Ollman On Dialectics

[Leo]

Did anyone read Bertell Ollman on dialectics, I think his most well known book was Dance of the Dialectic. What are your thoughts on him?

Here's the link for his book:

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/books/dd.php

[Zingu]

Oh no you fool, you realize what you have done? :o


The vulgar philistine "Marxists" and their crude anarchist buddies will now descend on this topic proclaiming that dialectics are "bullshit". Run!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Leo: Ollman's work. like that of other academic dialecticians, is just an exercise in a priori superscience, that is, the endeavour to derive truths about the world based on an idiosyncratic use of language, no evidence at all, and shed loads of impenetrable jargon -- just like traditional ruling class theorists have been doing for 2400 years.

Zingu: if you cannot defend your precious 'theory' abandon it. It has served us Marxists badly now for over 120 years. No other area of science would tolerate such a confused theory, such long term refutation and such irrational devotion.

[Leo]

Ollman's work. like that of other academic dialecticians, is just an exercise in a priori superscience, that is, the endeavour to derive truths about the world based on an idiosyncratic use of language, no evidence at all, and shed loads of impenetrable jargon -- just like traditional ruling class theorists have been doing for 2400 years.

Ah, and he seemed like such a brilliant marxist... In fact his radical jokes are worth taking a look at:

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/jokes.php

[Comrade Marcel]

Rosa: you spend all your precious time using "shed loads of inpenetrable jargon" to come to the conclusion that if you can't understand dialectics then it must not make sense. Really, just because you don't get it, doesn't mean others don't and that it can't be explained.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Marcel:


Rosa: you spend all your precious time using "shed loads of inpenetrable jargon" to come to the conclusion that if you can't understand dialectics then it must not make sense. Really, just because you don't get it, doesn't mean others don't and that it can't be explained.

I have been reading this gobbleygook now for over 25 years, and have read, re-read and pondered the 'classics' more times than you have excused the crimes of Stalin -- and I have read literally hundreds of books and articles on this mystical hotch-potch, made detailed notes on the more important of them --, and I have yet to find one that does what you so blithely assert.

You are welcome to try to do what these others have so miserably failed to do.

In fact, I go further: I claim that no one can possibly understand dialectical materialism, not because it is too difficult, or because we are not smart enough, but because, like the Christian Trinity (which originated in the same Hermetic/NeoPlatonic stables as did the ideas that later morphed into dialectics), it is incomprehensible.

So, if I do not understand dialectics, I am in good company: not even Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Stalin, Mao..., understood it.

Over to you if you know better....

[And anyone who reads and believes anything Hegel said, has no room to accuse me of using impenetrable jargon.

The few technical terms I use are explicable in material language, and are all dispensible.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Leo, Ollman is a good Marxist, he just has a crazy set of philosophical ideas installed in his brain.

[Hit The North]

From Ollman:


With all the misinformation conveyed about dialectics, it may be useful to start by saying what it is not. Dialectics is not a rock-ribbed triad of thesis-antithesis-synthesis that serves as an all-purpose explanation; nor does it provide a formula that enables us to prove or predict anything; nor is it the motor force of history. The dialectic, as such, explains nothing, proves nothing, predicts nothing and causes nothing to happen. Rather, dialectics is a way of thinking that brings into focus the full range of changes and interactions that occur in the world. As part of this, it includes how to organize a reality viewed in this manner for purposes of study and how to present the results of what one finds to others, most of whom do not think dialectically.

I'm in full agreement with that.

Rosa:


Zingu: if you cannot defend your precious 'theory' abandon it. It has served us Marxists badly now for over 120 years. No other area of science would tolerate such a confused theory, such long term refutation and such irrational devotion.

So what would you put in its place in order to produce a systematic understanding of complex historical and social processes?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z, I show at my site, in Essay Two, that what Ollman says is the reverse of the truth; dialectics is a dogmatic system that has been imposed on nature and society, with little or no evidence to back it up. Indeed, Ollman himself derives all too many a priori theses from the alleged meaning of a few words he lifted from Hegel.


So what would you put in its place in order to produce a systematic understanding of complex historical and social processes?

Historical materialism.

[As I have said dozens of times!!]

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 15 2006, 04:55 PM
Z, I show at my site, in Essay Two, that what Ollman says is the reverse of the truth; dialectics is a dogmatic system that has been imposed on nature and society, with little or no evidence to back it up. Indeed, Ollman himself derives all too many a priori theses from the alleged meaning of a few words he lifted from Hegel.


So what would you put in its place in order to produce a systematic understanding of complex historical and social processes?

Historical materialism.

[As I have said dozens of times!!]
But doesn't Historical Materialism require a dialectical approach to studying society and interpreting social reality in ways which Ollman suggests - or most Marxists, come to that?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


But doesn't Historical Materialism require a dialectical approach to studying society and interpreting social reality in ways which Ollman suggests - or most Marxists, come to that?

Traditionally you are right, but there is no logical, scientific or theoretical connection between the two -- just tradition and inertia connects them.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 15 2006, 07:17 PM
Z:


But doesn't Historical Materialism require a dialectical approach to studying society and interpreting social reality in ways which Ollman suggests - or most Marxists, come to that?

Traditionally you are right, but there is no logical, scientific or theoretical connection between the two -- just tradition and inertia connects them.
So you don't believe that the capitalist mode of production in which we live operates as a totality of social forces the mediations of which produce social reality? Or that the job of Marxist theory is to provide an analysis of these outcomes?

Now I'm no philosopher with a knowledge of the dialectic within philosophical tradition and I could care less about dialectical materialism. However, it seems to me that marxism provides a distinctive form of analysis which separates it from bourgeoise sociology and helps us to penetrate deeper below the surface appearance of social reality and to cast our view wider and account for the manifold 'determinations' (I've put it in inverted commas to save you the trouble ;) ) which account for concrete social events and phenomena.

Now Marx and Lenin and Trotsky and Gramsci and generations of marxist theorists and activists claim that this dinstinctive approach includes analysis based on dialectical thinking.

Are they wrong? You seem to claim they are. So my question is, what method are they using if it's not the one they claim?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


So you don't believe that the capitalist mode of production in which we live operates as a totality of social forces the mediations of which produce social reality? Or that the job of Marxist theory is to provide an analysis of these outcomes?


What can I tell you? I have already said I accept historical materialism. How many different ways are there to inform you of that fact? If plain English is not enough, which language would you prefer?


Now I'm no philosopher with a knowledge of the dialectic within philosophical tradition and I could care less about dialectical materialism. However, it seems to me that marxism provides a distinctive form of analysis which separates it from bourgeoise sociology and helps us to penetrate deeper below the surface appearance of social reality and to cast our view wider and account for the manifold 'determinations' (I've put it in inverted commas to save you the trouble ) which account for concrete social events and phenomena.

Once again, I accept historical materialism, so all this is wasted breath.


Now Marx and Lenin and Trotsky and Gramsci and generations of marxist theorists and activists claim that this dinstinctive approach includes analysis based on dialectical thinking.

I deny this. We do not need the mystical stuff they imported from Hegel to make historical materialism work.


Are they wrong? You seem to claim they are. So my question is, what method are they using if it's not the one they claim?

As Lenin noted, no science is above revision, no less so here.

So, unless you think dialectics is a final truth, yes they were wrong.

[Hit The North]

Rosa:


I deny this. We do not need the mystical stuff they imported from Hegel to make historical materialism work.

How is employing a particular mode of analysis (dialectics) mystical? As far as I can make out, Ollman isn't claiming that reality is dialectical, but that a dialectical analysis can help us to capture reality.


As Lenin noted, no science is above revision, no less so here.

So, unless you think dialectics is a final truth, yes they were wrong.

I'm not claiming dialectics is a final truth (whatever that is), but you're not really answering the question. If historical materialism doesn't require dialetical thinking, what is its proper modus operandi?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Fuck dialectics. The scientific method is all we need.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


How is employing a particular mode of analysis (dialectics) mystical? As far as I can make out, Ollman isn't claiming that reality is dialectical, but that a dialectical analysis can help us to capture reality.

Dialectics is based on Hermetic Philosophy, which seeks a union between the subjective and the objective, the soul and the absolute, the knower and the known. It uses the identity and union of opposites to do this, and explains all that happens as a result of the inner contradictions in finite beings as they work their way toward the absolute. All things are interconnected and dependent on one another in a cosmic Totality -- and they are united through internal relations.

The above summarises (with minor stylistic and terminological differences) Ollman's method: a priori mystical 'superscience'.


If historical materialism doesn't require dialectical thinking, what is its proper modus operandi?

We just need more and better science. And, we have adequate resources in ordinary material language to explain change (when linked to the non-Hegelian concepts used in historical materialism). We do not need the mystical jargon found in dialectics, which, as it turns out, cannot explain what it was set up to explian: change.

And dialectics is treated as a final truth -- proof? Read Essay Two at my site.

[Now, I set up my site in order to expand on all these points at great length -- greater than you will find anywhere else, ever. So, if you want more details, I suggest you read my Essays. Of course, you do not have to do that, but it will help prevent you asking pointless questions if you do.]

http://www.anti-dialectics.org

[hoopla]

Dialectics is essential, it helps critical thought. It is DM and HitoMat which are relics.

Marx was a philosopher, not a sicentist.

:unsure:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


Dialectics is essential, it helps critical thought. It is DM and HitoMat which are relics.

Marx was a philosopher, not a sicentist.

If you have nothing over and above the same old assertions to make, I suggest you do not make them.

Marx's PhD was in philosophy, but as his early writings after that show, he progressively disowned this branch of pseudo-knowledge.

But even if you were right, dialectics makes no sense at all, as is easy to show.

Among other things it depends on a misconstrual of a familiar participle of the verb 'to be' (or even "to be").

[Hit The North]

R:

A typical high-hat response:


[Now, I set up my site in order to expand on all these points at great length -- greater than you will find anywhere else, ever. So, if you want more details, I suggest you read my Essays. Of course, you do not have to do that, but it will help prevent you asking pointless questions if you do.]


It sometimes does seem pointless asking you questions, as you're very diffficult to pin down. So for instance, you proclaim yourself a historical materialist. Yet for most Marxists, historical materialism insists on seeing societies or modes of production as being totalities where the relationships and interactions between the various elements within the totality proceed dialectically. Also most historical materialists see these as internal relations.

For instance, most histomats agree that social change is driven by contradictions (or a clash) between the means of production and the relations of production. But unless we want to see this clash as a cause and effect relationship (whereby the means always determine the relations, or vise versa) then we need to introduce dialectics. This helps us to see the interplay between the two and helps us to avoid either a crude positivistic determinism (where technology runs the show) or a voluntarism (where class struggle is the only dominant factor).

Moreover, even in analytical terms, I don't know of another method which expresses the dynamism and movement of social reality. If you know of one, Rosa, I'd like to hear about it.


Dialectics is based on Hermetic Philosophy, which seeks a union between the subjective and the objective, the soul and the absolute, the knower and the known. It uses the identity and union of opposites to do this, and explains all that happens as a result of the inner contradictions in finite beings as they work their way toward the absolute. All things are interconnected and dependent on one another in a cosmic Totality -- and they are united through internal relations.

That may be so. Nevertheless the marxist dialectic has its origins in Marx's attempt to understand the relationship between the subjective and the objective, the relationship between the fate of individuals and the social and historical realities that bear down on them. It is an open-ended process, a mode of analysis which captures the dynamic forces of social reality and seeks to explain what is going on. It's not a closed circle seeking unity between disparate elements. And there's nowt cosmic about it.


We just need more and better science.

Another of your oft use phrases. But what do you mean? What type of science are you referring to? What mode of interpretation of scientific fact do you advocate? Realism, empricism, positivism, what?

I'm playing 'pin the tail on the donkey' here as I've read a lot of your critique of dialectics but not much affirmation about what you stand for. I've dipped into your website and, once again, there's a lot of critique but not much proposed to take its place. In fact, not much that is concrete at all which helps me to understand your position (I do thrive on practical illustration).

Here's a task for you (obviously, you don't have to undertake it):

Give an account of class relations under capitalism which does not incorporate a dialectical analysis. Or at least refer me to one.

[hoopla]

Among other things it depends on a misconstrual of a familiar participle of the verb 'to be' (or even "to be"). Really :rolleyes:

:lol:

That was a great week, really it was.

:lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


It sometimes does seem pointless asking you questions, as you're very diffficult to pin down. So for instance, you proclaim yourself a historical materialist. Yet for most Marxists, historical materialism insists on seeing societies or modes of production as being totalities where the relationships and interactions between the various elements within the totality proceed dialectically. Also most historical materialists see these as internal relations.

As difficult or as easy as I am to 'pin down', you DM-fans are as slippery as eels incomparison. Every time I have asked one and all of you to defend your ideas we just get the same old jargon and mystical notions, hand waving, sub-Aristotelian logic, diversionary tactics and bluster.

So, I am a model of clarity in comparison.

And, how many more times do I have to tell you: I accept historical materialism.

However, I defy you to say what you mean by 'dialectical relationships' and 'internal relations', etc.

Ollman's attempts are poor beyond words (in the book you mentioned, and in his earlier book 'Alienation').


For instance, most histomats agree that social change is driven by contradictions (or a clash) between the means of production and the relations of production.

We have been through this here many times; it is impossible for you DM-fans to say what you mean by the use of the word 'contradiction' here that does not involve you anthropomorphising nature and society.

The forces and relations of production do not and cannot argue among themselves (for that is what the word 'contradict' means).

And, as I have already said, we have literally thousands of words in ordinary material languge that allow us to talk about social change, without anthropomorphising or mystifying it, unlike dialectics. So Historical Materialism does not need this mystical theory (whose language anyway cannot explain anything).

Naturally, this cuts across the tradition you are relying on, but all scientific development is predicated on overturning tradition, especially if it is based on mysticism.


Moreover, even in analytical terms, I don't know of another method which expresses the dynamism and movement of social reality. If you know of one, Rosa, I'd like to hear about it.

As I have noted several times, we have abundant resources in the language of everyday life (created by workers) that depict the things you say, and far better than the wooden jargon you find in Hegel, or in dialectics (which cannot depict anything anyway since it is devoid of sense).


Nevertheless the marxist dialectic has its origins in Marx's attempt to understand the relationship between the subjective and the objective, the relationship between the fate of individuals and the social and historical realities that bear down on them. It is an open-ended process, a mode of analysis which captures the dynamic forces of social reality and seeks to explain what is going on. It's not a closed circle seeking unity between disparate elements. And there's nowt cosmic about it.

I deny this, and I can prove it. [Where? I have already told you....]


Another of your oft use phrases. But what do you mean? What type of science are you referring to? What mode of interpretation of scientific fact do you advocate? Realism, empricism, positivism, what?

The kind of science you see in most works on Historical Materialism (once the Hegelian jargon has been excised).

And we do not need any "Realism, empricism, positivism", since they are not examples of science, but philosophical theories (which are themselves just hot air).


I'm playing 'pin the tail on the donkey' here as I've read a lot of your critique of dialectics but not much affirmation about what you stand for. I've dipped into your website and, once again, there's a lot of critique but not much proposed to take its place. In fact, not much that is concrete at all which helps me to understand your position (I do thrive on practical illustration).

Well, you will get that impression if you just 'dip into' my Essays.

If you had have read them with 1% of the care I have devoted to the works of dialecticians (that I have been cursed with having to study over and over
now for 20 odd years), you would have seen in the introduction these words:


It is worth emphasising at the start that unless otherwise stated I have confined my remarks here to the so-called "Dialectics of Nature"; the extrapolation of 'dialectics' into areas governed by HM has been almost totally ignored -- except, that is, where this involves issues relevant to the analysis of DM itself, or where (in my view) DM fatally undermines the credibility of HM. This is not to say that I accept the validity of dialectical concepts that have been exported into HM; the opposite is in fact the case. However, since the point of this essay is to stem the flow of poison at its source in DM, only the former has been targeted.

HM = Historical Materialism; DM = Dialectical Materialism.

Since I fully accept historical materialism, I have no need to state my 'positive' views. But, since I want to stem the flow of poison, my comments are 100% hostile and negative toward this mystical theory you have swallowed.

Hence I go on to say:


Several other features of these Essays will strike the reader as rather odd: (1) their almost exclusively negative if not unremittingly hostile tone; (2) their quasi-dialectical structure (where the word "dialectical" is to be understood in its older, classical sense); (3) the total absence of any alternative philosophical theses; and (4) their analytic, almost relentless, style.

The first two of these are not unrelated. Although I have endeavoured to construct as comprehensive a case against DM as I am capable, I have also sought to raise objections to my own criticisms at almost every stage. While this strategy has been adopted to test my ideas to the limit, it has also been of some use in trying to make DM itself comprehensible. [Those who find the use of that word itself incomprehensible, should suspend disbelief until the Essays posted here are read, where they will find ample justification.]

To that end, the reader will find that many issues have been raised here for the first time ever, anywhere. Core DM-theses have been examined in unprecedented detail, often from a completely novel angle. It is a sad reflection of the mental paralysis induced in those who -- in Max Eastman's words -- "suffer from dialectics" that such key ideas have escaped detailed attention for over a hundred years, but it is nonetheless accurate for all that....

As was alleged earlier, it is the opinion of the present author that DM has contributed in its own not insignificant way to Marxism's spectacularly unsuccessful career. It is an alarming fact -- but nonetheless it is a fact -- that of all the major political ideologies/movements, Marxism is perhaps the least successful in human history. The role that DM has played in helping to engineer this disastrous state of affairs partly accounts for the persistently negative (if not openly hostile) tone adopted here. If revolutionaries genuinely wish to change the world by assisting in a successful working-class revolution (and the author certainly counts hesrself among those who do), then the sooner this alien-class ideology (DM) is excised the better.

If the main ideas presented here are correct, then it is clear that DM has assisted in its own not insignificant way to cripple the revolutionary movement; those who still cling on to this regressive doctrine (for whatever reason) are simply helping guarantee that the abysmal failure enjoyed by Marxism will continue into this new century. Unfortunately, it is far from clear whether either the planet or humanity can take another hundred years of Capitalism. Indeed, one more protracted cycle of DM-induced failures could mean that even fewer workers will take Marxism seriously -- or, which is roughly the same thing, live to tell the tale in anything remotely resembling a civilised society.

Items (3) and (4) in the above list are rather different, though. From time to time readers will find themselves asking the following question of the author: "Well, what's your theory then?" No alternative philosophical theory will be advanced here (or anywhere else for that matter). This tactic has not been adopted out of cussedness -- or even out of diffidence --, but because it is an important part of the Wittgensteinian method (used here) not to advance philosophical theories. Wittgenstein's approach means that no philosophical theory makes any sense. Why this is so (and which ideological motives underlie any contrary view) will be considered at length in Essays Nine and Twelve.

Now you challenge me:


Give an account of class relations under capitalism which does not incorporate a dialectical analysis. Or at least refer me to one.

Here's one for you: Give a dialectcial account of class relations under capitalism which does not incorporate a mystical analysis. Or at least refer me to one.

Since I am not interested in writing my own account of historical materialism (yet), I will not rise to your challenge.

My only aim at present is negative. If you don't like/accept/agree with this, I have to tell you, I care not.

And if you cling on to this theory, I must say the same to you and add that you are welcome to it.

Except I will note that you cannot defend it without mystifying history. If you are happy with that then the next 100 years of the failure of Marxism should not surprise you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


Really

That, I venture to suggest, is your most profound comment to date.

[RevolverNo9]

I've got Ollman's work on alienation I think... got it for free when the school library did a 'clear out' (which seemed - mostly - to involve getting rid of hundreds of books on Marxism and theory obtained during the '60s and '70s!)

Does it show insight into Marx's theories of alienation... or can one not see the wood for the dialectical trees... ?

[Hit The North]

R:


As difficult or as easy as I am to 'pin down', you DM-fans are as slippery as eels incomparison. Every time I have asked one and all of you to defend your ideas we just get the same old jargon and mystical notions, hand waving, sub-Aristotelian logic, diversionary tactics and bluster.


I'm not so much concerned with defending the dialectic method to you (a position which in your terms is indefensible anyway), I'm interested in trying to understand your version of historical materialism. For instance is your 'materialism' the static, dead materialism of pre-Marx? If not, how do you give it movement?


However, I defy you to say what you mean by 'dialectical relationships' and 'internal relations', etc.

Relationships which are in a constant and dynamic interplay with each other: e.g. means and relations within the forces of production; or political organisation and class consciousness within the proletariat. These have internal relations in that they condition each other (yes, I know they aren't shampoos!).


We have been through this here many times; it is impossible for you DM-fans to say what you mean by the use of the word 'contradiction' here that does not involve you anthropomorphising nature and society.

The forces and relations of production do not and cannot argue among themselves (for that is what the word 'contradict' means).


Then we speak different languages. You'll no doubt assert that you speak English. I'll just have to retort that I speak Marxism.

Here's a simple to understand and glaring fact about capitalism: It produces massive abundance and yet poverty exists everywhere and people are known to starve to death. That's what we marxists call a contradiction. Obviously we didn't consult the Oxford Dictionary before making the claim; we foolishly expected that most people would understand what we meant. I know of no workers who stop and say, 'Contradiction? Do mean capitalism is arguing with itself?' That level of intelligence seems to be a prerogative of philosophers.


Items (3) and (4) in the above list are rather different, though. From time to time readers will find themselves asking the following question of the author: "Well, what's your theory then?" No alternative philosophical theory will be advanced here (or anywhere else for that matter). This tactic has not been adopted out of cussedness -- or even out of diffidence --, but because it is an important part of the Wittgensteinian method (used here) not to advance philosophical theories. Wittgenstein's approach means that no philosophical theory makes any sense. Why this is so (and which ideological motives underlie any contrary view) will be considered at length in Essays Nine and Twelve.

The above text seems to miss the point that when Marx put Hegel back on his feet, the dialectic was no longer put to the task of abstract, philosophical systems building, but was transformed into an analytical tool of Political Economy which allowed Marx to synthesise the empirical evidence before him and develop a general theory of history and capitalism.


Here's one for you: Give a dialectcial account of class relations under capitalism which does not incorporate a mystical analysis. Or at least refer me to one.

That would be impossible because in your terms as soon as the dialectic method is introduced so is a mystical analysis.

As for referring you to one, try 18th Brumaire or The Class Struggles in France both by guess who.

[hoopla]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 16 2006, 03:46 PM
Hoopla:


Really

That, I venture to suggest, is your most profound comment to date.
Really :rolleyes:

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Historical materialism, from how I understand it, is fairly cut and dry. Society changes due to the historical conditions of the time, and past conditions influence future conditions via causation. This historical materialism, when viewed through a deterministic reference point, is quite reasonable. Historical materialism is really refining of cause and effect. It attempts to examine and pin down why changes in society happen.

Marx's dialectical materialism, as I see it, claims historical materialism has it wrong. Instead of class struggle being part of historical materialism and what influences society, it is the essential point form which society changes. In my opinion, Marx is trying to simplified something extremely complex - human history - and fails to justify dialectical materialism properly.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Revolver:


Does it show insight into Marx's theories of alienation... or can one not see the wood for the dialectical trees... ?

It is actually a good book; it just goes astray over 'internal relations'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


I'm interested in trying to understand your version of historical materialism. For instance is your 'materialism' the static, dead materialism of pre-Marx? If not, how do you give it movement?

Even if I wanted to I cannot 'give' history any more or less movement than it already has. The problem is how we represent it to ourselves.

Again, as I have told you several times now, ordinary language contains more than enough terms to enable us to represent the movement of history to ourselves, and it does this better than the lifeless jargon found in Hegel.

So, the materialism I espouse is not lifeless; it is given life by the use of material language the working class has developed as they interfaced with the world, with one another and with the class enemy. [Unlike the lifeless language you DM-fans have appropriated from Hegel.]

What more could you ask for?

If you ask that question again, I wil just cut and paste this answer.


Relationships which are in a constant and dynamic interplay with each other: e.g. means and relations within the forces of production; or political organisation and class consciousness within the proletariat. These have internal relations in that they condition each other (yes, I know they aren't shampoos!).

Well, this is what the brochure says, but I defy you to explicate these 'internal relations' in anything other than idealist terms.


I'll just have to retort that I speak Marxism.

But, even in such a 'language' (which, if it is not related to the material world by the class that invented language -- the working class --, must be Ideal) you will find it impossible to say what these 'contradictions' are, and why they are such.

I have been asking comrades now for more years than I care to remember what these are, and I have yet to be told.




[b]It produces massive abundance and yet poverty exists everywhere and people are known to starve to death. That's what we marxists call a contradiction. Obviously we didn't consult the Oxford Dictionary before making the claim; we foolishly expected that most people would understand what we meant. I know of no workers who stop and say, 'Contradiction? Do mean capitalism is arguing with itself?' That level of intelligence seems to be a prerogative of philosophers.

No, but you did consult a mystic: Hegel.

The example you give, unacceptable though it it, is not a contradiction.

Once more I defy you to say why it is one.

If you are just going to throw words at things, in defiance of their established material use (a use determined by the working class, not me), and without any idea how you are using it (on your own admission you cannot tell me), why choose that word?

Why not call it a 'tomato', or a 'pudding'?

You might as well do this for all the use that word (i.e., 'contradiction') is, unless you can say why that word is the right one to use. And I suggest you cannot do this, or you would have done so by now.


The above text seems to miss the point that when Marx put Hegel back on his feet, the dialectic was no longer put to the task of abstract, philosophical systems building, but was transformed into an analytical tool of Political Economy which allowed Marx to synthesise the empirical evidence before him and develop a general theory of history and capitalism.

Again, you have just accepted what the brochure says; I can show (and have shown) that Dialectical Marxists have built a system, and an a priori one at that, just like the Idealists from whom they got these anti-materialist notions.


As for referring you to one, try 18th Brumaire or The Class Struggles in France both by guess who.

An excellent work.

Very few mystical words in there, I note.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dooga:


This historical materialism, when viewed through a deterministic reference point, is quite reasonable.

I notice you have to use that animistic notion to make this work.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoop:


Really

I think you have already made this profound point.

But, well done for being able to spell it right at least twice.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 16 2006, 06:10 PM
Dooga:


This historical materialism, when viewed through a deterministic reference point, is quite reasonable.

I notice you have to use that animistic notion to make this work.
Argumentum ad hominem

[hoopla]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 16 2006, 06:25 PM
Hoop:


Really

I think you have already made this profound point.

But, well done for being able to spell it right at least twice.
Thanks :rolleyes:
(another "profound point", as I am acknowledging Rosa's greatness).

Anyway, I think Marcuse would say that Marxian theory must remain philosphical and not strictly economistic (something which I think, Marx would not like) because philosophy is infused in every moment of the economic.

More importantly, Marxian theory is a critique, and we ought not lose that ability, simply becasuse "some people with too much time on their hands" argue about our meaning. A positivist would do the same, and positivism is not a critical philosophy.

So, why is Wittgenistein a critical, and not a bourgeois philosophy. It is a philosophy - I don't see you posting much in the theory group, R :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dooga:


Argumentum ad hominem

I suspect you do not know what this means, or you would not have used it here.

If I say you have used such terms, then that is a criticsm of your argument, not you.

If I said you were foolish (etc) to do so, that would be ad hominem.

And, as you no doubt know, because of your own extensive research in logic, that the ad hominem fallacy is an informal one, and as such, can be used to expose inconsistency in the approach one's opponent takes, hence, perhaps, encouraging him/her to be more consistent.

If so, and because so, not all ad hominen arguments are to be deprecated.

So, I trust this will encourage a materialist like you to stop appealing to concepts that suggest you are an idealist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla puts his head above the parapet once more:


Anyway, I think Marcuse would say that Marxian theory must remain philosphical and not strictly economistic (something which I think, Marx would not like) because philosophy is infused in every moment of the economic.

So, this just tells me you believe what you read.

[And, in this case, you seem to 'believe' the incomprehensible -- unless, of course, you would like to explain this 'pearl of wisdom' in non-jargonised English so that the rest of us can join with you in appreciating its profundity?]

Do you just like posting random, unconnected thoughts, or is there some plan behind disconnected musings of this sort:


A positivist would do the same, and positivism is not a critical philosophy?

I'd normally say 'eh?' to this type of stuff, but I think it is in fact a 'sub-eh?' post.

And just to prove you are an expert at this, here is some more:


So, why is Wittgenistein a critical, and not a bourgeois philosophy. It is a philosophy - I don't see you posting much in the theory group, R

Have you not learnt yet that I stopped taking your questions seriously, weeks ago, when you demonstrated you were incapable of reading even simple replies from me with any care?

And you will not get round me with this level of amateurish snivelling:


(another "profound point", as I am acknowledging Rosa's greatness).

[hoopla]

amateurish snivellingAnd here Rosa admits it, the "philosophy" she practices is the one of careerist atomized positive thought, whose only target is the work of her "peers".

One too many "slips", eh Rosa :lol:

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 17 2006, 09:18 PM
Dooga:


Argumentum ad hominem

I suspect you do not know what this means, or you would not have used it here.

If I say you have used such terms, then that is a criticsm of your argument, not you.

If I said you were foolish (etc) to do so, that would be ad hominem.

And, as you no doubt know, because of your own extensive research in logic, that the ad hominem fallacy is an informal one, and as such, can be used to expose inconsistency in the approach one's opponent takes, hence, perhaps, encouraging him/her to be more consistent.

If so, and because so, not all ad hominen arguments are to be deprecated.

So, I trust this will encourage a materialist like you to stop appealing to concepts that suggest you are an idealist.
You were suggesting that I could not make an idea work without using mysticism (something that is an insult amongst most leftists). It was an attack on my claim simply because I was being mystic (replace mystic with stupid to get the jist of what you were claiming). You say my claim is somehow less valid because it is coming from a mystic, which you implied I was, and because it is mystic. Both the former and latter were not justified.

To simplify what I am saying, I was pointing out (in fancy language) that you were being an ass, and you failed to justify why you were acting in such a way.

[hoopla]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 17 2006, 09:30 PM
Hoopla puts his head above the parapet once more:


Anyway, I think Marcuse would say that Marxian theory must remain philosphical and not strictly economistic (something which I think, Marx would not like) because philosophy is infused in every moment of the economic.

So, this just tells me you believe what you read.

[And, in this case, you seem to 'believe' the incomprehensible -- unless, of course, you would like to explain this 'pearl of wisdom' in non-jargonised English so that the rest of us can join with you in appreciating its profundity?]

Do you just like posting random, unconnected thoughts, or is there some plan behind disconnected musings of this sort:


A positivist would do the same, and positivism is not a critical philosophy?

I'd normally say 'eh?' to this type of stuff, but I think it is in fact a 'sub-eh?' post.

And just to prove you are an expert at this, here is some more:


So, why is Wittgenistein a critical, and not a bourgeois philosophy. It is a philosophy - I don't see you posting much in the theory group, R

Have you not learnt yet that I stopped taking your questions seriously, weeks ago, when you demonstrated you were incapable of reading even simple replies from me with any care?

And you will not get round me with this level of amateurish snivelling:


(another "profound point", as I am acknowledging Rosa's greatness).
Marcuse - a Marxist philosopher
Philosophy - you tell me
Economic - sum of social relations that make up capital
Economistic - bourgeois or scientific theories of the laws of capital
Critical - an rigorous enquiry into the limits of something, where does the theory fai on its own termsl.
Positivism - a philosphical movement, which places the metaphysical as meaningless, science as king, and cashes out sentences in how they are to be measure (thus ignoring context)
Bourgeois - people own capital and buy labour power in order to valorize it (?)
Positive - see positivism, affirming, does not enquire into limits, is not critical or negative, posit of laws behind what we experience day to day.

Obviously, these are not very well informed, guesses, and I've lost my notes

:lol:

[hoopla]

Can ayone here give a summation of Rosa's work, and do they find what I say here incomprehensible?

[hoopla]

Wittgenstein is about as relevent to class struggle as what Lenin liked for breakfast.

Unless Rosa is on a struggle to recreate the past piece by piece (follow me?), its just a joke to tell yout friends about ("Dude, do you know what Lenin liked for breakfast" "No" "Eggs, I swear" "Wtf").

And even then, if she manages the near impossible (becomes Lenin through eating what he liked for breakfast), its just that, a joke, a historical recreation, like "Middle March", made to entertain the middle classes for a few Sunday evenings.



Who here thinks that Rosa's analysis of philosophy is more relevent that Korsch's?

Its time to give us the punch line (follow?) Rosa (a short consumable justification of your views) so that everyone can move on from your historical recreation (of what Lenin liked for breakfast, or something similarly relevent, geddit?).

Your clearly kinda bright, Rosa, so start thinking negatively :lol:

Unless I've missed something :unsure:

Edited cos it was, a little, unclear.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoop:


And here Rosa admits it, the "philosophy" she practices is the one of careerist atomized positive thought, whose only target is the work of her "peers".

As I said, you are a waste of time.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dooga:


were suggesting that I could not make an idea work without using mysticism (something that is an insult amongst most leftists). It was an attack on my claim simply because I was being mystic (replace mystic with stupid to get the jist of what you were claiming). You say my claim is somehow less valid because it is coming from a mystic, which you implied I was, and because it is mystic. Both the former and latter were not justified.

Not only do you use mystical notions, you don't even understand your own criticisms of me.

If you are going to 'try' to use 'logical' terms, I suggest you learn what they mean first.

Then, and only then, will you be able to proceed to the next phase: constructing even a weak attempt to criticise me.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoop:


Obviously, these are not very well informed, guesses, and I've lost my notes

And your sanity, it seems.

Exhibit A:


Wittgenstein is about as relevent to class struggle as what Lenin liked for breakfast.

Unless Rosa is on a struggle to recreate the past piece by piece (follow me?), its just a joke to tell yout friends about.

And even then, if she manages the near impossible, its just that, a joke, a historical recreation, like "Middle March", made to entertain the middle classes for a few Sunday evenings.

Who here thinks that Rosa's analysis of philosophy is more relevent that Korsch's?

Its time to give us the punch line (follow?) Rosa (a short consumable justification of your views) so that everyone can move on from your historical recreation.

Your clearly kinda bright, Rosa, so start thinking negatively

Unless I've missed something

Missed something? Probably your medication.

[hoopla]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 17 2006, 11:04 PM
Hoop:


And here Rosa admits it, the "philosophy" she practices is the one of careerist atomized positive thought, whose only target is the work of her "peers".

As I said, you are a waste of time.
Because I am not a peer, I am just a proletarian? Because I won't speak your funny language - which amounts to a few mechanically applied insults.



Wittgenstein is about as relevent to class struggle as what Lenin liked for breakfast.

Unless Rosa is on a struggle to recreate the past piece by piece (follow me?), its just a joke to tell yout friends about.

And even then, if she manages the near impossible, its just that, a joke, a historical recreation, like "Middle March", made to entertain the middle classes for a few Sunday evenings.

Who here thinks that Rosa's analysis of philosophy is more relevent that Korsch's?

Its time to give us the punch line (follow?) Rosa (a short consumable justification of your views) so that everyone can move on from your historical recreation.

Your clearly kinda bright, Rosa, so start thinking negatively

Unless I've missed something



Missed something? Probably your medication.
Don't tell me, analogies are metaphysical too? With no analogies, what poetry will we have under communism - will I be unable to say "Rosa, you are as bitter as lemon, and twice as yellow" ;)

Just put up the brute justification behind "philosophy is meaningless", or can you only appeal to Wittgenstein's authority? Cos that the only other consumable argument I can see.

[hoopla]

Dooga, its not a ad hominom, if she says your argument is stupid, but she has to prove it. But you agreed, so?

[hoopla]

R: You are using a sledgehammer when you should be using a chisel. Sure, some philosophy justifies the bourgeoisie, but, in order for your position not to be massively reactionary, you have to deny the possibility of a proletarian philosophy, which is denying our infinite creativity.

Unless, that is, you have proof

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 17 2006, 11:08 PM
Dooga:


were suggesting that I could not make an idea work without using mysticism (something that is an insult amongst most leftists). It was an attack on my claim simply because I was being mystic (replace mystic with stupid to get the jist of what you were claiming). You say my claim is somehow less valid because it is coming from a mystic, which you implied I was, and because it is mystic. Both the former and latter were not justified.

Not only do you use mystical notions, you don't even understand your own criticisms of me.

If you are going to 'try' to use 'logical' terms, I suggest you learn what they mean first.

Then, and only then, will you be able to proceed to the next phase: constructing even a weak attempt to criticise me.
Just because you say I use mystical notions doesn't mean I do. Of course, you might say I did somewhere else and tell me to look there, in order to dodge the issue, but you still no no definitive proof that I used any mystical notions (to my knowledge) or that I use them in a context that is illegitimate (such as metaphor).

I don't understand my own criticisms of you? Who is to say that, you? Your opinion is suddenly more valid than mine or anyone elses? For me to understand something you are presenting, the burden is entirely on me to understand it and to no degree on you to explain it? You continuously berate others for not comprehending your ideas while failing to provide legitimate explanations. Sure, you could be right, but you give me and everyone else no reason to care whether you are or not.

For a similiar comparison, many proleteriat fail to understand communist theory. If we call them weak-minded and act like you do, we will not achieve the practical change that we seek. The point is not to philosophize the world but change it, to paraphrase Marx, and your pedagogical attempts are failing to achieve that end.

Also, your last part is entirely elitist and troubling coming from a leftist. Nothing you wrote would convince a reasonable person to disregard my critiques of you/your ideas. They may disregard them from their own analysis, but you attempted to refute my refutations without adding any reasonable arguments to the conversation. In response to me saying "your ideas are wrong because of reason A, B, and C" (let the reader determine if the reasons are valid to them), you respond "your criticism is not true because you are a stupid poopy head." Your childish antics are getting tiring, and they continiously are bringing out the worst in myself and other people who try to criticize you.

I am barely even criticizing your ideas right now. My fundamental issue with your posts is that you fail to conform to proper standards of debate and argumentation. It is like it is just a game you are trying to win, but the judge is yourself and there are no rules but those you create.

[hoopla]

How are you going to prove your anecdote, Rosa?

Or, even, now you know how to improve upon Lenin, now you can literally 'be' him - by liking what he liked for breakfast, lets see you enjoy those "eggs" Rosa, and show us what a proletarian theory of action looks like (purged of all philosophy).

I've pushed this analogy too far, haven't I :unsure:

[hoopla]

It is like it is just a game you are trying to win, but the judge is yourself and there are no rules but those you create. IMO we are all playing by our own rules, Dooga.

Its just that, if Rosa wants to change our opinions, she's going to have to change hers.

How about a brute justification of the meaningless of philosoph. This, IMO, would make a good start for us to make up our own minds. Something that must happen, unless we either drive you away, ignore you, or blindly agree :unsure:

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 12:01 AM
Dooga, its not a ad hominom, if she says your argument is stupid, but she has to prove it. But you agreed, so?
She was suggesting I could not construct my argument without being animistic. Consequently, previous esoteric information would reveal that Rosa has criticized me as being mystic (an insult by both our standards). The post did little to contribute to any discussion so why was it made? I intepreted it as ad hominem (while it did attack my idea simultaneously). Perhaps Rosa did not intend that (which I would argue she did), but I intepreted it in such a way. Responsability must be put on both the interpreter (especially if they interpret incorrectly) but also the writer (especially if an unintended intepretation results from inspecific language or a misuse of language). I would argue that, at least, but I am using postmodern evaluation, which is philosophical in many ways so no doubt Rosa will disagree with it entirely.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 12:22 AM

It is like it is just a game you are trying to win, but the judge is yourself and there are no rules but those you create. IMO we are all playing by our own rules, Dooga.
That's a valid point, but it brings up an entirely different issue altogether. Do rules of logic and argumentative discourse exist outside the spectrum of individual thought? If so, criticism of individual argument can be valid (even if someone does not agree with certain aspects of the criticism). However, if such rules do not exist, one must construct them based on individual experience. Consequently, a trap exists for the philosopher resulting in one having to admit that the concept of such logical rules is equally valid as the concept of there being no such rules. Occam's Razor would inevitably side with the presence of such rules. Perhaps I am confused on this?

[hoopla]

Surely you can't take her argument seriosuly, not till she provides a summary of her proof of meaninglessness. Otherwise, we're all just worshipping Wittgenstein:
http://philosophy.wlu.edu/Wittgenstein.jpg
http://www3.sympatico.ca/simsg/pray.JPG
Please Wittgenstein, make the nasty capitalists go away.
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/wschloug/CONCEPT2/bird%20coffin%205.jpg
Can't, mate, I'm dead. But invoke my name, and everyone will agree with you
Rosa: "OK"

[hoopla]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor+Jul 18 2006, 12:31 AM--> (Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor @ Jul 18 2006, 12:31 AM)
[email protected] 18 2006, 12:22 AM

It is like it is just a game you are trying to win, but the judge is yourself and there are no rules but those you create. IMO we are all playing by our own rules, Dooga.
That's a valid point, but it brings up an entirely different issue altogether. Do rules of logic and argumentative discourse exist outside the spectrum of individual thought? If so, criticism of individual argument can be valid (even if someone does not agree with certain aspects of the criticism). However, if such rules do not exist, one must construct them based on individual experience. Consequently, a trap exists for the philosopher resulting in one having to admit that the concept of such logical rules is equally valid as the concept of there being no such rules. Occam's Razor would inevitably side with the presence of such rules. Perhaps I am confused on this? [/b]
Its not an area of my expertise, but it sounds almost as if you are appealing to the logic of a dialectic. The rest of it sounds OK, I kinda like Feyerabend. Don't know if you appeal to him using Occam. Personally, my intuition says that Occam isn't particularly useful except to refute obvious bull* Someone once told me that all it means is once you have found your answer, don't add things to it - it is not as such a mechanical way of choosing between two generally different theories.

Doesn't Wittgenstein look cool, though.

[hoopla]

And Rosa, the word you are looking for is not materialism, but naturalism (non-naturalism e.g. "supernatural" universals is compatible with materialism). You really ought to know that - doesn't roll off the tongue as well, though, does it ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoop:


Because I am not a peer, I am just a proletarian? Because I won't speak your funny language - which amounts to a few mechanically applied insults.

So am I, but the difference between us is that I pay no attention to ruling-class theorists and mystics like Hegel, whereas you do.

I base all my ideas on the material language or everyday life, not on the terminally obscure jargon of boss class theorists.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dooga:


R: You are using a sledgehammer when you should be using a chisel. Sure, some philosophy justifies the bourgeoisie, but, in order for your position not to be massively reactionary, you have to deny the possibility of a proletarian philosophy, which is denying our infinite creativity.

If and when the proletariat decide to invent their own philosophy I will address their arguments, but since they have not done so (and show no sign of doing so -- and for reasons I know about, but you seem not to), I won't.

However, they are not going to swap material science (something they invented thousands of years ago) for the mystical gobblegygook you lot have lifted from the ruling class, which implies the world is Ideal.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dooga:


Just because you say I use mystical notions doesn't mean I do. Of course, you might say I did somewhere else and tell me to look there, in order to dodge the issue, but you still no no definitive proof that I used any mystical notions (to my knowledge) or that I use them in a context that is illegitimate (such as metaphor).

Well, you struggle to understand a simple phrase like 'ad hominem', so it is no surprise you cannot grasp more challenging notions, nor is it any wonder you missed my arguments.

I am not inclined to repeat them, and not just to to save you the embarassment of missing them yet again, but because mystics like you cling on to their beliefs for non-rational reasons, and for that they need, not my help, but treatment.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


And Rosa, the word you are looking for is not materialism, but naturalism (non-naturalism e.g. "supernatural" universals is compatible with materialism). You really ought to know that - doesn't roll off the tongue as well, though, does it

I think the phrase I am looking for I have already found, and used: "waste of time"; you might even prove to be a waste of space too.

And, your increasingly irrational posts suggests you might already be a waste of medication.

[hoopla]

Rosa, you could at least try and address one of my points.

Why is determinism mystical and not non-naturalist? Surely its a second step to get to idealism, maybe these laws are made of butter, not mind. If those words don't make sense, then I think that it is your influences, who are a waste of time and space, not me.

And as to your wish, to destroy analogical thinking :blink: someone's been spending too much time with "Marxist-Leninists" ;)

[hoopla]

Was Dietzgen a proletarian, Rosa, compared with, lets say, Wittgenstein?

[hoopla]

What would a proletarian philosophy look like? If we can appropriate their factories, why not theor philosophy.

I haven't read much Korsch, but couldn't you say that critical activity is not enough, a critical theory is needed of the comprehension of practice.

Or that the historical emergence of autonomous proletarians is one with the confrontation of autonomous proletarian philosophy with bourgeois philosophy.

Or that bourgeois consciousness must be chanllenged by a proletarian philosophy.

And bear in mind, that your critique of philosophy, seems to have no proof to it. Or no concise one, that you are willing to lift from your 25 years of work; which is clearly what our comrades here need - something consumable to discuss, and not just a few mumblings of "ordinary language" and "mysticisms".

What are you relying on to presuade here - a few choice insults. Bah!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


Rosa, you could at least try and address one of my points.

OK:

Hoopla's 'Point',

666 Waste of Space Avenue

Mystic City

Happy now?


Was Dietzgen a proletarian, Rosa, compared with, lets say, Wittgenstein?

He was, according to his son, a petty-bourgeois tanner and business man, who caught a dose of dialectics from Hegel, again, according to his son.

And Wittgenstein, like Marx, aimed to end all philosophy.

You need to check your facts before you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have.


What would a proletarian philosophy look like? If we can appropriate their factories, why not theor philosophy.

It would resemble an empty space, since I think they are far too level-headed to swallow the a priori rubbish you mystics have gulped down.


And bear in mind, that your critique of philosophy, seems to have no proof to it.

Well, I haven't addressed that topic directly at my site yet, since it is peripheral to my main aim. However, I have posted a summary of my argument, which you claim to have read (with your usual lack of attention), so if you can find any fault with my arguments (as opposed to merely expressing your dislike of my conclusions, which is all you seem capable of doing), then let's hear it.

Deafening silence.....

[I will be posting a long Essay (which is the full version of the above summary) later this year or next (which will be over 100 000 words long), aimed at showing that no philosophical theory (including any that have not been dreamt up yet) can make sense.

If you are having problems with the summary, I suugest you stay away from the full article.]

And as for 'proof', you are in no position to demand any off anyone, in view of the naive and open-mouthed way you just accept anything you are told, so long as it is mystical.


What are you relying on to presuade here - a few choice insults. Bah!

These were all well deserved in view of 1) your lack of seriousness, 2) your inattention, 3) your failure to read with any care anything you do not like, and 4) because you are a waste of time -- and a mystical one at that.

And do stay awake:


Why is determinism mystical and not non-naturalist? Surely its a second step to get to idealism, maybe these laws are made of butter, not mind. If those words don't make sense, then I think that it is your influences, who are a waste of time and space, not me.

Already covered.

[And if you are going to turn your amateurish hand to insults, try and think up a few of your own.]

[hoopla]

Re Dietzgen: I heard he was prole through and through, provide a source. I'm sure any son of mine would call me petit-bourgeois. I'm not.

Re Natruralism: Then link to it

Re No proof: What!

Re Me being a waste of space: I don't pay attention, you won't link to answers, one of us is a professional and ought to know better. And I'm not the one on a "mystical mission"

Re Me being serious: You must be joking, you just insult people. I assumed this was humour. If not, your academic career must be going nowhere (Its OK to insult you, as academics are asking for it)

Re My point: Numerous, ignored. Sounds almost dialectical! Sorry if they're beneath you - go on Rosa, explain why you just shove criticism aside, ego/insecurity/lack of an answer/rushed off your feet. Honesty, is a virtue, but I'm sure thats meaningless :)

Re A priori: Link?

Re Proletarian philosophy is empty: That isn't a metaphor is it! Cos an empty space isn't a philosophy Rosa, or have you turned mystic?

Re Insulting me: I've seen you insult Dooga, and assume you do the same with everyone who is thick/doesn't agree

Re Me being rude: Sorry, I only come hear to speak to you :(

Re Fault with your argument: There is no argument :blink:

[hoopla]

you mysticsI don't think I have actually endorsed any philosophy you would describe mystic. Besides which, you seem to have no proof it is mystic. So...

And, I am very fucking used to making a fool of myself, thankyou. What I'm not used to is being ignored because I don't follow a hard party line (especially one that you've just invented) :angry:

I contend: No rigorous proof - mystcism
http://www.dreamstone.com.au/artists/JohnPhilipWagner/Magician.jpg
Rosa earlier

[hoopla]

Seeing as all your posts here are links to your website, or rediculous insults, it is you Rosa, who are the waste of space.

Why am I a waste of space? Because I'm a mystic? That, is very authoritarian of you, and coupled with the fact that you can't prove your ideology, says its nothing more than dogma.

[hoopla]

[And if you are going to turn your amateurish hand to insults, try and think up a few of your own.]
Sorry, I missed that.
You stifle debate
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~aberle/Calif.Photos/Earth%20cracks.jpg
Rosa's online persona

Man, I'm nearly getting bored with this again.

My point, if you will listen: Work on some short proofs and summaries. Don't jump on anyone who mentions anything mystical, if you have an argument, then a little philosophy does no harm.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


I heard he was prole through and through, provide a source.

His son tells us in the introduction to "Some of the Philosophical Essays" (George Kerr, 1906) that his father was a business man (inheriting control of the family business from his own father), and a master tanner. I am at work now, I will give you the page references when I get home.

Here is what I say in the summary Essay:


Fourth, claims that there have been working-class dialecticians (such as Joseph Dietzgen, Tommy Jackson and Gerry Healy, etc.), who managed to create from scratch a dialectical view of reality, are shown to be bogus. Dietzgen, if anything, was of petty-bourgeois stock; according to his son, he obtained his ideas from reading books on Philosophy. [Introduction to Dietzgen, J. (1906), Some Of The Philosophical Essays On Socialism And Science, Religion, Ethics, Critique-Of-Reason And The World At Large (Charles Kerr).]

Jackson, on the other hand, was a genuine working-class Marxist, but he 'caught dialectics' from Hegel, and his own classic book on the subject [Jackson (1936)] shows that he, too, did not understand a word of it (not because it was too difficult, but because, like the Trinity, it is incomprehensible). In that classic work, where Jackson touches on DM his account is as clear as mud. [Proof? See the long quotation from Jackson's book given in Essay Three, Part One.]

Healy also came from a petty-bourgeois background; he drifted in and out of the working class for a while, only to 'catch dialectics' from reading Lenin's MEC -- a condition that was later seriously compounded by a lethal strain he picked up from a prolonged exposure to PN. [Proof? Just open up a copy of Healy (1990) at any randomly selected page -- then, it will readily be apparent that no sane individual could possibly 'understand' dialectics. Read more, if you dare, here, and here.]

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-9.htm

So, it is a myth Dietzgen was a proletarian (or if he was then so was Engels).

In my next Essay, published in a week or so, I explain why it is not possible for working-class people to develop any dialectical ideas on their own (they have to be bamboozled into accepting them by dialectical mystics -- just as Dietzgen caught a nasty strain of this hermetic virus from Hegel); this is not because they are not intelligent enough, but because dialectics makes no sense, and dialecticians have failed even to explain to one another over the last 150 years what a single dialetcial notion means.


Man, I'm nearly getting bored with this again.

We are getting bored with you too.

Get back to your monastery, then.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

OK, Hoop, here is what will appear in Essay Nine later this week, or early next week (as part of Note 25):


Notwithstanding this, it could be argued that as a matter of fact the idea that workers cannot comprehend DM is factually incorrect: consider the case of Joseph Dietzgen*. Dietzgen, it could be maintained, is a clear example of a proletarian who became a philosopher, one who was respected to some extent by Marx, Engels and Lenin. Indeed, Dietzgen it was who independently discovered/invented DM -- allegedly.

Now, while Dietzgen's working-class credentials are (shall we say), highly dubious (see below), his revolutionary sincerity is not open to question. He was clearly a fellow comrade and nothing said here should be interpreted as detracting from that fact. But that does not mean we should appropriate his work uncritically. That would turn him into an icon.

Unfortunately, Dietzgen's 'proletarian' credentials are far from convincing. According to the account given by his son [E. Dietzgen (1906), pp.7-33], Dietzgen senior was a "master tanner", who, after having worked in his own father's shop, turned his hand to various sorts of occupation. These included opening a grocery store, running a bakery and a tannery business; he finally assumed control of the family firm in Germany. This means that his proletarian credentials are only marginally more 'convincing' than those of Engels himself.

However, even if it were true that he was a genuine "horny-handed proletarian", this would still not refute the claim made earlier that workers cannot form a single DM-idea on their own this side of being 'converted' to that faith by one of the DM-elect. This is so for two reasons:

First: Dietzgen's philosophical writings* are thoroughly confused, and are vastly inferior even to those of Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. [An example of this confusion can be found here*.] Now, several of the Essays published at this site have shown that the philosophical ideas of DM-classicists make little sense; if so, the inferior work of Dietzgen stands no chance of holding together. Hence, if Dietzgen was a worker, the claim made here that no worker can comprehend DM finds ready confirmation in this case: he clearly did not understand it!

Second, but more importantly: irrespective of whether or not his ideas are comprehensible (or even whether he understood them), Dietzgen did not actually derive DM-concepts from his own experience; according to his son he learnt them by reading the works of Philosophers (cf., E. Dietzgen (1906), p.8). Hence, if anything this substantiates the point made here: DM-theses may only be obtained (directly or indirectly) from ruling-class sources, and they have to be imported into the working-class from the "outside".

The same comment is equally applicable to the other alleged examples of 'Proletarian Philosophers' (such as Tommy Jackson* and Gerry Healy*).

Jackson, unlike Dietzgen, was a genuine working-class Marxist, but he 'caught dialectics' from Hegel (and from Dietzgen -- he did not work it out for himself), and his own classic book on the subject [Jackson (1936)] shows that he, too, did not understand a word of it (not because it was too difficult, but because, like the Trinity, it is incomprehensible). In that work, where Jackson touches on DM his account is as clear as mud. [Proof? See the long quotation from Jackson's book given in Essay Three, Part One*.]

Healy also came from a petty-bourgeois background; he drifted in and out of the working class for a while, only to 'catch dialectics' from reading Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-Criticism -- a condition that was later seriously compounded by a lethal strain he picked up from a prolonged exposure to his Philosophical Notebooks.

Proof? Just open up a copy of Healy (1990) at any randomly selected page -- then, it will readily be apparent that no sane individual could possibly 'understand' dialectics. Read more, if you dare, here* and here*.

For the background to this, see Easton (1958), Emmett (1928), S. MacIntyre (1980), Reé (1984) and Werskey (1988). See also Steele and Taylor (2004).

Dietzgen, E. (1906), 'Joseph Dietzgen: A Sketch Of His Life', in J. Dietzgen (1906a), pp.7-33.

Dietzgen, J. (1906a), Some Of The Philosophical Essays On Socialism And Science, Religion, Ethics, Critique-Of-Reason And The World At Large (Charles Kerr).

Easton, L. (1958), 'Empiricism And Ethics In Dietzgen', Journal of the History of Ideas 19, pp.77-90.

Emmett, D. (1928), 'Joseph Dietzgen, The Philosopher Of Proletarian Logic', Journal of Adult Education 3,1, pp.26-35.

Healy, G. (1990), Materialist Dialectics And The Political Revolution (Marxist Publishing Collective).

Jackson, T. (1936), Dialectics (Lawrence & Wishart).

MacIntyre, S. (1980), A Proletarian Science. Marxism In Britain, 1917-1933 (Lawrence & Wishart).

Reé, J. (1984), Proletarian Philosophers (Oxford University Press).

Steele, T., and Taylor, R. (2004), 'Marxism And Adult Education In Britain', Policy Futures in Education 2, Numbers 3 & 4; copy available here* as a PDF.

Werskey, G. (1988), The Visible College (Free Association Books, 2nd ed.).



[In the above, many of the links (signified by an "*", above) are missing (however, they are in the original), but I am sure you will be keen to ignore these too.]

As you can see, I have done my homework, unlike you.

[And I note once more your sub-pathetic attempt at abuse; can't you do anything right?]

[hoopla]

Yes, you have done your homework :rolleyes:

[hoopla]

Ordinary language philosophy, is hardly irrefutible, its not even the dominant form of philosophy any more. Which, surely, makes your ideas, nothing more than novelties. Certainly not enough to censore peoples attempts at philosophy.

As to refuting what you have said, such comments as "no prole can understand DM" or "Dietzgen didn't understand his theories" are ambiguous enough to be meaningless, or at least ignorable.

[Hit The North]

Re Dietzgen:

You can't designate the class character of a system of ideas just by reference to the class origin of the thinker. If that were the case, one would have to concede that the Methodist reformism of Keir Hardy was more proletarian than the revolutionary politics of Marx, Engels, Bakunin and any number of communist and anarchist theorists.

Re Rosa:

It's occured to me how Rosa has turned the argument on its head by implying that Marxist dialectics is bourgeoise whilst her common sense empiricism is proletarian.

The truth is that in the fields of history, economics, politics and sociology, it's always been empiricism which is championed by the bourgeoise intelligentsia in opposition to the work of Marxists who employ a materialist and dialectical account of the world.

Does that mean, Rosa, that the hoary historians of Oxford University, bourgeois from their head to their feet, are, paradoxically, the true bearers and defenders of the proletarian world view?

If so, does that mean the proletarian world view (as you see it, Rosa) will resolve itself in a similar political conservativism?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


Ordinary language philosophy, is hardly irrefutible, its not even the dominant form of philosophy any more. Which, surely, makes your ideas, nothing more than novelties. Certainly not enough to censore peoples attempts at philosophy.

The first part is partially correct, but ordinary language philosophy invented (as a sub-branch of analytic Philosophy) by socialist philosophers (loosely aligned to Marxism, and in the case of Wittgenstein, very closely associated with it -- see below) in the 1930-1960's at a time when the working class (who invented and who use ordinary language) entered history as a material force.

It has retreated since the 1970's since the balance of class forces has altered.

This is how I put things in an Essay that I might publish one day (it is not part of my ‘project’) – recall this is an unfinished Essay, so it has many loose edges still, and I can’t be bothered to assemble a bibliography for this (if you need to know of any particular item, you just have to say):


[7] BOURGEOIS PHILOSOPHY

[7.1] Tu Quoque [You too.]

[7.1.1] Wittgenstein And Marxism

Some readers might think that the relatively hard line adopted here toward the alien-class origins of DM sits rather awkwardly with the apparently uncritical acceptance of ideas drawn from Wittgenstein’s work, an allegedly bourgeois philosopher and mystic.

However, there is nothing in this work to suggest that everything that Wittgenstein wrote has been uncritically accepted. On the contrary, several open criticisms have been made of some of his ideas. Nevertheless, the full extent of the present author’s differences with Wittgenstein will not be aired here.[1]

What is being maintained in this work is that the application of Wittgenstein’s method to the tangled theses that have flourished in traditional Philosophy shows them up for what they are: theoretical weeds. Moreover, it also confirms that such theses do not have to be accepted by anyone with a healthy prejudice against the misuse of language. For Marxists this cannot be an unappealing prospect; indeed, something similar had been Marx’s aim - in his early writings, at least.[2]

Furthermore, the idea that Wittgenstein’s work is mystical and ‘conservative’ is, despite the remarks of certain of his disciples, completely wrong. The plain fact is that Wittgenstein was not a conservative mystic.[3]

More to the point, since Wittgenstein was not attempting to build yet another philosophical system, his approach breaks with 2500 years of ruling-class thought. In fact, he was the first major Philosopher to make this break (even if he did not see it this way).[3a]

Wittgenstein’s method is aimed at exposing the bogus nature of all philosophical theories by placing ordinary language at the centre. Again, for Marxists this linguistic turn cannot serve as a source of substitutionist thought, quite unlike the work of practically every other philosopher. In fact, the opposite is true; Wittgenstein’s method helps expose traditional ways of theorising, revealing them to be no more than the systematic capitulation to the misuse of words - and anti-materialist for all that. For reasons examined earlier, the approach adopted here complements HM seamlessly.[4]

In addition, it is not an accident that Wittgenstein’s emphasis on ordinary language occurred at or around the time when workers were entering the stage of history as an organised force - for all that DM-critics of Wittgenstein and “Ordinary Language Philosophy” have failed to notice this.[5]

Not only that, but it is worth pointing out that even though “Ordinary Language Philosophy” is often associated with Wittgenstein’s work, their identification is thoroughly misleading since it blurs the significant differences that exist between his method and that of the so-called “Oxford Ordinary Language Philosophers”.[6]

As he himself put it:

“Our investigation is therefore a grammatical one. Such an investigation sheds light on our problem by clearing misunderstandings away. Misunderstandings concerning the use of words, caused, among other things, by certain analogies between the forms of expression in different regions of language….

“[Philosophical problems] are not empirical problems; they are solved, rather, by looking into the workings of our language, and that in such a way as to make us recognise those workings: in despite of an urge to misunderstand them. The problems are solved, not by giving new information, but by arranging what we have always known. Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language….

“What we do is to bring words back from their metaphysical to their everyday use…. The results of philosophy are the uncovering of one or another piece of plain nonsense and of bumps that the understanding has got by running its head up against the limits of language….

“Philosophy simply puts everything before us, and neither explains nor deduces anything. – Since everything lies open to view there is nothing to explain…. The work of the philosopher consists in assembling reminders for a particular purpose. If one tried to advance theses in philosophy, it would never be possible to debate them, because everyone would agree with them.” [Wittgenstein (1953), pp.43-50. Bold emphasis added.][7]

As it turns out, there are other equally important reasons for adopting Wittgenstein’s approach to Philosophy. These are considered below, and in Appendix D.

Finally, it is also argued that the emphasis placed on ordinary language by certain Analytic Philosophers (up until a few generations ago, at least) was not unconnected with the rise of the working class as a political force in history. The latter-day demise of this tradition in Analytic Philosophy (and the resurgence of Metaphysics, and particularly Hegelianism) is also linked to the change in the balance of class forces that has taken place over the last thirty years or so.

In fact, the modern home of 'monetarist' economic theory (the USA) was also the source of the most determined attacks on Ordinary Language Philosophy (OLP). Over the same period, we have witnessed a resurgence of a plethora of right-wing ideas in science (for example, the rise of Sociobiology in the 1970's which later transmogrified into 'Evolutionary Psychology' in the 1990's, and arguably the re-emergence of the BBT). No coincidences these.



This is not to suggest that those working in OLP were revolutionaries, or that they saw things this way. It is to assert however that their emphasis on ordinary language had material roots, and that it did not just emerge out of thin air. Indeed, many of these thinkers were socialists of one sort or another. For example, as noted below, the vast majority of Wittgenstein's friends were Communists or were sympathetic to Trotskyism. Wittgenstein himself wanted to move to the USSR in the mid-1930's, and was offered the professorship at Kazan University (Lenin's old College), which tenure the Stalinists of the day would hardly have offered to an anti-red.

This, of course, makes the work of the most important philosopher working in OLP (i.e., Wittgenstein) crucially important for the defence of working-class politics.

[Although it is not maintained here that Wittgenstein saw things this way. These issues are spelled-out in much more detail in my thesis.]

So, why now?

The working class in previous centuries was far too small and weak to provide a materialist counter-weight to the Idealism found in all forms of ruling-class thought. This is no longer the case.

The larger the working-class has become, the less impact Dialectical Marxism has had on it.

Now we can see why.

These Essays perhaps represent the first attempt in the modern age to reshape working-class thought de novo, and thus Marxist Theory in toto.

Notes

1. In fact, in Appendix D, I explicitly criticise a tendency found in Wittgenstein’s later work that began to confuse the sense of a sentence with its use - an error that confounds the distinction we should surely want to draw between the meaning of a word and the sense of a sentence -, as an illegitimate extension of the idea that meaning can be explicated in terms of use. Other problems with his work include the following:

(1) Although Wittgenstein’s later work was anthropologically motivated, it has in fact no detectable historical or social content, which makes the direct appropriation of his ideas by Marxists problematic. However, this is not an insurmountable obstacle.

(2) Even though Wittgenstein was not a ‘religious’ man (in the sense that he practised no particular faith), he was ‘religious’ in temperament. However, several of his ideas have subsequently been used by some of his followers to defend various different brands of Christianity, etc. However, there are prominent Christian Wittgensteinians who totally ignore this aspect of his work - probably because of its theological naivety.

Although it is possible to mount a weak sort of defence of religious belief based on certain aspects of Wittgenstein’s work, the truth is that Wittgenstein’s method is inimical to all forms of religious and theological belief - as this essay has sought to show, and as was argued in P4. On this, see Cook (1988, 1993). That is, of course, a conclusion with which Wittgenstein himself would have taken great exception.

(3) One of the major difficulties with Wittgenstein’s work is that it is in fact impossible to settle upon an agreed or even an identifiably ‘correct’ interpretation of it. Naturally, this means that it is difficult to determine what he himself actually believed. But, paradoxically, this is also one of its strengths; he was concerned not to advance any philosophical ‘theses’ about language, reality or thought. His main aim was to establish a method that would bring traditional Philosophy to an end (by showing that it was thoroughly confused - replacing it with an entirely new concept of what philosophical investigation should be). This novel approach would limit Philosophy’s role to the clarification (and hence the unravelling) of confusions that arise because of a tendency we humans have to misunderstand language. However, philosophers who are still in the grip of traditional ways of thinking often see this approach to theory as a dereliction of duty; according to them, Philosophy should form part of a general attempt to understand the world (and for DM-fans, it should be part of their aim to change it). This view of Philosophy is seldom justified, perhaps because there is no justification for it over and above those explored earlier. Nevertheless, the traditional approach to Philosophy reflects a general belief held by Philosophers that they have special access to especially profound truths about reality – ones that just happen to be conducive to ruling-class interests. However, traditional world-views underlying Philosophy are largely predicated on the belief that reality is rational and that theorists can construct a super-scientific picture of the universe by the mere application of thought - or the use of a specially-concocted vocabulary.

However, as we have also seen (and as 2500 years of speculation have amply demonstrated), this ‘hard-headed’ approach to Philosophy has proven to be about as unsuccessful as any human endeavour could be: Philosophers are no nearer telling us what familiar things like apples and oranges really are, or what truth is - or even what knowledge is – than were Plato and Aristotle. This means that traditional Philosophy has advanced about as much as Theology has; but at least we know the latter is useless. ‘Hard-nosed’ theorists wishing to cling to the old way of going nowhere slowly might like to reflect on this disconcerting fact. On this, cf., Hacker (2001b).

This emphasis on ordinary language as a way of clarifying the mistakes we are prone to make does not imply that human beings do not understand how to use the vernacular. It is simply that when we try to theorise about it - or when we try to theorise by means of it - we go astray, creating empty philosophical puzzles and paradoxes as a result. On this see: Ambrose (1967), Cavell (1976), Hacker (1996, 1997, 2001b), Kenny (1973, 1998), Savickey (1999), Shanker (1987a, 1998), Stern (1995), and Suter (1989).

Unfortunately, this has meant that Wittgenstein’s work has had a negligible affect on Philosophy as a whole. Philosophers in general reject this approach out of hand (often for the flimsiest of reasons; witness Le Poidevin’s ‘argument’, in ####) since it represents a threat to their livelihood and their status. A few philosophers have attempted to absorb his ideas piecemeal into their own work, but they have done this in such a way that it is obvious that they largely reject his method. Such half-hearted Wittgensteinians still seem intent on searching for philosophical truths about language, ‘the mind’, truth, knowledge, the world, ethics, and so on. Either that or they have simply slipped back into doing traditional philosophy, re-joining those engaged in constructing a several more new routes to nowhere. [Cf., Philosophical Investigations, April 2001, and Hacker (1996).]

2. Cf., Manser (1973). This theme is explored at greater length in Rubinstein (1981), especially pp.121-38. The attempt to assimilate Marx and Wittgenstein’s work will be examined later; cf., Notes 3 and 4, below. See also Brudney (1998), and Labica (1980).

3. Most revolutionaries seem to regard Analytic Philosophy as something of a conservative or ideological phenomenon - Wittgenstein’s work perhaps being seen as a prime example. That view has partly been motivated by the widely held opinion that Wittgenstein was a conservative and that he pandered to mystical and religious ideas.

That this received picture is incorrect can be seen by reading Alan Janik’s essays “Nyiri on the Conservatism of Wittgenstein’s Later Philosophy” - which is a reply to Nyiri (1998) -, and “Wittgenstein, Marx and Sociology”, both reprinted in Janik (1985), pp.116-57. See also Crary (2000).

In fact, not only were many of Wittgenstein’s friends and pupils prominent Marxists (e.g., Piero Sraffa, Maurice Dobb, Nicholas Bachtin, George Thomson, Maurice Cornforth and David Hayden-Guest [cf., Monk (1990), pp.343, 348; Rhees (1984), pp.x, 48; and Sheehan (1993), pp.303, 343], one of his foremost ‘disciples’ (Rush Rhees) at one point contemplated joining the RCP (i.e., the 1940’s Trotskyist version, not that recent right-wing 'party', now happily defunct), and asked Wittgenstein for advice on this. Cf., Rhees (1984), pp.200-09.

Rhees and Monk record the many sympathetic remarks Wittgenstein made about Marxism, about workers and about revolutionary activity. While these are not in themselves models of ‘orthodoxy’, they reveal how close Wittgenstein came to adopting a very weak form of class politics in the 1930’s – certainly closer than any other major philosopher since Marx himself; cf., Rhees (1984), pp.205-09. Cf., also Norman Malcolm’s Introduction to Rhees’ book, pp.xvii-xviii, and Monk (1990), pp.343-54. In fact, Monk reports a comment made by George Thomson on Wittgenstein’s attitude to Marxism: “He was opposed it in theory, but supported it in practice”, and notes another friend who remembers Wittgenstein saying that he was “a communist, at heart” (Monk (1990), p.343), and he concludes:

“There is no doubt that during the political upheavals of the mid-1930’s Wittgenstein’s sympathies were with the working class and the unemployed, and that his allegiance, broadly speaking, was with the left….

“Despite the fact that Wittgenstein was never at any time a Marxist, he was perceived as a sympathetic figure by the students who formed the core of the Cambridge Communist Party, many of whom ([David] Hayden-Guest, [John] Cornford, Maurice Cornforth, etc.) attended his lectures.” [Monk (1990), pp.343, 348.]

In Rhees’ book, Fania Pascall (who was also a Marxist and another of Wittgenstein’s friends, and who was married to Communist Party intellectual Roy Pascall), reports that Wittgenstein had actually read Marx [cf., Rhees (1984), p.44], but, the source of this information appears to be John Moran: cf., Moran (1972). Garth Hallett’s otherwise comprehensive survey omits reference to it; cf., Hallett (1977), pp.759-75. Rhees and Monk note that when Wittgenstein visited Russia he met Sophia Yanovskaya [Professor of Mathematical Logic at Moscow University, one of the co-editors of Marx’s Mathematical Manuscripts; cf., Yanovskaya (1983), in Marx (1983)], who apparently advised him to “read more Hegel” [Monk (1990), p.351 and Rhees (1984), p.209]. In fact, Yanovskaya even went as far as to recommend Wittgenstein for the chair at Kazan University (Lenin’s old college) and for a teaching post at Moscow University (Monk (1990), p. 351). These are hardly posts one would offer to just anyone in Stalin’s Russia in the mid-1930s, least of all to one not sympathetic to Communism. Monk suggests that Yanovskaya formed the (false) impression that Wittgenstein was interested in DM (ibid.), but Drury (another of Wittgenstein’s pupils) records that Wittgenstein had a low opinion of Lenin’s philosophical work (but, which ones we do not know; but this indicates that Wittgenstein had at least read Lenin since he never passed comments on second-hand reports of other writers’ work), but the opposite view of his practical endeavours:

“Lenin’s writings about philosophy are of course absurd, but at least he did want to get something done.” [Drury, quoting Wittgenstein from recollection, in Rhees (1984), p.126.]

Fania Pascall also records Wittgenstein’s friendship with Nicholas Bachtin (ibid., p.14), and notes that at one time he expressed a desire to go and live in Russia (ibid., pp.26, 29, 44, 125-26, 198-200). In fact he actually visited Russia in September 1935 [cf., Monk (1990), pp. 347-53], when he met the above Professor Yanovskaya. Like many other Cambridge intellectuals at the time his desire to live in the USSR was motivated by his false belief that under Stalin it was a Workers’ State. In this regard, of course, his intentions are more significant than were his mistaken views. One only has to contrast Wittgenstein’s opinion of Russia with that of, say, Bertrand Russell (his former teacher) to see how sympathetic in comparison Wittgenstein was to revolutionary Marxism - even if, like many others, he finally mistook the latter for Stalinism. Cf., Drury’s memoir in Rhees (1984), p.144. John Maynard Keynes (another of Wittgenstein’s friends) wrote the following in a letter to the Russian ambassador Maisky about Wittgenstein’s plans to live in Russia:

“I must leave it to him to tell you his reasons for wanting to go to Russia. He is not a member of the Communist Party, but has strong sympathies with the way of life which he believes the new regime in Russia stands for.” [John Maynard Keynes to Maisky, quoted in Rhees (1984), p.199. Also quoted more fully in Monk (1990), p.349.]

In his biography of Wittgenstein, Ray Monk plays down Wittgenstein’s proposed move, and relying on Fania Pascall’s view of Wittgenstein’s motives, interprets it as a reflection of his attachment to a Tolstoyian view of the Russian peasantry and the ‘dignity of manual labour’. While this clearly was a factor, it cannot explain Wittgenstein’s positive remarks about the gains he believed workers had made because of the revolution. On this, Rhees is clearly a more reliable guide; he knew Wittgenstein better than almost anyone else. The full details of Wittgenstein’s desire to live in Russia, and his visit there, can be found in Monk (1990), pp.340-54.

His closest friend before he met Rhees was Francis Skinner, who had wanted to volunteer to fight in Spain as part of the International Brigade (he was finally rejected on health grounds). Alan Turing (who was also one of Wittgenstein’s pupils for a brief period) accused Wittgenstein of trying to introduce “Bolshevism” into Mathematics, because of his criticisms of the LEM and the LOC; cf. Monk (1990), pp.419-20; see also Hodges (1983).

Finally, but perhaps most importantly, Wittgenstein himself declared that his later Philosophy had been inspired by conversations he regularly had with Pierro Sraffa ([b]Gramsci’s friend). The extent of Sraffa’s influence is still unclear (however, see below), but Wittgenstein admitted to Rhees that it was from Sraffa that he had gained an “anthropological” view of philosophical problems. Cf., Monk (1990), pp.260-61. Cf., also Malcolm (1958), p.69, and von Wright (ND), pp.28, 213, and Wittgenstein (1998), p.16.

In the preface to what was his most important work, Wittgenstein had this to say:

“Even more than this…criticism I am indebted to that which a teacher of this university, Mr P. Sraffa, for many years unceasingly practiced on my thoughts. I am indebted to this stimulus for the most consequential ideas of this book.” [Wittgenstein (1958), p.viii. Bold emphasis added.]

This is quite remarkable: the author of what many believe to be the most original and innovative philosophical work of the 20th century - and one that, if correct, brings to an end 2500 years of Metaphysics - claims that his most “consequential” ideas were derived from a man who was an avowed Marxist!

Attempts to reconstruct the influence of Sraffa of Wittgenstein are in their early stages, and they are not likely to progress much further unless some hard evidence turns up; anyway, to date, these attempts are based largely on supposition and inference. On this, see Sharpe (2002), Davis (2002) and Rossi-Landi (2002), pp.200-04.

Now, it is not being maintained here that Wittgenstein was a closet revolutionary, only that he has been rather badly misrepresented; a demonstrably erroneous view of his political leanings has been fostered by some of his ‘disciples’ who have (or have had) their own political agendas.

However, this whole issue has taken a somewhat farcical turn recently with the publication of Kimberley Cornish’s book The Jew of Linz. [Cornish (1999).] Basing his conclusions on flimsy evidence, Cornish attempts to construct a wild theory that Hitler was turned into an anti-Semite by his encounter with Wittgenstein at school (remarkably, these two attended the same school at the same time!). According to Cornish, Wittgenstein subsequently became the principal recruiting agent for Stalinist spies in Cambridge, and, moreover, that he concocted his “no-ownership theory of the mind” (aimed at confounding Nazi ideology) in order to make amends for this earlier ‘crime’ - as well as to promote socialist collectivism. In fact, the reasoning in Cornish’s book is so fanciful one almost expects (as one of the characters in Umberto Eco’s book Foucualt’s Pendulum predicts) The Illuminati, The Masters Of The Universe and The Knights Templar to put in an appearance at some stage. Perhaps the only thing missing from Cornish’s book is a reference to Wittgenstein’s ability to control the 'Telluric Forces'.

Nevertheless, Cornish’s book does have at least one merit: it assembles all the available evidence (and there is a considerable amount, even if some of it is circumstantial) indicative of Wittgenstein’s leanings toward revolutionary politics; cf. Cornish (1999), pp.40-87. Cornish claims that Wittgenstein was a “Stalinist”, but his evidence is largely fanciful, inferential and indirect. [Mysteriously, Goldstein, an otherwise fairly reliable interpreter of Wittgenstein, seems to have swallowed this unlikely tale; cf., Goldstein (1999), pp.164-65. But even Goldstein is silent about the connection that Cornish alleges exists between Wittgenstein’s encounter with Hitler and his career as the main Stalinist recruiting agent at Cambridge in the 1930’s, and Wittgenstein’s supposed motives for inventing the “no ownership theory of the mind”.]

In addition to conservative misrepresentations of Wittgenstein’s views, there is an equally spurious idea that his work is identical to the “Oxford Ordinary Language” Philosophy of Ryle, Austin, Warnock, Strawson, Urmson and Hampshire. Beyond a few superficial similarities, Wittgenstein’s work bears no resemblance at all to “Oxford Philosophy”. On this, see Dummett (1960).

3a. In his early work, Marx was beginning to show signs of making a similar break from traditional thought, but this petered out somewhere in the 1850’s. Almost the same can be said of Engels (who was by no stretch of the imagination a competent philosopher), although he later slipped back into what can only be described as an amateurish dalliance with ruling-class (if not mystical) ‘styles of though’ in his work on DM, ones that have now been ossified into sacred texts. Lenin and Plekhanov certainly never gave the slightest hint that they were aware that a break with traditional thought-patterns was essential if a proletarian ‘world-view’ was to be developed - and neither did Trotsky. More or less can be said for subsequent DM-theorists; all have trooped in the same alien-class direction.

4. I will not substantiate this assertion in this essay. Nevertheless, as might seem reasonably obvious from the tone set in this review, the present author does not share Wittgenstein’s respect for ancient metaphysical systems. Although Wittgenstein sought to show these schemes were the result of the systematic misuse of words, he still held them in high regard; the exact opposite opinion should rightly be attributed to the present author.

Attempts to marry the work of Wittgenstein and Marx have not in general been entirely convincing. Gavin Kitching’s work [Kitching (1988, 1994)] represents perhaps the most concerted effort in this direction so far. Unfortunately, Kitching operates with a superficial understanding of Wittgenstein, which he uses to outline an even less accurate one of Marx. Unwisely, he also employs his own implausible and inconsistent version of an ‘occasionalist’ theory of meaning (destructively analysed in Appendix D).

Several other authors have also tried to link the work of Marx and Wittgenstein; cf., Brudney (1998), Eagleton (1982), Pleasants (1996, 1999), and Rubinstein (1981). A much more promising attempt has recently been made in this direction in Kitching and Pleasants (2002). However, as D. Cook quite correctly points out, the differences between Marx and Wittgenstein are far more profound than are their apparent similarities. I examine this topic in much more detail in Appendix D, along with other related issues in the Philosophy of Language.

5. Nor is it coincidental that the decline in Wittgenstein’s influence over the last thirty years or so was initiated by attacks on his method spearheaded largely by American Philosophers, from the 1950’s to the 1980’s – concurrent with the Cold War and the retreat of the working class movement internationally.

6. On this see the end of Note 3, above.

7. John Cook has sought to question whether Wittgenstein actually did redirect our thought to a consideration of more ordinary ways of saying things, as opposed to his merely asserting that this was what he intended to do without fulfilling that aim; cf., Cook (1994, 1999). Naturally, this is not the place to go into this dispute. It is sufficient to note that Cook’s own brand of ‘ordinary language’ Philosophy is not inconsistent with that of Wittgenstein’s; it is just rather parochial and inconsequential in comparison. Cf., the review in [i]Philosophical Investigations, April 2001.

Nevertheless, it is in fact a myth (put about by certain of his disciples) that all that Wittgenstein was interested in was ordinary language. Because Cook accepts this fairy tale, the Wittgenstein he constructs is a figment of his own imagination. Wittgenstein was continually experimenting with new ways of looking at familiar problems. Many of his half-formed thoughts have been ossified by his epigones and turned into eternally true statements that supposedly represent his ‘official position’, even though they are generally expressed in side comments found in private notebooks, not intended for publication. Indeed, his last major work [Wittgenstein (1958)] was under constant revision right up until his death, and remained incomplete. It was ‘completed’ by his literary executors on what now appear to be unsound lines. On this, see Stern (1995, 1996). On the difficulties of interpreting Wittgenstein, see Cavell (1967, 1996), Heal (1995), Stern (1996) …

[As you can see, I always do my homework very carefully.]

As to the rest of what you say, since I have already dealt with it, I will say no more.

[Connolly]

I must say - I like the use of graphics in this thread. :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


You can't designate the class character of a system of ideas just by reference to the class origin of the thinker. If that were the case, one would have to concede that the Methodist reformism of Keir Hardy was more proletarian than the revolutionary politics of Marx, Engels, Bakunin and any number of communist and anarchist theorists.

I do not do this. Here I was merely responding to Hoopla. Of course, if you can prove differently, do so.


It's occured to me how Rosa has turned the argument on its head by implying that Marxist dialectics is bourgeoise whilst her common sense empiricism is proletarian.

My work is neither based on 'common sense' nor is it 'empiricist'; I defy you to find anything I have written that suggests otherwise.

My ideas are, however, based on the language of the working-class, unlike, I might add, yours.

[It is, of course, a common error: confusing ordinary language with common sense. The two are unconnected (and I can prove it!).]

And if you read the long post I have just published, you will see how ridiculous this comment of yours is:


The truth is that in the fields of history, economics, politics and sociology, it's always been empiricism which is championed by the bourgeoise intelligentsia in opposition to the work of Marxists who employ a materialist and dialectical account of the world.

Does that mean, Rosa, that the hoary historians of Oxford University, bourgeois from their head to their feet, are, paradoxically, the true bearers and defenders of the proletarian world view?

If so, does that mean the proletarian world view (as you see it, Rosa) will resolve itself in a similar political conservativism?

Since I do not, and never have, and never will, adopt an empiricist view of anything (and I defy you to show that ordinary language philosophers were all, or even mostly, empiricists -- this is a lie put about by a few Stalinists in the 1930's and 1950's), these comments of yours are irrelevant.

[Hit The North]

R:


I do not do this. Here I was merely responding to Hoopla. Of course, if you can prove differently, do so.


Don't get stroppy, that part of the post was not aimed at you, as clearly indicated.


My work is neither based on 'common sense' nor is it 'empiricist'; I defy you to find anything I have written that suggests otherwise.

Well since your version of Historical Materialism is denuded of dialectical analysis and your assertions earlier in this thread are that we should rely on (bourgeois?) science, but that a philosophy of science (or paradigm such as realism, etc) is not necessary, I can't see how your work can be anything but loosely empirical. Unless of course your work is only in the field of philosophy - but I thought all philosophy was bourgeois crap!

Which is why...


Since I do not, and never have, and never will, adopt an empiricist view of anything (and I defy you to show that ordinary language philosophers were all, or even mostly, empiricists

... I didn't mention ordinary language philosophers. Please read my posts more carefully, it'll help you to maintain relevance in your replies.

Regardless, I'm willing to accept that you're not an empiricist, but I'm still mystified as to what you are.

Finally:


My ideas are, however, based on the language of the working-class, unlike, I might add, yours.

Made me laugh. The above statement is both ludicrous and interesting. Ludicrous because all the workers I've met speak languages like English, French, Spanish, German. Which one are you eluding to? Or are you polylingual? Personally, I choose English because that's what all the workers I live and work with speak, not to mention the bloke down the local shop.

But it raises an interesting question about what the "language" of the working class is under the yoke of capitalism? What is our world view? How do we perceive the world around us and how do we express it?

If I read your most excellent website, will it tell me?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Why is it that you Dialectical Mystics, when you cannot defend your ideas, resort to invention?


Well since your version of Historical Materialism is denuded of dialectical analysis and your assertions earlier in this thread are that we should rely on (bourgeois?) science, but that a philosophy of science (or paradigm such as realism, etc) is not necessary, I can't see how your work can be anything but loosely empirical. Unless of course your work is only in the field of philosophy - but I thought all philosophy was bourgeois crap!

No mention of 'realism' or 'bourgeois science' anywhere in my posts (or none that commit me to either). And nowhere do I say that philosophy is 'bourgeois crap'.

I know that you Dialectical Myth-makers find it hard to think straight, now that your capacity to reason has been nuked by Hegel's 'Logic', and that is why you have to make stuff up, but may I suggest that for once, you (collectively) stop providing us genuine materialists with such easy targets?


Regardless, I'm willing to accept that you're not an empiricist, but I'm still mystified as to what you are.

You accuse me of not reading what you post carefully enough (but given the context in which your comments appeared this was a reasonable inference on my part), but I suggest that while I might do this on the odd occasion, you have made an art form of it: how many times do I have to tell you (and others) I am not an 'anything-ist', other than a historical materialist.

If you cannot accept that, that is your problem.


Made me laugh. The above statement is both ludicrous and interesting. Ludicrous because all the workers I've met speak languages like English, French, Spanish, German. Which one are you alluding to? Or are you polylingual? Personally, I choose English because that's what all the workers I live and work with speak, not to mention the bloke down the local shop.

Well, advocates of ruling-class thought have always denigrated the ordinary language of workers, so I suppose I could not have expected anything else of you.

Pick the ordinary language of your choice (from anywhere on the planet), it matters not; they all have the resources to express the sort of historical materialism I advocate, just as they prevent metaphysical ideas of the sort you have swallowed from being expressed with any sense.

Which is why all good revolutionary papers (in every language on the planet in which they are published) use ordinary language to communicate with workers. Same with me.


But it raises an interesting question about what the "language" of the working class is under the yoke of capitalism? What is our world view? How do we perceive the world around us and how do we express it?

If I read your most excellent website, will it tell me?

Please, do me a favour: stay away from my website.

In your present, logically-challenged condition you are more use to me as you are. I should prefer you remained in this self-imposed state of ignorance as an object lesson to others, and as an easy target for me.

As to my 'world-view', see above (I have none, and do not want one).

Regarding the language of the working class, if you have to ask this sort of thing, you are too far gone already.

I can help you no more, I am fresh out of miracles.

[Hit The North]

R:

So another debate ends with you stamping your feet and refusing to debate meaningfully with us poor and inferior 'mystics'.


how many times do I have to tell you (and others) I am not an 'anything-ist', other than a historical materialist.

Any one can call themselves a historical materialist, but when they refuse to outline their version of it (as you constantly do despite repeated appeals by myself and others) then it is difficult to take the claim seriously.


Well, advocates of ruling-class thought have always denigrated the ordinary language of workers, so I suppose I could not have expected anything else of you.


I console myself with the company I keep: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Gramsci, Ollman, etc. On the other hand, I'm not aware of Wittgenstein's contribution to the revolutionary movement.


Please, do me a favour: stay away from my website.

That won't be as difficult as you perhaps assume. Nevertheless, I was looking forward to this:


In my next Essay, published in a week or so, I explain why it is not possible for working-class people to develop any dialectical ideas on their own (they have to be bamboozled into accepting them by dialectical mystics...

It promises to be a masterpiece of high-handed condescension.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


So another debate ends with you stamping your feet and refusing to debate meaningfully with us poor and inferior 'mystics'.

Well, you are the one who invents stuff, and who thinks we can learn things from mystical philosophers like Hegel.

So, with that sole remaining functional brain cell of yours, you should be able to work out for yourself who is the ruling-class stooge here. [Clue, 'his' board name rhymes with "Sleezo".]


Any one can call themselves a historical materialist, but when they refuse to outline their version of it (as you constantly do despite repeated appeals by myself and others) then it is difficult to take the claim seriously.

Don't need to, Marx did it for me (and, I have to admit, far better than I could have managed on my own).

But, to turn things around, how do I know you are even human -- you have yet to prove it....

And now we have the usual appeal to 'tradition', beloved of mystics and religious nuts the world over (but, funnily enough, depised by us materialists, and by scientists):


I console myself with the company I keep: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Gramsci, Ollman, etc. On the other hand, I'm not aware of Wittgenstein's contribution to the revolutionary movement.

You left out Hegel -- I wonder why?

What did he 'contribute', apart from confusion?


That won't be as difficult as you perhaps assume. Nevertheless, I was looking forward to this:

I am not too fussed if it is easy, difficult or impossible, just so long as you keep away, and promise you will stay ignorant.

But, can I trust you? You dialectical mystics like to contradict yourselves.


It promises to be a masterpiece of high-handed condescension.

No, I pulled all your quotations out, so it has been fixed.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 20 2006, 03:24 PM
[Clue, 'his' board name rhymes with "Sleezo".]


:lol:

Penetrating stuff.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Penetrating stuff.

A coherent thought at last -- I knew you were capable of one.

Now, think you have another in there?

Or have we to wait another ten years?

[hoopla]

As to the rest of what you say, since I have already dealt with it, I will say no more. I have searched revleft for "ambiguity" and "ambiguous" with your name. Unfortunately, there was nothing of relevence.
So, I will restate, my original question ;)

As to refuting what you have said, such comments as "no prole can understand DM" or "Dietzgen didn't understand his theories" are ambiguous enough to be meaningless, or at least ignorable.If you are saying that DM mystifies us, IMHO, it ought to be compared with something else, e.g. ordinary language, and shown to be more incomprehensible and useless in comparision

(Does anyone have a link on what "mystifying", exactly, means: does all ideology mystify, or just religous? How is it different to a false consciousness).

So, yeah, I guess that my criticism echoes that of Citizen Zero - you need a useful alternative, in this instance to philosophizing (solving semantic problems, questions about value, even, filling in the gaps in our scientific knowldege :unsure: ).

Though, IMO, claiming that workers speal French/Polish, and not ordfinary language, seems a little rediculous. Seems equivalnet to saying that workers don't talk about their boss behind her back, they talk French. Iyswim.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla,

I have read you post several times, and it still fails to make much sense to me.

In future, may I suggest that if you have something substantive to ask, you get someone else to type it out for you. You have either got boxing gloves on, or have lost control over your fingers.

For example, wtf does this mean:


Though, IMO, claiming that workers speal French/Polish, and not ordfinary language, seems a little rediculous. Seems equivalnet to saying that workers don't talk about their boss behind her back, they talk French

The rest of what you, say (or what little of it that made sense), I have already covered.

[hoopla]

You can't reply to a complaint - that you haven't covered something you said you have covered, by saying that you have covered it :lol:

The point is, that I would like you to explain where you have covered it. See?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


The point is, that I would like you to explain where you have covered it. See?

As I said, either remove the boxing gloves, or get a new set of fingers.

[hoopla]

Oh, when you said "covered this" you meant "insulted me".

I don't see anything p h i l o s o p h i c a l about what I said.

Wtf is the language of the working class. Can you teach someone how to speak it?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


Oh, when you said "covered this" you meant "insulted me".

I don't see anything p h i l o s o p h i c a l about what I said.

Wtf is the language of the working class. Can you teach someone how to speak it?

Since I do not know how to respond to this, I asked a very good friend of mine what to say, and she told me to post this:


Either remove the boxing gloves, or get a new set of fingers.

You will have to forgive my friend's directness; she is not as patient as me.

[Hit The North]

R:

It's a good question though, isn't it: wtf is the language of the working class?

You deride the dialecticians for their lack of clarity, yet I suspect you will not be able to answer this question satisfactorily.

By the way, is your motivation on this forum to enter debate or just to get the last word in?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


It's a good question though, isn't it: wtf is the language of the working class?

You deride the dialecticians for their lack of clarity, yet I suspect you will not be able to answer this question satisfactorily.

By the way, is your motivation on this forum to enter debate or just to get the last word in?

If, as a Marxist you have to ask the first of these, I am afraid I can't help you.

As to the second, I have answered it, but you must have missed it in your rush to find fault.

As to the last: both.

Next stupid question....??

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 21 2006, 07:05 PM
Z:


It's a good question though, isn't it: wtf is the language of the working class?

You deride the dialecticians for their lack of clarity, yet I suspect you will not be able to answer this question satisfactorily.

By the way, is your motivation on this forum to enter debate or just to get the last word in?

If, as a Marxist you have to ask the first of these, I am afraid I can't help you.

As to the second, I have answered it, but you must have missed it in your rush to find fault.

As to the last: both.

Next stupid question....??
Yes, but you're the one claiming you speak it, not me. I speak as I always have, but then, I'm working class. Maybe you appropriated it from a text book. Who knows?

BTW, Ms pedantic, my post has two questions, not three.

Next stupid retort... ?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Yes, but you're the one claiming you speak it, not me. I speak as I always have, but then, I'm working class. Maybe you appropriated it from a text book. Who knows?

I am working class too, and have spoken ordinary langauge all my life.

So has every worker who has ever lived. They invented ordinary language (through collective labour).

That is why your question is so crass. You will be asking why your shadow is roughtly the same shape as you are next.


BTW, Ms pedantic, my post has two questions, not three.

Next stupid retort... ?

And you will note that I do not say there are three questions; I merely count.

And what am I counting?

Paragraphs.

The last comment about stupid questions merely refers to your last paragraph.

So, if you are going to be pedantic, Mr Foot in Mouth, get the details right.

[hoopla]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 22 2006, 03:03 AM
I am working class too, and have spoken ordinary langauge all my life.

So has every worker who has ever lived. They invented ordinary language (through collective labour).

That is why your question is so crass. You will be asking why your shadow is roughtly the same shape as you are next.
The problem being, that I have studied philosophy now, so it can no longer be said, that I speak (just) your ordinary language, anymore. So, how do I know what ordinary language is, if it is no longer, simply, my language? Should I just mimic you? "Ordinary language is what Rosa says (?) because (?) she is working class" :D

[hoopla]

Wrong thread

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


The problem being, that I have studied philosophy now, so it can no longer be said, that I speak (just) your ordinary language, anymore. So, how do I know what ordinary language is, if it is no longer, simply, my language? Should I just mimic you? "Ordinary language is what Rosa says (?) because (?) she is working class"

Again, I found this impossible to follow, so I consulted another friend, who wanted me to pass this advice on to you:


Either remove the boxing gloves, or get a new set of fingers.

Now, why couldn't I have thought of that?