Question on Dialectical Materialism

[The Man]

I am not trying to start a flame war about Rosa, so please don't.

As per Wikipedia: The basic idea of dialectical materialism is that every economic order grows to a state of maximum efficiency, while at the same time developing internal contradictions or weaknesses that contribute to its decay.

Do Dialectical Materialists also believe that this 'decay' happens in a Communist economic order?

Can someone just give me a brief explanation of the differences between Anti-Dialectics and Dialectical Materialists?

[Kronsteen]

Do Dialectical Materialists also believe that this 'decay' happens in a Communist economic order?There is, unsurprisingly, more than one view of this.

The mainstream view is that the entire universe runs on dialectical rules, with opposing forces warring until they're united into one which spawns a twin to war with. I think this is mystical gibberish, but let's not go into that here.

In a communist order, the opposing forces of two classes wouldn't exist, but there would still be plenty of opposing forces in the economy, and the society. Would this cause it to implode, or decay, or transform into something else? Theorists are silent on this, I think for two reasons.

1) There's no telling what a communist economy would actually be composed of. It would be based on producing what's needed, rather than what's profitable, but probably all other bets are off. There's just no point in speculating.
2) They don't want to consider that a communist order would have its own warring forces, possibly creating new types of injustice and inequality, in a world that's supposed to have moved beyond all that. Again, this is just my cynical suspicion.

There is a minority opinion that there's a dialectic of nature, and a different dialectic of capitalist economics, and the latter would die with capitalism. There's an alternative view that the dialectic of nature is just an unwarrented projection of the dialectics of capitalist economics onto the universe itself.


Can someone just give me a brief explanation of the differences between Anti-Dialectics and Dialectical Materialists? The latter think dialectics is the philosophical core of marxism, without which the economic theory, the historical analysis and the revolutionary programme couldn't exist. The former think it's a load of meaningless waffle tacked onto the end of these things, by Engels after Marx had died.

[ChrisK]

I am not trying to start a flame war about Rosa, so please don't.

As per Wikipedia: The basic idea of dialectical materialism is that every economic order grows to a state of maximum efficiency, while at the same time developing internal contradictions or weaknesses that contribute to its decay.

Do Dialectical Materialists also believe that this 'decay' happens in a Communist economic order?

If they are consistent with their beliefs, then yes they should. This does not seem to be something you hear very often, but a consistent dialectical materialism would conclude that some internal contradictions of communist society would involve some sort of decay or a new type of conflict.


Can someone just give me a brief explanation of the differences between Anti-Dialectics and Dialectical Materialists?

The only difference is that anti-dialectics rejects dialectical materialism, while fully supporting historical materialism. Dialectical materialism is a philosophical theory, while anti-dialecticians tend to say that we do not need philosophical theories.

For the basic outline of the differences and arguements for anti-dialectics check out this link:
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Anti-D_For_Dummies%2001.htm

This link is not intended to start a Rosa flamewar, it is just the best introduction to the ideas.

[The Man]

Could you possibly be a Anti-Dialectic while being a Maoist/Marxist-Leninist?

[Gorilla]

Could you possibly be a Anti-Dialectic while being a Maoist/Marxist-Leninist?

The RCP is trying to do that (even though they say they aren't.)

[S.Artesian]

I am not trying to start a flame war about Rosa, so please don't.

As per Wikipedia: The basic idea of dialectical materialism is that every economic order grows to a state of maximum efficiency, while at the same time developing internal contradictions or weaknesses that contribute to its decay.

Do Dialectical Materialists also believe that this 'decay' happens in a Communist economic order?



Not according to Marx. He refers to capitalism as the last "antagonistic" social organization, antagonistic in that the antagonism exists between the social nature of labor and the private appropriation of that labor as value.

This conflict between labor and the condition of labor, i.e. the terms by which labor is made "material" or social is the fundamental core to capitalism, and to Marx's critique of capitalism.

If labor is socially emancipated, becomes the conscious collective endeavor of the entire organization, obviously the private appropriation of the products of that labor become impossible, production of by and for value is abolished, and class is eliminated. Hence... no decay.

[Kronsteen]

Could you possibly be a Anti-Dialectic while being a Maoist/Marxist-Leninist?

I think the answer is "Yes, but...".

You can. Provided you can deal with the idea that Engels, Lenin and Stalin (and possibly Marx) were broadly right about the important things, while being under the sway of an incorrect fashionable idea (dialectics) which didn't have much effect on their thoughts, but did affect the way they expressed them.

I'd add Mao to the list too - though his dialectic was (so I read) a little different, and I don't know enough about it to say for certain.

Of course, your more orthodox comrades will accuse you of having a shallow, bourgeois, mechanical, dead marxism - in contrast to theirs which is deep, rooted in in the workers, subtle and vital.

Internal sectarianism - maybe the biggest reason why so many of us give up on politics after a few years.

[The Man]

Not according to Marx. He refers to capitalism as the last "antagonistic" social organization, antagonistic in that the antagonism exists between the social nature of labor and the private appropriation of that labor as value.

This conflict between labor and the condition of labor, i.e. the terms by which labor is made "material" or social is the fundamental core to capitalism, and to Marx's critique of capitalism.

If labor is socially emancipated, becomes the conscious collective endeavor of the entire organization, obviously the private appropriation of the products of that labor become impossible, production of by and for value is abolished, and class is eliminated. Hence... no decay.


So, basically, the Dialectical Materialist core belief is the following, like Marx said:

Primitive Communism > Slave Society > Feudalism > Capitalism > Socialism > Communism?

[red cat]

Could you possibly be a Anti-Dialectic while being a Maoist/Marxist-Leninist?

No. Identifying and correctly handling dialectical contradictions is central to the application of MLM.

[ChrisK]

Could you possibly be a Anti-Dialectic while being a Maoist/Marxist-Leninist?

I don't see why not.

[ChrisK]

Not according to Marx. He refers to capitalism as the last "antagonistic" social organization, antagonistic in that the antagonism exists between the social nature of labor and the private appropriation of that labor as value.

This conflict between labor and the condition of labor, i.e. the terms by which labor is made "material" or social is the fundamental core to capitalism, and to Marx's critique of capitalism.

If labor is socially emancipated, becomes the conscious collective endeavor of the entire organization, obviously the private appropriation of the products of that labor become impossible, production of by and for value is abolished, and class is eliminated. Hence... no decay.

It should be made clear that for Marx this was not a question of dialectical materialism as we call it. His dialectic (historical materialism) does not hold the same implications as, say, Engels or Mao's dialectical materialism.

[S.Artesian]

It should be made clear that for Marx this was not a question of dialectical materialism as we call it. His dialectic (historical materialism) does not hold the same implications as, say, Engels or Mao's dialectical materialism.

I agree with that. Of all the things Marxism is, it certainly is not dialectical materialism.

[The Man]

I agree with that. Of all the things Marxism is, it certainly is not dialectical materialism.

So who brought Dialectical Materialism into Marxism?

[S.Artesian]

So, basically, the Dialectical Materialist core belief is the following, like Marx said:

Primitive Communism > Slave Society > Feudalism > Capitalism > Socialism > Communism?

I don't know what the "core belief" to dialectical materialism is. I know what Marx was engaged in, which was the critique of capital, the exposition of its immanent, inherent conflicts and the potential for its overthrow.

And Marx was not quite that rigid in sequencing modes of production, at least not at his most insightful, profound, and.... revolutionary.

[ChrisK]

So who brought Dialectical Materialism into Marxism?

Engels did in the Anti-Durhing. An unfortunate moment.

[S.Artesian]

So who brought Dialectical Materialism into Marxism?

The elevation of "dialectical materialism" to the universal world outlook was a product of post-1924 Soviet Union.

You can trace elements back, if you like, to Lenin's attempts at "philosophy," to Plekhanov, to Dietzgen, and Engels, but it takes a state to make a religion, and in this case, the Soviet state replaced Marx's critical analysis of history, of labor and the conditions of labor with cant and ideology.

[Rooster]

So, basically, the Dialectical Materialist core belief is the following, like Marx said:

Primitive Communism > Slave Society > Feudalism > Capitalism > Socialism > Communism?

Well, I wouldn't call that a core belief. I'm not sure what Marx used to help him investigate Capital, but I have read over and over again that it was dialectics. Anyway, I don't think having that strict view of history is the way to think about it. In Capital, there is very little casual language: A causes B causes C and leads to D and then E and so on. So to law out that view of history would be too simple, imho. It's much more useful to see society as a whole. I'll get back to this after I drop my sister off at school.

As to this "decay" of a communist society. I think the word decay is a little too loaded. From what I've read over the years, Marx seems to have been saying that the driving force within society has been the struggle between classes. So throughout history classes have multiplied and declined in number due to forces within society relating to production, leaving us at this epoch in history of the two classes we are both familiar with. So capitalism doesn't decay as such, it just describes a period in history relating to how things are made. Then communism is the end of class antagonism, the "end of history" but I believe this means the end of class struggle as the driving force of society and of history. The richness of this argument of course depends on your reading of Marx and what you think of his philosophical outlook was. I think I read somewhere that Marx thought it was alienation was what had to be solved and this could only be done through communism, through changing the world to solve this particular puzzle instead of just describing the puzzle. Anyway, I haven't had much sleep and that probably sounded garbled. So, as to what would be the driving force of history once class struggle has been resolved? Who knows. Space exploration? The betterment of mankind?

[Kronsteen]

I'm not sure what Marx used to help him investigate Capital, but I have read over and over again that it was dialectics.

As have we all. Which is odd, as Marx barely mentions it, and never explicitly identified it as his method.


The elevation of "dialectical materialism" to the universal world outlook was a product of post-1924 Soviet Union.

You can trace elements back, if you like, to Lenin's attempts at "philosophy," to Plekhanov, to Dietzgen, and Engels, but it takes a state to make a religion, and in this case, the Soviet state replaced Marx's critical analysis of history, of labor and the conditions of labor with cant and ideology.

Now that's an interesting thing to say. It makes the broad acceptance of the dialectic by marxists a result of Stalinism. Anti-stalinists wouldn't be happy to hear that.

I place the 'elevation' moment with Engels taking over from Marx after the latter's death, but you have a point that one man, even the nominal leader of a movement, probably couldn't effect such a big philosophical shift.

[caramelpence]

As per Wikipedia: The basic idea of dialectical materialism is that every economic order grows to a state of maximum efficiency, while at the same time developing internal contradictions or weaknesses that contribute to its decay.

Regardless of what Wikipedia says, the approach to history that you describe, whereby modes of production rise and fall according to the condition of the development of the productive forces, is a widespread interpretation of Marx's approach to history, but it is more commonly described in terms of historical materialism rather than dialectical materialism because it is not straightforwardly clear whether there is anything really "dialectical" about it. In fact, the theorist who is most closely associated with an interpretation of Marx's theory of history that locates the development of the productive forces as the driving force behind all historical change, GA Cohen, is part of a trend of Marxist thought, Analytical Marxism, whose distinguishing feature is precisely the rejection of any notion that there a distinctively Marxist or dialectical method. Neither "dialectical materialism" nor "historical materialism" are terms that Marx or Engels commonly used. Marx's more commonly-used term was the materialist interpretation of history.


I'm not sure what Marx used to help him investigate Capital, but I have read over and over again that it was dialectics.

Actually, on most interpretations (for example, Callinicos), Marx's Capital differs from the Grundrisse precisely in its rejection of a dialectical approach in that Marx does not, in Capital, treat more complex dimensions of capitalist production such as the accumulation of capital, as if they were the product of contradictions inherent in the simple commodity-form that serves as the starting-point of his analysis. You could even say that Marx wrote Capital after having rejected his attempts to pursue a more dialectical analysis in the Grundrisse.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Engels did in the Anti-Durhing. An unfortunate moment.

Was Engels' "Dialectics of Nature" a "scientistic" divergence from Marx's ideas? In his bio of Engels, "Marx's General" Tristram Hunt say that there wasn't and couldn't have been any substantial difference between the thought of Marx and Engels. How this was interpreted is another matter.

"The Dialectics of Nature" did sound reductionist when I first read it (I did a report on it for an organisation I used to be in). Today it doesn't look that bad, there are definite connections with modern science-Ilya Progogine, etc., but then we should be careful about using dialectics as an a priori construct.

[chegitz guevara]

There is, unsurprisingly, more than one view of this.

The mainstream view is that the entire universe runs on dialectical rules, with opposing forces warring until they're united into one which spawns a twin to war with. I think this is mystical gibberish, but let's not go into that here.

This is the main stream view of anti-dialetics on dialectics.

The main stream view of those of us who understand dialectics is nothing so crude. Dialectics is nothing more than understanding that reality is constantly in motion, it is dynamic, as opposed to mechanistic. We understand that something that was true may no longer be true, and that something that was false may have become true.

Early dialecticians came up with some invalide hypothesis as to why this was the case, trying to explain it. We should no more throw out dialectics because their explanations were clumsy than we should throw out the theory of gravity cuz Newton was incorrect, or chemistry because in the 19th Century chemists and physicists believed in the ether.

[chegitz guevara]

Now that's an interesting thing to say. It makes the broad acceptance of the dialectic by marxists a result of Stalinism. Anti-stalinists wouldn't be happy to hear that.

No, it doesn't. Marxists broadly accepted dialectics before Stalinism. Stalinism changed what was a poorly understood theory into its opposite, a set of pat, mechanical rules.

[Kronsteen]

The main stream view of those of us who understand dialectics is nothing so crude. Dialectics is nothing more than understanding that reality is constantly in motion, it is dynamic, as opposed to mechanistic. We understand that something that was true may no longer be true, and that something that was false may have become true.

Oh wow. "Stuff changes" - yes that's a really deep insight. :rolleyes:

When you're ready to move beyond obfuscationist restatements of the thuddingly obvious, we grownups will be waiting for you.


Marxists broadly accepted dialectics before Stalinism. Stalinism changed what was a poorly understood theory into its opposite, a set of pat, mechanical rules.

So there's a simpleminded, Stalinist version, and a nuanced "real" version.

There's also simpleminded christianity and the christianity of theologins. That doesn't make christianity true. Complex bullshit is still bullshit.

[chegitz guevara]

Oh wow. "Stuff changes" - yes that's a really deep insight. :rolleyes:

When you're ready to move beyond obfuscationist restatements of the thuddingly obvious, we grownups will be waiting for you.

In the 19th Century, it was, in fact, a stunningly deep insight, as the dominent mode of thought was that everything was eternal, and that only forms changed. Even mechanistic materialism held that even though things changed, they did so on a predictable, orderly way.

[chegitz guevara]

So there's a simpleminded, Stalinist version, and a nuanced "real" version.

There's also simpleminded christianity and the christianity of theologins. That doesn't make christianity true. Complex bullshit is still bullshit.

That fact that you can make false analogies doesn't mean you're correct.

[Kronsteen]

In the 19th Century, it was, in fact, a stunningly deep insight, as the dominent mode of thought was that everything was eternal, and that only forms changed.

A common myth.

Perhaps you believe Charles Darwin discovered that species die out and new ones emerge - and of course change over time? And that the resistance to his theory was based on the insistence of an essentially static world.

In fact every naturalist knew and accepted that the natural world was constantly changing in this way - the only debate was about the mechanism by which this occured. The objection to Darwin's theory was that it didn't give god a necessary role.


Even mechanistic materialism held that even though things changed, they did so on a predictable, orderly way.You seem to be confusing materialism with dialectics. They're quite different and non-interdependent. There are idealist dialectics.


That fact that you can make false analogies doesn't mean you're correct.

The fact that you can avoid the point and logic chop at the same time doesn't make you correct either. If you have some actual evidence, present it.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

an incorrect fashionable idea (dialectics).
So fashionable, in fact, that dialectical thought might arguably be as close to a universal process of thought as can be known.

We now return you to your fashionable positivist wanking.

[Aurora]

Is there any credence to separating 'Dialectical Materialism' from the marxist dialectic?

What i mean is all marxists oppose imperialism but not all marxists are 'anti-imperialists'.
Is 'diamat' an ideology in itself, separate and estranged from the marxist tradition?

[ChrisK]

Was Engels' "Dialectics of Nature" a "scientistic" divergence from Marx's ideas? In his bio of Engels, "Marx's General" Tristram Hunt say that there wasn't and couldn't have been any substantial difference between the thought of Marx and Engels. How this was interpreted is another matter.

"The Dialectics of Nature" did sound reductionist when I first read it (I did a report on it for an organisation I used to be in). Today it doesn't look that bad, there are definite connections with modern science-Ilya Progogine, etc., but then we should be careful about using dialectics as an a priori construct.

I find the claim that there could not have been any substantial differences in their thought to be dubious. One can have very similar ideas, views and analysis' of society as someone else and hold very different philosophical views. IE, I have a similar analysis of society to Bob the Builder, but we disagree on the issue of dialectics.

As to The Dialectics of Nature I find that to be a strongly metaphysical work that imposes a priori philosophy on reality.

[ChrisK]

Is there any credence to separating 'Dialectical Materialism' from the marxist dialectic?

What i mean is all marxists oppose imperialism but not all marxists are 'anti-imperialists'.
Is 'diamat' an ideology in itself, separate and estranged from the marxist tradition?

Not too sure what your asking here.

[Kronsteen]

that dialectical thought might arguably be as close to a universal process of thought as can be known.

Yes it can explain anything and everything. Just like the system of a certain Herr Eugen Duhring. Or Mr Jesus H Christ.

Great, you've got a totalising system. Join the queue.


Is 'diamat' an ideology in itself, separate and estranged from the marxist tradition?

The short answer is: Yes, but most marxists don't want you to know that.

The original (and idealist) Dialectics comes from a mashup of Hegel, Fichte, Schelling and a few others, though it's usually attributed just to Hegel. Feurbach came up with a materialist version, which the young Marx and Engels criticises for not being materialist enough. There were also philosophers known as Left Hegelians, who to varying degrees reinterpreted Hegel in a materialist way.

You can have 'diamat' without marxism, and vice versa, but they're usually found in combination.

[S.Artesian]

Quote:
Originally Posted by S.Artesian http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2075748#post2075748)
The main stream view of those of us who understand dialectics is nothing so crude. Dialectics is nothing more than understanding that reality is constantly in motion, it is dynamic, as opposed to mechanistic. We understand that something that was true may no longer be true, and that something that was false may have become true.
Oh wow. "Stuff changes" - yes that's a really deep insight


When you're ready to move beyond obfuscationist restatements of the thuddingly obvious, we grownups will be waiting for you.

Not to piss on your parade but I never made the above "quoted" statement, you simpleton. Try and get your fucking mis-attributions straight.

[HEAD ICE]

Oh wow. "Stuff changes" - yes that's a really deep insight. :rolleyes:

When you're ready to move beyond obfuscationist restatements of the thuddingly obvious, we grownups will be waiting for you.

I consider myself a dialectical materialist but this was damn funny.

[Kronsteen]

you simpleton. Try and get your fucking mis-attributions straight.

Mis-attribution corrected. Now if you're capable of returning to the point of the thread, that would be nice.

[S.Artesian]

Quote:
Originally Posted by S.Artesian http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2075748#post2075748)
The elevation of "dialectical materialism" to the universal world outlook was a product of post-1924 Soviet Union.

You can trace elements back, if you like, to Lenin's attempts at "philosophy," to Plekhanov, to Dietzgen, and Engels, but it takes a state to make a religion, and in this case, the Soviet state replaced Marx's critical analysis of history, of labor and the conditions of labor with cant and ideology.
Now that's an interesting thing to say. It makes the broad acceptance of the dialectic by marxists a result of Stalinism. Anti-stalinists wouldn't be happy to hear that.

I place the 'elevation' moment with Engels taking over from Marx after the latter's death, but you have a point that one man, even the nominal leader of a movement, probably couldn't effect such a big philosophical shift.

Congratulations on getting the quote linked to the person who actually said what you quoted. Now if you can make a habit of that.....

Here's the entry from the new world encyclopedia:


Following the 1917 October Revolution, the Soviet philosophy divided itself between "dialecticians" (Deborin) and "mechanists" (Bukharin).Stalin (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Stalin) ultimately decided the outcome of the debate by publishing a decree which identified dialectical materialism as pertaining solely to Marxism-Leninism (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Marxism-Leninism) rather than any other form of materialism. Stalin would also use diamat as a justification for the establishment of the totalitarian state. In June 1930, he told the Soviet party congress:

We stand for the withering away of the state. At the same time we stand for the… strongest state power that has ever existed… Is this “contradictory”? Yes, it is contradictory. But this contradiction… fully reflects Marx’s dialectics.
Stalin then established the official Soviet version of dialectical materialism in his work, Dialectical and Historical Materialism (1938).[1] (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Dialectical_materialism#cite_note-0) Here, he enumerated the "laws of dialectics," which are to serve as the grounds of particular scientific disciplines, especially sociology (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Sociology) and the "science" of history, thus guaranteeing their conformity with what he called the "proletarian conception of the world." Thus, the official Soviet philosophy of diamat was imposed on most Communist parties affiliated to the Third International.



Leaving aside the ideological bullshit in the entry [pretty funny when talking about dialectical materialism, which is nothing if not an ideology], the entry has the history right.

Doesn't mean that there aren't different versions, competing versions, of dialectical materialism out there-- but you know what-- all capital is capital, and all ideological distortions of Marx's work are ideological distortions of Marx's work, substituting a "world view" a "proletarian conception" a philosophy for the actual critique of capital and exposition of the potential for its overthrow.

[S.Artesian]

Mis-attribution corrected. Now if you're capable of returning to the point of the thread, that would be nice.


Aww.... that's so nice of you... telling me to return to the point of the thread when you can't keep straight who said what.

Apology accepted.

[S.Artesian]

Was Engels' "Dialectics of Nature" a "scientistic" divergence from Marx's ideas? In his bio of Engels, "Marx's General" Tristram Hunt say that there wasn't and couldn't have been any substantial difference between the thought of Marx and Engels. How this was interpreted is another matter.

"The Dialectics of Nature" did sound reductionist when I first read it (I did a report on it for an organisation I used to be in). Today it doesn't look that bad, there are definite connections with modern science-Ilya Progogine, etc., but then we should be careful about using dialectics as an a priori construct.


I don't know how there couldn't have been any substantial difference between the two, given what we know about changes Engels made the vols 2 & 3 and what the MEGA project and other researchers have uncovered in its examination of original manuscripts.

There are practical differences, too. You find Engels in a wholehearted endorsement of the US in the US-Mexican War, a war fought on behalf of slavery. Marx is a bit more reserved in these matters.

You see it again when you have Engels thumping for Bismarck during the Franco-Prussian War, and coming close, again to endorsement. Marx is much more circumspect than Engels and really tones the "support" of Germany down in the proclamations he writes for the IWMA.

Be that as it may, the issue isn't if or how much Marx and Engels differed, it's a question of the actual material of Marx's analysis; the content of Marx's work. And on those grounds, Marx is not about establishing a new "world view," a philosophy, or a conceptual model.

I think that Engels is very much concerned and interested in establishing a new world view, a new "method of knowing."

[Kronsteen]

Apology accepted.

Then so is your proposal of marriage, in exactly the same spirit.



Stalin (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Stalin) ultimately decided the outcome of the debate by publishing a decree which identified dialectical materialism as pertaining solely to Marxism-Leninism (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Marxism-Leninism) rather than any other form of materialism.

Thank you, that at least is useful. Though not absolutely conclusive - there were uncritical dialecticians before Stalin's decree, including Lenin himself. Trotsky accepted Lenin's position, and modern trotskyists - who despise Stalinism - accept dialectics at least partly for this reason.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Is there any credence to separating 'Dialectical Materialism' from the marxist dialectic?

Obviously. Hegel, and after Hegel, Marx, retooled a very old, possibly universally valid system of thought as a response to the essentialist positivism that is, and has been, the defining philosophy of the bourgeoisie from the Enlightenment to the Rosaists (so much for progress!). DiaMat was the unfortunate attempt to reconcile revolutionary Marxist thought with late-nineteenth century scientism, as though "science" were in any way an objective formula for the understanding of "nature," let alone History. This is the kind of basic understanding of the History of thought that any undergraduate major in Philosophy is supposed to have.

[Kronsteen]

essentialist positivism

Looks like a technical description, reads like an educated philosophical term, really just two contentless insults stuck together.

Check out my little list of socialist insults (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=152890).


as though "science" were in any way an objective formula for the understanding of "nature,"The official "We Know Better Than the Experts" position of every mad cult from Zoroastrianism to Jonestown. And some marxists.


let alone History"History with a capital H" - used to mean not the story of humanity, but a sacred struggle towards inevitable victory for the forces of light. Often used by marxists who pretend they have a 'nuanced' view of the past, but still want the reassurance that History is on their side.

[S.Artesian]

Thank you, that at least is useful. Though not absolutely conclusive - there were uncritical dialecticians before Stalin's decree, including Lenin himself. Trotsky accepted Lenin's position, and modern trotskyists - who despise Stalinism - accept dialectics at least partly for this reason.

No shit? Really? Except we're dealing, not with individual positions of Lenin or Trotsky or Stalin, but "schools" of "thought," actually dissemination of ideologies-- programmatic stipulations which are social in origin, intent and effect. That serve, not to put to fine a point on it, a definite social interest. That's what gives "dialectical materialism" its "credentials" so to speak.

The point being that the official enshrinement of dialectical materialism required a bit more than the mistakes or preferences of individuals.

Modern trotskyists despise Stalinism? Well strip my gears and call me shiftless. I never would have known that. That is so helpful to know. Any other pearls you care to drop?

[Kronsteen]

No shit? Really?

You appear to be under the impression that people who agree with most of what you have to say should be treated as bitter enemies.

It is, I suppose, a traditional aspect of marxist groups. Just not a very helpful one.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Looks like a technical description, reads like an educated philosophical term, really just two contentless insults stuck together.

Actually, it's a reference to the last section of Immanuel Kant's "Prolegomena to a Future Metaphysics." Don't tire your pretty little head over it.

[Kronsteen]

Actually, it's a reference to the last section of Immanuel Kant's "Prolegomena to a Future Metaphysics."

I've just skimmed the final section (third appendix) and couldn't find anything resembling the (somewhat post-Kantian) "Essentialist Positivism", but I'm glad you can find such smug pleasure in recodite references.

Most people use Monty Python sketches instead.

Now if you could just use reason instead of undergraduate sneers, your posts might be worth the time it takes to read them.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

I've just skimmed the final section
.
Wow. Now go back and, you know, read it. Maybe even try to understand what it's about. Specifically, check Kant's attempt to deal with the critique that what you quaintly call anti-dialectics, is an essentialism. Then try to figure out what Hegel has to say to that at the beginning of the Phenomenology of Spirit. Get back to me when you're done.

And, BTW, that's DR. Hoipolloi to you. Punk.

[ar734]

I am not trying to start a flame war about Rosa, so please don't.

As per Wikipedia: The basic idea of dialectical materialism is that every economic order grows to a state of maximum efficiency, while at the same time developing internal contradictions or weaknesses that contribute to its decay.

Do Dialectical Materialists also believe that this 'decay' happens in a Communist economic order?

Can someone just give me a brief explanation of the differences between Anti-Dialectics and Dialectical Materialists?

Rosa apparently has been banned from this site, for, as I understand it, dishonest arguments. Her banishment is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever heard of. dishonest argument? What next? Stalinist Show Trials? So she posted unreadable, incomprehensible walls of anti-dialectic text? So she called people idiots, etc.? So what?? Shame on RevLeft!!!

I think Rosa should be freed!!! Join the People's Movement to Free Rosa!

As far as dialectics and communism, I think the Marxist explanation would be that all past economic orders have been based on the antagonistic suppression and exploitation of one class by another. Broadly speaking, slave and slave holder, serf and feudal lord, worker and capitalist. Communism will end this class society and thus end the antagonism and exploitation by one class of another.

As there is no longer any organization of society into opposing classes, the dialectical phase of human economic history will come to an end. This is not to say that dialectics will come to an end. It is certainly possible for communism to develop internal contradictions and then to evolve into a new society. But communism will not be based on the dialectics of class exploitation.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Dialectics, as Chegitz indicates, claims that there is a broader "Eternal" pattern to everything which is revealed via dynamic forms. These dynamic forms manifest in a contradictory manner, and it is the resolution of those contradictions that leads to new forms.

I really don't see why this is such a controversial thesis. And while it may seem "obvious", reasoning through its implications can be quite profound. Reading Marx's Capital, you see his dialectical method at play to describe the reasons why business exist, how they grow, how their businesses evolve, and why they collapse. He also relates this to the broader patterns and themes of history which are themselves in development.

"Here, the possessor of money or commodities actually turns into a capitalist only where the minimum sum advanced for production greatly exceeds the known medieval maximum. Here, as in natural science, is shown the correctness of the law discovered by Hegel, in his Logic, that at a certain point merely quantitative differences pass over by a dialectical inversion into qualitative distinctions."

Karl Marx, Das Kapital vol 1. This is how Karl Marx describes how and why Feudal economic relations become Capitalist relations. There are other examples of him using Hegelian forms and logic as a way to interpret the transfer of one historical Epoch to the next.


It is quite evident from this that the laws of appropriation or of private property, laws based on the production and circulation of commodities, become changed into their direct opposite through their own internal and inexorable dialectic. The exchange of equivalents, the original operation with which we started, is now turned round in such a way that there is only an apparent exchange, since, firstly, the capital which is exchanged for labour-power is itself merely a portion of the product of the labour of others which has been appropriated without an equivalent; and secondly, this capital must not only be replaced by its producer, the worker, but replaced together with an added surplus.

Also from Vol 1 of Marx's Kapital. To a Marxist, the topic of this might be obvious ... the appropriation of the surplus labour of another using compensation of a lesser value to build the size and scale of a particular Capital.

And these are just two examples.

So the argument of dialectics is not just that "Things change" ... this would, as a poster said earlier, be too obvious of a statement. But dialectics is about more than just that. It's about how "opposites" are united, and how the nature of that opposition is merely transitory. It's not just "things change", its why and how the relationships between these "things" cause the "change".

[ar734]

I think this is an excellent post. You can find many dialectical arguments of Marx just by skimming over the text of Capital. I really cannot understand why so many Marxists try to deny that Marx used dialectics.

I would disagree on one point: the idea that dialectics is about some "eternal" pattern. This is what Hegel tried to establish as the dialectic movement toward eternal, ideal truth, and which Marx overturned, setting the dialectic right side up.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Is there any credence to separating 'Dialectical Materialism' from the marxist dialectic?

What i mean is all marxists oppose imperialism but not all marxists are 'anti-imperialists'.
Is 'diamat' an ideology in itself, separate and estranged from the marxist tradition?

Cyril Smith has an interesting critique of "diamat"

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/millenni/smith2.htm

Diamat was a non-Marxist ideology created as a support for the bureaucratic class that ruled the fSU.Tristram Hunt , in the bio of Engels, goes on to describe how Engels in particular was used to justify the more "totalitarian" aspects of Stalinism.

It appears though that most, but not all Marxists still use a version of diamat, whether they realise it or not. George Novack from the Trotskyist tradition, seems to use a similar version of dialectics. A left com might argue that this itself is a product of the class basis of those in the socialist movement, although I don't know if I'd agree.

Having said this, disavowing dialectics has been often held to be the "slippery slope" towards abandoning Marxism.After Burnham diavowed dialectics, Trotsky predicted he would soon disavow Marxism, and he was right, Michael Albert, in his "Unorthodox Marxism" abandoned dialectics and a little while later left Marxism for his Parecon project.(I am not sure I agree w/this, just "throwing it out there")

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

I would disagree on one point: the idea that dialectics is about some "eternal" pattern. This is what Hegel tried to establish as the dialectic movement toward eternal, ideal truth, and which Marx overturned, setting the dialectic right side up.
Dialectics is a form taken by human agency, perhaps the most basic form of agency imaginable. The problems arise when you reverse that to argue that human agency itself is the result of a "higher," "eternal" agency, whether you call that History, or The Idea, or Dialectical Materialism, or Science. Marx was well aware of this, as many of his would-be followers are not.

[S.Artesian]

You appear to be under the impression that people who agree with most of what you have to say should be treated as bitter enemies.

It is, I suppose, a traditional aspect of marxist groups. Just not a very helpful one.


Nope, just people who misquote me and then use that misquotation as a basis for insults, and when this mere technical difficulty is pointed out, don't have the sense, courage, or integrity to apologize.

[S.Artesian]

Dialectics is a form taken by human agency, perhaps the most basic form of agency imaginable

Word.

Or... as we used to say, back in the day... "there it is."

This is exactly the "rational kernel" that Marx extracts from Hegel. Dialectic is supposed to the be the content of human history: human life is material; the material is the social appropriation of nature; the social appropriation of nature is at one and the same time the organization of labor and the establishment of relations of laborer to the products of labor... to the owners of those products.

This is where I agree with use of the term "dialectic" in relation to Marx's work and do not agree with the application of the term to materialism, i.e. dialectical materialism, as an adequate characterization of that work.

You might call Marx's work, social dialectics, or dialectical social-ism, or better yet, simply demonstrate what Marx considered to be the dialectic of capitalism-- the conflict between labor and the conditions of labor, those means and relations of production-- in a concrete analysis of history.

[ChrisK]

Dialectics, as Chegitz indicates, claims that there is a broader "Eternal" pattern to everything which is revealed via dynamic forms. These dynamic forms manifest in a contradictory manner, and it is the resolution of those contradictions that leads to new forms.

So its metaphysical mysticism that imposes itself on the world.

Also, what contradictions? I see nothing contradictory happening.


I really don't see why this is such a controversial thesis.

Because it is a metaphysical and unprovable thesis.


And while it may seem "obvious", reasoning through its implications can be quite profound. Reading Marx's Capital, you see his dialectical method at play to describe the reasons why business exist, how they grow, how their businesses evolve, and why they collapse. He also relates this to the broader patterns and themes of history which are themselves in development.

"Here, the possessor of money or commodities actually turns into a capitalist only where the minimum sum advanced for production greatly exceeds the known medieval maximum. Here, as in natural science, is shown the correctness of the law discovered by Hegel, in his Logic, that at a certain point merely quantitative differences pass over by a dialectical inversion into qualitative distinctions."

Karl Marx, Das Kapital vol 1. This is how Karl Marx describes how and why Feudal economic relations become Capitalist relations. There are other examples of him using Hegelian forms and logic as a way to interpret the transfer of one historical Epoch to the next.

He also informs us that he is teasing us when he uses Hegel. How kind of him.


It is quite evident from this that the laws of appropriation or of private property, laws based on the production and circulation of commodities, become changed into their direct opposite through their own internal and inexorable dialectic. The exchange of equivalents, the original operation with which we started, is now turned round in such a way that there is only an apparent exchange, since, firstly, the capital which is exchanged for labour-power is itself merely a portion of the product of the labour of others which has been appropriated without an equivalent; and secondly, this capital must not only be replaced by its producer, the worker, but replaced together with an added surplus.

Also from Vol 1 of Marx's Kapital. To a Marxist, the topic of this might be obvious ... the appropriation of the surplus labour of another using compensation of a lesser value to build the size and scale of a particular Capital.

And these are just two examples.

Another excellent example of Marx's coquetting!


So the argument of dialectics is not just that "Things change" ... this would, as a poster said earlier, be too obvious of a statement. But dialectics is about more than just that. It's about how "opposites" are united, and how the nature of that opposition is merely transitory. It's not just "things change", its why and how the relationships between these "things" cause the "change".

Mind giving an example of how opposites are united and how this is contradictory? Also, mind explaining how this would lead to change?

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

So the argument of dialectics is not just that "Things change" ... this would, as a poster said earlier, be too obvious of a statement. But dialectics is about more than just that. It's about how "opposites" are united, and how the nature of that opposition is merely transitory. It's not just "things change", its why and how the relationships between these "things" cause the "change".
It can be even less than that. There's Heraclitan ("Things change") dialectics, there's the dialectical thinking of the thirteenth-century universities in Europe, there's Hegel (who almost never used the words "thesis, antithesis, synthesis"), there's the four-cornered dialectic of Greimas, which is a terrific analytic tool, and then there's that (or those) used by Marx. I, right now, find myself attracted to the dialectical movement proposed by Galvano della Volpe, the Italian philosopher... By a curious coincidence, most of these dialectics arise as counters and in opposition to systems like positivism that depend for their truth on the belief in an Absolute - an Absolute whose validity, obviously, is enforced by the ruling classes: Plato, the bourgeoisie, the Medieval Scholastics, and various contemporary clown academics.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Also, what contradictions? I see nothing contradictory happening.

This is what I referred to, in one of my publications, as "Class Struggle Gaslight": "Classes? What class struggles? You ahre imagining theengs!"

[ChrisK]

This is what I referred to, in one of my publications, as "Class Struggle Gaslight": "Classes? What class struggles? You ahre imagining theengs!"

Difference. Class struggle is demonstrable. These so-called contradictions are not.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Difference. Class struggle is demonstrable. These so-called contradictions are not.
In other terms, to you class struggle can be demonstrated as an essence, just not as a struggle of contending forces.

Friend, you're looking for Class Struggle in all the wrong places.

[Desperado]

So, basically, the Dialectical Materialist core belief is the following, like Marx said:

Primitive Communism > Slave Society > Feudalism > Capitalism > Socialism > Communism?

No. That is (a very general description of) historical materialism. For some, dialectical materialism is a core part of historical materialism. However, others adhere to historical materialism without any belief in dialectical materialism. Dialectical materialism is a metaphysical viewpoint. Historical materialism is a historical viewpoint.

[ChrisK]

In other terms, to you class struggle can be demonstrated as an essence, just not as a struggle of contending forces.

Friend, you're looking for Class Struggle in all the wrong places.

No, don't put words in my mouth. It is not a essence. It is a conflict between groups contending for power. Calling them contradictory is a misuse of the term.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

No, don't put words in my mouth. It is not a essence. It is a conflict between groups contending for power. Calling them contradictory is a misuse of the term.

Stop beating around the bush. Is the class struggle a "conflict" of ideologies, actions, what have you - that is, a DIALECTIC - or not? And if it is a dialectic, then why do you consider this particular form of dialectic in history (commonly known as Class Struggle) irrelevant to Marxism? Bear in mind that by the very definition of dialectics that Marx and Hegel took up from Kant, there are only two possible approaches here, the intuitive/positivist that assumes the ability to "know" a thing through its "essence," and the dialectical, which assumes that a thing is not, strictly speaking, knowable, except through the play of opposites. I'm not saying this is right, or wrong, I'm saying that's where Marx is coming from.

[Kronsteen]

anti-dialectics, is an essentialism.

Anti-dialectics in itself is, astonishingly, a critique of dialectics. As opposed to an alternative system. But you evidently didn't know that. Not realising this obvious fact does not bode well for your claimed expertise.


the dialectical phase of human economic history will come to an end. This is not to say that dialectics will come to an end. It is certainly possible for communism to develop internal contradictions and then to evolve into a new society. But communism will not be based on the dialectics of class exploitation.

If there is still change within communism, it could change into something else. Something repressive, or something with classes, or something which doesn't serve people's needs.

Plus there are still the questions of Marx's assertion that communism must be the mode of production to come after capitalism, and the possibility of communism itself being overthrown, by a class or just a group with economic interests.


Dialectics is a form taken by human agency, perhaps the most basic form of agency imaginable.

So now you're saying there is no dialectics of nature.

Congratulations, you're a heretic.


social dialectics

You too. You're advocating Dialectic Historicism and Historical Materialism as opposed to Dialectical Materialism.

It's certainly a defensible position. But it does mean throwing away the philosophical works of Engels, Lenin and Troksky.


I really don't see why this is such a controversial thesis.

The thesis that a billiard ball rolls across a table not because it's been hit with a cue, but because of forces inside itself, battling it out.

The thesis that a red rose is identical with redness.

The thesis that 1+1=2 is true because the 1s are in conflict.

No, there's no way that could be controversial.


It's about how "opposites" are united

Actually that's an idea Hegel falsely attributes to Kant, calling it a "lifeless schema". If that's what Marx believed hegalianism was about, then he could only have got it from a bad philosophy primer by Mortiz Chalybaus, because that's the origin of that particular myth.

That's right. If you're right about Marx's method, it means Marx never read Hegel.


systems like positivism that depend for their truth on the belief in an Absolute

Strawman. See the forum discussion on foundationalism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=152708).


Heraclitan [...] the dialectical thinking of the thirteenth-century universities in Europe, there's Hegel [...] the four-cornered dialectic of Greimas [...] the dialectical movement proposed by Galvano della Volpe

A dialectic for every occasion. If one doesn't tell you what you want to hear, try another.


to you class struggle can be demonstrated as an essence, just not as a struggle of contending forces

No one is denying the classes oppose and sometimes struggle. You're just trying to project that struggle onto the whole universe.

You're like a believer in a primitive religion who thinks earthquakes are the gods making love and rain is a big man in the sky crying.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Anti-dialectics in itself is, astonishingly, a critique of dialectics. As opposed to an alternative system. But you evidently didn't know that.
Of course I knew that, after all, I've read Kant and you haven't. Which is why your fantasy that your "anti-dialectics" is anything else than warmed-over Enlightenment epistemology is so sweetly innocent. Of course, one of the fundamental points of Marxism is the argument that the bourgeoisie (of which you, my dear, are a rather scruffy example) claim their system as the only true system. Does that make Stalinists and other obsessives bourgeois in heart and mind? Duh...




So now you're saying there is no dialectics of nature.
You arrre veddy wise, for one who has lived only one lifetime, most of it as an undergraduate.


A dialectic for every occasion. If one doesn't tell you what you want to hear, try another.
Does that present a problem to you? Oh, I forgot, some of us are trying to resolve the MATERIAL conflicts that we encounter in the REAL world, through the instrument of thought. The others are just trying to score points in their petty power games.

[Rafiq]

So, basically, the Dialectical Materialist core belief is the following, like Marx said:

Primitive Communism > Slave Society > Feudalism > Capitalism > Socialism > Communism?

I wouldn't say so completely. According to my knowledge of Marx, he never saw Socialism as a stage before communism, rather he used it as interchangeable with communism. Lenin then took what Marx referred to as "The lower stage of communism" and called that Socialism.

[Rafiq]

Rosa wasn't the cause of the flame wars, all she did was inflame them a tad bit and sometimes make them two pages longer!

Revleft is always going to argue about whether Dialectics is credible or not. It would just seem that Rosa was the star fire warrior on the anti dialectic side of the flame wars.

[Kronsteen]

Of course I knew that, after all, I've read Kant and you haven't. Which is why your fantasy that your "anti-dialectics" is anything else than warmed-over Enlightenment epistemology is so sweetly innocent. Of course, one of the fundamental points of Marxism is the argument that the bourgeoisie (of which you, my dear, are a rather scruffy example) claim their system as the only true system. Does that make Stalinists and other obsessives bourgeois in heart and mind? Duh...

You arrre veddy wise, for one who has lived only one lifetime, most of it as an undergraduate.

Does that present a problem to you? Oh, I forgot, some of us are trying to resolve the MATERIAL conflicts that we encounter in the REAL world, through the instrument of thought. The others are just trying to score points in their petty power games.

So...you think Kant wrote about anti-dialectics before Marx was born, that Marx's epistemology wasn't a product of the enlightenment, the bourgeoisie have only one system of ideas even though they keep contradicting each other and themselves, anyone who's obsessive is bourgeois...and you're not trying to score points.

Thank you, that's most clear.

You are right about exactly one thing though. I did spend half my life attending various universities. Some of it reading Kant.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Rosa wasn't the cause of the flame wars, all she did was inflame them a tad bit and sometimes make them two pages longer!
Much as I dislike anyone being ejected from any list, removing Rosa was for her own good, it's like barring a gambling addict from a casino. Now maybe she can get a life - and I say this, BTW, without malice.


Revleft is always going to argue about whether Dialectics is credible or not. It would just seem that Rosa was the star fire warrior on the anti dialectic side of the flame wars.
Actually, this is the first time any one's even been given an opportunity to discuss the issue instead of being bullied and shouted down. Now, perhaps, a few of us will be able to discuss what dialectics is or is not, pro or con. Which, I would imagine, is the purpose of this site.

[S.Artesian]

Quote:
Originally Posted by S.Artesian
social dialectics
You too. You're advocating Dialectic Historicism and Historical Materialism as opposed to Dialectical Materialism.

It's certainly a defensible position. But it does mean throwing away the philosophical works of Engels, Lenin and Troksky.

Yeah, so? The issue is what was Marx doing? Was he creating a "world view," a "new" epistemology? I don't think so, no more than he was proving that the "law of value" applied to all societies at all times in history.

Maybe he saw in Hegel an estranged presentation of human beings "making themselves at home" in the world? Maybe he found the mechanism for "unestrangement" in the labor process, and the mediation of that mechanism in the social relations of production?

I'm going with those latter things. Why? Well, first, because that really is the breakthrough Marx achieved, a breakthrough beyond critical philosophy and political economy. And after that.... well, basically because I'm real good at teasing out the threads from the knots of the social relations of production and I pretty much fall asleep when somebody starts flogging "world views" and epistemology. So throwing away the philosophical works of Lenin, Trotsky, Engels, etc. won't exactly deplete my library.

Nor will it reduce their real contributions and their real mistakes.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

So...you think Kant wrote about anti-dialectics before Marx was born,
Well, yes, as a matter of fact, and extensively. This proves my point, which shall be final. You and your friend Chris Koch DO NOT HAVE THE FOGGIEST NOTION WHAT THE WORD DIALECTIC MEANS, and quite frankly, it's embarrassing to hear you both make claims about it that are based on a total ignorance of the term and its history. How, then, you can pretend to be "anti-dialectical" if you don't know what "dialectical" means?

Don't bother answering. Don't embarrass yourself any further.

[Kronsteen]

This proves my point, which shall be final.

Not very good at prediction, are you?


How, then, you can pretend to be "anti-dialectical" if you don't know what "dialectical" means?

Your particular version of the dialectic is comprehensible, unlike most - just not very interesting. It's a thinly coded class struggle - something which can be much better explained without cosmological terms taken from Anaxagoras, Heraclitus and Parmenedes.

Other dialecticians have many other interpretations, some elastic enough to cover every possible proposition. That's how they can claim dialectics explains the entire universe.

[Kronsteen]

it does mean throwing away the philosophical works of Engels, Lenin and Troksky.
Yeah, so?

Okay, do that. I'm about to begin a reading of these works to confirm (or refute) my own suspicion that they can indeed be jettisoned without loss.


So throwing away the philosophical works of Lenin, Trotsky, Engels, etc. won't exactly deplete my library.

Nor will it reduce their real contributions and their real mistakes.

Haven't you worked it out yet? I'm agreeing with you.

[S.Artesian]

Okay, do that. I'm about to begin a reading of these works to confirm (or refute) my own suspicion that they can indeed be jettisoned without loss.

Haven't you worked it out yet? I'm agreeing with you.

Oh yeah, I worked it out. And I worked it out about Lenin's and Trotsky's and Engels' "philosophical works" a long time ago.

Agreement isn't necessary, but I think Marx really does "take over" Hegel's dialectic, really does extract a rational kernel, is quite serious in his use of the terms "contradiction" "antagonism" etc etc. and that class struggle really is a bit, no, a lot more than just groups contesting for power. It's classes, each organized a shared social relation of production where each reproduces itself only through reproducing the other. It's really the case that each iteration of the social reproduction co-incidentally reestablishes and undermines that social relationship.

[ChrisK]

Stop beating around the bush. Is the class struggle a "conflict" of ideologies, actions, what have you - that is, a DIALECTIC - or not? And if it is a dialectic, then why do you consider this particular form of dialectic in history (commonly known as Class Struggle) irrelevant to Marxism? Bear in mind that by the very definition of dialectics that Marx and Hegel took up from Kant, there are only two possible approaches here, the intuitive/positivist that assumes the ability to "know" a thing through its "essence," and the dialectical, which assumes that a thing is not, strictly speaking, knowable, except through the play of opposites. I'm not saying this is right, or wrong, I'm saying that's where Marx is coming from.

Sure, you can call it dialectical. Its not dialectical materialism, Marx used historical materialism. He claims that this is his dialectical method. Not that horrible shit that Engels spewed out. In other words, historical materialism :), dialectical materialism :crying:.

Marx quote proving this please.