Dialectical Materialism and Sectarianism

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

We seem to have changed little: for all our advocacy of change, sectarianism is, it seems, our permanent state.

The ruling class does not need to divide us; we are experts at it.

I blame dialectical mayhem.

I am sorry if I have not mentioned this before....

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 4 2006, 09:10 AM
We seem to have changed little: for all our advocacy of change, sectarianism is, it seems, our permanent state.

The ruling class does not need to divide us; we are experts at it.

I blame dialectical mayhem.

I am sorry if I have not mentioned this before....
Very true, although I'm not sure how 'dialectical mayhem' is the problem. More important are organisational psychologies which thrive due to the current isolation of all revolutionary currents from the masses of the working class.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CZ, here is how I summarise my argument (the first part of the full Essay has been published; the second half is due to be published in a month or so -- it will contain the supporting evidence, and fuller argumentation):


Certain Marxists (for reasons of their class-origin) have found Hegelian ideas conducive to their own contingent view of the world. In that case, the explanation for the importation of non-materialist ideas into Marxism given below is eminently materialist -- since it is based on the class origins of DM-classicists themselves.

If, for whatever reason, it is thought that the working-class cannot bring about a socialist society on their own (indicating, perhaps, to those who think this way that they need the help of Russian tanks, Maoist guerrillas, 'progressive' nationalists, professional 'representatives' in Parliament, hardened cadres of conspiratorial comrades, or Marxist intellectuals (to teach the benighted masses the deeper mysteries of 'systematic dialectics')), then a theory that places the proletariat right at the bottom of the intellectual pecking order is going to look very appealing. Or, more realistically, it is going to prove highly useful in helping to rationalise the further (or later) exclusion of the majority from power -- and obscure enough to justify their continued oppression ("in their own interests", of course) -- which is a political contradiction that only those who 'understand' dialectics are capable of 'grasping'.

In that case, what better than a 'philosophical theory' that appears to have Marx's stamp of approval on it (even though there is precious little hard evidence that he knew much about it)?

In Defeat, Don't Organise -- Speculate!

Marxists are well aware of the fact that in defeat those in the movement who are looking for consolation often find it in Mysticism and Idealism. However, those (like Lenin) who point this out are themselves only immune to the attractive influence exerted by this metaphysical black hole if they can show that they are above the material constraints reality places on everyone else --, which, clearly, they are not, and hence plainly they cannot.

As we will see, dialecticians are among the first to seek consolation in defeat, something they experience all the time, and they do this by turning to a theory that tells them Marxism is a ringing success. DM teaches that appearances are contradicted by underlying realities; hence, even though Marxism might appear to be an abject failure to the 'victims of bourgeois ideology', to those with a well-tuned dialectical 'third eye', it is the very epitome of success.

There is no reasoning with this sort of chirpy optimism, since it depends on a level of dislocation from material reality that would shame a coma victim -- as anyone who has tried to slap some sense into such dialectical day-dreamers can well attest. The fact that we have witnessed little other than defeat, retreat and set-back since the 1920's is brushed off as a mere blip. The dialectic will "spiral" back to save the day.

In that case, and to change the image, if this 'Dialectical Titanic' is not sinking, then there is no need to man the lifeboats, or even rearrange the furniture.

In fact, there wasn't even an iceberg!

Everything in La La Land is hunky dory; forward to the next heroic failure comrades!

In contrast, revolutionaries drawn directly from the working-class appear to be less susceptible to this intellectual malaise (for reasons outlined in Part One of this Essay). Those entering our movement from other layers of society are, it seems, highly vulnerable in this regard. [Why this is so is spelled out below.] Unfortunately, the authors of the DM-classics were not workers -- and neither were the Hermetic Philosophers upon whose ideas they relied. And, in general, if we are honest, neither are those who lead the revolutionary movement today, and who control its ideas.

DM provides this professional layer with a form of intellectual consolation, which among other things helps reassure them that history (nay, the entire Totality) is on their side --, this despite the many material realities which every day seem to contradict this article of faith. DM helps account for this social layer's experience of constant defeat, rejection and failure by re-presenting it as its own internal opposite: as success in disguise.

Dialectics has thus helped insulate militant minds from the unwelcome fact that their Idealist theory is contradicted daily by intransigent 'appearances', which tell a different material tale. DL does this by re-configuring each defeat so that it only seems to have happened (or so that it only seems to be a defeat); hence recalcitrant experience does not refute dialectics, it confirms it!

[DL= Dialectical Logic.]

The Russian Revolution -- although now completely reversed -- was thus a 'resounding success'. Even though it presided over the deaths of untold millions, and has put even more off Marxism for life -- presenting anti-socialist forces world-wide with a propaganda gift they could not have designed better themselves -- it is still a total 'success'.

Dialectical Myopia of this order of magnitude will not be cured by the few words posted here; these Marxist Dinosaurs refuse to die.

[Lest it be thought that I think the revolution in 1917 was mistake, I am referring above to its subsequent failure, not its earlier necessity. Nor is this to reject the explanation of the defeat of the Russian revolution advanced by Trotsky (and others), even though he (they) clearly failed to take account of the factors aired in this Essay.]

However, on the few occasions when our movement has notched up a success here and there, this is unfailingly attributed to the 'dialectical method'. In contrast, on the very many occasions where we have failed, this is blamed on anything and everything else (often these are 'objective' factors...).

Success has subjectivity to thank for it; failure never. The Popes of Marxism are as infallible as the 'Vicar of Christ' -- except, of course, Catholicism has "seized the masses". Dialectical Marxism has merely ceased to.

Material reality is thus inverted so that in an ideal form it now conforms to theory. Dialecticians ignore or explain away whatever fails to fit the Ideal script Hegel produced (at a time when there were precious few proletarians to disturb his reverie). Naturally, this ostrich-like stance also serves as a defence-mechanism, protecting militant minds from the fact that workers in general reject the philosophical gobbledygook that the 'orthodox' constantly churn out.

But by doing this, dialecticians only succeed in engineering their own continued rejection, ensuring that those who remain in the thrall of this divisive theory waste their time pootling about in small, insular ineffective grouplets -- whose over-inflated view of their own historical significance neatly runs in inverse proportion to the genuine impact they now have on the class struggle.

In this way, DM succeeds in negating in an ideal form its own very real rejection by workers; it does this with some neat, internally-generated dialectical spin. Viewing things from beneath these dialectically-constructed sand dunes, DM-adepts can one and all pretend that workers en masse do not really reject dialectics. Far from it, they are in fact blinded by "empiricism" and "commodity fetishism" -- or they have been bought off by Imperialism with its super-profits; indeed, they suffer from "false consciousness".

Anything, rather than question the sacred dialectical mantra.

Anything rather than admit that the dialectical gospel is a fraud. Hence, unlike any other science known to humankind, DM has never been revised to accommodate reality; reality has been continually adjusted to suite its eternal verities.

Ironically, this means that in dialectics, lack of theoretical change is secured internally -- the internal contradictions of DM produce no development (just more 'epicycles').

According to the faithful (or at least, according to the way they re-process failure), the only thing in the entire universe that does not change through internal contradictions is DM itself!

Any other ordinary (or even scientific) theory that suffered continual refutation of this order of magnitude, and for so long, would be stone dead by now. But, not DM. The NON clearly has no power over its own most avid prophets -- their theory is continually negated by material reality, but it remains miraculously the same generation on generation.

Dialecticians are thus living disproof of their own ideas: they never change.

Another rather fitting dialectical inversion....

[NON = Negation of the Negation.]

Dialectical Prozac

To support these contentious claims it is then shown that revolutionaries of the calibre of Engels, Lenin and Trotsky only turned to overt forms of DM when the revolutionary movement was in retreat -- as, indeed, did theorists, for example, in the UK/SWP after the industrial "downturn" of the late 1970's, and after the defeat of the NUM in the mid-1980's.

Indeed, as should have been clear to all, Hegel's original theory was itself invented to help account for the defeat of the French revolution, and hence the rise of Napoleon.

Dialectics is thus at once the daughter of defeat and the father of failure.

[OTG = Orthodox Trotskyist Group; OTT: Orthodox Trotskyist Theorist.]

In stark contrast, OTG's (i.e., the old WRP, (re-configured now as the MSF, among others), modern-day Spartacists, the scrag-end of the old Militant Tendency (more pointedly, Woods and Grant), other assorted Trotskyist grouplets (like the AWL) etc.) constantly appeal to DM because their catastrophist view of everything puts them in a permanently heightened, quasi-numinous state of mind. With nothing but failure staring them in the face, regular high doses of dialectical dope are essential to maintain the idée fixe that the revolution is indeed just around the corner.

To that end, it is worth noting that Gerry Healy -- surely until his death in 1989 the annual winner of the Dialectical Gold Medal in all events -- went into frenetic, dialectical overdrive after his party booted him out in 1985.

The result? That monument to designer gobbledygook: Healy (1990).

[Read it and weep.]

This accounts not only for the extra level of religious fanaticism displayed by OTT's in defence of their beloved "dialectics", it also explains their fondness for quoting DM-Scripture at erstwhile critics -- and at one another (over and over again, and then once more for good measure). As is the case with the Occult, novelty is the enemy.

This also makes clear the almost universal contempt shown by the faithful for the "R" word: "revisionism". Which is rather odd, since Lenin argued that no science is un-revisable. So, because DM is not in fact revisable, and has never been revised, the only conclusion possible is that either DM cannot be a science, or Lenin was wrong -- and what he said about the nature of science needs revising itself.

Either way, the un-revisability of DM confirms its dogmatic status. Indeed, only Fundamentalist theologians jealously guard the changelessness of their 'revealed' truths with comparable zeal.

Water off a dialectical duck's back all this; such comrades gave up radical thinking (at least in Philosophy) years ago.

[This accounts for the response so far to these Essays among certain of 'the faithful' who have ventured to my site. Many just skim read what I have posted, at best. Others warn the rest of the dialectical flock not to read these dangerous missives, lest they stray from the path of righteousness (and this is often accompanied with dire warnings that the abandonment of dialectics will lead anyone foolish enough to do so away from revolutionary socialism altogether, forgetting, of course, that there are now more than enough anti-revolutionary dialecticians on the planet to fill a reasonably large stadium).

Pages and pages of incomprehensible Hegel-speak are downed before breakfast, but a few thousand words of tightly-argued prose (such as those found here), and dialectically-sensitive comrades cast about for something (anything) to complain about -- such as calling these Essays "pedantic" -- forgetting, of course, the monumental detail and studious precision Marx incorporated into Das Kapital.

An equal number of non-sequiturs (and thousands of pages of appallingly bad 'logic', and even worse jargon) in Hegel's published writings is fine. In fact it is more than fine, it is 'genuine philosophy' (even if no one can comprehend it, and even fewer will admit to that in polite company).]

Militant Martinets

This is because these comrades, unlike most workers, have entered the socialist movement by and large as a result of personal commitment, as an expression of their rebellious personality, or because of personal alienation from the system (or other contingent causes), but not as a direct result of the class war (i.e., through collective action).

This means that from the beginning (again, by and large), such comrades act and think as individuals; they are committed to the revolution as an idea -- as an ideal even --, they are not revolutionaries for materialist reasons, that is as a result of their direct experience of working-class action, or as a consequence of a collective response to exploitation.

[Of course, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with all this (indeed, such comrades are invaluable to the workers' movement), but, as we can now see, this does mean that the individual psychology of such comrades can and has stymied Marxist theory and practice for well over 120 years, when it is not counterbalanced by working-class materialism.]

Once these comrades encounter DM it is 'natural' for them to latch onto its a priori theses (for the reasons given above); this response now connects dialectics with the revolutionary ego, for it is this theory that guarantees (for them) that their existence is not for nought, but is capable of assuming cosmic significance if it is engaged in revolutionary activity, and in a movement that could fundamentally alter the course of human history.

This now provides this layer with well-known social psychological motives, inducements and reinforcements, convincing them, for example: (1) that their personal existence is not meaningless; (2) that they as individuals are key figures in helping to decide what direction history will take, and (3) that whatever it was that caused their alienation from bourgeois society, it can be rectified (redeemed?) through the right sort of acts, thoughts and deeds -- somewhat reminiscent of the way that Pelagian forms of 'muscular Christianity' teach that salvation can be had through pure thoughts, good works, and the severe treatment of the body.

Dialectics takes over now from Divinity, giving cosmic significance to these petty-bourgeois individuals/comrades. Social atoms like these need the internally-unifying force of ideas (imposed by themselves on themselves), but ideas like these can only come from a traditional source -- from ruling-class theories --, since these are the ideas to which this layer are most susceptible, but which were the only ones around when Marxism was in its infancy.

In contrast, material forces in society can only unify those involved in collective labour (which dialectical comrades by and large are not) --, forcing workers to unite; these forces do not persuade workers to unite as a result of some theory, they compel them to do so out of necessity. This type of unity is thus externally imposed on workers, and by forces the ruling-class cannot control, which thus organise against them. More importantly, these material forces are not linked to the revolutionary ego, nor to ruling ideas, but to a collective identity.

Dialectics now replaces militant labour activism/struggle as a unifying force for these petty-bourgeois elements in Marxism; without this theory the reason why such comrades feel they stand at the political centre of the dialectical universe would vanish. Moreover, because DM supplies a coherent internal picture of reality (i.e., as an idea), it provides each dialectician as an individual with a unique motivating factor, which then serves to divide 'dialectical comrades', from one another (for reasons spelled out below). But, in a political party, collective discipline is paramount, while petty-bourgeois militants are not used to this form of discipline, and fights quickly break out, often over personal issues, which are thus easy to re-present as political differences in this atomised climate. The desire to impose one's own views on others becomes irresistible; doctrinal control (the control of inner, privatised ideas in each atomised head) now acts as a surrogate for outer control by material forces. Because the party cannot copy the class struggle, and force unity on its cadres externally, it can only control ideas by insisting of doctrinal purity. An authoritarian personality thus emerges to enforce orthodoxy (and 'tradition'), which now becomes the watch-word to test the loyalty of all those who might stray from the narrow path leading the few to revolutionary salvation. Small thus becomes beautiful -- nay desirable --, since it allows for greater control.

Democratic accountability is thus the first casualty of this part of the class war.

No wonder then that such dialectical-clones cling onto DM like grim death, just like religionists (of whom they are the secular mirror-images); it now dominates and shapes their personal integrity. Any attack on this sacred doctrine is an attack on the glue that holds this sort of comrade together.

The implication of all this is that, in their own eyes, these professional (petty-bourgeois) revolutionaries are special; they live -- no they embody -- the revolution. They have caught the tide of history, they must keep the faith. Commitment to the revolution on these terms soon creates militants who, for all the world, appear to suffer from the dialectical equivalent of a personality disorder -- chief among which is a Leader Complex. All hale the Great Splitter!



For workers, things are starkly different: material existence and survival moves them to action, not petty-bourgeois egocentrism. This makes workers naturally collective-minded, not divisive.

The opposite is true of professional revolutionaries; their atomised egos here make them 'naturally' factional. This helps explain why, among dialecticians, disagreements become so personal so quickly, and why factionalism is so rife (and how strong characters, like Ted Grant, Gerry Healy, Michael Pablo, Tony Cliff, Ernest Mandel, Pierre Lambert and host of others, formed splits and divisions in the movement almost from the get-go). Indeed, splits are almost synonymous with Marxism now (witness the well-aimed jokes in Monty Python's Life of Brian about the Judean People's Front, etc.).

And what could be more suited to helping create empty, meaningless, incomprehensible (and hence irresolvable) quarrels than the Mystical Mother Lode itself: Hegelian 'Logic'?

Dialectical Marxists thus rapidly become militant Prima Donnas. Often these individuals have very powerful personalities, something they can use to good effect in the small ponds they invariably patrol, and seem to prefer. Expulsions and bans keep their grouplets small, and thus easier to control.

In that case, and in this way, the revolutionary ego keeps our movement fragmented: small, insular and ineffectual, in preference to being democratic, outward-looking and effective. No wonder then that in such circumstances, democracy soon goes out the window along with reasonableness.

[Anyone who has tried to 'debate' dialectics with these militant martinets will know exactly what I mean. Check this out. Link in the original article.]

The class struggle forces workers to unite, but it has the opposite effect on those who, so it happens, believe that opposites rule everything. No less so here. Class society created the damaged revolutionary ego; it now unites it with easy fragmentation, courtesy of DM.

[i]Ruling-ideas now rule by helping to divide and rule.

In furtherance of the class war, each dialectical ego imagines that it alone has direct access to the exact meaning of the dialectic. But, since no one really understands this mystical theory, this is a very easy claim to make, and impossible to refute. Thus, every opponent is branded in the same way (on this see below) -- all 'fail to understand the dialectic' -- that is, all except the blessed soul that made that claim.

The success of the revolution becomes an idée fixe, only it is now wedded to the personal integrity of these individuals -- ones who have not in general been subjected to the social and material forces that make workers think collectively and democratically.

[i]In fact, the forces that drive workers one way, send these Marxist Martinets the other.

Now this Unity of Opposites is no myth; the fragmentary nature of Marxism (and particularly of Trotskyism) attests to it every day. Indeed, it guarantees that revolutionary parties stay small, and thus suffer constant defeat, and thus more fragmentation.

[Anyone who doubts this should look here, and here; there they will see that there are literally hundreds of Trotskyist and other socialist parties world-wide. Each with its own shibboleth. Links in the original article.]

In defeat, however, these comrades turn to Dialectical Methadone (the 'Opiate of the Party') to insulate their minds from reality and constant failure. And by all accounts it does a good job. As noted above, anyone trying to argue with these dialectical druggies would be far better occupied head-butting a Billy-goat.

However, narcoleptic stupor of this order of magnitude -- and the lack of clarity required to maintain it, alongside the divisions it foments -- only help engineer more defeats, thus creating the need for another sizeable hit, and so on. This is the real dialectical spiral, not the one we read in the brochure.

In situations where clarity of thought is paramount, we find spaced-out Marxists who just create more dialectical mayhem. No wonder Marxism is to success as religion is to peace on earth.

DM also encourages the spread of divisive, un-comradely thoughts and deeds. This is partly because the language and forms-of-thought it uses are not based on collective, communal life -- and are thus inimical to collective, democratic control.

But, the militant martinet is in its element here; the universe is now seen as an externalisation of its damaged ego (in this way it replaces 'god', as Feuerbach saw). In that case, the desire for a priori knowledge is at one with the projection of this ego onto nature. This explains the origin of the basic idea underlying dialectics (that reality is mind, and hence real knowledge is a priori): reality is the externalisation of the militant mind -- and that in turn explains why to each DM-acolyte, the dialectic is so personal, so intimately their own possession (and why you can almost hear the hurt in their throats when it is comprehensively trashed). Any attack on this 'precious jewel' is an attack on the revolutionary ego itself, and must be resisted with all the bile at its command.

Indeed, George Novack records the following meeting he had with Trotsky in Mexico in 1937:

"[O]ur discussion glided into the subject of philosophy…. We talked about the best ways of studying dialectical materialism, about Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, and about the theoretical backwardness of American radicalism. Trotsky brought forward the name of Max Eastman, who in various works had polemicized against dialectics as a worthless idealist hangover from the Hegelian heritage of Marxism.

"He became tense and agitated. 'Upon going back to the States,' he urged, 'you comrades must at once take up the struggle against Eastman's distortion and repudiation of dialectical materialism. There is nothing more important than this….'

"I was somewhat surprised at the vehemence of his argumentation on this matter at such a moment. As the principal defendant in absentia in the Moscow trials, and because of the dramatic circumstances of his voyage in exile, Trotsky then stood in the centre of international attention. He was fighting for his reputation, liberty, and life against the powerful government of Stalin, bent on his defamation and death. After having been imprisoned and gagged for months by the Norwegian authorities, he had been kept incommunicado for weeks aboard their tanker.

"Yet on the first day after reunion with his cothinkers, he spent more than an hour explaining how important it was for a Marxist movement to have a correct philosophical method and to defend dialectical materialism against its opponents!" [Novack (1978), pp.169-70. Bold emphases added. Spelling of "center" changed to conform to UK English.]

Given the content of this summary of Essay Nine, Trotsky's semi-religious fervour becomes much easier to understand.

DM has thus infected our movement at every level, fostering sectarianism, factionalism, exclusivism, unreasonableness, dismissive haughtiness, and extreme dogmatism (bordering on paranoia in some cases) -- which dialectical vices have imposed on each and every tiny sectlet in the movement an open and implacable hatred of practically every other sectlet, and in some cases, every other comrade.

If faults such as these were to afflict an individual, they would provide adequate grounds for sectioning under the mental health act. The result is that the ruling-class does not need to divide our movement in order to help consolidate its rule; we are quite capable of doing it ourselves.

This particular (but ironic) unity of opposites is clearly the opposite of unity; indeed, DM divides Marxists by uniting them in the acceptance of an ideology that separates comrade from comrade, tendency from tendency, guru from guru.

Everybody in the movement knows this (some even joke about it, on Monty Python lines!); others excuse it or explain it away with still more 'dialectics'. But, no one confronts it at its source in the divisive doctrines of DM -- and in the petty-bourgeois individualism that afflicts those who 'lead' us.

The Dialectal Magus

If doctrinaire Marxism is the final outcome of this mystical creed, it needs a guru to interpret it aright, rationalise the failures and justify the splits -- and create a few more. Enter the cult of the personality with all its petty, nit-picking, small-minded, little pond megalomania.

Enter the "Leader" who knows all, reveals all, expels all: the Dialectical Magus.

As observers of religious cults have noted, even the most mundane and banal of statements put out by such leaders are treated with inordinate respect, almost as if they had come down from off the mountain, and were possessed of cosmic significance.

[Witness the inordinate respect shown for the dialectical meanderings of comrade Healy by prominent members of the WRP -- in fact, he was well-known for fomenting strife among comrades (with added violence, so we are told) to accentuate the 'contradictions' in his 'Party', on 'sound' dialectical grounds. Witness too, the wholly un-merited semi-worship of Bob Avakian.]

This also helps account for the personal and organisation corruption revolutionary politics has witnessed over the years, which is largely the result of the noxious effect this doctrine has had on otherwise alert radical minds.

In this way, we have seen Marxism reduplicate much of the abuse -- and most of sectarianism -- found in religious cults. Small wonder: both were spawned by similarly alienated patterns of ruling-class thought.

As far as the 'faithful' are concerned, all this will fail even to go in one ear. This is because they refuse to accept that any of the pressures that operate on ordinary mortals could possibly have any effect on the DM-elect. Social psychology does not apply to them. They are not like other human beings.

In that case, it must be a pure coincidence that revolutionary parties have copied practically every single fault and foible of the god-botherers among us -- even down to their reliance on an obscure book about an invisible 'Being': Hegel's Logic

So, while all these faults and foibles have well-known material causes when they afflict the superstitious, they apparently have no cause whatsoever when they are exhibited by these dialectical superscientists. They can thus safely be ignored, never spoken about in political company.

Thus, this dialectical merry-go-round takes another spin across the flatlands of failure.

Same Old Same Old?

Of course, as the above will seem (to some) to suggest, this analysis superficially resembles others that critics of Marxism have aired. The difference here is that this attack is being launched only against DM (not HM), and by a fellow revolutionary. It is also backed-up by an analysis that is fully conducive to HM, even if it is completely destructive of traditional forms-of-thought.

More importantly though, the criticisms raised here have been pushed much further than any enemy of Marxism would dare, for fear that a sustained attack on Metaphysics and traditional thought might easily spill over into a reflexive but destructive criticism of the theoretical opiates upon which important strands of ruling-class opinion also depend. Naturally, too, this would simultaneously endanger the ideologically-privileged position such theorists have hitherto enjoyed, fatally undermining their social-standing.

Without Metaphysics, traditional Philosophy not only lacks all content, it serves no purpose at all. Moreover, its demise would clearly threaten the jobs of most academic Philosophers. Too many holes punched in that particular hull might threaten to sink a few highly cherished ruling-class ideas along the way.

That alone makes the content of these Essays politically and historically unique; no one has pushed the points raised here this far, ever.

In that sense, and by attacking the ideological foundations of DM (in traditional thought), this work is no friend of anti-Marxist opinion, either. Indeed, quite the reverse: it is an implacable enemy of both, since they merely represent different sides of the same ideologically-compromised coin.

In stark contrast to DM, HM provides consolation for no one; among other things it allows for the mutual destruction of the contending classes (etc.). No room for that in DM; the NON knows nothing of retreat.

Fully-Humanised Marxism

According to HM, humanity will rid itself of class oppression only through the action of ordinary human beings, not because of the operation of the metaphysical laws found in DM.

In its own small way, therefore, the project at this site is aimed at ending the baleful influence on Marxists of this regressive anti-materialist theory (DM), so that HM can at last begin to stand for a fully Humanised Marxism.

More at:

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

The above was excerpted from:

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

[Hit The North]

R:

Just a few points.


To support these contentious claims it is then shown that revolutionaries of the calibre of Engels, Lenin and Trotsky only turned to overt forms of DM when the revolutionary movement was in retreat -- as, indeed, did theorists, for example, in the UK/SWP after the industrial "downturn" of the late 1970's, and after the defeat of the NUM in the mid-1980's.

That's hardly a novel or contentious claim. It's obvious that during downturns in the class struggle, when the scope for action is restricted, that revolutionaries will turn to theory (not just DM) in order to understand the defeat and to hold cadres together and work out how to reorganise.


The Russian Revolution -- although now completely reversed -- was thus a 'resounding success'. Even though it presided over the deaths of untold millions, and has put even more off Marxism for life -- presenting anti-socialist forces world-wide with a propaganda gift they could not have designed better themselves -- it is still a total 'success'.

Surely only Stalinists argue this position. Other Marxists, equally committed to DM, argue otherwise. Therefore, crazy dialectical logic on its own, is not the reason why such a bullshit position is argued.


DM teaches that appearances are contradicted by underlying realities

Yes, well critical realism argues the same thing and there's plentiful evidence from real science to back up that assertion. In fact you're guilty of it here, if your argument is that it's DM which separates the Left - because to all outward appearence, it's issues like the nature of the Soviet Union, the role of the State, the tactic of entryism, the relationship between party and class, the implications of imperialism, etc. which divide us.

I agree that DM is easily and often used by demagogues to cultivate a cult of personality, to mystify their position, but again, there are other, more material reasons to explain why these demagogues are successful (in their own terms) and why the Left remains split into ineffectual little splinters.

In short, I think your obsession with slaying the proponents of DM makes for a reductionist argument.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Therefore, crazy dialectical logic on its own, is not the reason why such a bullshit position is argued.

1) Did I say it was the only reason (in fact, I say the opposite)?

2) No need for abuse.


Yes, well critical realism argues the same thing and there's plentiful evidence from real science to back up that assertion.

Critical realists are not so stupid as to argue that an appearance (which is not a proposition) can contradict reality (which is not a proposition).


there are other, more material reasons to explain why these demagogues are successful (in their own terms) and why the Left remains split into ineffectual little splinters.

Did I say this was the only reason?


In short, I think your obsession with slaying the proponents of DM makes for a reductionist argument.

You are good at assertion -- not so good at backing it up.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 4 2006, 08:10 AM
We seem to have changed little: for all our advocacy of change, sectarianism is, it seems, our permanent state.

The ruling class does not need to divide us; we are experts at it.

I blame dialectical mayhem.

I am sorry if I have not mentioned this before....
This holds no water. Are you saying that Marxism was sectarian from the start? How so? If you were right, the Bolsheviks could not have led the bulk of the Russian proletariat and peasantry to victory in 1917.

Sectarianism seems to be a large result of several factors:

The collapse of the USSR and the following bourgeois offensive causing a lot of disorientation in the left ("We should do things differently because the USSR collapsed.).

Inability of groups to adapt to changing circumstances (this was the case with the bulk of the Fourth International).

This baseless striving for a "new way." This is uncritically throwing the lessons of the past away, complete with nonsensical claims about trade unions and certain parties becoming "bourgoeisified", and therefore, "not fit to enter." (this amounts to a group isolating itself from the workers, and thereby, being unable to get any serious influence.). This "new way" nonsense is a product of capitulating to bourgeois propaganda, particularly that anti-Lenin stuff that ultra-left and anarchist sects are preaching. In this, they believe everything the bourgeois says about the Russian Revolution. Anti-Leninism is the complete capitulation to the vile propaganda put forth by bourgeois "historians." It teaches people to despise the necessary organization for the victory over the bourgeoisie. This movement against Leninism can only play into the hands of the bourgeoisie, as it advocates the theoretical and practical disarmament of the proletariat in favor of the bourgeoisie. There is a reason why the bourgeoisie always calls October a "coup" "conspiracy hatched by a minority," "corruption that always leads to Stalinism," etc. They do this to turn people against what is true, and it is working on a good deal of those within the left. These lies are easily dispelled (see Ted Grant's Russia: From Revolution to Counterrevolution Link toward end of this post.).

As for that part about "bourgeoisifed" unions and such, history has shown that the workers always try things in their tradtional organizations first. You have to enter them to win the workers over and not to leave them behind to bourgeois influences. This is the tired and true method of Bolhsevism, and this "new way" has never in history won a revolution, and never will. This sectarian "new way" is not even a part of the working class movement; it walls itself off from the workers. The complete failure of the CWI after the split in the Militant proves this very well (this "shortcut" that would help them "grow by leaps and bounds" never happened. The CWI is now a sect, and the Militant has been destroyed by the majority that had victories go to their heads, and their "shortcut seeking" has gotten them nowhere. Everything outside of Labour in Britain has also been a complete failure (I think a notable one was something called the "Socialist Alliance," or something like that.).

There is not a shred of evidence to support this "dialectics causing sectarianism" stuff. Marx Engels were not sectarians, nor were Lenin and Trotsky. Had they been as such, they would have never made their advances, nor would have Lenin and Trotsky led the October Revolution to victory over the bourgeoisie.

Cuba has fallen behind in some aspects due to isolation, and the imperialist pressure is not going to make things postive at all. Lenin had repeatedly stressed the importance of international revolution. You can't have socialism in one country.


Lenin's internationalism

The tide of revolution was sweeping throughout Europe. In November 1918, the German Revolution swept away the Hohenzollern dynasty, forcing Kaiser Wilhelm to seek safely in the Netherlands. The revolution put an end to the first world war, as soviets were formed throughout Germany. General Golovin reported on his negotiations with Winston Churchill in May 1919 concerning continued British military intervention as follows: "The question of giving armed support was for him the most difficult one; the reason for this was the opposition of the British working class to armed intervention�" Mutinies in the French Fleet off Odessa, and in the other Allied armies, finally sealed the fate of further military expeditions to Russia. In 1920, the dockers of London's East India Docks refused to load the Jolly George with secret munitions for Poland - for use against Soviet Russia.

The British prime minister Lloyd George wrote in a confidential memorandum to Clemenceau at the Versailles Peace Conference: "The whole of Europe is filled with the spirit of revolution. There is a deep sense not only of discontent but of anger and revolt amongst the workmen against prewar conditions. The whole existing order in its political, social and economic aspects is questioned by the masses of the population from one end of Europe to the other." (E.H. Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution, 1917-1923,Vol. 3, pp. 135-6.)

With the cessation of foreign intervention, the Red Army quickly mopped up the remnants of the White armies. The news of revolution in Europe, led the Bolshevik Karl Radek to declare: "The world revolution had come. The mass of the people heard its iron tramp. Our isolation was over." Tragically, this proved premature. The first wave of revolution handed power to the leaders of Social Democracy, who derailed and betrayed the movement. Lenin saw the defeat of the first wave of the European revolution as a terrible blow that served to isolate the Soviet republic for a period. This was no secondary matter, but a matter of life or death for the revolution. Lenin and the Bolsheviks had made it abundantly clear that if the revolution was not spread to the West, they would be doomed. On the 7th March 1918, Lenin weighed up the situation:

"Regarded from the world-historical point of view, there would doubtlessly be no hope of the ultimate victory of our revolution if it were to remain alone, if there were no revolutionary movements in other countries. When the Bolshevik Party tackled the job alone, it did so in the firm conviction that the revolution was maturing in all countries and that in the end - but not at the very beginning - no matter what difficulties we experienced, no matter what defeats were in store for us, the world socialist revolution would come - because it is coming; would mature - because it is maturing and will reach full maturity. I repeat, our salvation from all these difficulties is an all-European revolution." (LCW, Vol. 27, p. 95.)

He then concluded: "At all events, under all conceivable circumstances, if the German Revolution does not come, we are doomed." (LCW, Vol. 27, p. 98.) Weeks later he repeated the same position: "Our backwardness has put us in the front-line, and we shall perish unless we are capable of holding out until we shall receive powerful support from workers who have risen in revolt in other countries." (Ibid., p. 232.)

The main task was to hold on to power for as long as possible. Lenin never envisaged the prolonged isolation of the Soviet state. Either the isolation would be broken or the Soviet regime would be doomed. Everything depended upon the world revolution. Its delay created enormous difficulties that were to have profound consequences. Instead of the withering away of the state, the opposite process took place. On the basis of destitution aggravated by the civil war and economic blockade, the "struggle for individual existence", to use Marx's phrase, did not disappear or soften, but assumed in succeeding years an unheard of ferocity. Rather than building on the foundations of the most advanced capitalism, the Soviet regime was attempting to overcome pre-socialist and pre-capitalist problems. The task became "catch up with Europe and America". This was very far from the "lowest stage of communism" envisaged by Marx. The Bolsheviks were forced to tackle economic and cultural problems that had long ago been solved in the West. Lenin once declared that socialism was "Soviet power plus electrification" to illustrate the basic task at hand.

This was no recipe for a "Russian road to socialism". On the contrary. It was always linked to the perspective of world revolution. Nevertheless, it was an attempt to grapple with the isolation of the workers' state encircled by hostile capitalist powers. This terrible backwardness of Russia, coupled with the isolation of the revolution, began to bear down on the Soviet working class. Civil war, famine and physical exhaustion forced them into political apathy and gave rise to increasing bureaucratic deformations in the state and party. International assistance was vital to ensure the survival of the young Soviet republic. All the Bolsheviks could do was to hold on to power - despite all the odds - for as long as possible until assistance came from the West. "History gives nothing free of cost," wrote Trotsky in 1923. "Having made a reduction on one point - in politics - it makes us pay the more on another - in culture. The more easily (comparatively, of course) did the Russian proletariat pass through the revolutionary crisis, the harder becomes now its socialist constructive work." (Trotsky, Problems of Everyday Life, p. 20.)

It would not be difficult to establish beyond doubt Lenin's position on the necessity for world revolution. Indeed, unless the Soviet state succeeded in breaking out of its isolation, he thought that the October Revolution could not survive for any length of time. This idea is repeated time after time in Lenin's writings and speeches after the Revolution. The following are just a few examples. They could be multiplied at will:

24th January 1918:

"We are far from having completed even the transitional period from capitalism to socialism. We have never cherished the hope that we could finish it without the aid of the international proletariat. We never had any illusions on that score� The final victory of socialism in a single country is of course impossible. Our contingent of workers and peasants which is upholding Soviet power is one of the contingents of the great world army, which at present has been split by the world war, but which is striving for unity� We can now see clearly how far the development of the Revolution will go. The Russian began it - the German, the Frenchman and the Englishman will finish it, and socialism will be victorious." (LCW, Vol. 26, pp. 465-72.)

8th March 1918:

"The Congress considers the only reliable guarantee of the consolidation of the socialist revolution that has been victorious in Russia to be its conversion into a world working-class revolution." (LCW, from Resolution on War and Peace, Vol. 27. p. 119.)

23rd April 1918:

"We shall achieve final victory only when we succeed at last in conclusively smashing international imperialism, which relies on the tremendous strength of its equipment and discipline. But we shall achieve victory only together with all the workers of other countries, of the whole world�" (LCW, Vol. 27, p. 231.)

14th May 1918:

"To wait until the working classes carry out a revolution on an international scale means that everyone will remain suspended in mid-air� It may begin with brilliant success in one country and then go through agonising periods, since final victory is only possible on a world scale, and only by the joint efforts of the workers of all countries." (LCW, Vol. 27, pp. 372-3.)

29th July 1918:

"We never harboured the illusion that the forces of the proletariat and the revolutionary people of any one country, however heroic and however organised and disciplined they might be, could overthrow international imperialism. That can be done only by the joint efforts of the workers of the world� We never deceived ourselves into thinking this could be done by the efforts of one country alone. We knew that our efforts were inevitably leading to a worldwide revolution, and that the war begun by the imperialist governments could not be stopped by the efforts of those governments themselves. It can be stopped only by the efforts of all workers; and when we came to power, our task � was to retain that power, that torch of socialism, so that it might scatter as many sparks as possible to add to the growing flames of socialist revolution." (LCW, Vol. 28, pp. 24-5.)

8th November 1918:

"From the very beginning of the October Revolution, foreign policy and international relations have been the main question facing us. Not merely because from now on all the states of the world are being firmly linked by imperialism into one, dirty, bloody mass, but because the complete victory of the socialist revolution in one country alone is inconceivable and demands the most active co-operation of at least several advanced countries, which do not include Russia� We have never been so near to world proletarian revolution as we are now. We have proved we were not mistaken in banking on world proletarian revolution� Even if they crush one country, they can never crush the world proletarian revolution, they will only add fuel to the flames that will consume them all." (LCW, Vol. 28, pp. 151-64.)

20th November 1918:

"The transformation of our Russian Revolution into a socialist revolution was not a dubious venture but a necessity, for there was no other alternative: Anglo-French and American imperialism will inevitably destroy the independence and freedom of Russia if the world socialist revolution, world Bolshevism, does not triumph." (LCW, Vol. 28, p. 188.)

15th March 1919:

"Complete and final victory on a world scale cannot be achieved in Russia alone; it can be achieved only when the proletariat is victorious in at least all the advanced countries, or, at all events, in some of the largest of the advanced countries. Only then shall we be able to say with absolute confidence that the cause of the proletariat has triumphed, that our first objective - the overthrow of capitalism - has been achieved. We have achieved this objective in one country, and this confronts us with a second task. Since Soviet power has been established, since the bourgeoisie has been overthrown in one country, the second task in to wage the struggle on a world scale, on a different plane, the struggle of the proletarian state surrounded by capitalist states." (LCW, Vol. 29, pp. 151-64.)

5th December 1919:

"Both prior to October and during the October Revolution, we always said that we regard ourselves and can only regard ourselves as one of the contingents of the international proletarian army� We always said that the victory of the socialist revolution therefore, can only be regarded as final when it becomes the victory of the proletariat in at least several advanced countries." (LCW, Vol. 30, pp. 207-8.)

20th November 1920:

"The Mensheviks assert that we are pledged to defeating the world bourgeoisie on our own. We have, however, always said that we are only a single link in the chain of the world revolution, and have never set ourselves the aim of achieving victory by our own means." (LCW, Vol. 31, p. 431.)

End of February 1922:

"But we have not finished building even the foundations of socialist economy and the hostile powers of moribund capitalism can still deprive us of that. We must clearly appreciate this and frankly admit it; for there is nothing more dangerous than illusions� And there is absolutely nothing terrible � in admitting this bitter truth; for we have always urged and reiterated the elementary truth of Marxism - that the joint efforts of the workers of several advanced countries are needed for the victory of socialism." (LCW, Vol. 33, p. 206.)

Lenin's uncompromising internationalism was not the product of sentimental utopianism, but on the contrary, of a realistic appraisal of the situation. Lenin was well aware that the material conditions for socialism did not exist in Russia, but they did exist on a world scale. The world socialist revolution would prevent the revival of those barbarous features of class society which Marx referred to as "all the old crap" by guaranteeing at its inception a higher development than capitalist society. This was the reason why Lenin placed such strong emphasis on the perspective of international revolution, and why he devoted so much time and energy to the building of the Communist International.

Quite rapidly on the basis of a world wide plan of production and a new world division of labour, this would give rise to a mighty impulse to the productive forces. Science and modern technique would be used to harness nature and turn deserts into fertile plains. All the destruction of the planet and the appalling waste of capitalism would be brought to an end. Within a generation or so the material basis for socialism would be laid. Over time, the tremendous growth of production would eliminate all material inequality and provide for a superabundance of things that would universally raise the quality of life to unheard-of levels. All the basic human needs would be satisfied by such a planned world economy. As a consequence, classes would dissolve into society, together with the last vestiges of class society - money and the state. This would give rise to genuine communism and the replacement of the domination of man by man with the "administration of things", to use Engels' expression.

Yet the overthrow of capitalism did not follow this pattern. Rather than the working class coming to power in the advanced industrial countries, the capitalist system was to break, in Lenin's words, "at its weakest link". Weak Russian capitalism paid the price for the bankruptcy of world capitalism. The Russian bourgeois had come on to the historic stage too late and was incapable of carrying through the tasks of the national-democratic revolution, which had been carried through long ago in the West. However, through the law of uneven and combined development (1), foreign capital had established the largest and most modern industries in the cities of Russia, uprooting the peasantry and creating a proletariat virtually over night. This new working class, on the basis of experience, was to look towards the most modern ideas of the workers' movement that reflected its needs - Marxism - and was the first proletariat to carry through the socialist revolution to a conclusion.

The fact that Russia was a backward country would not have been a problem if such a revolution was a prelude to a successful world socialist revolution. That was the aim of the Bolshevik Party under Lenin and Trotsky. Internationalism was no sentimental gesture, but was rooted in the international character of capitalism and the class struggle. In the words of Trotsky: "Socialism is the organisation of a planned and harmonious social production for the satisfaction of human wants. Collective ownership of the means of production is not yet socialism, but only its legal premise. The problem of a socialist society cannot be abstracted from the problem of the productive forces, which at the present stage of human development are worldwide in their very essence." (Trotsky, History of the Russian Revolution, p. 1237.) The October Revolution was regarded as the beginning of the new world socialist order.

-Ted Grant, from Russia: From Revolution to Counterrevolution. Online at http://www.marxist.com/russiabook-2.htm

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Axel, welcome back!

I am not sure what to say about your post, except it confirms you still think me an important danger to your version of Marxism

I note you quote Ted Grant at some length; thanks for that, but I have got this book, and I have read it several times.

However, may I say how sorry I was to hear of his death.

A huge loss to Marxism, and to the workers' movement internationally.


Are you saying that Marxism was sectarian from the start? How so? If you were right, the Bolsheviks could not have led the bulk of the Russian proletariat and peasantry to victory in 1917.

You need to read the full Essay when it is published to see what I do mean.

The first half is here:

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

However, I cannot disagree with much of what you say (as far as it goes), except I'd put it differently.


There is not a shred of evidence to support this "dialectics causing sectarianism" stuff.

Well, if you'll forgive me saying so, I think the way you respond to me is evidence enough that I am right.

[Janus]

Can we cut out the derailing comments, please? And rather than respond to these comments, just report it!

If you don't have something constructive to say, don't say it.

Moved to Philosophy

[hoopla]

Not sure, tbh, all the literature that seems any good is very up on the dialectic. What are you saying, that Soviet Marxism, is better than Hegelian humanist western s*! Surely thats enough of an argument... or is this a new dawn.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoop, it looks like you have slipped those boxing gloves on again....

[hoopla]

Rosa earlier http://www.michaeltyson.com/michael-tyson.gif

:rolleyes:

:lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Nothing like me; he's not mean-looking enough.

But, he can probably type better than you.

[PRC-UTE]

Wow, Rosa, that's really impressive. A lot of what that essay says makes sense. I've often wondered why some left wing cults do what they do and argue amongst themselves, failing to ever spread a message or reach the masses.

Your argument that DM is a form of indoctrination/ control is compelling. But I'm not 100% convinced it's embracing DM per se, but rather commitment to abstract Marxism over concrete class struggle. I've noticed lately there are many who seem to dismiss every actual existing struggle and approach politics as purely an abstraction. The anarchist Sabate wrote about this tendency of ppl who always find an excuse not to do anything and condemn thsoe who do. Just my thoughts.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PRC-UTE: thanks for those comments, but recall that the above post is just a summary of my ideas (and it leaves out almost all the supporting evidence/argument); the full Essay has been broken into two parts -- Part One has already been published. Part Two will follow at a later stage.

Added later:

In fact PRC, abstraction, and abstract ideas, come from out of the very same stable: ancient Greek Philosophy.

DM is just a fourth-rate off-shoot of the same.

Hence the abstract politics in the cults you mention.

[Axel1917]

Axel, welcome back!

I am not sure what to say about your post, except it confirms you still think me an important danger to your version of Marxism

What threat do you pose? You have absolutely no mass influence. I thought it was a bit funny and hypocritical for someone that is sectarian to complain about sectarianism.


I note you quote Ted Grant at some length; thanks for that, but I have got this book, and I have read it several times.

That was mainly intended to be put in the thread before this one, i.e. before the topics were split. I did not realize that it was split until rather recently.


However, may I say how sorry I was to hear of his death.

A huge loss to Marxism, and to the workers' movement internationally.

It won't be easy to replace him. I am sure that Alan Woods is doing fine with carrying things forward, but younger people like myself are going to take awhile to theoretically and practically stronger. People with over 70 years of experience with Marxism don't just grow on trees. I am trying to step up organizational work a bit, but it is hard to find contacts in this tiny suburban city I live in.


Are you saying that Marxism was sectarian from the start? How so? If you were right, the Bolsheviks could not have led the bulk of the Russian proletariat and peasantry to victory in 1917.


You need to read the full Essay when it is published to see what I do mean.

The first half is here:

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

I am not sure if I will have time for this, given that I am trying to step up work.


However, I cannot disagree with much of what you say (as far as it goes), except I'd put it differently.

How so?


Well, if you'll forgive me saying so, I think the way you respond to me is evidence enough that I am right.

Dialectics did not cause sectarianism in the days of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky, so I don't see why it would be causing such things today. The effects of the massive onslaught against Marxism by the postwar boom, Stalinism, etc. are still being felt to this very day.

Some things from a glance did catch my eye:


Admittedly, this controversial view faces seemingly insurmountable obstacles, not the least of which is its apparent incapacity to explain how it is even remotely conceivable that the above revolutionaries (and others) could possibly have adopted and disseminated ideas that represent the theoretical interests of the class enemy.

If these ideas are alien to use and in the interests of the class enemy, then why was Gould subject to all kinds of initial criticism for using dialectical aspects and quotations from Marx and Engels in his works? Surely, if such things were in the interests of the ruling class, Gould would not have been subjected to such attacks. Also, why isn't dialectical materialism taught in universities, but rather all kinds of postmodernist nonsense for philosophy? Surely dialectical materialism would be taught by them if it were so useful to their rule.

And why is it that formal logic is encouraged to such a degree to make those unacquainted with Marxism to think that dialectics makes no sense (I initially thought as such until I continued studying it.). Why would the bourgeoisie make people avoid things that help them? That makes about as much sense as them making school textbooks that tell the truth about Marxism.

Or are you some kind of capitalist agent, and is this enemy class you speak of the proletariat? :P


Not only that, it could be argued that revolutionary theory has been refined in struggle for over one hundred and fifty years by the very best theorists and activists in the Marxist tradition. Had there been the slightest hint of contamination from any form of ruling-class ideology this would have emerged long ago, becoming apparent perhaps in a series of disastrous theoretical, strategic and tactical blunders, or in major compromises and accommodations with the class enemy. It is thus inconceivable that revolutionaries (not to mention countless thousands of militants and socialist workers) -- many of whom are/were prepared to give their lives in furtherance of the class struggle -- would have adopted ideas derived from the class they abhor, totally vitiating their long-term political aims.

This never happened due to dialectics, but rather an inabilty to adapt to changing circumstances, i.e. inconsistent materialism and dogmatic thinking, as was the case with the postwar boom. Ted Grant and his comrades were the first to realize that there would be this postwar boom and not some kind of bonapartism sweeping Europe and pushing forth rapid revolutionary movement. We then have other objective complications: Stalinism taking over the CP's and expelling the Marxists, purges, Moscow frame-ups, the adaption of the Stalinist-Menshevik two-stage "theory" ruining many revolutions, Stalin making no opposition to Hitler's rise to power, etc. And we have the fact that consistent materialism and dialectics were used in the Militant during its rise to a major force in Britain. Victories going to the heads of the majority of the leadership and inability to appraise current and new conditions led to that most unfortunate split (and where have Taaffe and Co. gotten?).


Furthermore, it might well be wondered how revolutionary classics (such as Marx's Das Kapital, Marx and Engels's The Communist Manifesto, Engels's Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Lenin's What Is To Be Done? and State and Revolution, Trotsky's The Permanent Revolution and The History of the Russian Revolution, Luxembourg's The Mass Strike -- along with countless others) could have been written by comrades who have been portrayed in these Essays as little more than undercover propagandists for the ruling-class.



These books would be encouraged, read, and taught in all bourgeois schools if they are as alien and harmful as you claim. Ever notice how the bourgeoisie does not make any major attempts to keep all kinds of Marxist works in print, especially the case with Lenin's Collected Works (I had a heck of a time tracking down that entire set I managed to get in December). They also do nothing to make people become "harmed" by Ilyenkov by putting his works back into print either. It makes no sense for the Bourgeois to keep works that help them away from their people. They would at the very least encourage leftists to read these works and keep them readily available and afforadable to them if this were the case. These points of yours hold no water.


Nevertheless, the contention made here (in all seriousness) is that, in so far as the above comrades entertained a theory based on concepts borrowed from Hegel, they succeeded in introducing into the revolutionary movement a world-view that constituted a major theoretical compromise with the class enemy.

Does not every system of thought in history have a foundation on what was useful in the past, being carried over and put into correct context with new discoveries and such? Another problem is that the formal logic you use is a product that was invented in the past, when philosphical systems were also being used to justify the iron rule of the state. Your charge in this apsect is highly hypocritical.


Indeed, and in answer to one of the objections rehearsed above, this is part of the reason why Marxism has witnessed disaster after disaster, retreat after retreat, and defeat after defeat for the last 100 years or so. If practice tells us anything, it tells us that practice has refuted dialectics, and that Dialectical Marxism is not a synonym for success.

Why all such retreats and defeats? Quite a few reasons: The rise of Stalinism falsifying Boshevism and mass-murdering Marxists, hijacking CP's, turning them into pawns of Stalin's foreign policy, spreading the bankrupt two-stage "theory," Stalin not opposing Hitler's rise to power (Hitler even mentioned that socialists could have easily crushed him, but he ended up coming to power "Without breaking a pane of glass" due to Stalin doing nothing to stop him via the Comintern (Stalin had boasted about progress being made against the "Social-Fascists" (these people were the ones actually opposing Hitler!) in the process!), the treacherous leadership of the German Social Democratic Party making the revolution fail, dooming the USSR to isolation that caused Stalinism, the postwar boom making it appear that capitalism had fixed itself, etc. None of them were specifically due to dialectics. In fact, it had nothing to do with dialectics, but rather the strengthening of anti-dialectical movements and tendencies (Fascism, Stalinism, capitalism)!


Furthermore, this also reveals why Marxism is about as effective as religious belief is at fostering sectarianism. Far from presenting a glowing beacon to mankind, revolutionary socialism has become an object lesson in failure and a byword for corruption and evil. And we cannot just put this down to the malign influence of bourgeois propaganda; time after time we have scored more own goals than is good for us, presenting the capitalist media with abundant ammunition to use against Marxism.

There have been many objective reasons for defeat besides bourgeois propaganda, that is true (see above), but none of them have anything to do with dialectics. That massive postwar onslaught did immense damage to the left. In fact, it destroyed most of it. The problem is that this onslaught had far-reaching consequences: most of the people calling themselves Marxists never appraised what had happened during the 20th Century. They just basically said, "Let's try something different. The USSR failed. Something just went wrong, and we need to find this new way." Those of us in the IMT have been upholding the unbroken thread of genuine Trotskyism for many years. Ted Grant and his comrades singlehandedly saved Trotskyism from shipwreck. It is true that sectarianism and ultra-leftism are a very serious problem for the left. I would argue that virtually every organization out there is ultra-left, opportunist, or reformist. Unions are in perhaps the worst shape they have ever been in. If we have inconsistent materialism causing these blunders, these repeated theoretical mistakes leading to practical mistakes in so many of these organizations, and yet dialectics worked just fine for the Bolsheviks, I would say that this does not indicate that dialectics has caused this, but rather that many have not been able to understand what has happened, not able to consistently carry out dialectics, nor do they understand the militant traditions of Bolshevism that will provide the correct understanding needed.

Even the most experienced and best Marxists make mistakes, and they do what they can to correct these mistakes ASAP. Such a thing is what kept Bolshevism going. It also takes time to gain influence, and if a correct Marxist tendency does not have the influence in an area in revolt, they will not be able to be there to lead the revolutionaries to victory. Such a lack of a tendency has been a major problem in a good deal of cases in history, especially when Stalininst ones were the ones with the influence, destroying the revolutions with the Stalinist-Menshevik nonsense of "two stages."

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Axel:


What threat do you pose? You have absolutely no mass influence. I thought it was a bit funny and hypocritical for someone that is sectarian to complain about sectarianism.

Well, in that case, stop arguing with me. If I am no threat at all, just ignore me.

It is what you said you would do a few months back.

What changed?


If these ideas are alien to use and in the interests of the class enemy, then why was Gould subject to all kinds of initial criticism for using dialectical aspects and quotations from Marx and Engels in his works? Surely, if such things were in the interests of the ruling class, Gould would not have been subjected to such attacks. Also, why isn't dialectical materialism taught in universities, but rather all kinds of postmodernist nonsense for philosophy? Surely dialectical materialism would be taught by them if it were so useful to their rule.

Ruling class ideologues fall out with each other all the time. But recall, I am not accusing Gould of being such, just that, because dialectics originated in ancient Hermetic ideas, made impossibly obscure by Hegel, Gould inadvertently incorporated such ideas into his theory.

For example, Newton faced criticisms for some of his mystical ideas, from Leibniz of all people, who wanted to substitute a different set of mystical ideas in their place.

This happens all the time in ruling-class theory, or in theories infected with ruling class ideas.


And why is it that formal logic is encouraged to such a degree to make those unacquainted with Marxism to think that dialectics makes no sense (I initially thought as such until I continued studying it.). Why would the bourgeoisie make people avoid things that help them? That makes about as much sense as them making school textbooks that tell the truth about Marxism.

I am not sure what this means; I read it several times, and it still seemed confused to me, if you will forgive me saying so.

Formal Logic is no threat to Marxism; what can I tell you?


Or are you some kind of capitalist agent, and is this enemy class you speak of the proletariat?

You see, you were doing quite well until you had to say this.


This never happened due to dialectics, but rather an inabilty to adapt to changing circumstances, i.e. inconsistent materialism and dogmatic thinking, as was the case with the postwar boom. Ted Grant and his comrades were the first to realize that there would be this postwar boom and not some kind of bonapartism sweeping Europe and pushing forth rapid revolutionary movement. We then have other objective complications: Stalinism taking over the CP's and expelling the Marxists, purges, Moscow frame-ups, the adaption of the Stalinist-Menshevik two-stage "theory" ruining many revolutions, Stalin making no opposition to Hitler's rise to power, etc. And we have the fact that consistent materialism and dialectics were used in the Militant during its rise to a major force in Britain. Victories going to the heads of the majority of the leadership and inability to appraise current and new conditions led to that most unfortunate split (and where have Taaffe and Co. gotten?).

Thanks for all that, but I was not too sure what it had to do with anything I asserted.

Recall, the essay you read is merely a summary of a much longer one to follow, wherein I aim to provide evidence to back up these bald assertions of mine.


These books would be encouraged, read, and taught in all bourgeois schools if they are as alien and harmful as you claim. Ever notice how the bourgeoisie does not make any major attempts to keep all kinds of Marxist works in print, especially the case with Lenin's Collected Works (I had a heck of a time tracking down that entire set I managed to get in December). They also do nothing to make people become "harmed" by Ilyenkov by putting his works back into print either. It makes no sense for the Bourgeois to keep works that help them away from their people. They would at the very least encourage leftists to read these works and keep them readily available and afforadable to them if this were the case. These points of yours hold no water.

I did not say these books were harmful (etc). They are classics that I still enjoy reading.

So, once more, I could not see the point of what you said.


Another problem is that the formal logic you use is a product that was invented in the past, when philosphical systems were also being used to justify the iron rule of the state. Your charge in this apsect is highly hypocritical.

Where did I use Formal Logic in this Essay?

I do use it in other essays, but only to demonstrate how badly wrong dialecticians get it.

But, you can know no formal logic at all and still be a first rate revolutionary: Ted Grant is an excellent example; Alan Woods another.

But, if you are going to criticise it, you need to know some first; that is the only reason I use it, to show that its dialectical critics know none at all.

Formal logic is no more a threat to Marxism than mathematics is. They both use variables, so both can cope with change. Even Aristotle used variables (and he did so 1900 years before they were used in mathematics! No wonder Marx thought so highly of him.)


Why all such retreats and defeats? Quite a few reasons: The rise of Stalinism falsifying Boshevism and mass-murdering Marxists, hijacking CP's, turning them into pawns of Stalin's foreign policy, spreading the bankrupt two-stage "theory," Stalin not opposing Hitler's rise to power (Hitler even mentioned that socialists could have easily crushed him, but he ended up coming to power "Without breaking a pane of glass" due to Stalin doing nothing to stop him via the Comintern (Stalin had boasted about progress being made against the "Social-Fascists" (these people were the ones actually opposing Hitler!) in the process!), the treacherous leadership of the German Social Democratic Party making the revolution fail, dooming the USSR to isolation that caused Stalinism, the postwar boom making it appear that capitalism had fixed itself, etc. None of them were specifically due to dialectics. In fact, it had nothing to do with dialectics, but rather the strengthening of anti-dialectical movements and tendencies (Fascism, Stalinism, capitalism)!

Again, you are preaching to the converted here; I agree with much of this.

I merely ask the question: if truth is tested in practice, and Marxism is a long term failure, and all that Marxists do is allegedly informed by dialectics, the finger a blame must point here too.

So, I acknowledge all the objective factors you highlight, but add that an important subjective factor here is the mystical theory imported into our movement by Engels.

Thankyou once again, Axel, for taking so much time to argue with me, as opposed to accusing me of this and that, as you used to do.

But much of what you say I agree with (I am a Trotskyist, after all!).

[By the way; good luck in organising in the US -- we need all the socialists we can get in the heart of the beast!]

[RevolverNo9]

Rosa, I have always found your thesis compelling. However can I just make sure of something - when (as you so often do) you declare DM as one of the chief factors in the failiure of the workers' movement and directly responsible for many calamaties in our history. While I do not doubt a contributory effect from obscurant and uninterpretable philosophising, is the extent of your claims - to some extent - an exageration necessitated by polemic? If it were otherwise we would (would we not?) be attributing an ideological (superstructural) phenomenon with a grossly inflated causatory role. Equally I would be loathe to eliminate the interplay between the two levels of historical causation - the material base of society is inflected and distorted by superstructural factors. I have no doubt that the arcane and bewildering pseudo-science that so many Trotskyites and other Leninists (hell even Duke Debord!) adhere to has impeded progress. Yet this damage must be exacerbating and not determining and while I realise you stress that DM is not the sole reason for the failiures of the workers' movement I wonder whether the emphasis you place on this ideological sometimes is in danger of distorting a materialist analysis.


This is because these comrades, unlike most workers, have entered the socialist movement by and large as a result of personal commitment, as an expression of their rebellious personality, or because of personal alienation from the system (or other contingent causes), but not as a direct result of the class war (i.e., through collective action).

This means that from the beginning (again, by and large), such comrades act and think as individuals; they are committed to the revolution as an idea -- as an ideal even --, they are not revolutionaries for materialist reasons, that is as a result of their direct experience of working-class action, or as a consequence of a collective response to exploitation.

This I think is a very accurate observation since you absolutely stress the material causes. Therefore, isn't DM, primarily, an ideological symptom of the lack of workers' control within their own movement (which, as you say, climaxes as the grand secretary of Britain's section of 'The Popular Committee for an International of Really Historically Significant (Honest) Worker-Revolutionaries Sanctioned by Trotsky' finally cuts the last strings holding up any democracy within the group). It is active in its influence but not determinant.

[A question if I may, what is your stance on the so-called 'epistemological break' in Marx's thought? I am slowly working my way through a volume of Early Works at the moment and I have rather taken to a very strong piece by Lucio Colletti on the matter (have you read it?) in which he argues the need to seperate between the Young Marx and the social scientist of later was to stave off the sheer embarrassment of Marxists (and Leninists in particular) whose philisophical ideas were discredited by Marx himself when the works were finally publsihed in the 1920s. Colletti writes that DM is a distinctly un-Marxist philosophy, instead a result of that rather unattractive late-Victorian tendency to appear to be able to explain everything in totalitarian intellectual constructs (something I can't agree with more, I got such a shock when I first opened Anti-Durhing to see chemical-equations and statements about motion being the existence of two things in once place at the same time (?!?!?!?)).

Since, until the 20s, the only philisophical basis for Marxism was provided by Engels (save, I suppose, These on Feuerbach and the Preface) Plekhanov, Lenin and the rest of them adopted his voluminous explanations. (Engel's criticism of Hegel was different from Marx's, was it not? While Marx believed Hegel's was an idealist system to be inverted, Engels (like the other Young Hegelians) deemed it 'a radical philsophy constrained by a conservative form'... what a conclusion!) This was then contradicted by the actual philisophical origin of Marx's thought when it came to surface, hence the necessity of the 'epistemological break'. Coletti very convincingly argues that all the major tenets of Marx's theses (including, ultimately, historical materialism) are expressed in the course of his youthful writing.

Anyway, I suppose I'll get onto Althusser eventually but just wondered what your view was.]

Axel1917


Surely, if such things were in the interests of the ruling class, Gould would not have been subjected to such attacks.

Dialectial Materialism has the gross misfortune of being Hegelian, pro-Marxist and pseudo-scientific. That's going to call for a lot of angry intellectuals.


And we have the fact that consistent materialism and dialectics were used in the Militant during its rise to a major force in Britain.

Oh come on. Surely both the rise and the fall of Militant (and the Trotskyist movement in general) are the result of material causes. Are you honestly suggesting that members' use of dialectics (whatever that means) resulted in their success? Can you concretely illustrate any link of causation? The rise of trade union power through industrial conflict and canny entryist tactics seems a more plausable explanation. And their subsequent collapse - was that because they stopped dialectical analysis? It wasn't because of the Conservative/Labour attack on the workers' movement or the general down-turn in the socialist tendency globally?

It was, presumably, dialactics that 'allowed' Grant to make his stunningly grand and prescient prediction of an economic collapse on the scale of the Twenties Depression at the end of the 1980s. Furthermore, his powers cast a spell on all of 200 people who became the members of Socialist Appeal.


(and where have Taaffe and Co. gotten?)

To my knowledge, the Socialist Party do use dialectics. Yes, yes, I know Taaffe doesn't really know the dialectic but - hey - he's working class, what do you expect!


Ever notice how the bourgeoisie does not make any major attempts to keep all kinds of Marxist works in print, especially the case with Lenin's Collected Works (I had a heck of a time tracking down that entire set I managed to get in December).

Well, that's the market for you.


Another problem is that the formal logic you use is a product that was invented in the past, when philosphical systems were also being used to justify the iron rule of the state. Your charge in this apsect is highly hypocritical.

? Maths has also been pretty much the same since... oh I don't know, Lots B?. I guess the real revolutionary thing to do would be to become conscious of the fact that 1 + 1 = 3.7.


Ted Grant and his comrades singlehandedly saved Trotskyism from shipwreck.

Urgh. Sorry I just got this rush-memory of reading through that horrible sycophantic introduction to The Unbroken Thread. (Although, seriously, I don't want to sound overly critical. I do have some respect for the man (and was very sorry to hear about his death). Just not for the Cult of Grant.)

[Axel1917]

Dialectial Materialism has the gross misfortune of being Hegelian, pro-Marxist and pseudo-scientific. That's going to call for a lot of angry intellectuals.

Baseless bourgeois propaganda. And then we have the fact that Gould's discoveries are now rather widely accepted, his use of dialectics in his works allowing these discoveries to happen.


Oh come on. Surely both the rise and the fall of Militant (and the Trotskyist movement in general) are the result of material causes.

I never denied that. I was merely stating that highly influential and succesful tendencies have been dialectical ones, particularly the Bolshevik Party.


Are you honestly suggesting that members' use of dialectics (whatever that means) resulted in their success?

It contributed to it. There has never been a successful anti-dialectical "Marxist" tendency in history.


Can you concretely illustrate any link of causation?

Can you show me an example of an anti-dialectical tendency that has done well? I don't think so. A tendency will fail if it remains within the confines of bourgeois philosophy.


The rise of trade union power through industrial conflict and canny entryist tactics seems a more plausable explanation.

This was a part of the overall whole, not the whole itself.


And their subsequent collapse - was that because they stopped dialectical analysis? It wasn't because of the Conservative/Labour attack on the workers' movement or the general down-turn in the socialist tendency globally?

Again, I never implied that it was dialectics alone that caused such things, but rather that it is a component part of a successful tendency.


It was, presumably, dialactics that 'allowed' Grant to make his stunningly grand and prescient prediction of an economic collapse on the scale of the Twenties Depression at the end of the 1980s. Furthermore, his powers cast a spell on all of 200 people who became the members of Socialist Appeal.

Everyone makes their mistakes. Grant admitted and corrected his, unlike the sects.


To my knowledge, the Socialist Party do use dialectics. Yes, yes, I know Taaffe doesn't really know the dialectic but - hey - he's working class, what do you expect!

I was stating that dialectics is not the cause of sectarianism, as it is used by successful tendencies.


Well, that's the market for you.

And if these works were helping out the class enemy like Rosa claimed, they would keep them in stock, for it would help damage the left.


? Maths has also been pretty much the same since... oh I don't know, Lots B?. I guess the real revolutionary thing to do would be to become conscious of the fact that 1 + 1 = 3.7.

I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy in Rosa's defending of formal logic, derived from the past, yet attacking dialectics for having roots in the past as well.


Urgh. Sorry I just got this rush-memory of reading through that horrible sycophantic introduction to The Unbroken Thread. (Although, seriously, I don't want to sound overly critical. I do have some respect for the man (and was very sorry to hear about his death). Just not for the Cult of Grant.)

There never has been, nor will there ever be, a Cult of Grant. This lie of Taaffe's is totally baseless, and no sectarian has ever been able to prove it. There is a reason why our "worthless tiny group" is feared and hated by so many sects out there. We are the ones getting the influence in Venezuela, we are growing and doing well, while the sects are in the same old rut.


I merely ask the question: if truth is tested in practice, and Marxism is a long term failure, and all that Marxists do is allegedly informed by dialectics, the finger a blame must point here too.

Why then are we gaining influence all over the world, particularly in Venezuela for a key place for the international situation? I don't see the SWP, CWI, CP's, etc. getting the influence, meetings with Chavez, etc. The objective factors I listed were the casues, not dialectics itself. And another problem iwth the sects is that they know the words of the greatest Marxists, but the do not understand the logic behind them. It is quite possible for knowledge of dialectics to be correctly used by a sect in basic examples, but due to this lack of the knowledge of the logic behind the words, mistakes are made. The Fourth International was a classic case of this in the postwar world.


Well, in that case, stop arguing with me. If I am no threat at all, just ignore me.

It is what you said you would do a few months back.

What changed?

I was sick of getting stuck using Wordpad to make and read documents (no spellcheck or anything), and I was not going to pay $160 for MS Office, and it was too noisy to concentrate on reading, so I decided to come here while I was waiting for Open Office to download. It works fine for me, and it was free.



Ruling class ideologues fall out with each other all the time. But recall, I am not accusing Gould of being such, just that, because dialectics originated in ancient Hermetic ideas, made impossibly obscure by Hegel, Gould inadvertently incorporated such ideas into his theory.

For example, Newton faced criticisms for some of his mystical ideas, from Leibniz of all people, who wanted to substitute a different set of mystical ideas in their place.

This happens all the time in ruling-class theory, or in theories infected with ruling class ideas.

I think he got that crap because his views clashed with the official bourgeois philosophical outlook. I also doubt that the bourgeoisie would use so much money on their nonsensical postmodernist stuff in universitites if dialectics was truly a nonsensical thing.

You seem to defend formal logic, and the bourgeoisie do not want people to go further and get into dialectical thinking and realize the problems of the capitalist system.

I remember you saying that these ideas in the classic works were somehow indadvertenly playing into the hands of the class enemy. If this were the case, the bourgeoisie would realize this and keep these works in wide circulation to keep the harm going. This is why I feel your conention here holds no water.

Organizing where I live is not easy; it is a small suburban city. Very little here. I will have to move to a nearby metropolitan area. I have not been able to meet a comrade here due to conflicting schedules, and a different contact I found seems to be a closet democrat that thinks there is a "good kind" of opportunism.

I also don't understand why you focus on dialectics only; a tendency needs to focus on all issues confronting the working class, not just the philosophical aspects. That is sectarian. Things must be analyzed in their interconnections with each other, not just one mere aspect.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Revolver:


However can I just make sure of something - when (as you so often do) you declare DM as one of the chief factors in the failiure of the workers' movement and directly responsible for many calamaties in our history. While I do not doubt a contributory effect from obscurant and uninterpretable philosophising, is the extent of your claims - to some extent - an exageration necessitated by polemic?

First, I merely say that it is one of the most important subjective reasons for our lack of success.

Second, I point to dialecticians' own claim that it is only the right theory, when put to the test of practice, that will enable a revolutionary party assist workers form a socialist society: i.e., truth is tested in practice (not 'objective circumstances' are tested in practice, but truth), and that not only is dialectics is the only theory that can work, according to them, it informs all they do (not nearly all they do). In that case, I hoist them on their own petard: if Marxism is a long-term failure, then the finger a blame points nowhere else (for these subjective factors), or nearly nowhere else.

Third, the essay I published above is only a summary: 90% of the detail, evidence and argument is missing.


This I think is a very accurate observation since you absolutely stress the material causes. Therefore, isn't DM, primarily, an ideological symptom of the lack of workers' control within their own movement (which, as you say, climaxes as the grand secretary of Britain's section of 'The Popular Committee for an International of Really Historically Significant (Honest) Worker-Revolutionaries Sanctioned by Trotsky' finally cuts the last strings holding up any democracy within the group). It is active in its influence but not determinant.

Forgive me using a seemingly dialectical concept, but there is an interplay between theory and practice. If a theory helps keep a party small, then that is a very material result. Hence, the lack of impact on workers will have a physical cause.

So, what was once a material cause (the class origins of dialecticians, and the class origins of those who invented the thought-forms DM had developed from), has a material result in the end.


A question if I may, what is your stance on the so-called 'epistemological break' in Marx's thought?

Not a lot, since I am implacably suspicious of any terminology drawn from traditional philosophy (I may use some of it from time to time, but only in order to hasten its own demise).

As for Colletti, from what he has written, his understanding of logic is very limited, so I discount much of what he says. He is far too deeply enmeshed in traditional thought-forms.

Same goes for Althusser, but for completely different reasons. In fact, I have ceased to take anything said by a French Philosopher seriously since Descartes (and I cannot abide him either), saving perhaps Rousseau.

This is not to pick on the French, I cannot abide the work of 95% of philosophers since Thales. [I make exceptions for parts of Plato (e.g., where he attempts to look at how language works, and begins to unravel philosophical logic), even larger parts of Aristotle (for somewhat similar reasons), and a handful of others. My main influences are Marx, Frege and Wittgenstein.]

Recall, I am trying to terminate philosophy, not write some new stuff in that genre.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Axel:


I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy in Rosa's defending of formal logic, derived from the past, yet attacking dialectics for having roots in the past as well.

Recall, Axel, that I do not criticise dialectics for having roots in the past, but for the material nature of those roots: ruling class thought.

Formal Logic, like science, has its origins in the human race's attempt to understand nature and the rules that guarantee the validity of our reasoning.

Sure, ruling-class theorists developed much of it, but it is not based on their mystical theories (save where they try to account for its 'truth').


Why then are we gaining influence all over the world, particularly in Venezuela for a key place for the international situation? I don't see the SWP, CWI, CP's, etc. getting the influence, meetings with Chavez, etc. The objective factors I listed were the casues, not dialectics itself.

Forgive me for saying this, but this is just more evidence of the crippling effect of dialectics; it makes comrades inveterately optimistic on the basis of short term trends (which up until now, have always gone sour). And our capacity to fragment (courtesy of dialectics) often helps it go sour.

So, when you say such things, if you will forgive me once more, it just provides me with more evidence that I am right.

And, because dialectics allows theorists to reason along contradictory lines --, since the dialectic is supposed to be contradictiory --, it permits them to see figures like Chavez as substitutes for the working-class (or it blinds them to the reformist nature of such characters). Hence my claim that dialectics only appeals to substitutionists.

Once more, the more of this you post, the more evidence you give me that I am on the right lines.

Now, in response to this comment of mine:


Well, in that case, stop arguing with me. If I am no threat at all, just ignore me.

It is what you said you would do a few months back.

What changed?

You say:


I was sick of getting stuck using Wordpad to make and read documents (no spellcheck or anything), and I was not going to pay $160 for MS Office, and it was too noisy to concentrate on reading, so I decided to come here while I was waiting for Open Office to download. It works fine for me, and it was free.

If you will forgive me once again, I think you have missed the point.

Let me put it to you again:

If I am no threat to the workers' movement, then why are you bothering to criticise me?

And in response to this comment of mine:


Ruling class ideologues fall out with each other all the time. But recall, I am not accusing Gould of being such, just that, because dialectics originated in ancient Hermetic ideas, made impossibly obscure by Hegel, Gould inadvertently incorporated such ideas into his theory.

For example, Newton faced criticisms for some of his mystical ideas, from Leibniz of all people, who wanted to substitute a different set of mystical ideas in their place.

This happens all the time in ruling-class theory, or in theories infected with ruling class ideas.

You replied:


I think he got that crap because his views clashed with the official bourgeois philosophical outlook. I also doubt that the bourgeoisie would use so much money on their nonsensical postmodernist stuff in universitites if dialectics was truly a nonsensical thing.

I honestly could not see the relevance of this response.

Postmodernism arises from the same attempt to account for the world along a priori lines that dialectics does. They are both nonsenical therefore for the same reasons.

And the ruling class, since they are not trying to substitute themselves in the workers' movement for the working class, do not need to use dialectical materialism.

In addition, dialectical materialism is such a poor theory, they would never use it.


You seem to defend formal logic, and the bourgeoisie do not want people to go further and get into dialectical thinking and realize the problems of the capitalist system.

First, I do not defend Formal Logic, since it does not need defending. If it has any weaknesses, you would have to use some Formal Logic to show these up. But, if the system you had just used to do that is not reliable itself, then the criticism you had just used to show that alleged fact would not be either.

So, Formal Logic cannot be attacked for fear that that attack itself would disintegrate.

Second, I only mention it to show how badly wrong all dialecticians get it. It is truly one of the worst parts of dialectics. They do not even get close. And worse, they all copy the same mistakes off one another, without bothering to check.

You can find this allegation substantiated at length here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2004.htm

Check out Note 23.


I also don't understand why you focus on dialectics only; a tendency needs to focus on all issues confronting the working class, not just the philosophical aspects. That is sectarian. Things must be analyzed in their interconnections with each other, not just one mere aspect.

Well, I try to say why in the essay you read: I count it as the most important subjective reason for the long-term failure of Marxism.

[RevolverNo9]

Rosa:

I merely say that it is one of the most important subjective reasons for our lack of success.

In which case I think I am in loose agreement, although I'm in no position presently to quantify to what extent its effect has been (and therefore whether its effect matches the horrifying levels of retardation that you claim).

The question is, acknowledging (as I do) the interplay between both levels, can Dialectics be discredited in the ideological realm or will it only dissapear as the material origin of substituionism is brought to an end? (This is not to undermine the project that you are embarking on.)




A question if I may, what is your stance on the so-called 'epistemological break' in Marx's thought?

Not a lot, since I am implacably suspicious of any terminology drawn from traditional philosophy (I may use some of it from time to time, but only in order to hasten its own demise).

So do you find little to nothing of worth in the Early Works (despite an impressive show of genius)? Not even the process that led to the theory of alienation? If not, I would have thought at the very least that there is value in demonstrating to others that Dialectical Materialism is an Engelsite interpolation and if this can be achieved by showing its contradictions with a work which does show a continuum between it and later Marx, it would be a strong tool.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Revolver:


The question is, acknowledging (as I do) the interplay between both levels, can Dialectics be discredited in the ideological realm or will it only dissapear as the material origin of substituionism is brought to an end?

Forgive me, but I did not understand that question.


So do you find little to nothing of worth in the Early Works (despite an impressive show of genius)?

Far from it; I think Marx's early works are among his best. I think some of the Hegelian terminology does not help, but I was originally attracted to Marxism by, for example, the 1844 Manuscripts.

I cannot imagine what gave you the opposite idea.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

DM doesn't seem like a ruling class idea, to me, but a method of predicting what events will happen in the future. I don't see any fundamental flaws in the idea itself. Any results predicted may be false because of incorrect interpretation rather than DM itself. However, the main issue of dialectical materialism, as far as I can see, is that it to prove itself. It just makes sense, but making sense not proof within the intellectual realm.

I do, however, think that dialectical materialism cannot be discarded outright. If critics wouldn't mind, could you outline (perhaps in a few sentences, what parts of DM you disagree with? Is it that communism is going to happen no matter what? The idea that the upper class determines ideas most people hold? The first could easily seem like a ruling class idea - as it causes people to be idle. However, I don't think Marx meant for such an interpretation. He wasn't a fatalist, as far as I can see, but a determinist who believed factors (the actions of the people) would eventually lead to a result that cannot be prevented from occuring.

Is this whole conflicted rooted in the fact that Marx advocated action over theory while continuously developing theories that prevent people from acting? Obviously, if DM is true, the theory is entirely irrelevant, is it not? Communism will happen without it. Perhaps it is useful for predicting the moves of antirevolutionaries, or threats movement?

Any thoughts? To be honest, I have a lot difficulty with the ideas of Marx. To me, he contradicts himself is more ways than one.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dooga:


DM doesn't seem like a ruling class idea, to me, but a method of predicting what events will happen in the future.

It is based on ruling-class, a priori forms of thought, pinched from Hermetic Philosophers. Summary evidence has been posted in earlier threads (the full details are at my site).


I don't see any fundamental flaws in the idea itself.

You must then have missed the thorough trashing it has recieved in earlier threads.


I do, however, think that dialectical materialism cannot be discarded outright. If critics wouldn't mind, could you outline (perhaps in a few sentences, what parts of DM you disagree with? Is it that communism is going to happen no matter what? The idea that the upper class determines ideas most people hold? The first could easily seem like a ruling class idea - as it causes people to be idle. However, I don't think Marx meant for such an interpretation. He wasn't a fatalist, as far as I can see, but a determinist who believed factors (the actions of the people) would eventually lead to a result that cannot be prevented from occuring.

The examples you mention are not core DM-ideas.

What you request -- refutaton on the cheap -- is however not possible.

If you cannot be bothered to put the work in, you will have to continue to believe in a trashed theory.

You decide.

[If you want me to post the links to the threads wherein DM has been trashed, just let me know.]

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Please do post links to the threads. If you or anyone else doesn't mind, I would like an elaboration on what DM truly is. Wikipedia is surprisingly unhelpful, to me at least, in this regard.

[hoopla]

You could try Dialectical Materialism by Cornforth. I have just bought it, to up my Stalinist credentials, you'll be able to get it for round a tenner... I probably won't read it for a while though :(

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla; thanks for that, but this is an awful work, that makes about as much sense as many of your boxing glove posts.

I pull it apart at my site.

Nevertheless, I doubt you can find a book on dialectics I have not read, and many times, too.

They all read the same....

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

Dooga, here they are:


http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45761

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48119

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45871

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43292

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42399

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46027

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46840

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47104

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44721

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42534

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46633

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47163

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44445

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46970

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46148

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44759

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46087

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48388

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48412

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48214

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49004

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49913

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50075

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50889

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51580

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=52154

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51742

[RevolverNo9]

The question is, acknowledging (as I do) the interplay between both levels, can Dialectics be discredited in the ideological realm or will it only dissapear as the material origin of substituionism is brought to an end?


Forgive me, but I did not understand that question.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. It seems to me that the real question is whether dialectics will be discredited through intellectual argument (ie. subjectively) or whether it will only end when substitutionism ends, when the material origin of revolutionary organisations is truly proletarian.


Far from it; I think Marx's early works are among his best. I think some of the Hegelian terminology does not help, but I was originally attracted to Marxism by, for example, the 1844 Manuscripts.

Ah! Sorry, I think I mistook an allegation you were probably directing at Althusser's 'epistemological break'. I feel the same way, the Manuscripts is an invaluable work. In which case you must acknowledge these works as unified.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Revolver:


Sorry if I wasn't clear. It seems to me that the real question is whether dialectics will be discredited through intellectual argument (ie. subjectively) or whether it will only end when substitutionism ends, when the material origin of revolutionary organisations is truly proletarian.

Ah, I see. Yes I actually tackle this in one of my Essays: I take the same line that we do with regard to religious belief (since belief in dialectics has an analogous rationale), which will only disappear when the material conditions that give rise to it are removed.

Which is, of course, why I get precisely nowhere when I 'debate' with these mystics at RevLeft or eleswhere -- and why they invent stuff, become abusive, and all say more-or-less the same sorts of things. Check out the on-going 'debate' here:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=53615


In which case you must acknowledge these works as unified.

What does the 'these' here refer to?

All of Marx's works?

If so, I think we need to treat them with some sensitivity and relate them to the development of his ideas and the nature of the class struggle at the time they were written.