DM: Full of Holes

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrades might recall an earlier post of mine on this topic here:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...entry1292031515 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=23&t=47163&st=0#entry1292031515)

Well, the full Essay has now been published (it is in fact the second complete Essay on this topic, and rounds-off one I published on the mysterious DM-Totality a month or so ago):

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2011%2002.htm

[ComradeOm]

You're still beating this drum Rosa? You're certainly persistent.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

OM:

Sure am, and I will be doing this for many more moons to come.

I'd say, oh, about another 15 or 20....

[blake 3:17]

Could you give us a date to give up by? Sooner rathan later if OK.

You're smart. OK you're smart. You are very smart. We are bored. YOU ARE SMART.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Blake:


Could you give us a date to give up by? Sooner rathan later if OK.

You're smart. OK you're smart. You are very smart. We are bored. YOU ARE SMART.

October 29th 1478.

[Epoche]

What is the practical difference between a revolution led by marxists who endorse Hegel's dialectics and a revolution led by those who do not? When I say "practical," I mean the actual literal difference in the activity of revolution itself; the efforts of the reform in its beginning, say, the first few years after it is established, and the political body that is organized to "run it", for lack of better words, after reform is over?

Rosa, we both know that science doesn't need philosophy, and that no attempt to disqualify science will work unless it is scientific. Circular, yes, and thus marks the end of philosophy. "Language" is dead, Triple M, and philosophy becomes a solipsistic soliloquy. Nothing "is" that is not scientific. I am soooo ready for the world to become empiric.

So, is your platform one of re-informing the revolutionaries that it is likely we are mortal and that god does not exist? If so, I think practically this is of little significance. If anything, your material doesn't really re-shape the majorities of force in the revolution; it is instead the highest order of sciences and the axioms of scientific research which would be established after the reform occurs, the replacement of old parchments. Scientific reasearch will always maintain its definitive form....the scientific "way" of experiment hasn't changed since Thales. We know that, and philosophy hasn't made any difference at all during this evolution of method and sciences.

You do not belong on the field, Rosa, nor even in the barracks. If you got shot we'd all be fucked.....and paradoxically, we wouldn't need you to achieve the revolution.

Now what do you have to say for yourself, Triple M?

The doctrine of dialectics and its major philosophical import is nothing more than a metaphysics. It could of just as easily been that reality is not a synthesis of contradictions, and the world would not know the difference. Again I ask if practically the end of Hegel is a major concern for the future of communism.

Was there ever a moment when two revolutionaries met on the field and were like "dude, are you for Hegel or against him, because I refuse to fight beside you if you believe that gobbledygook."

Lemme just throw a question out there that you would certainly not expect at this point: do you entertain the possibility of immortality as described by Nietzsche, roughly, in his idea of the eternal recurrence?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Epoche:


What is the practical difference between a revolution led by marxists who endorse Hegel's dialectics and a revolution led by those who do not? When I say "practical," I mean the actual literal difference in the activity of revolution itself; the efforts of the reform in its beginning, say, the first few years after it is established, and the political body that is organized to "run it", for lack of better words, after reform is over?

This is too abstract to answer; it depends on the relative weight of the working class in the movement, and the extent to which this loopy theory has screwed with the heads of the petty-bourgeois 'leadership' of any revolutionary parties around at the time.

But, if the past is anything to go by, the prospects do not look good -- that is, if we can ever get the working class to listen to us again. I have serious doubts about this --, but, obviously, things can change.


So, is your platform one of re-informing the revolutionaries that it is likely we are mortal and that god does not exist? If so, I think practically this is of little significance. If anything, your material doesn't really re-shape the majorities of force in the revolution; it is instead the highest order of sciences and the axioms of scientific research which would be established after the reform occurs, the replacement of old parchments. Scientific reasearch will always maintain its definitive form....the scientific "way" of experiment hasn't changed since Thales. We know that, and philosophy hasn't made any difference at all during this evolution of method and sciences.

I am sorry, this is far too unclear for me to comment on -- except I do not know why you mentioned either 'god' or 'mortality'. [Perhaps you should change your named to 'Enigmatist'.]


You do not belong on the field, Rosa, nor even in the barracks. If you got shot we'd all be fucked.....and paradoxically, we wouldn't need you to achieve the revolution.

What ever gave you the idea that the working class needs my help (or even that I think they do), even if they knew I existed?


Now what do you have to say for yourself, Triple M?

Nothing, except I suggest to check again that you know what the phrase 'relevant comment' means.

The above suggests you have confused it with 'rambling irrelevances'. :)


The doctrine of dialectics and its major philosophical import is nothing more than a metaphysics. It could of just as easily been that reality is not a synthesis of contradictions, and the world would not know the difference. Again I ask if practically the end of Hegel is a major concern for the future of communism.

Ah! I think I know what the problem is: you have been reading far too much French 'Philosophy' than is good for anyone.

It is clearly playing havoc with your capacity to write clearly. :)


Was there ever a moment when two revolutionaries met on the field and were like "dude, are you for Hegel or against him, because I refuse to fight beside you if you believe that gobbledygook."

You need to recall that among other things, I partly blame DM for helping keep revolutionary parties small, sectarian and substitutionist.

So, without access to a working time machine, I cannot answer your question; but I can say that if the working class ever do enter another revolutionary phase, Marxist parties will be too small to have a significant effect on the proceedings, and be more intent on fighting one another (you can see this even at this board -- comrades fall out over the smallest of issues, and use all manner of bureaucratic moves in order to kick this or that individual off that or this part of the board -- a microcosm of the left as it actually operates) than on leading the class --, who will anyway not look to Marxists/Leninists for leadership unless they get their act together.

Ditching dialectical mysticism will therefore be a huge step in the right direction, but not a solve-all on its own.


Lemme just throw a question out there that you would certainly not expect at this point: do you entertain the possibility of immortality as described by Nietzsche, roughly, in his idea of the eternal recurrence?

Impossible to answer since your question contains more than one meaningless term.

[Epoche]

the extent to which this loopy theory has screwed with the heads of the petty-bourgeois 'leadership' of any revolutionary parties around at the time.

That is the direction I was going with the question. Thank you. The last question to be asked is this: what difference does "theory" make in the pragmatic application of revolutionary activity. How are you helping the world by defeating Hegel? Will this change the course of the future of revolutionary activity? I don't think so. It appears you do.


I am sorry, this is far too unclear for me to comment on -- except I do not know why you mentioned either 'god' or 'mortality'.

Allow me to say something even more unclear then. The reasons why I mention these things is because they are at the heart of the individuals philosophy. Before all else, these the the concerns for everyone, whether marxist or not. I can promise you this-- none of us can be sure we are not immortal or if God exists. I mention these in tandem here because the major difference between Hegelian materialism and Marxist materialism is that Hegel was a rationalist while Marx was an empiricist. After you strip away the similarities between them, you are left with Hegel's assertion that "spirit" is real and developing, and Marx's assertion that it is not and that it is nonsense.

So when I say your treatment of Hegel is insignificant, I mean that despite these difference between the Old and the Young Hegelians, the important prospects of the revolution are not concerned with seperating the metaphysical nonsense from the empirical sciences, nor was this ever the concern. If you only wish to say that the common worker is stupid because he was raised on vocabularies that are utterly ridiculous and nonsensical, I would completely agree. And if you wish to propose that that conditioning has disrupted revolutionary activity, I would completely agree. Marx points it out clearly that religion (which is based from this nonsensical metaphysical terminology) is what "dumbs down" the working class. We agree.

Now, with all this in mind, what exactly is the power of Hegel and how important is it that he be so relentlessly critiqued if the only difference worth noting between the Old and the Young is the use of metaphysics and the age old philosophical question of immortality and the existence of God and/or "transcendent a priori".

Isn't that what you are getting at, Rosa? Aren't you just re-proving materialism and seeking to usurp the terminologies that started metaphysics?

If you just want to say "God is dead," we will listen. But does it take another two million pages to do it?

You are an academic, so much that having you around is a blessing and a nightmare simultaneously, Rosa. I don't know about you but I really liked the idea that spirit was developing and that I might not be mortal, even if it was a bunch of nonsense.

The revolution is a lot more romantic when Hegel is around. The people feel binded and nostalgic, they feel like they are making God and history and the most fantastic things one could imagine. You, Rosa Lichtenstein, are cold and emotionless. You are the analytic existentialist who is ready to die and who has completely ruled out the possibility that she is immortal. This universe is so meaningless to you, I wonder if even the revolution is important. I would sooner side with Schopenhauer and promote the extinction of the human species entirely.

I don't feel the love, Rosa. There are times when you pretend that God exists and you talk to him...but you are ashamed to admit that you too secretly long for this and that you, like the old gad fly, know nothing at all for sure.

I want you to somehow work into your system a possiblity for supergalactic quantum string consciousnesses that exist in all places at all times forever....or something like that.

I want to entertain the possibility that we exist again, and that our mission to create the utopia is the fated slavation for this planet, and that if we fuck it up....none of us will exist again.

Dammit Rosa, your theory is not exciting in the least. You need to do something with it. Explaining the universe in nuts and bolts terms just isn't fun.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Epoche:


I don't think so. It appears you do.

In that case, you are committed to the idea that theory has no effect on practice.


The reasons why I mention these things is because they are at the heart of the individuals philosophy. Before all else, these the the concerns for everyone, whether marxist or not. I can promise you this-- none of us can be sure we are not immortal or if God exists. I mention these in tandem here because the major difference between Hegelian materialism and Marxist materialism is that Hegel was a rationalist while Marx was an empiricist. After you strip away the similarities between them, you are left with Hegel's assertion that "spirit" is real and developing, and Marx's assertion that it is not and that it is nonsense.

Thankyou for that, but it contains far too many meaningless terms for me to comment upon.

I suggest you inflict this sort of stuff on the mentally weak, or worse, on a priest. :)


So when I say your treatment of Hegel is insignificant, I mean that despite these difference between the Old and the Young Hegelians, the important prospects of the revolution are not concerned with seperating the metaphysical nonsense from the empirical sciences, nor was this ever the concern. If you only wish to say that the common worker is stupid because he was raised on vocabularies that are utterly ridiculous and nonsensical, I would completely agree. And if you wish to propose that that conditioning has disrupted revolutionary activity, I would completely agree. Marx points it out clearly that religion (which is based from this nonsensical metaphysical terminology) is what "dumbs down" the working class. We agree.

This is so far away from anything I do say, or would say, that it is not even in the next county.


Now, with all this in mind, what exactly is the power of Hegel and how important is it that he be so relentlessly critiqued if the only difference worth noting between the Old and the Young is the use of metaphysics and the age old philosophical question of immortality and the existence of God and/or "transcendent a priori".

Once more, your penchant for using meaningless terms is as impressive as it is frustrating, since I cannot comment on much of what you say.

May I suggest you try using Martian if plain English is not good enough. :)


Isn't that what you are getting at, Rosa? Aren't you just re-proving materialism and seeking to usurp the terminologies that started metaphysics?

Nope, not even in the right Galaxy, this time....


If you just want to say "God is dead," we will listen. But does it take another two million pages to do it?

And what makes you think I care what 'we' listen to? :)

But why all this 'god' talk????

Has a crazed theist blagged my site and altered all my Essays?

[Of course, I use the term sometimes to wind DM-fans up, but the word itself means no more to me than "XXEETT£&%^£" means to you.

In short: I do not care if 'god' is dead or not, since any sentence containing that word is meaningless -- just as I do not care if "XXEETT£&%^£" is dead.]


You are an academic, so much that having you around is a blessing and a nightmare simultaneously, Rosa. I don't know about you but I really liked the idea that spirit was developing and that I might not be mortal, even if it was a bunch of nonsense.

No, I am in fact a working-class woman, a union organiser (unpaid) and work for a boss.

Speaking for myself, I prefer the idea that XXEETT£&%^£ is developing, and that I might not be ^%£$&&*&^%$££ -- since it makes more sense.

You are welcome to your superior brand on nonsense, though. ;)


The revolution is a lot more romantic when Hegel is around. The people feel binded and nostalgic, they feel like they are making God and history and the most fantastic things one could imagine. You, Rosa Lichtenstein, are cold and emotionless. You are the analytic existentialist who is ready to die and who has completely ruled out the possibility that she is immortal. This universe is so meaningless to you, I wonder if even the revolution is important. I would sooner side with Schopenhauer and promote the extinction of the human species entirely.

Well, you are just the sort who will need to be watched by us workers, then.

And, one can have emotions and never have heard of Hegel.

To think otherwise is to imagine that workers have to read that wall-to-wall b*llocks, or be cold and unemotional about change.

And I have not ruled anything out, since the phrase "the possibility that she is immortal" contains at least one meaningless term. So, it's not a possibility that I could even begin to rule in or out.

And how you think you can infer so much about me without knowing me is as offensive as it is misplaced.

I merely note that 99.9% of it is wrong; the other 0.1% is accurate, but not about me.

[I suspect you have reached the bottom of the irrational barrel here, and personal assassination is the only 'argument' you have left. We can all do that, but I will not attack you in return (in the way you know I can) since I rather like you.... But, please leave it out.]


I don't feel the love, Rosa. There are times when you pretend that God exists and you talk to him...but you are ashamed to admit that you too secretly long for this and that you, like the old gad fly, know nothing at all for sure.

More meaningless terms.

Are you trying to corner the market? :)


I want you to somehow work into your system a possiblity for supergalactic quantum string consciousnesses that exist in all places at all times forever....or something like that.

As Mick Jagger said; "You can't always get what you want".

Now, I want you to stop using meaningless terms.

But, will I ever get this?

No chance.

Exhibit A for the prosecution:


I want to entertain the possibility that we exist again, and that our mission to create the utopia is the fated slavation for this planet, and that if we fuck it up....none of us will exist again.

Eh? :blink:


Dammit Rosa, your theory is not exciting in the least. You need to do something with it. Explaining the universe in nuts and bolts terms just isn't fun.

Well that is rather odd, since I do not have a theory.

Have you been asleep these last few months, Rip Van Epoche?

And why should anything be 'fun' just to please you?

[Epoche]

I guess you're right. Those terms are meaningless and I couldn't even begin to define what "God" and "immortality" might be.

I am suddenly not as excited about the revolution and would almost prefer not being born.

[humph]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Epoche:


I am suddenly not as excited about the revolution and would almost prefer not being born.

Forgive me saying this, but we are going to need slightly less easily-put-off comrades around the place if it ever does kick off than thee.

Let me get this straight: you want the revolution, not to end injustice, hunger, poverty, war and oppression, but just to be 'fun'?

Is that right???

:o

[RebelDog]

This is too abstract to answer; it depends on the relative weight of the working class in the movement, and the extent to which this loopy theory has screwed with the heads of the petty-bourgeois 'leadership' of any revolutionary parties around at the time.

Dialectical materialism has damaged the revolutionary chances of the working class? Can you eleborate a bit Rosa?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The D:


Dialectical materialism has damaged the revolutionary chances of the working class?

I do not htink I have ever said that.

What I have said is that it has badly messed with the heads and organisation of Marxists, so it has ruined their chances of leading a revolution.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 07, 2006 07:46 pm
The D:


Dialectical materialism has damaged the revolutionary chances of the working class?

I do not htink I have ever said that.

What I have said is that it has badly messed with the heads and organisation of Marxists, so it has ruined their chances of leading a revolution.
But what did dialectical materialism specifically do to their heads that in turn ruined their chances of leading a revolution?

[Epoche]

Let me get this straight: you want the revolution, not to end injustice, hunger, povery, war and oppression, but just to be 'fun'?

Oh heavens no, Rosa!

I am simply facing my "existentiality" (from now on when I use a meaningless term I'm gonna use quotations) and my anxiety before a meaningless universe. The fact that we are all gonna die and that nothing matters in the long run is shocking. Not "good" or "bad", but shocking.

Perhaps what I meant is that when revolutionaries feel inspired by something which "transcends" these ordinary concerns, injustice, hunger, poverty, etc., which have to inevitably also be meaningless if this universe is, they tend to feel better and more important. There is a certain value to the propagandic use of metaphysics on a psychological level, just as there are many bad things about it. As Plato once supposed that "white lies" are sometimes justifiable, so do I.

It is difficult not to fall into "nihilism" Rosa when these "existential" anxieties are not faced. I have known "Christians" who are not only utterly ignorant, but also completely content with their life because they believe lies.

If I might make a "metaphorical" comparison to the morale of the average revolutionary, I would wager that the one who believed "God" existed might be better off. Like I said, sometimes nihilism is inescapable and can be blamed for the lack of efforts on the revolutionaries part.

Just a thought. I am not trying to make martyrs and zealots.

But remember this-- many marxists finish the day with an apathetic "fuck it....nothing really matters". We need better propaganda. Lie to us, Rosa.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The D:


But what did dialectical materialism specifically do to their heads that in turn ruined their chances of leading a revolution?

Here is what I posted on another thread in this topic:


I argue that DM forms the natural ideology of substitutionist tendencies in the workers' movement.

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.

This also helps explain why those who have tried to substitute themselves for workers -- be they STD's, Stalinist apparatchiks, professional revolutionary (i.e., dé classé) intellectuals, activists, Marxist academics, or even OTT's -- are among the most avid of DM-addicts.

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)?

[STD = Stalinist Dialectician; OTT = Orthodox Trotskyist Theorist.]

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. One can almost hear them 'reason' as follows:

"So what if we are now further away from a workers' state than Lenin was in 1917? And what does it matter that all four Internationals have failed? And what relevance is it that Marxist ideas have less impact on ordinary workers today than at any other time in living memory? Who cares if revolutionary parties are small, and almost all are shrinking, splitting or fighting among themselves? None of this matters since the NON guarantees all will be well one day; indeed, each retreat is only another advance in the waiting.

History loves me, yes it's true, the Dialectical Bible tells me so...."

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. [Hark! The second coming of 1917 is at hand....]

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!

[NON = Negation of the Negation.]

In contrast, revolutionaries drawn directly from the working-class appear to be less susceptible to this intellectual malaise (for reasons outlined above). 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.

[Spartacists, for instance, are an excellent example of this sort of dialectical malaise. The mystical mantle used to be worn (with pride) by the old UK-WRP, but the gods of dialectics took suitable revenge on them, 'negating' them with no little vehemence. No doubt the Sparts will be next -- unless, of course, the CIA knows different....]

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!

It is, indeed, like the uncaused cause of traditional Theology; the Ein Sof of the Kabbalah.

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....

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.

[Of late, dialectics has taken something a back seat in the UK/SWP; this is probably because the US/UK invasion of Iraq has allowed it to chalk up a few limited successes, which means there is less need for consolation. Hence, there are few banners on the many huge anti-war marches we have seen of late in the UK that extol the wonders of dialectics, no matter how central to Marxism the faithful claim it to be. ("The whole is greater than the sum of the parts, so bring the troops home now!"? I think not!)]

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).

In fact, one comrade on this discussion-board, who will remain anonymous to protect his guilt, was happy to dismiss everything posted at this site (as "turgid" -- what then does that make Hegel's Logic?)* -- even though on his own admission he had not read a single Essay --, on the basis of the assumed fact that I was a petty-bourgeois intellectual. When informed of my working-class credentials (and that I am a trade union representative), he still brushed this aside on the newly assumed basis that I must be a bureaucrat.

Hegel, of course, was a coal miner, and could not spell the word "turgid".

{In fact, I hold down a full-time job, and represent union members at work without pay.}

As I noted in the introduction, this response is predictable. So, this comrade was happy to malign me (and invent whatever he needed) rather than confront the awful truth about the ruling-class ideas he has uncritically swallowed. The fact that a working-class comrade like myself could rubbish this alien-class theory so thoroughly was anathema to him. Hence, I am now on his own private Index of Forbidden Books; his tender eyes can no longer look upon my work. Four hundred years ago, with respect to Galileo's discoveries, Aristotelian traditionalists refused to look at anything that threatened their world-view; the spirit of anti-Galilean bigotry seems once again to be alive and well, and camped in DM-circles. DM has given new meaning to Dogmatic Marxism.

Anyone who doubts any of this should try to get a randomly selected dialectician to specify under what conditions they would abandon a single DM-thesis; unless they are incredibly lucky (and, disingenuous responses aside), none will be forth-coming. This shows that DM-theses are neither empirically-based nor scientific, if we accept Lenin's own views on science.]

There are in fact two main types of DM-adepts:

(1) Low Church Dialecticians [or LCD's] cleave to the original, unvarnished faith laid down in the sacred texts written by Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, and Trotsky. These simple souls are highly proficient at quoting endless passages from the holy books as an answer to everything and anything, just like the faithful who bow to the East or who fill the gospel halls around the world. Their unquestioning faith is as impressive as it is un-Marxist.

They may be naive, but they are at least consistently so.

(2) High Church Dialecticians [or HCD's], on the other hand, are often openly contemptuous of the 'sophomoric ideas' found in these classic works (and typically reject the dialectic as applied to nature), just as they are equally dismissive of these simple LCD souls for their adherence to every word in the DM-classics. [Anyone who knows about High Church Anglicanism will know of what I speak.]* HCD's are mercifully above such crudities; they prefer the mother lode -- direct from Hegel, Lenin's Philosophical Notebooks and the writings of assorted latter day Hermeticists like Raya Dunayevskaya, CLR James, Tony Smith, Chris Arthur and Bertell Ollman -- cut perhaps with a few kilos of hardcore jargon straight from that intellectual cocaine-den otherwise known as French Philosophy.

HCD's are generally, but not exclusively, academic. Tortured prose is their forte, and a pointless existence is their punishment.

At least LCD's try to pretend that their ideas are relevant to the class struggle.

High Church dialectics is just good for the CV.

[And clearly, the latter sort of dialectics is not an "abomination" for that section of the bourgeoisie that administers Universities.]

Both wings, however, are well stocked with conservative-minded comrades, happy in their own small way to copy the a priori thought-forms of two-and-a-half millennia of boss-class theory, seldom pausing to give any thought to the implications of such easily won knowledge: if knowledge of the world is a priori, and based on thought alone, reality is surely Ideal.

Even this simple truth will sail over their heads, so deep have ruling ideas sunk into their class-compromised brains.

This has meant that DM's baleful influence becomes important at key historical junctures (i.e., those involving defeat or major set-back), since it acts as a materialist-sounding alternative to traditional philosophical thought (even while it emulates the latter in all but name). It thus taps into thought-forms that have dominated intellectual life for 2500 years -- ones that define the boundaries of 'theoretical acceptability'. Because of its thoroughly traditional nature, DM is able to appeal to the closet "god-builders" and dialectical mystics that revolutionary politics seems to attract -- and who, alas, appear to congregate mostly at the top, and, of course, in Colleges and Universities.

Militant Martinets

The reason for this is that 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, because of personal alienation from the system, or for other contingent psychological motives, but not as a direct result of the class war (i.e., not 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 --, as an expression of their own personal integrity. 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 has meant that the individual psychology of such comrades has stymied Marxist theory and practice for well over 120 years, if and when it has not been counterbalanced by working-class materialism.]

When 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. The revolutionary ego can only do this if it becomes a willing vehicle for the tide of history, for cosmic forces that have governed the universe from the beginning. By becoming slaves to the 'Totality', through revolutionary theory and activity, by joining in a movement that will fundamentally alter the course of human history, the petty-bourgeois ego is born again as the professional revolutionary.

The scales now drop from its eyes; the Hermetic virus has found another victim.

This now provides that 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 that can and will help 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 comrades. Social atoms like these need the internally-driven unifying force of ideas to wed them to the international workers' movement -- whereas workers do not.

But such ideas can only come from a traditional source -- from ruling-class theories --, since these are not only the only ones around (as they were the sole ones on offer in Marx's day), they are the ideas to which this layer is most susceptible. Their background and education means that ruling-class ideas already dominate their minds.

In contrast, material forces in society unify those involved in collective labour (which by and large does not apply to the above dialectically-susceptible comrades). Hence, these factors [i]force workers to combine, but they do not persuade them to unite as a result of some theory; workers are compelled to do so out of material necessity. This type of unity is thus externally imposed on workers, and by forces the ruling-class cannot themselves control, which thus creates their collective grave-diggers. More importantly, these material forces are not linked to the revolutionary ego, nor to ruling-class ideas, but to a collective identity.

For petty-bourgeois comrades, dialectics replaces militant labour activism/struggle as a unifying force; without this theory the reason why such comrades believe they stand at the political centre of the dialectical universe would vanish. Moreover, because dialectics provides a seemingly coherent, but eminently traditional, picture of reality (i.e., as an idea), it supplies each individual with a unique motivating factor, which, because it is individualistic, only now serves to divide such 'dialectical comrades' one from the other (for reasons spelled out below). Dialectics, the theory of universal opposition, goes to work on militant minds and turns them into inveterate sectarians and faction hounds.

Unfortunately, in Bolshevik-style parties, collective discipline is paramount. But, 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 all those inner, privatised ideas in each atomised head) now acts as a surrogate for outer control by material forces. And just as traditional religion has discovered, mind-control can more easily be secured by the use of mysterious doctrines no one understands, but which must be repeated constantly to dull the critical faculties.

Moreover, because the Party cannot copy the class struggle, and force unity on its cadres externally, it can only control political thought internally by turning its doctrines into a mind-numbing mantra, all the while insisting on theoretical purity.

An authoritarian personality thus emerges to enforce orthodoxy on the Party (in order to keep faith with 'tradition'), which now becomes a watch-word to test the loyalty of all those who might be tempted to stray from that narrow path that promises to lead the few toward revolutionary salvation.

Small thus becomes beautiful -- nay desirable --, since it allows for greater control. In small parties, the purity of the 'revolutionary tradition' is easier to enforce.

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

No wonder then that such dialectical-clones cling onto DM like grim death, just like the religionists mentioned above; 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!

[Indeed, this might be why they find Hegel's Super-Ego Philosophy so appealing.]

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

The opposite is true of professional revolutionaries; the atomised ego here makes such comrades 'naturally' factional. This helps explain why, among dialecticians, disagreements become so personal so quickly, and why factionalism is so rife (and why 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, such splits are now 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 clearly prefer. Expulsions, splits 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. Those who doubt this should check this out -- link in the original, at my site.]

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 re-unites it with a fondness for easy fragmentation, courtesy of DM.

Ruling-ideas now rule Marxism by helping those who divide, 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. [It is almost as if they had received a personal visit from the Self-Developing Idea itself; the road to Damascus and the road to Dialectics have more in common than just a capital "D".]

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

In defeat, however, such 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 off 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 about in the official 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) -- only it is now called the "Totality".

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 (on the part of the High Church faction), 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.

[Speaking personally, this was one of the first things that shocked me about Marxism (the almost ubiquitous back-biting). I did not at that time know much about the revolutionary ego, and its dark secrets; and I certainly failed to make the above connections.]

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 this 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 -- along 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 -- in the petty-bourgeois individualism that is super-glued to dialectics, and which thus 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 profound cosmic significance.

[Witness the inordinate respect shown for the dialectical meanderings of Mao and Stalin by 'tankies'* -- and of comrade Healy by prominent members of the WRP. In fact, Healy 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 to go even in one ear. This is because they refuse to accept that any of the pressures that operate on ordinary mortals could possibly work on the DM-elect. Social psychology does not apply to them. They are not like other human beings.

In that case, it must surely be a pure coincidence that revolutionary parties have replicated practically every single fault and foible found among the god-botherers -- 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 dialectical superscientists. They can thus safely be ignored, never spoken about in political company.

And so the dialectical merry-go-round takes another spin across the flatlands of failure....

This is in fact a summary of part of Essay Nine Part Two; the full Essay, along with the relevant data and references, will be published early in the New Year.

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

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Epoche:


I am simply facing my "existentiality" (from now on when I use a meaningless term I'm gonna use quotations) and my anxiety before a meaningless universe. The fact that we are all gonna die and that nothing matters in the long run is shocking. Not "good" or "bad", but shocking.

As I said, you have read far too much French 'Philosophy'.


Perhaps what I meant is that when revolutionaries feel inspired by something which "transcends" these ordinary concerns, injustice, hunger, poverty, etc., which have to inevitably also be meaningless if this universe is, they tend to feel better and more important. There is a certain value to the propagandic use of metaphysics on a psychological level, just as there are many bad things about it. As Plato once supposed that "white lies" are sometimes justifiable, so do I.

You are right, and that is the problem. You will find my analysis of this petty-bourgeois 'syndrome' in that long post I have just published on this thread.


If I might make a "metaphorical" comparison to the morale of the average revolutionary, I would wager that the one who believed "God" existed might be better off. Like I said, sometimes nihilism is inescapable and can be blamed for the lack of efforts on the revolutionaries part.

Well, revolutions are going to happen whatever anyone's morale is.

You will either be on the side of the vast majority (and then it won't matter what your morale is), or not (and then it will be just your own little problem).


But remember this-- many marxists finish the day with an apathetic "fuck it....nothing really matters". We need better propaganda. Lie to us, Rosa.


Why am I suddenly so important to 'us'???

I resign as of now....

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by The Dissenter+December 07, 2006 08:53 pm--> (The Dissenter @ December 07, 2006 08:53 pm)
Rosa [email protected] 07, 2006 07:46 pm
The D:


Dialectical materialism has damaged the revolutionary chances of the working class?

I do not htink I have ever said that.

What I have said is that it has badly messed with the heads and organisation of Marxists, so it has ruined their chances of leading a revolution.
But what did dialectical materialism specifically do to their heads that in turn ruined their chances of leading a revolution?[/b]
A better question would be, which revolutions in particular have Marxists failed to lead due to the pernicious effects of DM (or even partly because of DM)?

But you would search in vain for any concrete examples amongst Rosa's invective.

See her long, largely irrelevant, post above as evidence.

[Epoche]

You are right, and that is the problem. You will find my analysis of this petty-bourgeois 'syndrome' in that long post I have just published on this thread.

Sure I read it. I try to read your site often, when I can maintain my interests in it.

Another argument in favor of the critique of the "syndrome" is the exact opposite of the effect of metaphysical belief and adverse results of "believing in God." Here the morale is weakened because one submits and finds refuge in the thought that "everything is in God's hands". The same condition of "nihilism" is reached but from the opposite direction. The apathy and lack of ambition is due to this...and the spirit of revolution weakens. So this is of course on of the ways that metaphysical ruling class ideas infect the mentalities and psychologies of the average worker and person...the human being in general. It "numbs" everyone. The reference to the opiate.

So I support the position that wishes to rid the world of religious belief for that reason, but not because it is certain that "God" does or does not exist.

I know, I said something meaningless again. Look, you don't have to respond to everything I say darnit. Can't you just let me win for once and concede the point?

I will not hesistate to whip out the Davidsonian triangulation of language and tie you to a tree by your own words. "There is nothing outside of text!", proclaimed a deconstructionist, and in this intersubjective web everything is a word making an argument against a term no better than the terms themselves which form the argument.

There are mysteries in this universe still, Rosa. I hope you know that. All I want to do is bring back that good ol fashioned Kierkegaardian indirectness and suggest, indirectly, that there might be more to the universe than meets the logical eye. I want the revolutionaries to feel spiritual, to feel beyond the world in way, something more significant than the flesh. I want to give them goose-bumps.

Admit it....you have fun reading my posts. That's all I want Rosa. You deserve it. You need a jester. You are entirely too serious. You have a sense of humor (this I know by seeing the Python skit at your site) but you are hung-up on being flawlessly academic and rigid to the bone.

How about this. Write a poem and post it. I wanna see it. I would but I suck at poetry.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Epoche:


Another argument in favor of the critique of the "syndrome" is the exact opposite of the effect of metaphysical belief and adverse results of "believing in God." Here the morale is weakened because one submits and finds refuge in the thought that "everything is in God's hands". The same condition of "nihilism" is reached but from the opposite direction. The apathy and lack of ambition is due to this...and the spirit of revolution weakens. So this is of course on of the ways that metaphysical ruling class ideas infect the mentalities and psychologies of the average worker and person...the human being in general. It "numbs" everyone. The reference to the opiate.

As I said, morale (etc) is merely tangentially relevant. So, I only mention it to illustrate why DM-fans are a danger to themselves, and thus to the movement


Look, you don't have to respond to everything I say darnit. Can't you just let me win for once and concede the point?

Well I would be more inclined to do so it there were an identifiable point there to concede.

So far, zippo....


I will not hesistate to whip out the Davidsonian triangulation of language and tie you to a tree by your own words. "There is nothing outside of text!", proclaimed a deconstructionist, and in this intersubjective web everything is a word making an argument against a term no better than the terms themselves which form the argument.

I am sorry, I have completely forgotten what the word 'relevant' means; please remind me.


There are mysteries in this universe still, Rosa. I hope you know that. All I want to do is bring back that good ol fashioned Kierkegaardian indirectness and suggest, indirectly, that there might be more to the universe than meets the logical eye. I want the revolutionaries to feel spiritual, to feel beyond the world in way, something more significant than the flesh. I want to give them goose-bumps.

You need to read less of these philosophical bumblers.

One does not have to struggle through K's works to know that there are mysteries in nature.

I am content to let scientists work on them.

But, if it is goose bumps you want, may I suggest a cold shower?

Cheaper, easier, and more honest.


Admit it....you have fun reading my posts. That's all I want Rosa. You deserve it. You need a jester. You are entirely too serious. You have a sense of humor (this I know by seeing the Python skit at your site) but you are hung-up on being flawlessly academic and rigid to the bone.

No, to be honest, I cannot understand much of what you post.

However, if you want entertainment, can I also suggest cable TV?


How about this. Write a poem and post it. I wanna see it. I would but I suck at poetry.

I'd rather watch my toenails grow.

You clearly want me to be something I refuse to be.

I am far too busy to waste time on poems, 'fun', or entertaining you.

If you do not like that, I think I am brave enough to cope....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Mystic Z:


A better question would be, which revolutions in particular have Marxists failed to lead due to the pernicious effects of DM (or even partly because of DM)?

Here's an even better one: why do you need to ask this obvious question?

Answer: head buried under a few tons of sand.


But you would search in vain for any concrete examples amongst Rosa's invective.

As one would search in vain for your deeply buried head.


See her long, largely irrelevant, post above as evidence.

Your purblind refusal to face reality being even more damning.

[Epoche]

No, to be honest, I cannot understand much of what you post.

[ laughing ]

Thank you. That was funny. An honest smugness about it which is admirable. You, Rosa, are sparing me and I am humbled by that. Thank you again.

I can see myself through your eyes and I agree. I don't make much sense.

Your thoughts on W and your examination of his ideas have taught me quite a bit. I am literally watching language crumble before me.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

After much deliberating, I've decided that Epoche and Rosa are almost perfectly Benedick and Beatrice from Much Ado About Nothing.

There is a kind of merry war betwixt Signior Benedick and her; They never meet, but there's a skirmish of wit between them.

Completely off topic, but dash the rules. :)

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Epoche:


An honest smugness about it which is admirable. You, Rosa, are sparing me and I am humbled by that. Thank you again.

No smugness, just honest perplexity. :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn: Much ado about nothing???

Cheek!

:)

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 07, 2006 10:17 pm
Mystic Z:


A better question would be, which revolutions in particular have Marxists failed to lead due to the pernicious effects of DM (or even partly because of DM)?

Here's an even better one: why do you need to ask this obvious question?


If it's so obvious, why don't you answer the question?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Mystic Z:


If it's so obvious, why don't you answer the question?

Just to annoy you.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 08, 2006 01:00 pm
Mystic Z:


If it's so obvious, why don't you answer the question?

Just to annoy you.
I'm more amused than annoyed. Sorry to disappoint.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Mystic Z:


I'm more amused than annoyed. Sorry to disappoint.

You need to get out more.

[La Comédie Noire]

Since we create our own material conditions it is silly to assume there are natural truths or inevibility. This line of thinking will lead to the common ruin of both classes due to the inaction of the proliteriate and the continued destruction of capitalism.

Is that the gist of anti dialect?

sorry if it's a dumb question i just digested a whole 20 pages worth on it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Floyd:


Since we create our own material conditions it is silly to assume there are natural truths or inevibility. This line of thinking will lead to the common ruin of both classes due to the inaction of the proliteriate and the continued destruction of capitalism.

Not really -- but it must be my fault if you failed to get the point.

[La Comédie Noire]

*smacks himself on head.

I shall go back and read your page again.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Which page is it you are reading?

I recommend you begin here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20...Oppose%20DM.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm)

[La Comédie Noire]

I read that introduction. Don't worry it's not you, it's me. I just need to read things over a couple of times.

[Clarksist]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 08, 2006 07:07 am
Mystic Z:


I'm more amused than annoyed. Sorry to disappoint.

You need to get out more.
Is this what the Theory forum has come to? Really?

Answer the question if you want to be taken seriously. While I agree that DM is silly, if you can't answer the question, then don't act as if you can take down Dialectical Materialism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Clark:


Answer the question if you want to be taken seriously.

I ceased trying to respond to Z months ago; he is not interested in a discussion.

He reads things into what I say, misreads what I post, assumes I hold certain beliefs when I do not, fails to read stuff he says he wants to read, ignores things he cannot answer, forgets I have answerd his questions before, fails to read other posts that deal with his questions (even when this is pointed out to him), pontificates on areas of logic he is clearly ignornat of -- among many other things.

So now I just wind him up.

Finally, what makes you think that someone like me wants to be taken seriously by someone like you?

[RebelDog]

Can I ask the same question again then?

A better question would be, which revolutions in particular have Marxists failed to lead due to the pernicious effects of DM (or even partly because of DM)?

I'm seriously interested in how this happened. I want to know what DM might supposedly be doing to my own brain.

From Rosa's piece;

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. One can almost hear them 'reason' as follows:

"So what if we are now further away from a workers' state than Lenin was in 1917? And what does it matter that all four Internationals have failed? And what relevance is it that Marxist ideas have less impact on ordinary workers today than at any other time in living memory? Who cares if revolutionary parties are small, and almost all are shrinking, splitting or fighting among themselves? None of this matters since the NON guarantees all will be well one day; indeed, each retreat is only another advance in the waiting.



This boils down to whether the proletarian victory is 'inevitable'. NON is a process not a deterministic rule. It is the process by which political/economic systems are replaced by other systems. Capitalism can be replaced by communism but we all know there is no guarantee that will happen. The human race might not survive long enough to see communism.



Sorry, I don't know what happened to the quote function.

[edit by ComradeRed: I think this is what you meant with your quotations]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dissenter:


I'm seriously interested in how this happened. I want to know what DM might supposedly be doing to my own brain.

I did not answer this for the reasons I said, but also because it is not part of my thesis that DM has done this; since DM makes no sense it cannot be put into practice, hence it cannot have a deleterious efffect on practical Leninism, in times of revolution (except, perhaps to confuse), when the working class can and does provide a serious materialist counter-weight to the Idealism inherent in dialectics.

However, DM can and does have such an effect when that counter-weight subsides (or is killed-off in a counter-revolution), as it did in Russia post 1919, and 'Philosophical' issues began to dominate the thinking of the Bolshevik Party.

Then the closet 'god-builders' (like Z) come out of the woodwork and spin their idealist theories once more.

So we get all sorts of crazy 'dialectical' arguemts justifying this or that anti-socialist policy: socialism in one country, the denial of freedom and the centralisation of power in the USSR (and later in China, Cuba and E Europe -- and now in N Korea), 'social fascism' (in late Weimar Germany, setting communists against socialists, thus laying-out a red carpet for Hitler), Popular Frontism (in France), the internecine fighting in Spain (and the subordination of everything and every national revolution around the world to the national interests of the ruling clique in Moscow), the 'revolutionary' defence of the USSR, the invasion of Finland, pacts with Hitler, the invasion and partition of Poland, the British/Parliamentary road to Socialism, miltary coups in China, Cuba, E Europe, 'proletarian Bonapartism', reformism; the list is endless -- all justified by the fact that reality is contradictory, so the party can be, and must be, too.

This, of course, has made Marxism as popular among the masses world-wide as a dose of the clap.

What this Hermetic virus does do is make comrades (like Z, and other Leninists/Maoists/Trotskyists who try to 'debate' with me here, and elsewhere -- since they can't do this, they invent stuff I do not believe, etc.) irrational in the extreme, and unreasonable --, and this helps highten their sectarianism, their petty-bourgeois individualism (which I analysed briefly above) so that revolutionary groups stay small and ineffectual (or if large, counter-revolutionary). Which is what we see today.

Hence, it is extremely unlikely that if the working class ever do move into a revolutionary period, Leninists will be in any position to lead them (or that they will be listened to!), since such Dialectical comrades will be more intent on fighting one another than they will the real enemy (a la Monty Python, etc.).

Now I have not yet published the Essay in which I argue this at greater length, hence, the sketchy nature of my responses so far. [The material posted above was in fact a summary of the background ideas to that Essay.]

That Essay will be published in the early New Year.

Make your mind up then.


NON is a process not a deterministic rule.

Not so, as my Essays show.

Except, of course, the NON is so vague, you can in fact make it say whatever you like, so it can and has been used deterministically, and then not (when it suits the exigencies/opportunism of the moment). Hence its use in justifying the above anti-socialist moves.

In the first use it is mystical, in the second it is irrrational (and hence not a law). Either way (and because it is nonsensical, too) genuine materialists have no use for it.

I am in fact trying to get away from this traditional, ruling-class way of looking at the world, and at the revolution.

So, I do not accept your way of depicting proletarian struggle. Unfortunately, comrades interpret the world through the spectacles that the ruling-class have been issuing to one and all for millennia.

I do not, and I will not.

As a Dissenter, you might like to join me in being radical, and throwing away 2500 years of boss-class language, thought and theory -- including the Hermetic variety that has infected our movement for 150+ years.

In fact, I am posing the biggest challenge to ruling ideas in over two millennia (that is why comrades are finding my ideas difficult to accept -- ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class!), and the biggest challenge to traditional Marxist thinking in its entire history.

Dare to think outside the traditional box....

[RebelDog]

[edit by ComradeRed: I think this is what you meant with your quotations]

Thats exactly how it should have looked, thanks.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Clarksist+December 10, 2006 12:46 am--> (Clarksist @ December 10, 2006 12:46 am)
Rosa [email protected] 08, 2006 07:07 am
Mystic Z:


I'm more amused than annoyed. Sorry to disappoint.

You need to get out more.
Is this what the Theory forum has come to? Really?

Answer the question if you want to be taken seriously. While I agree that DM is silly, if you can't answer the question, then don't act as if you can take down Dialectical Materialism.[/b]
Clarksist,

The problem with Rosa's position isn't that she has trouble taking down DM. She does this well, attacking it's weak points, its inconsistencies and its tendency to mystify processes.

However, I think she falls down in a number of key ways:

1. She has trouble demonstrating her hypothesis that DM (if indeed it is nonsense) has any real deleterious impact on Marxist theory and socialist organisation. Every leading theoretician and leader of Marxism (including Marx) has understood our analysis as being dialectical. This doesn't mean that Rosa is wrong to dispute the efficacy of dialectics; but it becomes a problem for her to prove that it has any negative impact on the practice of these leaders. This is illustrated by the fact that she has argued elsewhere that she agrees with both Lenin's and Trotsky's political theories and their vision of the vanguard party, but rejects their philosophical positions. This leads me to assume that either (a) dialectics (i.e. their philosophical position) has played no part in their political formulations and thus has a negligible impact on sound revolutionary practice; or (b) the political positions Rosa endorses have been influenced by a dialectical analysis (as Lenin & Trotsky both argue) and therefore it has been of some use. Obviously, if the latter is true, then Rosa is wrong to oppose dialectics. But if the former is true, then she is left looking like she has made a mountain from the proverbial mole hill and we should all care less.

2. Secondly, although she has committed much energy and time attacking dialectics, she has nothing to put in its place. When challenged on this, she produces platitudes such as "we need more and better science" (as if the scientific method itself is an uncontested given) or, in an uncharacteristic flash of sincerity, she will admit "I have no theory"! Thus we are left in the unsatisfactory position of being told to abandon our critical theory of society for no theory at all. To be fair, she does cite allegiance to a specific mode of analysis: Historical Materialism. But, that, itself, is dialectical in its apprehension of the social world. She denies this. But then she would. Still, she provides no alternative mode of analysis which can replace dialectics and make historical materialism work as more than just a series of empirical observations.

3. Her assertion that dialectics is a ruling class ideology is based on an extremely weak correspondence theory, noting simply that "Hegel was no coal miner" and most Marxist theoreticians (including Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Cliff, etc.) were at best petite bourgeois. Meanwhile, the irony of the exalted social identities of those Cambridge and Oxford dons who's work she does favour, always seems to evade her. Moreover, she fails to acknowledge that if dialectics is a ruling class ideology it is not the only one. In fact, all theory which does not emanate from the working class must be equally as bourgeois as dialectics - including logical positivism.

Another striking problem with her assertion of the ruling class nature of dialectics is that there is scant evidence that the ruling class push this "mystical theory" on the working class. In fact the only people who do are Marxists! Perhaps Rosa should take the next step and denounce these petite bourgeois Marxists as agents of ruling class hegemony!

I predict that that time will come. Like her forebears in the so-called Analytical Marxism school, Rosa will find that the rejection of a critical and realist dialectical analysis is only the first step on the road to the total abandonment of Marxism and revolutionary politics.

Bon voyage.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z: thanks for that; you have just added to the evidence I have amassed of the deleterious effect of this Hermetic virus on the thought of comrades like you.

Cheers!

[More please, though...]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Clarksist, as you can see from Z's ramblings, he has to attribute to me things I do not believe, have not argued, and would not argue (indeed, the opposite of what I do argue), to make his piss poor 'analysis' of my ideas work -- as I indicated earlier.

Which is why I just wind him up.

He is indeed living proof of the damage dialectics does to militant minds.

[Hit The North]

He is indeed living proof of the damage dialectics does to militant minds.


Whereas you're living proof of the damage bourgeois philosophy does to the same.

BTW, Rosa:


In fact, I am posing the biggest challenge to ruling ideas in over two millennia (that is why comrades are finding my ideas difficult to accept -- ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class!), and the biggest challenge to traditional Marxist thinking in its entire history.

Have to you seen a doctor lately? I hear they can do wonderful things these days to counter those sorts of delusion.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Please, enough flaming eachother. It's almost thrillingly pointless. :(

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Mystlc Z:


Whereas you're living proof of the damage bourgeois philosophy does to the same.

Ah now, the damage to you is so severe, you cannot even think up your own put-downs, but must copy mine.


Have to you seen a doctor lately? I hear they can do wonderful things these days to counter those sorts of delusion.

Yes the doc told me she had seen you, and had managed to save some of your sanity --, but only some.

Me she gave a clean bill of health.

Something to do with the beneficial aspects of analytic philosophy, she said....

Too bad you prefer mysticism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn:


Please, enough flaming eachother. It's almost thrillingly pointless.

You are right; Z does need more protection from me, so your intervention to save him from yet more open humiliation is understandable, but to no avail.

He will soil himself in public many more times I fear.

Of course, I will be on hand to help maximise the impact of these self-inflicted wounds.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Rosa - Shush. You're way better than petty flaming, okay? Be the bigger person. Even if you do win this silly flame war, you've achieved squat apart from even more contempt from Zero. C'mon. You've made your argument just fine, if CZ wants to resort to Ad Hominem it's Game and Set and Match for your points, just leave it there.

Cool beans? :)

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn:


You're way better than petty flaming, okay? Be the bigger person. Even if you do win this silly flame war, you've achieved squat apart from even more contempt from Zero. C'mon. You've made your argument just fine, if CZ wants to resort to Ad Hominem it's Game and Set and Match for your points, just leave it there.

Good advice; for once I will take it. :)

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 12:03 am
Rosa - Shush. You're way better than petty flaming, okay? Be the bigger person. Even if you do win this silly flame war, you've achieved squat apart from even more contempt from Zero. C'mon. You've made your argument just fine, if CZ wants to resort to Ad Hominem it's Game and Set and Match for your points, just leave it there.

Cool beans? :)

-Alex
Burn, you need to read more closely. I make no more resort to ad hominem than the mighty Rosa.

Neither am I interested in winning a flame war.

I would restate my questions but, alas, it would be in vain as the only reply would be more of the usual abuse.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


I would restate my questions but, alas, it would be in vain as the only reply would be more of the usual abuse.

I cannot reply to this since Burn has persuaded me not to attack the afflicted.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Since it was published in November 2006, this Essay has been completley re-written; it is now 25% longer, and, I hope, much clearer.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2011%2002.htm