Capital. Can you point me to it?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

In fact, I have done this here at RevLeft:

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

[Robespierre Richard]

Pretty sure Capital was an economic work, not a philosophical one. Don't see how you could read it as such. Marx basically finished writing philosophical works after being expelled from Prussia and moved onto politics and economics, being in the circle of various London emigrants and not Prussian academia.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Kiroff, you are right, but there are those here who would disagree with you.

[S.Artesian]

Pretty sure Capital was an economic work, not a philosophical one. Don't see how you could read it as such. Marx basically finished writing philosophical works after being expelled from Prussia and moved onto politics and economics, being in the circle of various London emigrants and not Prussian academia.


Marx stopped writing "philosophical works," if indeed he ever wrote any... well before he landed in London.

[Robespierre Richard]

^^^Kiroff, you are right, but there are those here who would disagree with you.

I don't see how that fact debunks the idea that there was a method behind it. It seems to me like you are trying to rebuff academic Marxism for its inaction and general alienation but ultimately end up doing the same thing, being trapped in its own foundations.


Marx stopped writing "philosophical works," if indeed he ever wrote any... well before he landed in London.

It would be very strange if Marx never wrote any philosophical works, considering he wrote his Ph.D. dissertation on the subject of "The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature."

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Kiroff:


I don't see how that fact debunks the idea that there was a method behind it. It seems to me like you are trying to rebuff academic Marxism for its inaction and general alienation but ultimately end up doing the same thing, being trapped in its own foundations.

I'm sorry but I could not follow this.:(

[Gorilla]

In fact, I have done this here at RevLeft:

Thanks Rosa, those are very helpful as a starting point.

Your answer (if I understand it correctly) is a negative one. Q: What kind of logic is Marx using in Capital? A: Sure as hell not the Magic 3 method from anti-Duhring. You seem to have set up a dichotomy where Marx either does the Magic 3 or scraps Hegelian modes of thought altogether. There is an excluded middle here. The third possibility is that Marx's later thought represents a radical transformation-through-critique of Hegelian logic, just as it (I think inarguably) represents a transformation-through-critique of Ricardian political economy.

Also, if Marx just up and scrapped Hegelian logic, what did he scrap it in favor of? In those posts at least you've left that question unanswered as far as I've been able to find.

Lastly, I know your site is a work in progress, so I'll be interested to read when you get around to engaging in print with the text of Capital itself.

[S.Artesian]

Thanks Rosa, those are very helpful as a starting point.

Your answer (if I understand it correctly) is a negative one. Q: What kind of logic is Marx using in Capital? A: Sure as hell not the Magic 3 method from anti-Duhring. You seem to have set up a dichotomy where Marx either does the Magic 3 or scraps Hegelian modes of thought altogether. There is an excluded middle here. The third possibility is that Marx's later thought represents a radical transformation-through-critique of Hegelian logic, just as it (I think inarguably) represents a transformation-through-critique of Ricardian political economy.

Also, if Marx just up and scrapped Hegelian logic, what did he scrap it in favor of? In those posts at least you've left that question unanswered as far as I've been able to find.

Lastly, I know your site is a work in progress, so I'll be interested to read when you get around to engaging in print with the text of Capital itself.

Well, don't hold your breath, comrade. That challenge has been put to our lady of the anti-dialectic numerous times and she has at all times refused the offers and the chance at engagement.

Kind of why I never respond to her "arguments" about Marx and dialectics anymore.

[S.Artesian]

I don't see how that fact debunks the idea that there was a method behind it. It seems to me like you are trying to rebuff academic Marxism for its inaction and general alienation but ultimately end up doing the same thing, being trapped in its own foundations.



It would be very strange if Marx never wrote any philosophical works, considering he wrote his Ph.D. dissertation on the subject of "The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature."

Interesting, as I was going to bring that in exactly as an example of Marx's non-philosophical examination of philosophy-- finding in it--"nature"-- the material substance, the raw material of human self-mediating activity.

[Robespierre Richard]

Kiroff:



I'm sorry but I could not follow this.:(

I mean that your views operate in the context of the contradictions between theory and practice, where it appears that poor practice is caused by poor theory. The dialectical method explains the issue within the context of the practice, as many Trotskyists and Anarchists love to do concerning Lenin's works, bringing everything up in the context of the Black Hundreds, Mensheviks, and the like. It is pretty obvious that philosophical justifications are not only wrong here, but also irrelevant to the issue, as the existence of similar groups and circumstances does not imply the existence of equivalent circumstances, and is very coarse abuse of the method of historical materialism. I remember talking to a Trotskyist and telling him how ridiculous it is that he thinks that he would achieve success by doing the exact same things that Lenin and Trotsky did, and he told me that "the more things change, the more they stay the same," being trapped within the same philosophical paradigm that was relevant to Lenin in 1900s Russia but is not today.

While I think that your website is all good in that it explains the follies of universalizing philosophy (which I must say it has since Marx's time more or less obeyed, and retreated into nothing more than the fields of logic and linguistics), I think the real issue is the lack of a politics in the movement as it is now, due to this contradiction of theory and practice which inherently traps it in the philosophical.


Interesting, as I was going to bring that in exactly as an example of Marx's non-philosophical examination of philosophy-- finding in it--"nature"-- the material substance, the raw material of human self-mediating activity.

What for you would make a philosophical examination of philosophy?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gorilla:


Q: What kind of logic is Marx using in Capital? A: Sure as hell not the Magic 3 method from anti-Duhring. You seem to have set up a dichotomy where Marx either does the Magic 3 or scraps Hegelian modes of thought altogether. There is an excluded middle here. The third possibility is that Marx's later thought represents a radical transformation-through-critique of Hegelian logic, just as it (I think inarguably) represents a transformation-through-critique of Ricardian political economy.

Also, if Marx just up and scrapped Hegelian logic, what did he scrap it in favor of? In those posts at least you've left that question unanswered as far as I've been able to find.

He is most likely using a version of Aristotelian Logic in Das Kapital. But, if it should turn out that comrades like S Artesian here can show Marx was using a 'non-mystical' verson of Hegel's 'logic' in Kapital (but up to now they have all failed miserably to do so), then that would be to the detriment of Marx's stature as a first-rate thinker.


Lastly, I know your site is a work in progress, so I'll be interested to read when you get around to engaging in print with the text of Capital itself.

Well, my work is aimed at demolishing DM, not at explaining Das Kapital.

When my project is finished, in about ten years time, I'll turn to HM and Marx.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Kiroff:


I mean that your views operate in the context of the contradictions between theory and practice, where it appears that poor practice is caused by poor theory.

No, that is not what I am doing. There can be no connection between a non-senscial theory and practice (other than negative -- so, a non-senscial theory would merely create confusion).

What I have argued is that if the claims dialecticians make about the connection between DM (or 'materialst dialectics') and practice are correct, then that would show that this theory had been refuted.


The dialectical method explains the issue within the context of the practice, as many Trotskyists and Anarchists love to do concerning Lenin's works, bringing everything up in the context of the Black Hundreds, Mensheviks, and the like. It is pretty obvious that philosophical justifications are not only wrong here, but also irrelevant to the issue, as the existence of similar groups and circumstances does not imply the existence of equivalent circumstances, and is very coarse abuse of the method of historical materialism. I remember talking to a Trotskyist and telling him how ridiculous it is that he thinks that he would achieve success by doing the exact same things that Lenin and Trotsky did, and he told me that "the more things change, the more they stay the same," being trapped within the same philosophical paradigm that was relevant to Lenin in 1900s Russia but is not today.

Sure, but, as far as I can tell, I don't think this has anything to do with my argument.


While I think that your website is all good in that it explains the follies of universalizing philosophy (which I must say it has since Marx's time more or less obeyed, and retreated into nothing more than the fields of logic and linguistics), I think the real issue is the lack of a politics in the movement as it is now, due to this contradiction of theory and practice which inherently traps it in the philosophical.

I'm sorry (again!) but I'm not sure what "traps it in the philosophical" means.

[HEAD ICE]

Ignore anything Rosa Lichtenstein says on this.

Introduction to the Logic of Marxism (http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Marxism-George-Novack/dp/087348018X) by George Novack is an excellent, short book that will give you the basics. The relevant chapters of Anti-Duhring (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/index.htm) aren't as easy reading as Novack but give a good overview. Then you should read Capital volume 1, which is a masterpiece in dialectical thought.

Or you can read August Thalheimer's Introduction to Dialectical Materialism, that is MIA, the book George Novack plagiarized.

[graymouser]

Or you can read August Thalheimer's Introduction to Dialectical Materialism, that is MIA, the book George Novack plagiarized.
Do you have documentation of this claim?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Stagger Lee -- Thalheimer's book is one of the best there is on this opaque theory, but I fail to see how you can say Novack plagiarised it. In fact, most books on this theory are almost indistinguishable -- they all tend to say the same things, and make the same mistakes. In other words, they are all copies of Engels, Plekhanov and Lenin's work --often even using identical sentences and examples (thus confirming the dread 'law of identity'):

Boiling water, balding heads, John and his manhood, Mendeleyev's Table, wave/particle duality, contradictory motion, "A is equal to A", a character from Molière who has spoken "prose all his life without knowing it", "Yea, Yea" and "Nay Nay", seeds that seem to 'negate' plants, living/dying cells, magnets, (alleged) wave-particle duality, Mamelukes who have a somewhat ambiguous fighting record against the French, and so on -- none of which work anyway (http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2007.htm).

[S.Artesian]

I mean that your views operate in the context of the contradictions between theory and practice, where it appears that poor practice is caused by poor theory. The dialectical method explains the issue within the context of the practice, as many Trotskyists and Anarchists love to do concerning Lenin's works, bringing everything up in the context of the Black Hundreds, Mensheviks, and the like. It is pretty obvious that philosophical justifications are not only wrong here, but also irrelevant to the issue, as the existence of similar groups and circumstances does not imply the existence of equivalent circumstances, and is very coarse abuse of the method of historical materialism. I remember talking to a Trotskyist and telling him how ridiculous it is that he thinks that he would achieve success by doing the exact same things that Lenin and Trotsky did, and he told me that "the more things change, the more they stay the same," being trapped within the same philosophical paradigm that was relevant to Lenin in 1900s Russia but is not today.

While I think that your website is all good in that it explains the follies of universalizing philosophy (which I must say it has since Marx's time more or less obeyed, and retreated into nothing more than the fields of logic and linguistics), I think the real issue is the lack of a politics in the movement as it is now, due to this contradiction of theory and practice which inherently traps it in the philosophical.



What for you would make a philosophical examination of philosophy?

Good question. Maybe it's just me reading into it, but I think even in his dissertations you see that Marx is concerned with the actual material substance of human life.