A Marxist Was Born

[rezider]

Hello,

Straight to the point. The debating never ends. Every moron out on the streets has an opinion now and the worst part is that the more ignorant they are, the more they have to say. I'm tired of it.

I've been in the 'God Debate Sector' for quite a while and it's time to broaden my fronts - spend some time doing other activities while God's fanclub comes up with new arguments or magically finds evidence.

I am aware that my request might not be simple, but it is always worth the try in the name of knowledge. I want to understand marxism and dialectical materialism not just on the surface but delve deep into the core: books by Marx, Lenin, Engels, Weber (I know he's not a marxist but has written about capitalism and his works on socialism might prove to be valuable; correct me if I'm wrong) essays, debunking of anti-socialist, anti-communist, and anti-marxist arguments, critique on capitalism...

Debating is not a form of being able to use fallacies in the most clever way. It sparks a dialogue between people with a final goal of finding out the truth. We are not capitalists. We don't throw arguments like 'human nature'. In politics you can't simply say, 'I am right.' But it is invaluable to be able to defend your position, to know what you stand for. It's not to say that you can't change your mind - you can, but if you do so, you will do it knowing why.

If I am going to support something or be against something, I might as well learn as much as possible about it. Philosophy is a passion of mine and if I don't gather information, my brain will rot. So point me in the right direction and I'll be on my way.

[RedWorker]

Dialectical materialism is the term for the re-introduction of Hegelian and idealist elements into Marxism. There is Marxist materialism and there is historical materialism, but there is no dialectical materialism (at least not one that Marx was involved in).

Marx certainly never wrote anything that would logically conclude in "dialectical materialism". "Dialectical materialism" was practically built by later theorists based on a few quotes by Engels - probably his least bright quotes.

So the reading I recommend on this subject is Anti-Dialectics (http://www.************************/).

[Troika]

-

[rezider]

I'm passingly familiar with the Internet's New Atheist crowd. I'm a little-A atheist myself, but I find their brand of atheism troubling. You're not one of the Sargon of Akkad/Angry Atheist types who think women are 2spooky are you? For atheist reading, Tolstoy is excellent, though he was not an atheist. Tolstoy also wrote some somewhat important works on leftism. I'm sure you've already read everything by Bertrand Russell, because he's Bertrand Fucking Russell. The Order of Things by Lucretius is something every atheist should read, I think. It's pretty wild to see what this guy was able to deduce, totally a priori. It's brilliant.

Anyway, you might want to start with Marx's Kapital; Engels' Origin of Private Property, Family, and the State; Kropotkin's Conquest of Bread, Mutual Aid, and Autobiography; Makhno's Ukranian Revolution; and anything by Chomsky, Fanon, Emma Goldman, and you absolutely must read Foucault. I would argue Foucault is as essential as Marx.

You'll notice an ideological divide among these authors. Marxian communists believe(d) that taking over the state in order to transition to communism was the way to go whereas Bakunin (an anarcho-communist) believed that there was no need to take over the state and that full communism could be achieved almost immediately. Marx won the debate in Russia but history took Bakunin's side.

Cool shit that's related: The PKK (an explicitly feminist anarcho-communist Kurdish fighting force), the Zapatistas (a leftist group that seeks liberation for the subaltern of Mexico/worldwide), Womanism (sister movement to feminism), liberation theology (worked with the Zapatistas, reformulated the idea of sin to describe systemic ills rather than personal faults), liberation psychology (derivation of liberation theology), the Frankfurt School (continuation of Marxian thought), Slavoj Zizek (pop philosopher, communist, hilarious), your local labor union.

The realization of communism is incompatible with misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, racism, etc. It is an explicitly egalitarian movement which means it is going to be feminist/womanist/etc., queer-friendly, and open to all races of people. You will likely have found a predominantly white bourgeois male narrative within the atheist community. That is no fluke. Critical theory is able to unpack this quite neatly if you're willing to have an open mind about the experiences of others. Something that people often forget is that one narrative does not describe the whole of human experience. It's absolutely critical (heh) that you read Foucault for this reason. The New Atheism has a definite problem with a monoculturalism and bourgeois respectability politics. It is a heavily "colonized" space. Again, I'm saying this as an atheist, so don't think I'm disparaging the lack of belief itself, nor the thinkers who helped bring us out of religious fear.

Quick definitions:

Communism: Classless, stateless, moneyless society.

Socialism: Workers owning the means of production.

Capitalism: Private ownership of the means of production.



I haven't seen a new argument from them since the 90's with fucking Hovind and his bananas. You might be waiting a while. If you haven't already unraveled the TAG it's kinda fun. The ontological argument is also fun to poke holes in if you're doing something mindless and you haven't done it before.
Thank you, so much! That is really helpful!

On the subject of atheism. I'm often confronted with the strange desire to distance myself from the atheist community and maybe use a different ism to describe myself... It's a rare sight for atheists to be both well-informed and respectful (for lack of a better word).

I find it difficult to relate to the a**holes that just run around telling everyone how much they don't believe in God. Fine! We get it! You don't believe! You're not special.

I generally avoid using isms to describe my positions. It's not because the ism itself. The word has nothing to do with it. It's the way people react to these words based on their experience with others who've used it to describe themselves. I, honestly, haven't read much about Stalin and most the information is media and society based, but I'm guessing if he really was a bad example of a communist, that's the reason why everyone spouts so much nonsense about marxism and communism. I'd rather we sit down and explore each other's ideas on the spot.

Anyway, thank you again for all the information!

[Luís Henrique]

So the reading I recommend on this subject is Anti-Dialectics (http://www.************************/).

I strongly recommend that you do not read it, or if you are intent on doing it, get a firm basis elsewhere first, and arm yourself with a lot of patience and critical dispositions.

It is a completely un-Marxist pseudophilosphical pile of sophisms, generously peppered with random insults at those who disagree with her spurious attempt to melt Marx into Wittgenstein.

Luís Henrique

[RedWorker]

Though I do not follow that site's line and only consider it an useful resource... (saying this in advance because of how these discussions always seem to turn) Give an example of how it is 'un-Marxist' or 'pseudophilosophical'? Where is a 'sophism'? And where are random insults?

[Luís Henrique]

I am aware that my request might not be simple, but it is always worth the try in the name of knowledge. I want to understand marxism and dialectical materialism not just on the surface but delve deep into the core: books by Marx, Lenin, Engels, Weber (I know he's not a marxist but has written about capitalism and his works on socialism might prove to be valuable; correct me if I'm wrong) essays, debunking of anti-socialist, anti-communist, and anti-marxist arguments, critique on capitalism...

The core would be, of course, Marx's works. Particularly Capital and the Grundrisse. Avoid vulgarisations, abstracts, shortcuts of all kinds; particularly avoid Stalin and anyone directly committed to his regime.

A good critical guide to confront economic anti-marxist arguments is E. K. Hunt's History of Economic Thought: A Critical Perspective.

But nothing can substitute for actual involvement in class struggle. Get active in your union, workplace, neighbourhood, school or college, etc. Otherwise you will always be "on the surface".

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Though I do not follow that site's line and only consider it an useful resource... (saying this in advance because of how these discussions always seem to turn) Give an example of how it is 'un-Marxist' or 'pseudophilosophical'? Where is a 'sophism'? And where are random insults?

They can all be found here in revleft. Abundantly. Just do a search for the posts made by the author of that site here, before she was banned.

We have also discussed that to the point of nausea here (and you seem to know it, as you mention the way "these discussions always seem to turn"), so there is no point to do it again - much less in Learning of all places. You can search for either the author's name, or for "Wittgenstein", or "Hegel", or "dialectician", if you want examples of what I mean.

Luís Henrique

[RedWorker]

You'll notice an ideological divide among these authors. Marxian communists believe(d) that taking over the state in order to transition to communism was the way to go whereas Bakunin (an anarcho-communist) believed that there was no need to take over the state and that full communism could be achieved almost immediately..

Marxists advocate destroying the current bourgeois state and founding the new proletarian state, the dictatorship of the proletariat. It cannot be done by taking over the bourgeois state.

Wherever anarchists have taken power, they have either founded and/or supported the dictatorship of the proletariat. Sometimes, anarchists took positions in the bourgeois state. So, anarchism for some was apologism for not founding the proletarian state AND taking over the bourgeois state, which is at least as authoritarian.

Needless to say, communism cannot be built without organs which allow for the political and social power of the working class. Anarchists have historically either come up with these or done worse than the proletarian state would supposedly would.


Marx won the debate in Russia but history took Bakunin's side

How did it take Bakunin's side? Bakunin's arguments was that the proletarian state would become as bad as the bourgeois state, not that it would become especially dictatorial and authoritarian. So, Bakunin argued that there would be Rajoy's and Merkel's would come up as a result of the proletarian state, not a Stalin.

That the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia failed to bring about socialism does not, by itself, mean that this must always be the conclusion. The dictatorship of the proletariat lasted only a short time before it degenerated in that country.

[RedWorker]

They can all be found here in revleft. Abundantly. Just do a search for the posts made by the author of that site here, before she was banned.

We have also discussed that to the point of nausea here (and you seem to know it, as you mention the way "these discussions always seem to turn"), so there is no point to do it again - much less in Learning of all places. You can search for either the author's name, or for "Wittgenstein", or "Hegel", or "dialectician", if you want examples of what I mean.

Look, I don't care about what this author may specifically preach, or what her exact specific line may be. What I care is that her arguments against 'dialectical materialism', against the wrongful interpretation of Hegel's influence on Marx, and so on, seem to be on-spot. So, as far as my reference is concerned here, debate on the subject of how that user expresses herself in debates or what she specifically argues herself as part of her line is not relevant. If you have any arguments to defend dialectical materialism from these basic criticisms, then state them, instead of appealing to that author's behaviour in discussions.

[Tim Cornelis]

That anti-dialectics site is pretty bad. This is just silly:

"Of course, this is quite apart from the fact that many things just do not change into their opposites. When was the last time you saw a male cat turn into a female cat? Or, a male cell (sperm) into a female cell (egg)? Your left hand into your right? An electron into a proton? Or even a material object into an immaterial object?

And, are we really supposed to believe that every single proletarian (as individuals or as a class) will turn into a capitalist (or even into the capitalist class), and/or vice versa? Did the medieval peasantry turn into the aristocracy, and/or vice versa?"

It shows a complete lack of understanding of dialectics.

If OP wants to understand dialectics, he should read basically any text on dialectics, for instance that anti-dialectics text, to acquaint themselves with terminology a bit, and then read Hege's Undiscovered Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis dialectics by Leonard F. Wheat (probably available at yer local university library). And then you also know what's wrong with the anti-dialectics website's text.

http://www.prometheusbooks.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=2147

[Alet]

Anyway, you might want to start with Marx's Kapital; Engels' Origin of Private Property, Family, and the State; Kropotkin's Conquest of Bread, Mutual Aid, and Autobiography; Makhno's Ukranian Revolution; and anything by Chomsky, Fanon, Emma Goldman, and you absolutely must read Foucault. I would argue Foucault is as essential as Marx.

To be honest, I would not recommend starting with 'Capital'. It requires very good text apprehension and it leaves some unanswered questions, if you don't already have some basic ideas of Marxist economics vs. bourgeois economics. In my opinion, 'Capital' should be one of the last books by Marx you should read. Also, I don't really know why he should read Kropotkin or Chomsky, when he wants to understand Marxism.

I suggest that you read the 'Communist Manifesto' and 'Anti-Dühring' by Engels first, because they introduce well into Marxist theory. As for economics, 'Value, price and profit' and 'A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy' might be good to begin with.


Quick definitions:

Communism: Classless, stateless, moneyless society.

Socialism: Workers owning the means of production.

The definition of socialism is generally controversial. Some Marxists argue that 'socialism' is synonymous with 'dictatorship of the proletariat', a society which will lead to communism. So, if you really want to make a distinction between these two terms (for whatever reason), this one would be more accurate, closer to Marxist terminology, because 'workers owning the means of production' could mean anything, even vulgar socialism. However, in Marx' and Engels' writings these terms were interchangeable.


Capitalism: Private ownership of the means of production.

This is not true. Capitalism does require private ownership, but this is not enough to characterize capitalism. There has been private ownership of the means of production in pre-capitalist societies, too. Capitalist production is based on the circulation M - C - M' (money, commodity, more money), which means that you invest money (capital) in a commodity (which is labor power) which you make money out of.


Marx then investigates the processes by which money is transformed into capital, and finds, first, that the form in which money circulates as capital is the inversion of the form in which it circulates as the general equivalent of commodities. The simple owner of commodities sells in order to buy; he sells what he does not need, and with the money thus procured he buys what he does need. The incipient capitalist starts by buying what he does not need himself; he buys in order to sell, and to sell at a higher price, in order to get back the value of the money originally thrown into the transaction, augmented by an increment in money; and Marx calls this increment surplus-value.

Whence comes this surplus-value? It cannot come either from the buyer buying the commodities under their value, or from the seller selling them above their value. For in both cases the gains and the losses of each individual cancel each other, as each individual is in turn buyer and seller. Nor can it come from cheating, for though cheating can enrich one person at the expense of another, it cannot increase the total sum possessed by both, and therefore cannot augment the sum of the values in circulation. [...]

This solution is as follows: The increase in the value of money that is to be converted into capital cannot take place in the money itself, nor can it originate in the purchase, as here this money does no more than realise the price of the commodity, and this price, inasmuch as we took as our premise an exchange of equivalents, is not different from its value. For the same reason, the increase in value cannot originate in the sale of the commodity. The change must, therefore, take place in the commodity bought; not however in its value, as it is bought and sold at its value, but in its use-value as such, that is, the change of value must originate in the consumption of the commodity. "In order to be able to extract value from the consumption of a commodity, our friend, Moneybags, must be so lucky as to find ... in the market, a commodity, whose use-value possesses the peculiar property of being a source of value, whose actual consumption, therefore, is itself an embodiment of labour, and, consequently, a creation of value. The possessor of money does find on the market such a special commodity in capacity for labour or labour-power."
- Engels, 'Anti-Dühring'

[Counterculturalist]

One way to acquaint yourself with the philosophical milieu in which Marx existed would be to tackle The German Ideology. When Marx makes reference to arguments with which you're unfamiliar, go and check out the source that he's responding to. Once you get past the obscure references, it's a really engaging and enjoyable read.

[Luís Henrique]

Look, I don't care about what this author may specifically preach, or what her exact specific line may be. What I care is that her arguments against 'dialectical materialism', against the wrongful interpretation of Hegel's influence on Marx, and so on, seem to be on-spot. So, as far as my reference is concerned here, debate on the subject of how that user expresses herself in debates or what she specifically argues herself as part of her line is not relevant. If you have any arguments to defend dialectical materialism from these basic criticisms, then state them, instead of appealing to that author's behaviour in discussions.

The OP asked for "the core" of Marxist theory. Ms. Lichtenstein's "theories" aren't the core of Marxist theory, at all. On one hand they are a contorted offshoot of Cliffism, which is an offshoot of Trotskyism, which may be, depending on whom you ask, an offshoot of Marxism, or an offshoot of Leninism, which in turn is an offshoot of Marxism. On the other hand, they are an (also contorted) offshoot of "Analytical Marxism", which was a failed attempt to mix Marxism with academic "Analytical Philosophy". So, even if they were "spot on", which they aren't, they are very removed from "the core" of Marxist theory. They are a sui generis interpretation to which no real movement adheres, and has no weight in either class struggle or the academy.

If you want, take this subject to philosophy or theory, but please let's keep it off from learning.

Luís Henrique

[Tim Cornelis]

Speaking of analytical "Marxism" (analytical materialism), read MARXISM AND THE DIALECTICAL METHOD, A critique of G.A. Cohen by Sean Sayers. It demonstrates quite well, and very concisely, why (in Sayers' words) "the dialectical method is the necessary basis for an adequate theory of history and an indispensable part of Marx's thought."

[RedWorker]

Given that the OP has made three recent threads all referencing dialectical materialism as a key part of Marxism, I think this discussion is relevant.

It's not about what Lichtenstein's theories may or may not be. Nobody needs to take Lichtenstein's line in order to criticize dialectical materialism. Her website is referenced here only because it contains some explanations of the basic criticisms to dialectical materialism.

I contend that Marx's materialism was fundamentally born out of the opposition to Hegel's idealism, that Marx's work had no fundamental base in Hegelian dialectics but rather in the rejection of Hegelian dialectics, and that "dialectical materialism", a concept never used (whether labelled thus or not) by Marx is a mystification, a big cloud of dogma which attempts to infect Marxism with Hegelianism and idealism.

There is no evidence that any of Marx's work would result in the conclusion of "dialectical materialism". This is why all the arguments that support "dialectical materialism" involve Hegel, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, obscure and unpublished works of Engels in which he gives Hegel's theories far too much weight, but not Marx. These arguments claim that because Marx "found the rational kernel within Hegel's mystic shell", Marx's fundamental philosophical line is "dialectical materialism", which basically is Hegelian dialectics but in a 'materialist' interpretation.

I think this is an entirely wrong interpretation. Marx rejected Hegelian dialectics in general, and they cannot possibly have a 'materialist' interpretation in the way that is argued by "dialectical materialists". The whole of Marx's materialism was based on rejecting and criticizing Hegel's thought. At most, like Marx says, he may have learnt from the 'rational' principles after taking out the "mystified shell". But this is no evidence for asserting that Marx's work is fundamentally based on a materialist re-interpretation of Hegel. And this is the assertion of "dialectical materialism".

Marx never engaged in the mystified, incoherent cloud of dogma that has come to dominate "dialectical materialism". He never engaged in "A is not A", "negation of the negation", etc. Rather, his work was characterized by the total absence of such nonsense. His engagement with it at most amounted to "coquetting with the modes of expression peculiar to Hegel" in a very limited fashion, as he explained.


If you want, take this subject to philosophy or theory, but please let's keep it off from learning.So take the subject there if you want, or keep it off from learning (by not replying) if you want, but don't post a refutation of someone else's post and then demand that no counter-refutation is posted appealing to the board. You may as well not have posted your refutation, instead of demanding that I don't post mine.

[Alet]

I contend that Marx's materialism was fundamentally born out of the opposition to Hegel's idealism, that Marx's work had no fundamental base in Hegelian dialectics but rather in the rejection of Hegelian dialectics, and that "dialectical materialism", a concept never used (whether labelled thus or not) by Marx is a mystification, a big cloud of dogma which attempts to infect Marxism with Hegelianism and idealism.

There is no evidence that any of Marx's work would result in the conclusion of dialectical materialism.

'My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.'
- Karl Marx, 1873, Afterword to the Second German Edition [of 'Capital']

And of course he engaged in 'negation of the negation', for example when it comes to private ownership.

[Troika]

-

[RedWorker]

'My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.'

Marx's thought may very well have been based on the opposite of Hegelian dialectics. That does not diverge from what I said. But Marx's method had nothing to do with what 'dialectical materialist' theorists, such as Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky later claimed to be Marx's interpretation of dialectics, which they branded "dialectical materialism". They basically attempted to re-introduce mystification, and furthermore to argue that Marx's philosophical line was based on a re-interpretation of Hegel rather than the rejection of Hegel.

Give me one quote of Marx in which he is engaging in the mystification promoted by "dialectical materialist" theorists.

[Tim Cornelis]

How can you say that Marx never used "negation of the negation" (i.e. synthesis) when it's prominently featured in Anti-Dühring, which was practically a work by Marx and Engels, as Engels has read it in its entirety to Marx, and Marx provided notes and corrections.

Dialectics is so unmistakably evident in Marx's texts, I really can't see how people miss it. Analogies to metamorphosis, references and use of development, alienation, negation of the negation, concepts like "capital is a social relationship, not an object", etec. etc.`I mean, his methodology is clearly dialectical. He begins by abstraction in Das Kapital, and then gradually adds components that make the pictured scenario more realistic, where reality is then depicted as a totality consisting of interacting components. He criticised economists for being vulgar because they were preoccupied with appearances, phenomenological analysis, and did not penetrate reality, a reality consisting of interacting particulars/components. This is clearly borrowed from Hegel's dialectics of universal (thesis), particulars (anti-thesis), and a universal consisting of particulars (synthesis).


Maybe we can split this thread.

[Alet]

They basically attempted to re-introduce mystification, and furthermore to argue that Marx's philosophical line was based on a re-interpretation of Hegel rather than the rejection of Hegel.

Why is this contradictory? His re-interpretation is the rejection of Hegel's dialectical idealism, solely because it is the 'direct opposite'.


Give me one quote of Marx in which he is engaging in the mystification promoted by "dialectical materialist" theorists.

Again, I can only point to the afterword of 'Capital':


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

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

Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method?

Of course the method of presentation must differ in form from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyse its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described. If this is done successfully, if the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a mere a priori construction.

My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.

The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised nearly thirty years ago, at a time when it was still the fashion. But just as I was working at the first volume of “Das Kapital,” it was the good pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre Epigonoi [Epigones – Büchner, Dühring and others] who now talk large in cultured Germany, to treat Hegel in same way as the brave Moses Mendelssohn in Lessing’s time treated Spinoza, i.e., as a “dead dog.” I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even here and there, in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him. The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.

In its mystified form, dialectic became the fashion in Germany, because it seemed to transfigure and to glorify the existing state of things. In its rational form it is a scandal and abomination to bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire professors, because it includes in its comprehension and affirmative recognition of the existing state of things, at the same time also, the recognition of the negation of that state, of its inevitable breaking up; because it regards every historically developed social form as in fluid movement, and therefore takes into account its transient nature not less than its momentary existence; because it lets nothing impose upon it, and is in its essence critical and revolutionary.

The contradictions inherent in the movement of capitalist society impress themselves upon the practical bourgeois most strikingly in the changes of the periodic cycle, through which modern industry runs, and whose crowning point is the universal crisis. That crisis is once again approaching, although as yet but in its preliminary stage; and by the universality of its theatre and the intensity of its action it will drum dialectics even into the heads of the mushroom-upstarts of the new, holy Prusso-German empire.

In my opinion it is very obvious, not only in this text but in any writing by Marx, that he wasn't just a materialist, but also 'discovered the laws of dialectics'. He just never used the term 'dialectical materialism', but his method is so unmistakable...

[RedMaterialist]

Hello,

Debating is not a form of being able to use fallacies in the most clever way. It sparks a dialogue between people with a final goal of finding out the truth.

Interesting. I think Marx went through a similar transition. But he also said that the point of debate was not just to discover the truth, but rather to smash and destroy the enemy, the bourgeoisie. I'm not sure where he said that, but I will try to look it up. He expressed a similar idea when he said the point of philosophy was not to understand the world but to change it.

As far as dialectics, good luck.

[Luís Henrique]

It's not about what Lichtenstein's theories may or may not be. Nobody needs to take Lichtenstein's line in order to criticize dialectical materialism. Her website is referenced here only because it contains some explanations of the basic criticisms to dialectical materialism.

It contains some explanations of her criticisms to "dialectical materialism". Which are absolutely idiossincratic, and do not represent any sizeable tendency among academics, scientists, philosophers, be them Marxist or not. And much less any sizeable tendency among leftist activism.


I contend that Marx's materialism was fundamentally born out of the opposition to Hegel's idealism, that Marx's work had no fundamental base in Hegelian dialectics but rather in the rejection of Hegelian dialectics, and that "dialectical materialism", a concept never used (whether labelled thus or not) by Marx is a mystification, a big cloud of dogma which attempts to infect Marxism with Hegelianism and idealism.

Of course Marx's thought stands in direct opposition to Hegel's idealism. And of course it stems directly from it. How is that difficult to understand?

Marx was a radically critical thinker, and whenever he builds something he does it by destroying something else. In great measure, he took his time to destroy Hegelianism, and that is because he doublessly thought destroying Hegelianism was important, which in turn comes out of his realisation of Hegel's importance.


There is no evidence that any of Marx's work would result in the conclusion of "dialectical materialism". This is why all the arguments that support "dialectical materialism" involve Hegel, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, obscure and unpublished works of Engels in which he gives Hegel's theories far too much weight, but not Marx.

This a word play.

You can understand "dialectical materialism" either as what was christened "dialetical materialism" by some of the thinkers you quote, or you can understand "dialectical materialism" as any form of "materialism" that is, cumulatively, dialectical. No, you won't find many signs that Marx would agree with the conclusions of the folk you mention. Yes, there is abundant material in Marx that can be considered evidence that he was a materialist, and that his thought was dialectical.

So, to put it short, Marx certainly wasn't a Dialectical Materialist. It quite seems, however, that he was a dialectical materialist.

Ms. Lichtenstein's argument is founded in such word play. Since Marx was not a Leninist, and Lenin was a Dialectical Materialist, it follows that Marx was not a dialectical materialist, ie, that his materialism was not dialectical, and, consequently, that his method was not dialectical.

You asked for an example of sophistry in Ms. Lichtenstein's work? There is one.


These arguments claim that because Marx "found the rational kernel within Hegel's mystic shell", Marx's fundamental philosophical line is "dialectical materialism", which basically is Hegelian dialectics but in a 'materialist' interpretation.

Maybe this line of thinking still exists, but except for a few pseudo-Maoist cults, I doubt it has any importance in the real world. I have asked elsewhere for the locations of this peculiar windmill, and it appears to be an SWP problem (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2388833&postcount=185).


I think this is an entirely wrong interpretation. Marx rejected Hegelian dialectics in general, and they cannot possibly have a 'materialist' interpretation in the way that is argued by "dialectical materialists".

It is an entirely wrong interpretation. As is Ms. Lichtenstein's. And what is more, both errors have the same source, are rooted in the same misunderstanding, and are, in their mutual relation, a fine example of "unity of opposites". Both stem from a completely undialectical understanding of what "rejection" is. According to both "Dialectical Materialists" and Ms. Lichtenstein, you either reject or accept something; it is a metaphysical opposition, undbridgeable.

But a dialectical undertanding of "rejection" is that rejecting involves (or may involve) both rupture and continuity. There is no doubt that Marx rejected Hegel's dialetics. This rejection, however, was dialectical itself; it doesn't equate to a methodic removal of "atoms" (to use Ms. Lichtenstein's curious terminology) of Hegel, as much as it doesn't equate to merely putting it upside down (not to talk that putting it upside down isn't merely inverting the order between matter and ideas).

But this has more to do with the "materialist" part than with the "dialectical" one: Marx's materialism was (is) radically different from all previous (or posterior) forms of materialism, in that the "materiality" of human nature is not understood merely as an issue of the millenary dispute about what comes first, matter or idea; instead, the very "ideal" part of the inequation is interpreted in a material way, as human praxis. Material praxis, historical praxis.

Ms. Lichtenstein, on the other hand, is stuck at a pre-Feuerbachian level. To her, "materialism" means just this inanity, that the world is made of atoms, not of Platonic Forms. Consequently, her materialism cannot be dialectical, but cannot also be historic. This is easy to see in her rejection of actual historic thinking: to her, socialism is not a historic trend immanent to capitalist societies; instead, it is merely a matter of resolve, something that we should strive for. Further consequentially, it dispenses with a capitalist material base: it has always been an open door to mankind. Which goes hand in hand with her curious, and blatantly anti-Marxist, conception of an a-historical "ruling class" that encompasses bourgeoisie, nobility, and ancient slaveholders in a metaphysical continuity.


The whole of Marx's materialism was based on rejecting and criticizing Hegel's thought.

Exactly. Not in rejecting or criticising Parmenides or Aquinas, Hume or Descartes. And why that? Because Hegel is less important than Plato or Scotus, Berkeley or Voltaire? See how ridiculous such assumption would be?

If you are right, moreso, then Ms. Lichtenstein must be wrong, for to her it is apparent that the whole of Marx's materialism is based on ignoring Hegel's thought...


Marx never engaged in the mystified, incoherent cloud of dogma that has come to dominate "dialectical materialism". He never engaged in "A is not A", "negation of the negation", etc. Rather, his work was characterized by the total absence of such nonsense. His engagement with it at most amounted to "coquetting with the modes of expression peculiar to Hegel" in a very limited fashion, as he explained.

Well, if you actually read Marx, you will find lots of "A is not A", "negation of negation", "unity of opposites", "turns into its opposite", etc. Maybe that is just him "coquetting with the modes of expression peculiar to Hegel". But then we would have to analyse Marx's thought, and thought processes, in a deeper fashion than is possible in a single revleft post, or in a mere afterword to an already published book.


So take the subject there if you want, or keep it off from learning (by not replying) if you want, but don't post a refutation of someone else's post and then demand that no counter-refutation is posted appealing to the board. You may as well not have posted your refutation, instead of demanding that I don't post mine.

I hadn't "refuted" your post; I merely pointed to its complete inadequacy as 1. a post in Learning; and 2. an aswer to a question about "the core" of Marxist theory. I am refuting it now, and hope it is evident how such refutation is even farther removed from the spirit of the Learning Forum.

So, can some mod or admin relocate this thread, or split the relevant posts elsewhere?

Luís Henrique

[RedWorker]

Let me get this right. So, you agree that Marx's methodology does not logically result in the conclusion of the school of "Dialectical Materialism" developed by Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, etc.? If so, then I do not diverge significantly from your point. (or at least, I have no reason to yet)

[PhoenixAsh]

The PKK (an explicitly feminist anarcho-communist Kurdish fighting force)

Wait...what? No they aren't.

The PKK is transitioning from Marxist-Leninism with nationalist and patriarchal attitudes towards a Boochkinite fusion of Libertarian Municipal Confederalism. But the PKK is far from Anarchist or Anarcho-communist. Their organizational structure is top down and they openly advocate the adherence to the differences in existing religion views (including those on the position of women) and class structures while adopting a bourgeoisie parliamentary system and legal system even within Rojava.

The development is hopeful but to call it anarcho-communist is extremely weird.

[Troika]

Anarchist armies are generally organized from the top-down. Their raison d'etre is fighting, not governance. They were formerly maoist.

It's essentially mandatory for them to read feminist thought. They have workshops for deprogramming the men. Half of their fighting force is made up of women. Your understanding of feminism is nonexistent though so it's not surprising you'd confuse patriarchy and feminism.

[Rafiq]

Let me get this right. So, you agree that Marx's methodology does not logically result in the conclusion of the school of "Dialectical Materialism" developed by Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, etc.? If so, then I do not diverge significantly from your point. (or at least, I have no reason to yet)

The problem is that the dialectic was, by in part, transformed into a subset of formal logic in order to accommodate itself to official state 'ideology'. This was under the backdrop of a wider ideological transformation, which could be seen not only in "official ideology" but domains of art, culture, etc. - Lenin indirectly had much to do with this - not with intention of course, but Lenin's conception of dialectics as outlined in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism was transformed into a (and for lack of a better word) content-based dogma that was adhered to, and articulated through formal logic. "Dialectical materialism", therefore, if we refer solely to its employment by various 20th century states, is not a continuation of Marx's dialectic, but its very mortification.

Which is why, despite the fact that I largely agree with Luis', Rosa's works are worth delving into, prescsiely because they - like formal logic itself - can form a stepping stone to truly conceiving dialectical logic. What Rosa does, plainly, is render the dialectic meaningless where it ought to be rendered meaningless, in the domain of formal logic.

But the "truth" of dialectics is not wrought out through the maneuverings of logicians, it is an unavoidable reality in any attempt at conceiving change. One can call this "dialectics", or call it something else - but it is unavoidable. Of course, bourgeois ideologues, who cannot conceive processes of change insofar as the eternal nature of capitalism is a precondition for its ideological reproduction, can only go so far as to recognize the 'inevitable' processes which led to the present-day formation of society, much like Hegel did.

In a sense, Marx was more Hegelian than Hegel, in taking Hegel's method to conclusions that Hegel himself was incapable of doing. It is also for this reason that the word "dialectical materialism" is tautological: One cannot properly be a materialist without recognizing the dialectic, insofar as only through idealist metaphysics can history be conceived not as processes of change, but through the "manifestation" of various abstractions in thought that are said to be present throughout history. A mechanical materialist will say - "In one form or another" or "In one way or another" some kind of abstraction is found to be present throughout history. A real materialist, conversely, would recognize that a thing is nothing more than the contextual form it takes, and that essential characteristics about it cannot be derived from abstracting how similar it is to its "present" form.

[Tim Cornelis]

Anarchist armies are generally organized from the top-down. Their raison d'etre is fighting, not governance. They were formerly maoist.

It's essentially mandatory for them to read feminist thought. They have workshops for deprogramming the men. Half of their fighting force is made up of women. Your understanding of feminism is nonexistent though so it's not surprising you'd confuse patriarchy and feminism.

This is laughable. Their party structure is top-down, not just their military structure. They are categorically not anarchist. If they are explicitly anarchist, please give me a citation where they describe themselves as such.

[Troika]

If you say so. They claim to be Bookchinists, and while their current mode of organization may not be anarchist, they have stated that they are opposed to the existence of states. That said, if their party structure is authoritarian that would indicate that they are likely not anarchists.

Given that Phoenix is a troll who pretends to be unable to parse basic English I wasn't about to trust anything he claimed.

From the horse's mouth:

http://www.pkkonline.com/en/index.php?sys=article&artID=225

http://www.pkkonline.com/en/index.php?sys=article&artID=228



Capitalism and the nation-state represent the dominant male in its most institutionalised form. Capitalist society is the continuation and culmination of all the old exploitative societies. It is a continuous warfare against society and woman. To put it succinctly, capitalism and nation-state are the monopolism of the tyrannical and exploitative male.


As with all oppressive and exploitative social systems, capitalism could not rise without establishing a state. Whereas the dogmatism of the feudal system had a religious character, that of the archaic slave owning society had a mythological character. One god was embodied in the king and dynasty; but today god is presented as the invisible power in the state’s noble existence.

http://www.pkkonline.com/en/index.php?sys=article&artID=215

http://www.pkkonline.com/en/index.php?sys=article&artID=204

They are generally pretty vague about how they are organized. Their official site is, of course, propaganda, but I've been hard-pressed to find anything on them that isn't either from entities sympathetic to the Turkish state or anarchists like Graeber who idealize and mischaracterize them. All I know is that they want to present themselves as feminist socialists who are opposed to the formation of a state. For these reasons I would like to see your sources. If you've found anything that's reputable I'd like to read it.

I will admit their adherence to Apo, imprisoned by the Turks, raises all kinds of red flags.

Anyway, there's no need to flip out. I know the userbase is quite young here, but you can still talk to me like an adult.

[Sewer Socialist]

If you say so. They claim to be Bookchinists, and while their current mode of organization may not be anarchist, they have stated that they are opposed to the existence of states. That said, if their party structure is authoritarian that would indicate that they are likely not anarchists.

Given that Phoenix is a troll who pretends to be unable to parse basic English I wasn't about to trust anything he claimed.

From the horse's mouth:

http://www.pkkonline.com/en/index.php?sys=article&artID=225

http://www.pkkonline.com/en/index.php?sys=article&artID=228





http://www.pkkonline.com/en/index.php?sys=article&artID=215

http://www.pkkonline.com/en/index.php?sys=article&artID=204

They are generally pretty vague about how they are organized. Their official site is, of course, propaganda, but I've been hard-pressed to find anything on them that isn't either from entities sympathetic to the Turkish state or anarchists like Graeber who idealize and mischaracterize them. All I know is that they want to present themselves as feminist socialists who are opposed to the formation of a state. For these reasons I would like to see your sources. If you've found anything that's reputable I'd like to read it.

I will admit their adherence to Apo, imprisoned by the Turks, raises all kinds of red flags.

Anyway, there's no need to flip out. I know the userbase is quite young here, but you can still talk to me like an adult.

This doesn't really contradict Marxism, and is not really an explicitly anarchist position; it does look phrased in such a vague way as to broadly appeal to the revolutionary left at large, and even beyond, to people like Graeber.

Given your understanding of Marxism, specifically that exhibited in your first reply to this topic, I understand the confusion on your part.

[rezider]

Pardon me for ruining the discussion by expressing my joy of reading every single reply... This is like an all in one course through marxism and any other significant debate topic in existence. I'm joking, of course. But still it's an incredible way for me to see all the different kinds of opinions concerning the topic.

Don't stop the discussion! It's quite interesting and I enjoy it!

For the sake of not being completely inert, I shall quote Stephen Law on Marx:

'Like Hegel, Marx believed that there is a kind of logic to history - a way that it is determined to unfold. Marx also takes from Hegel the idea that the fundamental engine of change driving history forward is the dialectic. He also agrees that this historical process is headed in a particular direction, towards greater freedom and, ultimately, a society free of conflict.

The fundamental difference between Hegel and Marx is that while Hegel thought that the process was ultimately unfolding at the level of mind and ideas, Marx thought it was fundamentally one of material change. Hegel is a dialectic idealist - he blieves all change is ultimately change to what he calls Geist - roughly translated as 'mind' or 'spirit'- while, as Marx puts it, his philosophy turns Hegel's dialectic 'right side up'. He dispenses with Hegel's mysterious Geist. Marx insists that it is our material situation - in particular, the way in which production takes place - that shapes what is going on at the level of ideas, including political and religious thought.

According to Marx, if you want to understand why we think the way we do, you need to understand the dialectical process as unfolding materially.'

[Tim Cornelis]

If you say so. They claim to be Bookchinists, and while their current mode of organization may not be anarchist, they have stated that they are opposed to the existence of states. That said, if their party structure is authoritarian that would indicate that they are likely not anarchists.

Given that Phoenix is a troll who pretends to be unable to parse basic English I wasn't about to trust anything he claimed.

From the horse's mouth:

http://www.pkkonline.com/en/index.php?sys=article&artID=225

http://www.pkkonline.com/en/index.php?sys=article&artID=228





http://www.pkkonline.com/en/index.php?sys=article&artID=215

http://www.pkkonline.com/en/index.php?sys=article&artID=204

They are generally pretty vague about how they are organized. Their official site is, of course, propaganda, but I've been hard-pressed to find anything on them that isn't either from entities sympathetic to the Turkish state or anarchists like Graeber who idealize and mischaracterize them. All I know is that they want to present themselves as feminist socialists who are opposed to the formation of a state. For these reasons I would like to see your sources. If you've found anything that's reputable I'd like to read it.

I will admit their adherence to Apo, imprisoned by the Turks, raises all kinds of red flags.

Anyway, there's no need to flip out. I know the userbase is quite young here, but you can still talk to me like an adult.

I'm familiar with their theory, but the word "anarchist" isn't mentioned in their texts, while you said they explicitly identify as anarchist. So your position actually is, or seems to be, that they're implicitly anarchist. As for the last sentence, the userbase seems to be the oldest that it has been since I became a member, with most users well into their 20s, and a core of users in their 30s. I could've phrased it more respectfully yes.

[The Lizard]

I've found that you learn more from your enemies than you do your friends. Your opposition, ironically, can be a great asset. But yes, you are correct. The debating and arguing never ends. So long as you have a political opinion and are willing to voice it then you will be subject to constant counter-arguments. It is the nature of this field.

[Luís Henrique]

Let me get this right. So, you agree that Marx's methodology does not logically result in the conclusion of the school of "Dialectical Materialism" developed by Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, etc.? If so, then I do not diverge significantly from your point. (or at least, I have no reason to yet)

I do agree that Marx's methodology is different from what most Marxists think it is; that includes Ms. Lichtenstein, who is frequently worse than most, btw.

I don't agree that there is a school of "Dialectical Materialism" developed by Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and Mao. Those people have different positions, that posit different problems, and cannot be lumped together in such an irresponsible way - much less by identifying the difficulties that they pose with a supposed "Dialectical Materialism" that means the same for all of them.

If there is a problem that is common to those thinkers, it is that they (and many, many others, who differ from those four, and among themselves in even more vast ways), tend to ontologise the method (which is the same mistake that Marx pointed in Hegel, in his famous section about the method in Political Economy in the Grundrisse - a work that Ms. Lichtenstein despises, because it is profoundly dialectical, and tries to convince us that shouldn't make part of our canon because "Marx chose to not publish it" -: Along the first path the full conception was evaporated to yield an abstract determination; along the second, the abstract determinations lead towards a reproduction of the concrete by way of thought. In this way Hegel fell into the illusion of conceiving the real as the product of thought concentrating itself, probing its own depths, and unfolding itself out of itself, by itself, whereas the method of rising from the abstract to the concrete is only the way in which thought appropriates the concrete, reproduces it as the concrete in the mind. But this is by no means the process by which the concrete itself comes into being.).

Such methodological mistake, however, has no actual discernible bearing on the political positions that such people take (as we can easily see by the enormous diversity of such positions). Ms. Lichtenstein also confuses those levels, and tries to convince us that if we don't adopt her ideas, we will be doomed to repeat political mistakes of the past, which gives an extremely sectarian gist to her work.

Luís Henrique

[Rafiq]

It really goes back to looking for some kind of level of pseudo-concreteness that makes sense of the very tangled enigma that was the failure of 20th century Communism. Ultimately blaming dialectics conforms to what we might call formal materialism.

That is to say, one can try to be a materialist in one sense, but absolve themselves, as subjects, from being subordinate to its implications - i.e. that the Communists of the 20th century were free enough to have their mistakes in thought subsume the real conditions that led to their failure.

This is, however, a paranoid logic - it was not "dialectics" anymore than it was their "materialism" that led to the failure of 20th century Communism. We know this because you can abstract ANY common characteristic-in-thought that was evident in all of their failures, but one can seldom point to how, practically, this ACTUALLY led to them. It is quite an opportunistic move, because all so-called "revisionists" can use the October revolution as "proof" that they're right. The truth is, is that the failure of 20th century Communism is irreducible to any of these easy explanations.

[PhoenixAsh]

If you say so. They claim to be Bookchinists, and while their current mode of organization may not be anarchist, they have stated that they are opposed to the existence of states. That said, if their party structure is authoritarian that would indicate that they are likely not anarchists.

Given that Phoenix is a troll who pretends to be unable to parse basic English I wasn't about to trust anything he claimed.


Let me parse this for you so you can understand it:

The PKK is not an anarchist organization and doesn't identify as such.

You specifically claimed that not only did they claim this but that they claimed to be [I]anarcho-communists...which is an entirely specific branch of anarchism.

Your highly specific claim is discredited by the actual politics of the PPK, their organizational structure and it contradict just about everything Anarcho-Communists stand for...

But not only that.

Your basis for saying this is that they follow Boochkin's writings on libertarian municipalism.

Little problem with that.

Boochkin doesn't identify as an anarcho-communist in his later writings....and even distances himself from Anarchism in general in favor of libertarian municipalism. Which he sees, by the way, as essentially different from the federationalism of the anarcho-communists in that it it pre-revolution and a strategy for the revolution.

So no....you can't...in any way shape or form...call the PKK anarcho-communist and pretend to know what the hell you are actually talking about.

So...you have made a boo-boo, and, like you are want to do....rather than actually listening to what is being said you try to discredit the poster rather than the arguments.