Dialectics: A Deep Mystery Even To Dialecticians

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well: Have You Read And Fully Understood The Whole Of Hegel's Logic?

The above question is thrown into stark relief by Lenin's surprising and oft-quoted remark that not a single Marxist up until his day -- which must have included Engels, Dietzgen, Kautsky, Luxemburg, and Plekhanov -- actually understood Marx's Capital, since none of them had fully mastered Hegel's Logic!


It is impossible to understand Marx's Capital, and especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel's Logic. Consequently, half a century later none of the Marxists understood Marx!! [Lenin (1961), p.180.] {1}

Clearly, Lenin's aside raises serious questions of its own. If professional revolutionaries find Hegel's work impossibly difficult to comprehend (few in my experience bother to consult much of what Hegel wrote, let alone attempt to study the entire Logic -- but, which one (there were two!)?), is it credible that workers themselves can understand the whole of his Logic fully? In which case -- if Lenin is correct --, what chance is there that anyone (revolutionary or worker) will ever make head or tail of Marx's Capital?

Even worse, Lenin's comments suggest that only a tiny fraction (if that!) of revolutionaries have ever fully understood Marxism (or, at least Capital). Lenin is quite clear: only those Marxists who have "thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel's Logic" can claim to comprehend Capital; short of that they can't. Again, how many revolutionaries have thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel's Logic (let alone read it) since Lenin's day? Even professional philosophers find that work daunting.

Nevertheless, a far more serious and intractable question is the following: How would it be possible to decide if anyone has ever actually understood all of Hegel's Logic?

Plainly, we can't enquire of Hegel what the correct interpretation of his work is. Even Lenin himself failed to provide us with a comprehensive (or comprehensible) account of all of Hegel's Logic. And, as we know with regard to the interpretation of that other (but far less) obscure book -- The Bible --, it is always open for someone to claim that their interpretation is the correct one, while all the rest aren't, with no empirically viable way of deciding between them.

Of course, as we shall see, this is precisely what allows sectarians to impose their own brand orthodoxy on their corner of the militant market.

Indeed, buried in here somewhere is one of the main reasons for the ideological sectarianism that appears to be endemic in revolutionary Marxism; the Logic is to DM as The Bible is to Theology. In both of these books, a 'correct' interpretation functions as a test of orthodoxy; their use is both a source of mystification and a guarantor of righteousness.

[DM = Dialectical Materialism]

This being so, few among the rank-and-file will feel confident (or foolish) enough to question the theoretical deliverances made on their behalf by the likes of Stalin, Mao, Mandel, Healy, Pablo, Grant, Avakian -- or whoever.

Of course, few scientists would be foolish enough to make similar claims for any of the classics of science -- not even of Darwin's Origin or Newton's Principia --, that only if the latter were studied from end to end, and thoroughly understood, could an aspiring researcher/student claim to comprehend modern science. One guesses that only a minority of scientists have actually read all or most of the classics in their field, but that fact does not materially affect their work.

Now, even though revolutionary theory is different from other scientific disciplines, that does not mean that incomprehensible philosophical texts must be treated in such a theological way, with every word regarded as required reading, and every syllable understood, before initiation can begin. And yet, Lenin's aside indicates that this is exactly how Hegel's Logic should be viewed by the DM-faithful: only the correct understanding of this intractably obscure work -- in its entirety -- is sufficient to allow novice socialists to proceed to the next level and try to understand Marx's classic, and before they too can presume to spread the Good News.

Of course, this is all rather puzzling since Marx himself never claimed this of his own work. {2}

Notes

{1} In order to counter such ridiculous consequences, two comrades -- i.e., Woods and Grant [in Woods and Grant (1995), p.76] -- have argued that Lenin was deliberately exaggerating here. This is, of course, entirely possible, but it is certainly not the way Lenin has been interpreted by subsequent Marxists.

On this, note Andy Blunden's comments:


Hegel is the philosophical predecessor of Marx, and we have Lenin's word for it that Marx cannot be understood without first understanding Hegel. [Empson (2005), p.166.]

http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=61&issue=105

Naturally, this passage of Lenin's helps account for something that would otherwise be inexplicable: the fascination that Hegel's Logic has exercised on prominent revolutionaries -- including STD's and OT's. If Lenin was merely exaggerating --, or that is how he had been perceived --, this would not have happened.

[STD = Stalinist Dialectician; OT = Orthodox Trotskyist.]

For example, not only do we find a Trotskyist of the stature of Raya Dunayevskaya writing several books in the futile attempt to comprehend Hegel's Logic, we witness her reiterating this famous claim (albeit watered down a tad):


Here, specifically, we see the case of Lenin, who had gone back to Hegel, and had stressed that it was impossible to understand Capital, especially its first chapter, without reading the whole of the Science…. [Dunayevskaya (2002), p.328.]

And, this is what Bertell Ollman had to say:


Even from this brief outline, it is apparent that Marx's Hegelian heritage is too complex to allow simple characterization. Hegel never ceased being important for Marx, as Lenin, for example, perceived when he wrote in his notebook in 1914, 'It is impossible completely to understand Marx's Capital, and especially its first chapters, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel's Logic. Consequently, half a century later none of the Marxists understood Marx' [Ollman (1976), p.35.]

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/a_ch03.php

Furthermore, it is worth noting that Lenin himself admitted that he found certain parts of Hegel's Logic impossibly obscure, or just plain nonsense. [Cf., Lenin (1961), pp.103, 108, 117, 229.]

Hence, if correct, this would mean that even Lenin did not understand Capital!


It is impossible to understand Marx's Capital, and especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel's Logic. Consequently, half a century later none of the Marxists understood Marx!! [Lenin (1961), p.180.]

Notice that Lenin did not refer to just 99.9% of Hegel's Logic, but the "whole" of it.

Finally, there is no evidence that Marx himself made this claim about his own work -- nor is there any that he had ever thoroughly studied and thoroughly understood Hegel's Logic. This either means that the Logic is largely irrelevant to any student of Capital, or Marx did not understand his own book! On this see Note {2} below

{2} Marx certainly laid down no such preconditions for understanding his work. In fact, if anything he tended to play down Hegel's influence. However, so deep has Lenin's myth sunk into the collective Dialectical Mind that that particular comment will elicit immediate disbelief. But it is nonetheless true for all that. And this is why:

Marx himself pointed out that the relevance of Hegel's Philosophy could be summarised in a few printers' sheets:


What was of great use to me as regards method of treatment was Hegel's Logic at which I had taken another look by mere accident, Freiligrath having found and made me a present of several volumes of Hegel, originally the property of Bakunin. If ever the time comes when such work is again possible, I should very much like to write 2 or 3 sheets making accessible to the common reader the rational aspect of the method which Hegel not only discovered but also mystified. [Marx to Engels, 16/01/1858; MECW, Volume 40, p.248. Bold emphasis added.]

Needless to say, Marx never supplied his readers with such a précis. From this we may perhaps draw the conclusion that in the end Marx did not think Hegel's method was all that significant. So, despite all the millions of words he committed to paper, he did not consider it important enough to write out these relatively few pages. Meanwhile, and in contrast, Marx spent a whole year of his life banging on about Karl Vogt, but still he could not be bothered with this 'vitally important' summary. [This obscure work of Marx's has so far been deemed unfit to publish on the Marx Internet Archive, so poor is it.]

Even had Marx done so, it would still have meant that only a tiny fraction of Hegel's work is relevant to understanding Capital: a few pages!

Attentive readers too will have noticed that Marx says he encountered Hegel's Logic by "accident"; this hardly suggests he was a constant or avid reader of that work. Indeed, he did not even possess his own copy of Hegel's Logic and had to be given one as a present by Freiligrath!

Much has been made of certain references to Hegel in Marx's later work. However, a close reading of these reveals a picture that is different from the standard one retailed by DM-apologists. The scattered remarks about Hegelian Philosophy (outside his analysis of Hegel's political ideas) found in Marx's published works are inconclusive. [More details in the full Essay.]

Marx himself declared:


...I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker" and even, here and there in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the mode of expression peculiar to him. [Marx (1976), p.103. Bold emphasis added.]

His use of the word "coquetted" also suggests Hegel's Logic had only a superficial influence, merely confined to certain "modes of expression", and limited to just a few sections of his great work. And as far as Marx "openly" avowing himself a pupil of Hegel, he pointedly put this in the past tense:


I criticised the mystificatory side of the Hegelian dialectic nearly thirty years ago, at a time when is was still the fashion. But just when I was working on the first volume of Capital, the ill-humoured, arrogant and mediocre epigones who now talk large in educated German circles began to take pleasure in treating Hegel in the same way as the good Moses Mendelssohn treated Spinoza in Lessing's time, namely as a 'dead dog'. I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker" and even, here and there in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the mode of expression peculiar to him. [Ibid., pp.102-03. Bold emphases added.]

This is hardly a ringing endorsement, and is equivocal at best; Marx does not say he is now a pupil of Hegel, but that he once was. Of course, it might still have been the case that he was such when the above was written, but there is nothing here to suggest that Marx viewed the link between his own and Hegel's work as Lenin did.

Woods and Grant note that Lenin argued that Marx did leave behind a his own version of Hegel's Logic, namely Das Kapital [Woods and Grant (1995), p.76.] but Marx's own words (that he merely "coquetted" with Hegelian terminology) shows that this is more than an "exaggeration" on Lenin's part, it's a fabrication.

Finally, it could be argued that the Grundrisse (i.e., Marx (1973)) is living disproof of much of the above. Well, it would have been had Marx seen fit to publish it, but he didn't, and so it isn't.

But he did publish this:


...I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker" and even, here and there in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the mode of expression peculiar to him. [Marx (1976), p.103. Bold emphasis added.]

So, whatever it was that happened to Marx's thinking between the writing of the Grundrisse and Das Kapital, it clearly changed his view of Hegel's Logic -- to such an extent that its phraseology merely became something with he wished to "coquette". In that case, Lenin should have said:


It is possible to understand Marx's Capital, and especially its first chapter, merely by coquetting here and there with the phraseology of Hegel's Logic. Consequently, half a century later anyone who is capable of coquetting will understand Marx!! [Edited misquotation of Lenin (1961), p.180.]


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an exceprt from my latest Essay "The Politics Of Metaphysics; Dialectical Materialism: An Alien-Class Theory"; more details and references can be found here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_01.htm

[Hit The North]

R:


Needless to say, Marx never supplied his readers with such a précis. From this we may perhaps draw the conclusion that in the end Marx did not think Hegel's method was all that significant. So, despite all the millions of words he committed to paper, he did not consider it important enough to write out these relatively few pages.

Whilst I'm with you in rejecting Lenin's casual exageration (sounds like the old rascal is just pulling rank!), I don't find the above argument very persuasive. Marx promised to do many important tasks which he never delivered on, such as a systematic analysis of social class and the political state.

There is evidence, even in the material you cite above, that Marx thought that he had deduced the rational kernal of Hegel's logic and that it was an important stage in arriving at historical materialism and further developing its analysis of the social world.

EDIT: In evidence this is what Marx has to say about his dialectical method:


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

I wish he'd written those few pages on the 'rational kernel'. It would have saved us from a lot of pointless philosophising.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Lenin+--> (Lenin)It is impossible to understand Marx's Capital, and especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel's Logic. Consequently, half a century later none of the Marxists understood Marx!! [Lenin (1961), p.180.][/b]

This is,

a. False. While it is true that the Capital's first chapter is indeed written in a way that purposefully mimicks Hegel's style, Marx himself considered it a joke (possibly, it was a way to show professional Hegelian phylosophers that they couldn't mess with him arguing his ignorance of Hegelianism - something like Prokofiev's Classical Symphony). Also, Das Kapital was written with the intention to be an accessible reading (though some could argue that German is not the most proper languate to do so). It did become a nasty habit of professional Marxist phylosophers to make grand statements about the difficulties of reading the Capital, but this is no more sound than fishermen exaggerating the dificulties of fishing, to look more important in the eyes of laymen.

b. Coherent with Lenin's "theory" of "proletarian counsciousness" coming from outside the class, via the contribution of defroqué petty bourgeois intelectuals.


Originally posted by Rosa Liechtenstein+--> (Rosa Liechtenstein)Nevertheless, a far more serious and intractable question is the following: How would it be possible to decide if anyone has ever actually understood all of Hegel's Logic?[/b]

Obvious: they understood Hegel's Logic if they agree with Lenin's interpretation of it; otherwise...


Originally posted by Rosa Liechtenstein
Indeed, buried in here somewhere is one of the main reasons for the ideological sectarianism that appears to be endemic in revolutionary Marxism; the [i]Logic is to D M[aterialism] as The Bible is to Theology. In both of these books, a 'correct' interpretation functions as a test of orthodoxy; their use is both a source of mystification and a guarantor of righteousness.

True, but, as your reference to the Bible shows, this is by no means exclusive of dialectical materialism; it is a general trait of intelectual works that aspire to be embodied by human organisations; or, perhaps more correctly, of human organisations that intend to embody intelectual accomplishments.


Rosa [email protected]
Of course, few scientists would be foolish enough to make similar claims for any of the classics of science -- not even of Darwin's Origin or Newton's Principia --, that only if the latter were studied from end to end, and thoroughly understood, could an aspiring researcher/student claim to comprehend modern science. One guesses that only a minority of scientists have actually read all or most of the classics in their field, but that fact does not materially affect their work.

True, but "science", as an organisational phenomenon, is elitist by definition. The masses aren't called into it as producers (at best, yes, as consumers); the layman can believe practically anything about scientists (and there are ideological agencies that in fact promote the weirdest myths about them), without that having any practical effect in science (be it science as an organisation, a method, a practice, whatever). It is quite possible that the layman sees science as a secular religion (part of the "creationist" polemic against evolution is based in such misunderstandment). It doesn't matter; laymen are, by definition, not scientists. Such difference cannot be acknowledged in a democratic mass movement, in which all participants are insiders.


Rosa Liechtenstein
Now, even though revolutionary theory is different from other scientific disciplines, that does not mean that incomprehensible philosophical texts must be treated in such a theological way, with every word regarded as required reading, and every syllable understood, before initiation can begin. And yet, Lenin's aside indicates that this is exactly how Hegel's Logic should be viewed by the DM-faithful: only the correct understanding of this intractably obscure work -- in its entirety -- is sufficient to allow novice socialists to proceed to the next level and try to understand Marx's classic, and before they too can presume to spread the Good News.

True, but this does not address the origin of Leninism, which is not Hegel, nor the Bible, but Blanqui. While Lenin was probably very honest in his idea that understanding Hegel was essential for a revolutionary, the fact remains that such idea points immediately to a self-anointed revolutionary clique, separate from the masses.

Revolutionary theory is not just only different from "other scientific disciplines": its specifical difference it that it requires the erasing of the line dividing "scientists" and "laymen" (still the best text to explain that is in Plato's Protagoras, in which the old sophist retells the tale of the division of skills among human beings by Prometheus).


[STD = Stalinist Dialectician; OT = Orthodox Trotskyist.]

I like the idea of Stalinism as a Sexually Transmitted Disease, and of Trotskyism as something Off Topic...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


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

I am aware of this quotation; so I do not know why you quoted it at me. It is exceptionally badly written, and makes little sense: "because it lets nothing impose upon it..."; what does that mean?

You will also note that Marx has to anthropomorphise 'the dialectic' to make this passage work. Not very impressive.

But worse, the dialectic cannot be a scandal to the bourgeoisis, since they invented it (Hegel was not a worker). Even in its Hegelian form, it encompassed change, in the way Marx says.

And, since it has no rational form, it can 'abominate' no one.

Worse still, we have Marx's other words that tell us he merely 'coquetted' 'here and there' with Hegel's 'terminology'.

So, the alleged 'rational' form amounted to no more than a few terms 'coquetted' with 'here and there'.

Hence, when I excise Hegel from Marxism, we are not going to miss much.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH: OT was in fact a shortening of OTT (Orthodox Trotskyist Theorist) I used elsewhere in my Essays, so its not a play on 'Off Topic' but on 'Over The Top'.

The rest of what you say I cannot comment on since it is not intergral to points I wished to make, whatever else I made of them (except, in the full essay, I solve the problem you raise, about 'revolutionary consciousness' coming 'from the outside', and I do so in a way that is consistent with Leninism -- and, I disagree that Lenin is a Blanquist).

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa Liechtenstein
I disagree that Lenin is a Blanquist

Why?

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


Why?

Well, I do not wnat to get dragged into political discussion, so I must let this one go.

However read Hal Draper oin this:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/index.htm

[Luís Henrique]

Rosa, I don't think it is possible to avoid a political discussion about the points you raised in the OP without avoiding any meaningful discussion. After all, your contention is not just that Lenin was wrong in his appreciation of the importance of Hegel's Logic, but that such mistake has had profound consequences on the politics of the left.

My position is that the consequences you point are due to Lenin's substitutionist theory of an external vanguard, not of Lenin's overappreciation of Hegel (and that, indeed, Lenin's overappreciation of Hegel is also a consequence of Lenin's substitutionism).

So, while I agree with you that Lenin's hyperbole about Marxist ignorance about Marxism is harmful, I don't believe a critique of it, in itself, is enough to get rid of the nasty consequences of "Leninism" in the left.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH: I am well aware of this tired old allegation; I just do not wish to debate it.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 2 2006, 02:26 PM
LH: I am well aware of this tired old allegation; I just do not wish to debate it.
Fine; to me, this ends this discussion also.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


Fine; to me, this ends this discussion also.

What discussion....??

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 2 2006, 04:01 PM
What discussion....??
In fact, this may well be the real question.

To phrase it in a better way, I am going back to the Golden Calf; I didn't like the new tables.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


In fact, this may well be the real question.

To phrase it in a better way, I am going back to the Golden Calf; I didn't like the new tables.

Er....????

[repeater138]

Rosa you completely miss the point of Lenin's comment on Hegel's "Logic". The point was that no one could really understand the depth and gravity of Marx's breakthrough in "Capital" without fully understanding Hegel because "Capital" was a radical rupture with Hegelian dialectics. You have to understand the thing being ruptured from in order to understand the rupture. Stop taking things so literally.

Hegelian dialectics and the Marxist dialectic are two radically different things.

I would add that your inability to understand a work doesn't make it invalid or untrue, it is not grounds for its rejection. Frankly it is grounds for a rejection of your analysis of the subject that you flat out admit to not knowing what you're talking about, i.e. Hegel's Logic is "nonsense" because you don't understand it.

By this measure what else is nonsense? I would imagine it to be everything in the world you "don't get".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Repeater:


Rosa you completely miss the point of Lenin's comment on Hegel's "Logic". The point was that no one could really understand the depth and gravity of Marx's breakthrough in "Capital" without fully understanding Hegel because "Capital" was a radical rupture with Hegelian dialectics. You have to understand the thing being ruptured from in order to understand the rupture. Stop taking things so literally.

I deny this, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. [This point has been thrashed out several times on earlier threads.]

I note that Marx disgrees with you, and with Lenin; he said he merely 'coquetted' with Hegelian terminology in Capital.


Hegelian dialectics and the Marxist dialectic are two radically different things.

That is what we are constantly told, but once again, I deny this.


I would add that your inability to understand a work doesn't make it invalid or untrue, it is not grounds for its rejection. Frankly it is grounds for a rejection of your analysis of the subject that you flat out admit to not knowing what you're talking about, i.e. Hegel's Logic is "nonsense" because you don't understand it.

I claim that no one can understand Hegel's Logic (just as no one can comprehend the Christian Trinity -- the two doctrines in fact hale from the same source in mystical Greek Hermeticism), nor 'materialist dialectics' (or if they can, they have kept this secret to themsleves for over 100 years), so that puts me in good company.


By this measure what else is nonsense? I would imagine it to be everything in the world you "don't get".

Well, you should try to avoid making stuff up; I set up my site to explain in extensive detail why I say the things I do.

I have also summarised my ideas on earlier threads.

All you have said, I have heard literally hundreds of times; it gets very tedious....

[Bretty123]

I'm just throwing this out there not as any critique on the material but of your response of:
All you have said, I have heard literally hundreds of times; it gets very tedious....

Maybe this is your fault in being unclear or ignoring legitimate points of view.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty:


Maybe this is your fault in being unclear or ignoring legitimate points of view.

That is a possibility, I cannot deny that.

So, to back up your theory, I suggest read all those posts (plus my published Essays, all 600,000 words), locate any lack of clarity (or the other things you say), and I'll rectify it as soon as I can, if I am to blame -- or if I haven't already corrected it myself somewhere else.

[However, here's a much easier task for you: choose any randomly selected section of Hegel's 'Logic', and make that clear. Until then, such accusations against me, or failings on my part in ths regard, must pall into insignificance.]

Deal?

[repeater138]

Your positions are laughable.

But just to show that your own arguments carry with them their disproof I will return to your quote of Marx:


What was of great use to me as regards method of treatment was Hegel's Logic at which I had taken another look by mere accident, Freiligrath having found and made me a present of several volumes of Hegel, originally the property of Bakunin. If ever the time comes when such work is again possible, I should very much like to write 2 or 3 sheets making accessible to the common reader the rational aspect of the method which Hegel not only discovered but also mystified. [Marx to Engels, 16/01/1858; MECW, Volume 40, p.248. Bold emphasis added.]

First of all you claim that Marx only accidently passed over Hegel's Logic, but the quote clearly shows that Marx had "another look" by accident. Obviously meaning that he had viewed it before, in what context and to what depth is not known. But considering Marx's early entanglements with the Young and Left Hegelians, I think it is fair to assume that Marx understood Hegel, and thus his claim to recognize the difference between the "rational aspect" of the method and the mystified Hegelian form of it, i.e. dialectics, should not be merely glossed over. See, it is in fact here in this seperation between the two, which Marx explicitly recognizes, that your use of this quote to back up the idea that there is no difference, let alone that Hegel is incomprehensible, becomes a joke.

Your attempt to claim that Hegelianism is incomprehensible, and your comparison in that respect to Christianity as another example also shows a trenchant anti-theory and philistinism, a simple refusal to think. First of all, that something is mystified and untrue does not make it incomprehensible. And in this respect I would say that Hegel is fully comprehensible, as is Christianity, as is any ideology when viewed from an objective and materialist point of view. Your claim to the contrary leaves us in a situation where all ideology is out of bounds for investigation, even criticism, an irony which I tried to press on you by explaining how unscientific it is to claim to criticize something which is apparently uncriticizable (incomprehensible) according to you. Your defense being that no one can understand it at all, even as you show us two quotes, one from Marx and one from Lenin, which claim the opposite. Let it be said further that there are thousands of people who are experts in Hegel's philosophy throughout modern and contemporary times. If the burden of proof is on someone, in this discussion, I think it should be on you to show how it is that all these people who claim to understand Hegel are somehow deluded. Of course this would require that you understand something of Hegel, again an amusing irony. A simple categorical answer will not suffice as it really doesn't answer the question. Unfortunately this is exactly what your argument amounts to, i.e. a circular argument defining something as incomprehensible in order to prove that it's incomprehensible. This is what makes your 600,000 words a giant waste of time.

Now I'm sure your frustration with abstract thought comes by you honestly, but the demand that highly abstract thought should somehow be easy to access is illegitimate. Sometimes ideas are difficult and all ideas have different interpretations and viewpoints engaged in them. This is basic science and in fact what keeps it going as a social engagement with knowledge. If there was only one way of viewing things and no disagreements over them, if there were no wrong ideas or bad ideas, how would we come to correct ideas? Even mathematics has multiple points of view over such things as Set Theory, just as Physics has an apparently insurmountable contradiction at the base of its modern theory. The demand in any of these cases for one simple answer that wraps up and puts to rest all questions is an immature and idealist demand, and your reaction to this reality is simply denial. That is why I asked you what else was on your list of the incomprehensible, because if the threshhold is a nice two or three page essay, there are alot of ideas out their which would remain incomprehensible to you. But the real issue, and what this discussion illucidates, is that you're not dealing with Dialectics or Hegel as a legitimate set of ideas from the very outset of your "investigation". This is apriorism. That is, coming to a conclusion before you make an investigation, and it is very much connected to your circular logic. This is shown in relation to these other ideas, because if you put the same demands on other high levels of theory you would by necessity have to reject them, but you don't reject these out of hand. The only reason must be that you're applying a different set of categories in your interaction with them.

Let me just point out this last irony in your absurdist project:


Of course, few scientists would be foolish enough to make similar claims for any of the classics of science -- not even of Darwin's Origin or Newton's Principia --, that only if the latter were studied from end to end, and thoroughly understood, could an aspiring researcher/student claim to comprehend modern science. One guesses that only a minority of scientists have actually read all or most of the classics in their field, but that fact does not materially affect their work.

I love that you make this claim, and rightfully so, and then turn around and demand that someone read all 600,000 of your words before they can engage in a discussion or understand your positions. Your methods and positions are a caricature of critical thinking, and as such they are crystal clear in their idiocy, in their narrowness and subjectivity. There is definately no need to read anything your "great mind" has put forward beyond a very small sampling of your posts here and a few of your essays to know that you're wrong.

I think Bretty is correct in suggesting that the problem with your rejection of criticisms of yourself on the basis of how often you hear them is pretty problematic and suggests something of a dogmatist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Repeater (once more, I have heard/read this sort of stuff oh so many times -- do you dialecticians have to learn it by rote? Somehow, your title seems oddly apposite: Repeater 138; add a zero, and that is nearly the number of times I've heard this tired old stuff):


First of all you claim that Marx only accidently passed over Hegel's Logic, but the quote clearly shows that Marx had "another look" by accident.

Marx did not own his own copy of Hegel's 'Logic', and had to be given one by Freiligrath.

Then, as you note, he took another look 'by accident', which hardly suggests he was an avid reader. Next he felt he could sum Hegel up in a few pages. Hardly a ringing endorsement of Lenin's claim.

You undermine your own conclusions, I'm afraid.


Obviously meaning that he had viewed it before, in what context and to what depth is not known. But considering Marx's early entanglements with the Young and Left Hegelians, I think it is fair to assume that Marx understood Hegel, and thus his claim to recognize the difference between the "rational aspect" of the method and the mystified Hegelian form of it, i.e. dialectics

I note the guesswork here.

In fact, as it now turns out, Marx misunderstood Hegel, since he got his ideas from a second-rate Hegel interpreter Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus; as I have pinned in the stciky section, this is the truth (disappointing as this might seem):


Some say Hegel used the method of: thesis-antithesis-synthesis, and others deny this. Who is correct?

The most vexing and devastating Hegel legend is that everything is thought in "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis." [...] The actual texts of Hegel not only occasionally deviate from "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis," but show nothing of the sort. "Dialectic" does not for Hegel mean "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis." Dialectic means that any "ism" - which has a polar opposite, or is a special viewpoint leaving "the rest" to itself - must be criticized by the logic of philosophical thought, whose problem is reality as such, the "World-itself."

Hermann Glockner's reliable Hegel Lexikon (4 volumes, Stuttgart, 1935) does not list the Fichtean terms "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" together. In all the twenty volumes of Hegel's "complete works" he does not use this "triad" once; nor does it occur in the eight volumes of Hegel texts, published for the first time in the twentieth Century. He refers to "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis" in the Preface of the Phenomenology of Mind, where he considers the possibility of this "triplicity " as a method or logic of philosophy. According to the Hegel-legend one would expect Hegel to recommend this "triplicity." But, after saying that it was derived from Kant, he calls it a "lifeless schema," "mere shadow" and concludes: "The trick of wisdom of that sort is as quickly acquired as it is easy to practice. Its repetition, when once it is familiar, becomes as boring as the repetition of any bit of sleigh-of-hand once we see through it. The instrument for producing this monotonous formalism is no more difficult to handle than the palette of a painter, on which lie only two colours ..." (Preface, Werke, II, 48-49).

In the student notes, edited and published as History of Philosophy, Hegel mentions in the Kant chapter, the "spiritless scheme of the triplicity of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis" (geistloses Schema) by which the rhythm and movement of philosophic knowledge is artificially pre-scribed (vorgezeichnet).

In the first important book about Hegel by his student, intimate friend and first biographer, Karl Rosenkranz (Hegels Leben, 1844), "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" are conspicuous by their absence. It seems Hegel was quite successful in hiding his alleged "method" from one of his best students.

The very important new Hegel literature of this century has altogether abandoned the legend. Theodor Haering's Hegels Wollen und Werk (2 vol., Teubner, 1929 and 1938) makes a careful study of Hegel's terminology and language and finds not a trace of "thesis, antithesis, synthesis." In the second volume there are a few lines (pp. 118, 126) in which he repeats what Hegel in the above quotation had said himself, i.e., that this "conventional slogan" is particularly unfortunate because it impedes the understanding of Hegelian texts. As long as readers think that they have to find "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" in Hegel they must find him obscure - but what is obscure is not Hegel but their colored glasses. Iwan Iljin's Hegel's Philosophie als kontemplative Gotteslehre (Bern, 1946) dismisses the "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" legend in the Preface as a childish game (Spielerei), which does not even reach the front-porch of Hegel's philosophy.

Other significant works, like Hermann Glockner, Hegel (2 vols., Stuttgart, 1929), Theodor Steinbüchel, Das Grundproblem der Hegelschen Philosophie (Bonn, 1933), and Theodor Litt, Hegel: Eine Kritische Erneuerung (Heidelberg, 1953), Emerich Coreth, S.J., Das Dialektische Sein in Hegels Logik (Wien, 1952), and many others have simply disregarded the legend. In my own monographs on Hegel über Offenbarung, Kirche und Philosophie (Munich, 1939) and Hegel über Sittlichkeit und Geschichte (Reinhardt, 1940), I never found any "thesis, antithesis, synthesis." Richard Kroner, in his introduction to the English edition of selections from Hegel's Early Theological Writings, puts it mildly when he says: "This new Logic is of necessity as dialectical as the movement of thinking itself. ... But it is by no means the mere application of a monotonous trick that could be learned and repeated. It is not the mere imposition of an ever recurring pattern. It may appear so in the mind of some historians who catalogue the living trend of thought, but in reality it is ever changing, ever growing development; Hegel is nowhere pedantic in pressing concepts into a ready-made mold. The theme of thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis, like the motif of a musical composition, has many modulations and modifications. It is never 'applied'; it is itself only a poor and not even helpful abstraction of what is really going on in Hegel's Logic."

Well, shall we keep this "poor and not helpful abstraction" in our attic because "some historians" have used it as their rocking-horse? We rather agree with the conclusion of Johannes Flügge: "Dialectic is not the scheme of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis imputed to Hegel."

In an essay by Nicolai Hartmann on Aristoteles und Hegel, I find the following additional confirmation of all the other witnesses to the misinterpretation of Hegel's dialectic: "It is a basically perverse opinion (grundverkehrte Ansicht) which sees the essence of dialectic in the triad of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis." The legend was spread by Karl Marx whose interpretation of Hegel is distorted. It is Marxism superimposed on Hegel. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis, Marx says in Das Elend der Philosophie, is Hegel's purely logical formula for the movement of pure reason, and the whole system is engendered by this dialectical movement of thesis, antithesis, synthesis of all categories. This pure reason, he continues, is Mr. Hegel's own reason, and history becomes the history of his own philosophy, whereas in reality, thesis, antithesis, synthesis are the categories of economic movements. (Summary of Chapter II, Paragraph 1.) The few passages in Marx' writings that resemble philosophy are not his own. He practices the communistic habit of expropriation without compensation. Knowing this in general, I was also convinced that there must be a source for this "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis," and I finally discovered it.

In the winter of 1835-36, a group of Kantians in Dresden called on Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus, professor of philosophy at the University of Kiel, to lecture to them on the new philosophical movement after Kant. They were older, professional men who in their youth had been Kantians, and now wanted an orientation in a development which they distrusted; but they also wanted a confirmation of their own Kantianism. Professor Chalybäus did just those two things. His lectures appeared in 1837 under the title Historische Entwicklung der speculativen Philosophie von Kant bis Hegel, Zu näherer Verständigung des wissenschaftlichen Publikums mit der neuesten Schule. The book was very popular and appeared in three editions. In my copy of the third edition of 1843, Professor Chalybäus says (p. 354): "This is the first trilogy: the unity of Being, Nothing and Becoming ... we have in this first methodical thesis, antithesis, and synthesis ... an example or schema for all that follows." This was for Chalybäus a brilliant hunch which he had not used previously and did not pursue afterwards in any way at all. But Karl Marx was at, that time a student at the university of Berlin and a member of the Hegel Club where the famous book was discussed. He took the hunch and spread into a deadly, abstract machinery. Other left Hegelians, such as Arnold Ruge, Ludwig Feuerbach, Max Stirner use "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" just as little as Hegel

(quote from the article of Gustav E. Mueller: The Hegel Legend of "Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis", in "Journal of the History of Ideas", Volume XIX, June 1958, Number 3, Page 411. The article is still as valid today as it was in 1958)

From: http://www.hegel.net/en/faq.htm#6.4

Bold emphasis added.

More details here:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51512

But, if Marx misunderstood Hegel, and if Lenin were right, then Marx could not have understood Capital!


See, it is in fact here in this seperation between the two, which Marx explicitly recognizes, that your use of this quote to back up the idea that there is no difference, let alone that Hegel is incomprehensible, becomes a joke.

Well, I think you have just swallowed the standard line.

That is up to you, but don't expect me to accept it on your say-so.

Marx was not God, he made a minor error. Fortunately, he did not incorporate much of that execrable Hermetic idealism in Capital; as he says;, he merely 'coquetted' with a few bits of jargon.

I note also that you ignore this; I would in your circumstances.

Once again, hardly a ringing endorsement of the line Lenin took.

Now you substitute fulmination for logic:


Your attempt to claim that Hegelianism is incomprehensible, and your comparison in that respect to Christianity as another example also shows a trenchant anti-theory and philistinism, a simple refusal to think.

The evidence is against you, as I show at my site; the dialectic originates in the same set of concepts drawn from Neoplatonism and Hermetic Greek thought, as did the concepts that later went into the construction of triune god of Christianity.

Get over it.

Calling me names is not an argument; but it is probably the best one you have got -- so I expect even more.

And I am not against theory, just philosophical/mystical theory -- unlike, I might add, you and your dialectically-confused comrades.

The more scientific theory (backed up by evidence) the better, as far as I can see.


I think it should be on you to show how it is that all these people who claim to understand Hegel are somehow deluded.

Well, I have read more commentaries on Hegel, and studies of his work than any human being should ever have to. I claim that all fail to make his ideas comprehensible.

The same, only more so, is true of the many hundreds of books and articles I have read on 'materialist dialectics', most of which were highly repetitive.



If you know of a single book or article that makes either or both comprehensible, then [i]please let me know. I have been looking for one (just one!) now for nigh on 30 years.


This is what makes your 600,000 words a giant waste of time.

Unlike you, I tend to read stuff before I make ignorant comments like that.

Perhaps I should learn from you, and descend into mere abuse?

What do you think?

My present 'short-sighted' tactic of reading stuff first, if adopted by your good self, would at least save you from making crass comments like this:


Now I'm sure your frustration with abstract thought comes by you honestly, but the demand that highly abstract thought should somehow be easy to access is illegitimate. Sometimes ideas are difficult and all ideas have different interpretations and viewpoints engaged in them. This is basic science and in fact what keeps it going as a social engagement with knowledge.

No problems with abstract knowledge. I also have a degree in mathematics; you can't get more abstract than that.

However, I do have a problem with the empty abstractions of philosophy -- but you will never know the reasons why, since you are a little too scared to read my work -- hence all that pontification and brainless fulmination.

No worries; I can somehow live with your continued ignorance.


just as Physics has an apparently insurmountable contradiction at the base of its modern theory.

I deny this, and challenge you to show where and what that 'contradiction' is.

[Of course, if you are referring to wave/particle 'duality' I deny this is a contradiction.]


That is, coming to a conclusion before you make an investigation, and it is very much connected to your circular logic.

Example?


I love that you make this claim, and rightfully so, and then turn around and demand that someone read all 600,000 of your words before they can engage in a discussion or understand your positions. Your methods and positions are a caricature of critical thinking, and as such they are crystal clear in their idiocy, in their narrowness and subjectivity. There is definately no need to read anything your "great mind" has put forward beyond a very small sampling of your posts here and a few of your essays to know that you're wrong.

Fine, stay ignorant, as I have said.

I won't be losing much sleep as a result....

[stevensen]

rocha
i think repeater is right. lenin was a human and he made mistakes, doesnot mean whatever he said and leninism was wrong. if you start from a position that you will hate dialectics no one can make you realise what you are missing. to the layman the theories of relativity are also incomprehensible, i guess going by your logic relativity is bull shit because most people do not comprehend it.... and yet if you spend enough time to master the theories of relativity and if you have the brains enough it seems logically consistent, does it not?
i think you should have a look at marx's preface to capital, where he admits that the for a beginer the starting is difficult as it is indeed in any science but once mastered his way of analysis becomes simple. additionally you might see john stachy's quote[the intellectual effort to master marxism is enpurmous but equally the effort so applied can never go waste] i suggest instead of reading your 60,000 word essay you should try and read up hegel...there are many aspects that you will find strikingly similar...even his errors will make you think as to why and how his thought process faltered..that is education in itself....
just because you dont undersatand dialectics doesnot mean its hog wash..
and about lenin. if he had confined himself to bull shit and writing 60,000 words of hig wash my dear rosa i think he would have been in your place and not the sucsessful leader of a revolution..
rosa rememeber how small you are in front of lenin...dont jump on a phrase of his and try out absurd projects.
read lenin. try to understand what he writes about and you will certainly be more benefittted..

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Stevenson:


I think repeater is right. lenin was a human and he made mistakes, doesnot mean whatever he said and leninism was wrong.

1) It does not matter what you or I, or even Repeater, think; the evidence shows that Lenin was wrong, and Das Kapital was not based on Hegel's 'Logic', and hence that Lenin totally wasted his time studying that execrable book (by Hegel), and we should totally disregard Lenin's Philosophical Notebooks -- and indeed that subsequent theorists have been thoroughly mistaken in following Lenin's advice, and have studied the 'Logic' too.

2) I say nothing about Leninism being in error -- and I would not either since I am a Leninist.


if you start from a position that you will hate dialectics no one can make you realise what you are missing.

I start from a position of knowing (and being able to prove) that dialectics is in error, and I challenge you to show me what I am 'missing'.




to the layman the theories of relativity are also incomprehensible, i guess going by your logic relativity is bull shit because most people do not comprehend it

Not so; the only thing preventing ordinary human beings understanding relativity is an adequate education and enough time; no one (expert and layman alike) understands dialectics -- and they find it impossible to explain it to one another, or to anyone else.

Or, if they can explain it, they have been remarkably secretive about it.

Prove me wrong.


i think you should have a look at marx's preface to capital, where he admits that the for a beginer the starting is difficult as it is indeed in any science but once mastered his way of analysis becomes simple.

Since Marx did not use Hegel's 'Logic' (except for a few bits of jargon with which he 'coquetted', to use his own words), I do not see the relevance of your comment.


i suggest instead of reading your 60,000 word essay you should try and read up hegel

It's 600,000, and will be over 1.5 million words long when finished -- and I have read and studied both of the Hegelian 'logics', many times, and will continue to do so.

However, it is still nonsensical no matter how many times I, you, or Uncle Tom Cobbley, study it.

I challenge you to show otherwise.


and about lenin. if he had confined himself to bull shit and writing 60,000 words of hig wash my dear rosa i think he would have been in your place and not the sucsessful leader of a revolution..

What is it with you dialectical Mystics, when you feel you can comment on my work without having read it?

Don't read it for all I care, but stop pontificating about it if you do not intend to go near it.

[And you need to note that the revolution failed.]


rosa rememeber how small you are in front of lenin...dont jump on a phrase of his and try out absurd projects.

Marxism is not a religion; you seem to be treating it like one. Lenin is not a god (even you note that). So 'size' does not matter when it comes to science.


read lenin. try to understand what he writes about and you will certainly be more benefittted..

Done it; his works on politics, strategy, party organisation etc. I fully respect. [i]That is why I am a Leninist.

His work on Philosophy is fourth-rate, at best.

And I can prove it....

[sukirti]

i will start with a quote
[I start from a position of knowing (and being able to prove) that dialectics is in error, and I challenge you to show me what I am 'missing'.]

as you yourself admit you start from a position of knowing that dialectics is wrong so i guess one cant argue much about it when you have a preconceived notion. you go from knowing to proving and not vice versa as it should be so...
quote
[Not so; the only thing preventing ordinary human beings understanding relativity is an adequate education and enough time; no one (expert and layman alike) understands dialectics -- and they find it impossible to explain it to one another, or to anyone else.]

i might say with sufficient confidence that experts in dialectics do understand it. like all experts on subjects they have opinions which differ. that is natural. scientists working and propounding the same theories have always differed. einstien had serious differences with neils bohr, just to quote an example. are you in search of a theory in which every expert agrees 100% on all things? thats childishness. the robustness of a philosophical theory is the amount of divergent interpretetions it can create, the amount of debate it can create and only the best like lenin make the least errors and are able to grasp the correct interpretation and application of the theory like only the best of scientists are able to make path breaking discoveries whilst many scientists work with similar material. may be mao was also wrong as he too believed in dialectics... a theory is being applied, mistakes will be made, no reason to bull shit the theory. its like claiming that gravitation is non existent because of a faulty rocket launch.

quote Since Marx did not use Hegel's 'Logic' (except for a few bits of jargon with which he 'coquetted', to use his own words), I do not see the relevance of your comment.

it seems you want an acknpwledgement from marx like a sort of note saying hey i have used hegel's ideas else he has not used them. we are concerned with methods here not acknowledgement. a scientist working on a space project need not advertise or say i have used concepts of space-time and gravitation. if he does not say so it does not follow that he has not used these concepts or may be it is going by your logic. it is implicit . the theory behind the work is implicit if the theory be clear enough. marx need not have made a soul rending acknowledgement: here, my work is based on hegel. it is irrelevant what he admits. the method of enquiry is based on hegel's works . off course it demystifies hegel's idelaism but the basis of marx's works remain dialectics..
He writes to Engels in 1858 that Hegel's Logic assisted him greatly in his method of analysing capital, but that Hegel had also mystified the dialectic (Marx and Engels 1983: 50). In 1868 he writes to Kugelman that his own method of argument is not Hegelian, in asmuch as he is a materialist and Hegel an idealist, but that Hegel's dialectic must remain the basis of all dialectics once its `mystical form' is disposed of (Marx and Engels 1983: 126).
so there goes for toss your theory of hegel's works having no importance for marx beyond a few jargons.
and lastly
quote
Done it; his works on politics, strategy, party organisation etc. I fully respect. That is why I am a Leninist.
you may have read lenin but you have not understood him. all his wroks on politics and party organisation which you respect , lenin beleived to be based on the dilaectical method of enquiry. if he was working with a faulty method or working with something that seems to you to be all abstract bull shit how could he have produced works which you respect, based as they are on hegelian bull shit or what lenin believed to be hegelian dialectics. in fact he was then working with no method since what he thought he was working with was no method at all and yet you respect his works on politics etc.. you seem to be submerged in contradictions .

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sukirti, thanks for those comments.


as you yourself admit you start from a position of knowing that dialectics is wrong so i guess one cant argue much about it when you have a preconceived notion. you go from knowing to proving and not vice versa as it should be so...

Well, I had a similar reaction when I first encountered the Christian Trinity: I could see, before I went any further that only mystics or charlatans would accept it.

Same with dialectics.


i might say with sufficient confidence that experts in dialectics do understand it.

I have no doubt that mystics claim they understand the Trinity, but they just can't quite get round to explaining it to anyone else.

I have been reading this stuff for well over 25 years, and I have still to encounter a clear exposition of it (the closest I have found is Bukharin's 'Philosophical Arabesques' (first published in 2005), and even that has to appeal to mystical notions to make it work).

So, if you know of one, don't be shy: tell us.


are you in search of a theory in which every expert agrees 100% on all things?

No -- just one that makes the slightest sense will do.


thats childishness. the robustness of a philosophical theory is the amount of divergent interpretetions it can create

Why ask such questions of me if you can provide my answers for me?


may be mao was also wrong as he too believed in dialectics... a theory is being applied, mistakes will be made, no reason to bull shit the theory. its like claiming that gravitation is non existent because of a faulty rocket launch.

Mao was perhaps the worst of the leading dialectical mystics, so I am not surprised all his 'rockets' failed.


it seems you want an acknowledgement from marx like a sort of note saying hey i have used hegel's ideas else he has not used them.

Except we have Marx's words that he merely 'coquetted' with a few bits of Hegelian jargon.

I note you lot keep ignoring this.


it is irrelevant what he admits.

Not if he says the opposite of what you would like him to have said.


of course it demystifies hegel's idealism but the basis of marx's works remain dialectics..

An impossible task even for Marx; I challenge you to show otherwise.


He writes to Engels in 1858 that Hegel's Logic assisted him greatly in his method of analysing capital, but that Hegel had also mystified the dialectic (Marx and Engels 1983: 50). In 1868 he writes to Kugelman that his own method of argument is not Hegelian, in as much as he is a materialist and Hegel an idealist, but that Hegel's dialectic must remain the basis of all dialectics once its `mystical form' is disposed of (Marx and Engels 1983: 126).

I note you leave out his exact words.

And, he did not see fit to publish such comments; what he did publish was that he merely 'coquetted' with a few bits of Hegelian jargon.

If you want to attribute to Marx all you find in his letters to Engels (or anyone else, for that matter) you will end up being a rather confused soul.

Speaking for myself, I'd rather pay attention to what he saw fit to publish.


so there goes for toss your theory of hegel's works having no importance for marx beyond a few jargons.

Brave words for someone who can't actually find anything Marx published to support his 'theory' that Hegel's 'Logic' is central to understanding Das Kapital.


you may have read lenin but you have not understood him.

Once again, I am in good company if I failed to understand Lenin.

This is because no one understands this part of Lenin, since he uses mystical/idealist terms all the way through.

I challenge you, once again, to prove otherwise.


all his works on politics and party organisation which you respect, lenin believed to be based on the dialectical method of enquiry

Just as Newton thought his belief in God, and the Hermetic ideas he held on to, informed all his scientific work, so Lenin thought the same of similar Hermetic ideas.

We can surely ignore those incomprehensible parts of Newtonian mechanics, while respecting his scientific results.

Same with Lenin.


you seem to be submerged in contradictions .

Only those you care to attribute to me based on your own superficial reading of my work.

[I deal with all these issues (and more) at my site. Now, there is no reason why you should have to read what I have written, none at all; except, before commenting on my ideas, it would be a good idea to read them first. Now, I have read far more dialectical gobbledygook than is good for me, but I at least read it before I rubbish it.

If you do not want to read my Essays, then stop commenting on them, in ignorance -- or risk making an even bigger fool of yourself in public.]

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 14 2006, 09:38 AM
Just as Newton thought his belief in God, and the Hermetic ideas he held on to, informed all his scientific work, so Lenin thought the same of similar Hermetic ideas.

We can surely ignore those incomprehensible parts of Newtonian mechanics, while respecting his scientific results.

Same with Lenin.
In this case, Rosa, dialectics cannot be the reason for the failure of revolution. You are proving that "phylostrophy" does not have a real effect in the real world. The limitations of the revolutionary movement must be found elsewhere.

Since a revolutionary movement is a political movement, I humbly suggest that its failings are political, and must be found in its political theories.

But that you would probably call "tired allegations", so... :(

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


"In this case, Rosa, dialectics cannot be the reason for the failure of revolution. You are proving that "phylostrophy" does not have a real effect in the real world. The limitations of the revolutionary movement must be found elsewhere."

I said we can ignore the mysticism, not that it has been.

The negative effects of DM on our movement are outlined in another thread, and at my site.


"I humbly suggest that its failings are political, and must be found in its political theories."

No political theory is self-interpreting, nor does it arise from nowhere, and neither is it applied by human beings who bring to the movement no ideas/hang-ups of their own.

In this way, revolutionary theory has been corrupted by this mystical doctrine.


'But that you would probably call "tired allegations"'

Yes they are tired, because they have been made so many times, just as I have answered them, and in detail, so many times.

[Luís Henrique]

No political theory is self-interpreting, nor does it arise from nowhere, and neither is it applied by human beings who bring to the movement no ideas/hang-ups of their own.

In this way, revolutionary theory has been corrupted by this mystical doctrine.

But, as we see in Lenin's case, such "corruption" has in fact no effects. It didn't prevent Lenin from building an essentially correct theory of imperialism, from correctly analysing Russian society, and (though I personally would disagree with this last point) from setting up the correct theory for the relationship between the class and its vanguard. And from directing a (initially, at least) succesful revolution.

If "dialectics" really were the poison you seem to think it is, Lenin would have come up with false theories of vanguard, imperialism, and of capitalist development in Russia... and he would have led the Bolsheviks into either a failed revolution or a slow dismantling into total unimportance.

Or is Lenin's "immunity" to the perverse effects of dialectics explainable somehow?

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH, it is very difficult for me to post here today, since my internet provider has slowed the opening of this site up dramatically; each page takes about 10 minutes to load!

And it keeps losing stuff I post.


But, as we see in Lenin's case, such "corruption" has in fact no effects.

Nor did it on Newton, in his scientific pursuits, that is.

Same with Lenin.


If "dialectics" really were the poison you seem to think it is, Lenin would have come up with false theories of vanguard, imperialism, and of capitalist development in Russia... and he would have led the Bolsheviks into either a failed revolution or a slow dismantling into total unimportance.

And you could say the same of Newton.

[Luís Henrique]

LH, it is very difficult for me to post here today, since my internet provider has slowed the opening of this site up dramatically; each page takes about 10 minutes to load!

And it keeps losing stuff I post.

Sorry to learn that. Hope it gets fixed soon.


Nor did it on Newton, in his scientific pursuits, that is.

Same with Lenin.

You see, that is the problem: why didn't it have deleterious effects on Newton or Lenin, but will necessarily have them on others (such as Louxembourg, Trotsky, Hilferding, Mandel, Poulantzas, Gramsci, Perry Anderson, or anyone else who tries)?

What is the antidote, or vaccine?

Luís Henrique

[Hit The North]

Rosa:


Nor did it on Newton, in his scientific pursuits, that is.

Except that the contemporaneous charges of mysticism levelled at Newtons theory of gravity still hold water given that we cannot explain gravity nor locate a power source for this force of nature.

[ComradeRed]

Uh...Citizen Zero, there is a perfectly logical and actually fascinating explanation of gravity: it's not a force.

It's quite simple, it's geometry. This is the explanation given by Albert Einstein in his work on General Relativity which holds to date.

There is no mysticism involved.

The explanation is quite simple as far as how matter distorts spacetime (rather, matter density).

The sad fact of the matter (ahahaha) is that Newton is wrong, because of his mystical beliefs in some "God" (he argued that because of this there must be absolute space and time). It took Einstein to prove Newton wrong.

The same goes for Lenin as well, his mystical psychobabble and the material conditions of his situation caused him to propose incorrect things as far as leftism is concerned (he did, quite well, stipulate industrialization in Russia and eventually caused capitalism to come about).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


You see, that is the problem: why didn't it have deleterious effects on Newton or Lenin, but will necessarily have them on others (such as Louxembourg, Trotsky, Hilferding, Mandel, Poulantzas, Gramsci, Perry Anderson, or anyone else who tries)?

But it had an effect on the movement (Newton was not in a political movement, and that is the difference); fomenting splits, factions, subsequent defeats, and being used to justify substitutionism.

It's been down hill all the way since.

[My problem with the internet seems to have resolved itself, too!]


--------------------

Z, notwithstanding ComradeRed's comments, you have shot yourself in the foot with this post:


Except that the contemporaneous charges of mysticism levelled at Newtons theory of gravity still hold water given that we cannot explain gravity nor locate a power source for this force of nature.

I agree, and that is why he said with respect to these that he 'feigned no hypotheses'; but his scientifc work stood the test of time until Einstein replaced the gravitational strings with gravitational tram lines.

[Newton actually derived the 'power of gravity' from the properties he attributed to the ether, a theory later fully developed by Le Sage.]

So, with Lenin; despite the many attempts to appeal to the mystical forces DM sees in nature, we do not need to appeal to them to account for capitalism, and how to get rid of it.

I am glad you are finally coming around to a non-mystical view of nature.

[sukirti]

hi rosa
i think your mindset and mine are poles apart.
first i donot agree with leaving out whatever marx did not publish, i mean his letters to engels are his own words correct? so i would rather go by his letters to engles too as in such letters many a times the more personal of convictions are revealed as it is when he says that he was assisted greatly by hegel's dialectics. if you want to restrict yourself to merely what marx published and not his letters i cant help it to me both seem to be material demanding the same atention.
secondly if you think lenin and mao both were jus mumbo jmboing dialectics i dont agree. the two successful leaders of two seperate revolutions could very well have attributed the success to themselves instead of owing alleigance to a failed theory like dialectics.
for yor take on newton and god is just amazing. newton never said that god had given him three methods based on which to think about science unlike lenin who clearly outlined the tree laws of dialectics on which his thinking was based.
i cant see any comparision between the two as similar.
it is a sure sign of how much you have never undertood dialectics. such an example! which shows nothing in fact... i think you are too confused and have never understood material dialectics even to its smallest degree...
all the best to your site and your book.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sukirti:


i think your mindset and mine are poles apart.

Correct; I am an implacable materialist.


first i do not agree with leaving out whatever marx did not publish, i mean his letters to engels are his own words correct?

As I said, what he did publish flatly contradicts those letters: the influence of Hegel on his work was merely terminological, with which he only 'coquetted'.

He saw fit to publish that, not what you would like him to have said.

And, as I also said, if you rely on everything Marx said in his letters, you will end up with some pretty odd politics.


secondly if you think lenin and mao both were jus mumbo jmboing dialectics i don’t agree. the two successful leaders of two separate revolutions

Well, Mao was the leader of a military coup, not a working class revolution.

And, a nonsensical theory cannot be put into practice, so I'd be interested to see where and how dialectics was of any practical use to anyone, let alone these two (except, of course, to confuse comrades, or to justify substitutionism, see below).

Which underlines my point: dialectics is very useful for substitutionists; i.e., those who aim to substitute themselves, or another social force, for the working class -- such as the CCP, or the Red Army.

And both revolutions are now failures, thanks to Stalin and Mao (and the rest of their clique), who were both crude dialecticians.

So, dialectics has in fact been refuted by history.


newton never said that god had given him three methods based on which to think about science unlike lenin who clearly outlined the tree laws of dialectics on which his thinking was based.

Wrong; Newton's private notes shows he thought he was not only the re-incarnated form of Galileo (Newton was born the day Galileo died), he thought he was the son of god (Newton was born on December the 25th).

[And Lenin all but totally ignored the 'law' of the change of quantity into quality, and Stalin almost totally ignored 'law' of the negation of the negation.]

Newton, and the vast majority of ruling class thinkers, accepted the sort of loopy ideas you find in Neoplatonism and Hermetic thought.

So did Lenin; and Mao learnt much from Daoist mystical thought (Totality, Yin and Yang, interpenetrated opposites, negativity at the heart of reality etc etc), which also influenced Leibniz (he was a big fan of ruling-class Chinese thought, and of the ideas of NeoPlatonists and of Hermes Trismegistus, since they were practically the same) and other German mystics, including Hegel.

You accuse me of not understanding dialectics -- as I have also noted: no one does. It is not possible to understand such mystical, ruling-class ideas (they were designed that way, to mystify reality, hence to mystify power), and no more than it is possible to understand the Christian Trinity (another NeoPlatonic notion).

The ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class -- including those you find in dialectical materialism --, which is why they appeal to substitutionists, like the followers of Stalin and Mao, but not us genuine materialists.

Proof?

It's all at my site; but you'd know all that if you had read my Essays.

Not done that yet?

But you still feel you can comment on my work in total ignorance (just like other DM-fans who try to take me on).

I, at least, suffered my way through the material Stalin and Mao (and countless others) committed to paper before I commented on it.

[Luís Henrique]

But it had an effect on the movement (Newton was not in a political movement, and that is the difference); fomenting splits, factions, subsequent defeats, and being used to justify substitutionism.

Why didn't it lead to Lenin doing those things?

What is the influence of dialectics on Lenin's analysis of imperialism? In Lenin's theory of organisation? In Lenin's analysis of capitalist development in Russia? In Lenin's April Thesis?

Substitutionism doesn't need dialectics; it stems out of the petty bourgeoisie striving to find its own independent "historical role".


[My problem with the internet seems to have resolved itself, too!]

Hmm, the gods of internet seem to have sided with the anti-dialecticians... suspicious, suspicious... ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


Why didn't it lead to Lenin doing those things?

I think you know enough of the history of Bolshevism to know of the divisions, splits, and factions.

So, Lenin was as faction prone as anyone (at least up until us Trotskyists perfected the art).


What is the influence of dialectics on Lenin's analysis of imperialism? In Lenin's theory of organisation? In Lenin's analysis of capitalist development in Russia? In Lenin's April Thesis?

None, as far as I can see.

Perhaps you read different editions of these?


Substitutionism doesn't need dialectics; it stems out of the petty bourgeoisie striving to find its own independent "historical role".

As usual, you concentrate on its objective causes; I have focussed on its ideological rationalisation.

And dialectics fits perfectly, and works a treat.


Hmm, the gods of internet seem to have sided with the anti-dialecticians... suspicious, suspicious...

Ah, more mysticism from DM-fans.... :)