Dialectical Materialism

[Pandii]

Two questions, really.
1) Do you, the RL community, think its important?
2)Do you, the RL community, think its necessary?

Under this premise, I should state what I already know, so that I don't get linked to other websites that tell me what I already know.
I have read the T+A=S, but I'm not sure if simplifying it to this is really advisable.

In conversation with a Marxist-Lenisnist (M-L), I quickly discovered that after asking the M-L to show if dialectical materialism was necessary, real, and useful, that because I disagreed with the M-L, that we SIMPLY couldn't have an arguement because I didn't "believe" in dialectics. I think the M-L was turning into the pope, telling me that I couldnt argue against God without having a belief in God first. After asking me what I know, and deviating from the original question to try and use a logical fallacy (asking what sources I was using to get this 'interesting information' so the M-L could attack them) the M-L then decended into a circluar arguement that because we think, there must be dialectics, and because of dialectics, we must think.

Understandably, I was confused. So, to RL I turn.

I understand the basics, I've read Redstar2000's paper on dialectial materialism, and have read other sites on the topic too. I would like more than that hilarious explaination that because "the fact of the sun being held together by gravity which opposes the force of its nuclear reactions is an example of unity of opposites" (The M-L's own words) that therefore dialectics are true and useful! I can find this conclusion with more than just dialectics. All scientific findings and all other progress has been made completely abstract of dialectics - all things that have apparently been founded in dialectics can be shown through logic, empirical or scientific method.

I am sure that I will be bombarded with replies here, I look forward to it.

Cheers.
Pandii.

[apathy maybe]

We the RevLeft community don't have an opinion on anything. The community is too broad to have an opinion (beyond I guess fuck capitalism).

That said, if you look through philosophy you will find some peoples opinion on DM.

Most people I think, if they know anything about it, think that DM is a pile of shit. But it hardly ever comes up outside of philosophy, so it doesn't really matter.

To find out if DM does matter, you could look through various other threads to look for references. You won't find many.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Pandii, this 'theory' has been trashed here so many times, I have lost count.

Your allusion to 'thesis, antithesis, synthesis' is interesting, since this way of viewing even Hegel's systyem was debunked at Rev Left a few months ago, here:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...st&p=1292097892 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51512&view=findpost&p=1292097892)

Now, I have been subjecting this 'theory' to sustained, comprehensive and withering attack (from a Marxist angle) at my site now for over a year, in the most detailed critique it has ever received, anywhere, by anyone.

In order to assist comrades who are not experts in Philosophy, I have summarised my main objections here:

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

Finally, I have listed links to RL threads where this has been debated over the last year or so, here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/RevLeft.htm

[RedLenin]

Many people do have objections and problems in regard to Dialectical Materialism. Despite this, I think that dialectics is very important and is really the foundation of Marxism. Materialist Dialectics is basically the marxist method of studying nature and history. Historical Materialism, one of the foundations of Marxism, is based on materialist dialectics applied to the study of history. I think that Lenin was right in that Dialectical Materialism was one of the foundations of Marxism, along with Historical Materialism and Marxist Economics. I do not see how you can scrap Dialectical Materialism, because you would be scrapping the Marxist method.

For further reading on Dialectical Materialism, check out these links.
An Introduction To Dialectical Materialism (http://www.marxist.com/Theory/what_is_marxism.html#dialecticalmaterialism)
ABC of Materialist Dialectics (http://www.marxist.com/Theory/ABC.html)
Reason in Revolt (http://www.marxist.com/rircontents.htm)
Dialectics of Nature (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/don/)
The German Ideology (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/index.htm)
Materialism and Epirio-Criticism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/index.htm)

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 04:24 pm
Many people do have objections and problems in regard to Dialectical Materialism. Despite this, I think that dialectics is very important and is really the foundation of Marxism. Materialist Dialectics is basically the marxist method of studying nature and history. Historical Materialism, one of the foundations of Marxism, is based on materialist dialectics applied to the study of history. I think that Lenin was right in that Dialectical Materialism was one of the foundations of Marxism, along with Historical Materialism and Marxist Economics. I do not see how you can scrap Dialectical Materialism, because you would be scrapping the Marxist method.

For further reading on Dialectical Materialism, check out these links.
An Introduction To Dialectical Materialism (http://www.marxist.com/Theory/what_is_marxism.html#dialecticalmaterialism)
ABC of Materialist Dialectics (http://www.marxist.com/Theory/ABC.html)
Reason in Revolt (http://www.marxist.com/rircontents.htm)
Dialectics of Nature (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/don/)
The German Ideology (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/index.htm)
Materialism and Epirio-Criticism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/index.htm)
A good reason to scrap the Marxist method then ...

I don't have a link, but redstar2000 demonstrated that you don't need dialectical materialism to do *any*thing. If a theory makes sense without dialectical materialism, then you don't need it. He argued that if you do strip the crap from Marxism, that you do get a workable theory anyway.

I'm sure someone will find the link for me.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thankyou for that RedL, but I have devoted all the main ideas (and the vast majority of the more minor ones) found in the works and links you listed (many of which merely repeat the same empty phrases, year in year out) to systematic and comprehensive refutation in my Essays.

Materialist dialectics is not necessary for Marxism -- Marx, for one, was unaware of it.

And, since truth is tested in practice, and Dialectical Marxism has been spectacularly unsuccessful for nigh on 130 years, we can conclude, I think, that materialist dialectics has been refuted by history.

[More Fire for the People]

And, since truth is tested in practice, and Dialectical Marxism has been spectacularly unsuccessful for nigh on 130 years, we can conclude, I think, that materialist dialectics has been refuted by history.
And, since truth is tested in practice, and Marxism has been spectacularly unsuccessful for nigh on 130 years, we can conclude, I think, that Marxism has been refuted by history.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 01:25 pm
Two questions, really.
1) Do you, the RL community, think its important?
2)Do you, the RL community, think its necessary?


On this issue it is very clear that the 'RL' community dont have a shared view. There are minority views both ways and a majority that dont engage with this issue. That tells its own story.

To answer your questions:

1) It is important to a full understanding of Marxism, it is not important to beginning to be an effective communist

2) It was historically necessary: without his critical assimilation of Hegel, Marx could not have conceived his theories and revolutionary movements would be 'a head shorter', as Engels once put it. It is probably not necessary at this moment of weakness in the history of communism.

There is no agreement on all this, which is all that is very clear. Somewhat bizarrely, there are some critics of philosophy and of this theory who want to argue in the abstract, philosophically, that such abstractions are unnecessary or even meaningless while there are some supporters of the validity of such abstractions, probably myself among them, uninclined to defend dialectics as a philosophy or as a systematic set of abstractions, while believing it legitimate and believing its importance can be reflected in political practice.


Wanna dive into that pool of confusion ? Feel Free.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hop:


And, since truth is tested in practice, and Marxism has been spectacularly unsuccessful for nigh on 130 years, we can conclude, I think, that Marxism has been refuted by history.

Nice try Hop, but only Dialectical Marxism has ever been tried out in practice, so only it has been refuted by events.

Neverthelss, I welcome your agreement that this test at least shows that something has indeed been refuted.

You now only need to think this idea through, and you will soon be concluding, alongside us materialists, that this mystical 'version' of Marxism, at least, has been dumped into the trash can of history, where it always belonged.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


There is no agreement on all this, which is all that is very clear. Somewhat bizarrely, there are some critics of philosophy and of this theory who want to argue in the abstract, philosophically, that such abstractions are unnecessary or even meaningless while there are some supporters of the validity of such abstractions, probably myself among them, uninclined to defend dialectics as a philosophy or as a systematic set of abstractions, while believing it legitimate and believing its importance can be reflected in political practice.

Well, you can only claim this because you have never examined the other side of the argument.

Indeed, I challenge you to say what an 'abstraction' actually is, without using meaningless jargon to do so, and without having to nominalise general terms, so that they become the names of abstract particulars, destroying their generality (a syntactical error commited by the ancient Greeks (and medieval logicians), and copied by all subsequent theorists, including Hegel).

Go on, I double dog dare you.

[black magick hustla]

i feel some attachment to DM mainly because some of my favorite writers use it.

but it looks more like they conceived their theories first and then they ornamented them with dialectical mysticism...
at the end though,i think they are unnecessary, they may look "pretty" on paper (saying stuff like negation sounds cool, i use that kind of vocabulary all the time in highschool essays and it works!) but for me is not anything more than aesthetic appeal.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Marmot:


i feel some attachment to DM mainly because some of my favorite writers use it.

Many comrades feel the same as you, but attachment to tradition is the last thing us Marxists should appeal to, especially when it is possible to show that this theory is radically confused from beginning to end -- and (as I claim) has helped make Dialectical Marxism a shining example of failure.

And, I am at a loss as to what the 'aesthetic' appeal of these mystical ideas can be, except they fulfil a need in us brought on by alienation, in a way similar to that which induces religious belief (and religious art, etc.).

We can hardly help humanity escape from its illusions if we cling onto those we have made for ourselves.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 17, 2007 12:04 pm
Hop:


And, since truth is tested in practice, and Marxism has been spectacularly unsuccessful for nigh on 130 years, we can conclude, I think, that Marxism has been refuted by history.
Neverthelss, I welcome your agreement that this test at least shows that something has indeed been refuted.
Rosa, your wit is darling. :wub:

[Hit The North]

Rosa:


Nice try Hop, but only Dialectcial Marxism has ever been tried out in practice, so only it has been refuted by events.

How are we measuring success here? Before even a non-dialectical marxism can head a revolutionary workers movement, we need such a movement. A theory (no matter how non-dialectical or otherwise) cannot summon such a movement from thin air.

When hundreds and thousands of workers have been plunged into revolutionary activity, marxists has been successful in leading and organizing the movement.

Again, when those movements have subsided or been defeated, or when the revolution has taken on a form unintended, the failure cannot simply be laid at the foot of a theory (yes, I know theories don't have feet, even though they can run to thousands of pages). The concrete material relations, not their reflection in the human mind, are decisive.

Moreover, because Marxist theory is not a blueprint for action, it cannot be blamed when wrong actions are taken.

Rosa, you've already made a distinction between Lenin the political theorist, which you approve of, and Lenin the philosopher, who you do not. What you've not done is demonstrate a positive connection between Lenin's espousal of the dialectic and his political activity. Any attempt on your part to demonstrate such a connection would force you to re-evaluate Lenin the politician and tactician - because a wrong theory (one which you argue is badly wrong) cannot lead to true practice.

Except accidentally.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


How are we measuring success here? Before even a non-dialectical marxism can head a revolutionary workers movement, we need such a movement. A theory (no matter how non-dialectical or otherwise) cannot summon such a movement from thin air.

Well, you give me your criterion of success, and we will see.

Mine is quite plain: abject failure almost everywhere one looks -- Trotskyism has more splits in it than a thousand earthquakes. As the working class gets bigger, the impact of Dialectical Marxism on it dwindles constantly.

By any ordinary standards, Dialectical Marxism is an abject failure: this is how I put it in that Introductory Essay:


...Practice has not looked at all favourably on our side as a whole for close on a hundred years. All Four Internationals have failed (or have vanished), and the 1917 revolution has been reversed. Indeed, we are no nearer (and arguably much further away from) a workers' state now than Lenin was in 1918. Practically all of the former 'socialist' societies have collapsed (and not a single worker raised his or her hand in their defence). Even where avowedly Marxist parties can claim some sort of mass following, the latter is passive and electoral --, and those parties themselves have openly adopted reformism (despite the contrary-sounding rhetoric)....

99% of the working class ignores Marxism....

Now, if you can spot any rays of hope that I have missed, I'd be interested to see them.


When hundreds and thousands of workers have been plunged into revolutionary activity, marxists has been successful in leading and organizing the movement.

Apart from 1917 (which has now been reversed), all of these have failed, or have run into the sand.


Again, when those movements have subsided or been defeated, or when the revolution has taken on a form unintended, the failure cannot simply be laid at the foot of a theory (yes, I know theories don't have feet, even though they can run to thousands of pages). The concrete material relations, not their reflection in the human mind, are decisive.

Well then, how has this 'theory' ever been tested if whatever happens (i.e., after 140 years of failure), the theory survives unscathed?

At some point, surely this theory has to stand up to reality; I merely point out that it has, and history has refuted it.

Now, I do this not to make an academic point, or to attack Marxism, but because I want our movement to be a success.

But what I see is dialecticians refusing to look reality in the face, and using this theory to protect that theory, failing to note the deleterious effect it has had on Stalinism, Maoism and Trotskyism (see below), blaming anything and everything else for these failures, and even then asserting that this theory has been tested in practice and is a glowing success!!

[This shows that dialectics is not held on to for rational reasons; it is protected come what may, just like religious belief -- and no wonder, it arose from the same sort of alienated conditions]

Radical dislocation from reality of this order of magnitude is pathological.

It is preventing the scientific development of Marxism.

All this is on top of the fact that this theory is wall-to-wall b*llocks, so no wonder it has failed us for so long.


Rosa, you've already made a distinction between Lenin the political theorist, which you approve of, and Lenin the philosopher, who you do not. What you've not done is demonstrate a positive connection between Lenin's espousal of the dialectic and his political activity. Any attempt on your part to demonstrate such a connection would force you to re-evaluate Lenin the politician and tactician - because a wrong theory (one which you argue is badly wrong) cannot lead to true practice

Not so. This theory screws with Marxist heads when the movement is in retreat (that is why they turn to it in periods of downturn, as the biographies of all the leading DM-fans show).

In upturns, when the materialist input from the working class is sufficient to make the idealism in Dialectical Marxism no longer fit (or have any impact), the movement then achieves some success.

That is why, for example, you will find precious little dialectics spouted by militants at the working class on strike, or on marches or during insurrections.

It just does not fit with their materialism.

But, when the struggle dies down, the 'god-seekers' come out of the woodwork, and this theory is used to ill-effect.

Now, I hope to post the evidence substantiating this set of assertions in the near future, but I have been prevented by my present circumstances (I am in temporary accommodation right now, and will be moving in about 10 days -- most of my books and papers are in storage, so I cannot access them, but I hope to have this published by mid- to late-April).

In the meantime, here is a summary of what I hope to show:


A) DM was used by the Stalinised Bolshevik Party (after Lenin died) to justify the imposition of an undemocratic (if not an anti-democratic and terror-based) structure on the Communist Party and the population of the former USSR. This new and vicious form of the* 'dictatorship of the proletariat' was justified by Stalin on the grounds that, since Marxist theory sees everything as 'contradictory', greater central control was in order if greater freedom was to be achieved; freedom and necessity were thus 'dialectically-linked'. The "withering-away of the state" was in fact confirmed by its ever-growing power. Indeed, that very contradiction illustrated the truth of DM!

Moreover, the idea that socialism could be created in one country was justified by, among other things, the dubious invention of 'internal' versus 'external' contradictions, bolstered by an appeal to 'primary' and 'secondary' contradictions, along with the convenient idea that some contradictions were not 'antagonistic'. Hence, the obvious class differences soon created in the former USSR were in fact 'harmonious'; the real enemies (i.e., the source of all those nasty 'primary' contradictions) were the external imperialist powers. All so eminently contradictory.
We can see today the effect all this 'applied dialectics' had on the former USSR and its satellites in Eastern Europe.

Only those who still have their dialectical blinders on will disagree with the judgment that these failed states were not a ringing endorsement of Marxism.
The fact that not a single worker's hand was raised in their defence between 1989 and 1991 merely confirms that assessment.

Indeed, the dire political consequences of the idea that socialism could be built in one country can be seen in the subsequent use to which dialectics was put to defend this counter-revolutionary idea, and to try to limit (or deny) the ensuing damage it caused to the international workers' movement.

[Anyone who thinks the above is prejudicial to Stalinism only needs to reflect on the fact that the contrary idea --, that socialism could be built in one country --, has also been refuted by history.]

Hence, DM was used to justify the catastrophic and reckless class-collaborationist tactics imposed on both the Chinese and Spanish revolutions, just as it was employed to rationalise the ultra-left, "social fascist" post-1929 about-turn. This crippled the fight against the Nazis by suicidally splitting the left in Germany, pitting communist against socialist, while Hitler laughed his way into power.
This 'theory' then helped rationalise the rotation of the Communist Party through another 180o in the next class-collaborationist phase, the "Popular Front" --, and then through another 180o (in order to 'justify' the unforgivable Hitler-Stalin pact) as part of the 'revolutionary defeatist' stage --, and through yet another 180o two years later in the shape of 'The Great Patriotic War', following upon Hitler's invasion of the 'Mother Land'.

Post-1945, one more flip saw the invention of 'peace-loving' nations versus the evil US Empire. History was now the struggle of 'progressive' nations against reactionary regimes, the class war lost in all the dust kicked up by so much dialectical spinning.


Every single one of these 'somersaults' had a catastrophic impact on the international workers' movement. Collectively, they cast a long shadow across the entire communist movement, reducing it to that sad, reformist excuse that we see among us today.

However, far, far worse, these 'contradictory' about-turns helped pave the way for fascist aggression and the Third Reich. In that case, this 'theory' has played its own shameful, but indirect part in the deaths of millions of workers and countless millions of Jews, Gypsies, Russians and Slavs -- alongside the many hundreds of thousands of mentally-ill and handicapped victims of the Nazis.

Because of their continual, Hermetically-inspired twists and dialectical turns, STD's in effect all but invited the Nazi tiger to rip European humanity to shreds. And it was only too happy to oblige.

[STD = Stalinist Dialectician.]

The negative effect of all this on the reputation of Marxism among the great mass of workers cannot be over-estimated, howsoever hard one tries.

Of course, not all of this is the sole fault of this mystical theory; but it is undeniable that it was a major factor in helping to rationalise the above political gyrations (for whatever other reasons these were in fact taken), and sell them to party cadres.
Moreover, no other theory could have permitted with such ease the adoption of continual, almost overnight, changes in strategy and tactics --, or have rationalised so effectively the pathetic excuses that were given for the criminally unacceptable political about-turns imposed on the Communist Party by post-1925 Stalinism.

Nor, indeed, have so effortlessly licensed the grinding to dust of the core of the old Bolshevik Party in the 1930's, on trumped-up charges.

DM: tested in practice?

Millions dead, Bolshevism in tatters and Marxism an international stench.

A ringing success? Absolutely! But, only for the ruling-class.

[UO = Unity of Opposites.]

B) Similar faults bedevilled the CCP under Mao; for example, the use of 'primary' and 'secondary' contradictions to justify the suicidal alliances with the Guomindang, the use of UO's to rationalise one-party, autocratic rule, the reference to 'leaps' to excuse the murderous and lunatic "Great Leap Forward". The list is almost endless.

[UO = Unity of Opposites.]

DM: tested in practice? Once again: indeed so! And we can all see the results today in that model 'socialist state', China.

Of course, at the very least, this means that approximately 20% of the population of the planet cannot now (and might not in the foreseeable future) be won to any credible form of Marxism, since the vast majority of them have been inured to it, having seen the dire consequences of this contradictory theory (which preaches the "mass-line" but justifies mass oppression --, this dialectical 'contradiction' rationalised along sound Stalinist lines). They need no one to inform them of the results of 'practice'; the vast majority can see for themselves the political and social consequences of this theory, killing tens of millions along the way.
And now, the very same theory is used to justify the existence of 'socialist' billionaires!

What's that you say? A contradiction in terms? [i]You clearly do not 'understand' dialectics!

C) Trotskyism has similarly been cursed by the Dialectical Deity:* its founder succeeded in wedding his followers to the crazy dialectical idea that the 'socialist' regime in Moscow was contradictory. Hence, because 'materialist dialectics' demanded it, all good Trotskyists should defend the USSR as a workers' state --, albeit deformed/degenerated. And, as if to compound this monumental gaffe, Trotsky used dialectics to justify the murderous Stalinist invasion of Finland!

More practice --, more dead workers.

Do you begin to see a pattern?

After Trotsky was murdered by a 'progressive' Stalinist agent with an ice pick, the application of 'scientific dialectics' to the contradictory nature of the USSR split the Fourth International into countless warring sects, who have continued to fragment to this day.

Indeed, this is the only aspect of dialectics that Trotskyists have managed to perfect in practice, as the movement continues to splinter under its own 'internal contradictions'.

Unfortunately, Trotsky's heirs could not quite agree which was the more important principle: loyalty to their founder's 'dialectical method', or to Marx's belief that the emancipation of the working class is an act of the working class itself -- and thus not an act of the Red Army/Russian tanks (in Eastern Europe), or of 'Third World' guerrillas, nationalist/'progressive' dictators, or even of radicalised students (to name but a few of the groups that have been 'dialectically substituted' for the working class by assorted Trotskyists ever since).

Dialectics has been used, and is still used, to justify every conceivable form of substitutionism imaginable.

[As I show in Essay Nine Part One and* Two (summary here): dialectics is indeed the ideology of substitutionist elements in our movement.]

All this has fatally wounded Trotskyism. It might never recover.

Tested in practice? If so -- please: no more practice!

These are just three examples of the thoroughly malignant influence this Hermetic theory has had on our movement. There are many more.

Is it any wonder then that since the 1920's (at least) Marxism* has been to success what George W Bush has been to intellectual achievement.

This was published here a few months ago (links etc. omitted):

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

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

Added later; that Essay has now been published here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_02.htm

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 17, 2007 06:21 pm


And, I am at a loss as to what the 'aesthetic' appeal of these mystical ideas can be, except they fulfil a need in us brought on by alienation, in a way similar to that which induces religious belief (and religious art, etc.).

it is "appealing" in the same way poetry is appealing--most poetry is subtle, it doensnt delivers the message in an outright way.

and as i said before, i think DM is pretty much worthless. however in papers i sometimes use words like "negation" when i simply refer to things happening against the status quo--i dont use the theory of DM itself.

a lot of worthless philosophy is aesthetically appealing. that is why jorge luis borges said once that philosophy is "good fiction", referring to how philosophy sounds "cool" but also referring how it is mostly meaningless.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Marmot:


it is "appealing" in the same way poetry is appealing--most poetry is subtle, it doensnt delivers the message in an outright way.

You think!

Pretty wierd scansion, and metre, and the content is a bit iffy too.

But, much of religious stuff is 'aesthetically appealing' to some, since it fills a gap that alienatiion creates. But, would that make you want to help with an appeal to renovate a Cathedral?

DM is just the same.


a lot of worthless philosophy is aesthetically appealing. that is why jorge luis borges said once that philosophy is "good fiction", referring to how philosophy sounds "cool" but also referring how it is mostly meaningless.

Which is why it has become part of the ruling ideas....

[( R )evolution]

I personally think that dialetical is a just a load of shit that can be done without.

[Pandii]

Thankyou to everyone who relpied, Rosa, you are an eternal fountain of wonderful information and I will read as much as I can in the up and coming weeks.

Cheers.
Pandii.

PS. DIALECTICS = useless verbose crud.

[Janus]

1) Do you, the RL community, think its important?
2)Do you, the RL community, think its necessary?
Please use the search function, we've had a ton of threads on this subject in this forum, Philosophy, and Theory.

DM (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57319&hl=)
DM (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48119&hl=dialectical+materialism)
DM (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43292&hl=dialectical+materialism)
DM (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42399&hl=dialectical+materialism)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that Janus, but I had already directed Pandii to a page at my site that lists all the pages at RevLeft that have debated this over the last year or so.

[Hit The North]

Rosa:


...Practice has not looked at all favourably on our side as a whole for close on a hundred years. All Four Internationals have failed (or have vanished), and the 1917 revolution has been reversed. Indeed, we are no nearer (and arguably much further away from) a workers' state now than Lenin was in 1918. Practically all of the former 'socialist' societies have collapsed (and not a single worker raised his or her hand in their defence). Even where avowedly Marxist parties can claim some sort of mass following, the latter is passive and electoral --, and those parties themselves have openly adopted reformism (despite the contrary-sounding rhetoric)....

99% of the working class ignores Marxism....

All you write above is true. But during a time of upturn in class sturggle, perhaps only 98% of workers will ignore Marxism. The question is why?

I assert that the answer cannot be reducible to a cock-eyed theory of DM or that DM is even a major contributor to the class being more easily turned to various brands of reformism, voluntarism or idealism, than they are to Marxism.


Not so. This theory screws with Marxist heads when the movement is in retreat (that is why they turn to it in periods of downturn, as the biographies of all the leading DM-fans show).

Whilst it's true that revolutionaries begin spending waaay too much time contemplating philosophy and dialectics in times of revolutionary retreat, this is not the same as arguing that dialectics is responsible for the retreat.


In upturns, when the materialist input from the working class is sufficient to make the idealism in Dialectical Marxism no longer fit (or have any impact), the movement then achieves some success.

Or perhaps the movement achieves some success because workers are on the move and ideas are changing in our favour, rather than the suggestion that Marxists dispense with dialectics. Because Marxism is a theory of class struggle, its fortunes are inextricably linked to the ups and downs of the class struggle. To expect marxist ideas to be popular in times of relative social peace and class compromise is to misunderstand the relation of Marxist organization to the class. As Cliff used to say, "On this side of the revolution, the revolutionaries are in a minority."

You also criticize dialectics for providing a source of consolation to revolutionaries in the face of defeat. But what is the alternative - abject pessimism? Not the ideal solution to keeping revolutionary organization together in hard times. Of course, the optimistic idea that the class struggle will exist as long as Capitalism exists ("now hidden, now open fight") is not necessarily a dialectical idea - or is it?

The problem I have with your assertion that dialectical Marxism has been a failure is that there is no alternative because there has never existed a non-dialectical Marxism, at least not one which has sustained itself as a revolutionary critique or as a movement which has attracted hundreds of thousands of workers.


Now, I do this not to make an academic point, or to attack Marxism, but because I want our movement to be a success.


I don't doubt your sincerity, comrade, but unless you (or someone else) can explain how a non-dialectical Marxism will transform our revolutionary practice within the class, then I don't understand how your critique (no matter how original or brilliant it is) can help us to move forward.

:)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


The question is why?

I assert that the answer cannot be reducible to a cock-eyed theory of DM or that DM is even a major contributor to the class being more easily turned to various brands of reformism, voluntarism or idealism, than they are to Marxism.

Well, I outlined my reasons; you will need to say where they are wrong, as opposed to merely recording your opinion, interesting and valuable though that is.

Now, you and I fell out a few months ago because you kept trying to saddle me with things I did not say, nor did I imply, like this:


Whilst it's true that revolutionaries begin spending waaay too much time contemplating philosophy and dialectics in times of revolutionary retreat, this is not the same as arguing that dialectics is responsible for the retreat.

I'd like you to find where I allege this.


Or perhaps the movement achieves some success because workers are on the move and ideas are changing in our favour, rather than the suggestion that Marxists dispense with dialectics. Because Marxism is a theory of class struggle, its fortunes are inextricably linked to the ups and downs of the class struggle. To expect marxist ideas to be popular in times of relative social peace and class compromise is to misunderstand the relation of Marxist organization to the class. As Cliff used to say, "On this side of the revolution, the revolutionaries are in a minority."

Certainly their ideas mesh with ours, as expressed in historical materialism.

But not DM --, and that saves the party, which, because it is filled with god-seekers, needs their materialist input (as it did in 1917).

Next time you are on a picket line try telling the strikers about the negation of the negation or arguing this way:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Boiling%20Mad.htm

[This was not written by me, but by an activist in the SWP.]

Then try something apposite from HM, and you will get much further; more often than not, they will already have thought of it.

In practice, DM is useless.

So, if practice proves aything, it shows that DM is practically useless.


You also criticize dialectics for providing a source of consolation to revolutionaries in the face of defeat. But what is the alternative - abject pessimism? Not the ideal solution to keeping revolutionary organization together in hard times. Of course, the optimistic idea that the class struggle will exist as long as Capitalism exists ("now hidden, now open fight") is not necessarily a dialectical idea - or is it?

I can't believe you have just written this! :o

This is because that is also an excellent reason for some to accept the opiates the churches dish out -- 'well, it keeps me happy....', etc.


The problem I have with your assertion that dialectical Marxism has been a failure is that there is no alternative because there has never existed a non-dialectical Marxism, at least not one which has sustained itself as a revolutionary critique or as a movement which has attracted hundreds of thousands of workers.

But no more.

And this is another reason why I say you DM-fans are all conservatives; unlike Marx, you just will not innovate. You are stuck with doctrines that make no sense, which you can't use, and which you cling on to for all manner of suspect reasons.

Like:

'If it was good enough for my grandma, it's....'

Tut, Tut. <_<


I don't doubt your sincerity, comrade, but unless you (or someone else) can explain how a non-dialectical Marxism will transform our revolutionary practice within the class, then I don't understand how your critique (no matter how original or brilliant it is) can help us to move forward.

Well, DM has done precious little for us anyway, so even if I were 100% wrong, we need some new ideas, or we can look forward to barbarism.

However, one of my main aims is to help stop any more poison seeping in.

But as I have said to you before; I do not for one second think I will succeed, since, as the above makes clear, you DM-fans cling onto this theory for non-rational reasons.

Only the working class ending the conditions that make you look for consolation will rescue you from your present servile state, as Marx said.

I cannot help you....

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 17, 2007 06:10 pm
Gil:


Indeed, I challenge you to say what an &#39;abstraction&#39; actually is, without using meaningless jargon to do so, and without having to nominalise general terms, so that they become the names of abstract particulars, destroying their generality (a syntactical error commited by the ancient Greeks (and medieval logicians), and copied by all subsequent theorists, including Hegel).

Go on, I double dog dare you.
An abstraction is a concept which faciltates reference to a broad range of more particular realities by abstracting from (i.e.not referring to) characteristics not common to all the more particular realities, but characteristic of one or more of them....for example Marx&#39;s use of the concept of &#39;population&#39; in the 1857 Introduction to the Grundrisse or....your use of the concept of &#39;Dialectical Materialism&#39; &#33;

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


An abstraction is a concept which faciltates reference to a broad range of more particular realities by abstracting from (i.e.not referring to) characteristics not common to all the more particular realities, but characteristic of one or more of them....for example Marx's use of the concept of 'population' in the 1857 Introduction to the Grundrisse or....your use of the concept of 'Dialectical Materialism' !

Thanks for that; so an abstraction is a singular term, which acts as a general term. :blink:

That's as clear as mud.

[As I suggested, you have to use any of the words you employ as the names of abstract particulars, destroying the capacity language has for expressing generality. You get the exact opposite result from that which was intended: instead of accounting for generality in language (or in the world), you end up destroying it! A classic example of metaphysical confusion, and one which practically every traditional theorist has bought into.]

I know Marx uses this traditional notion (when he need not -- and even then he only gestures at using it; he never actually explains how this impossible process is supposed to work, nor has anyone done so since) --, but even then, that would only justify our use of such bogus ideas if we were to view Marx as a prophet of 'God', whose sacred words must be observed to the letter.

That of course would undermine their scientific status.

1/100 -- for at least trying, though. :(

More details (much more) in Essay Three, Part One and in Essay Four (notes 13 and 14).

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2003_01.htm

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

By the way, how are you getting along with my long critique of that other example of bogus Hegelian jargon: 'dialectical contradiction' (in Essay Eight Part Two)? You know, the one which takes to task that article you did not know anything about (by James Lawler)? You went suspiciously quiet about it.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2008_02.htm#Lawler

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

Added later -- this is now here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2008_03.htm

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 20, 2007 08:10 am
an abstraction is a singular term, which acts as a general term.
What would you call such a singular term acting as a general term, you wouldn&#39;t call it a &#39;contradiction&#39; would you Rosa ?

Must admit I never read your criticism of Lawler cos I dont have access to Lawler.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gilhyle:


What would you call such a singular term acting as a general term, you wouldn&#39;t call it a &#39;contradiction&#39; would you Rosa ?

No, it is far too confused to make it that far.

Unless, of course, you have in mind a set of formal rules (unknown to the rest of the logical commuunity) that sanctions this conclusion of yours (if I might promote it that far).


Must admit I never read your criticism of Lawler cos I dont have access to Lawler.

No probs -- in my critique, I quote about 80% of that article.

However, you need to catch up with the very best your mystical tradition has to offer; this is easily the best attempt so far made (by a &#39;materialist dialectician&#39;) to explicate this obscure idea (or certainly, I have seen nothing better in 25 years, and 100&#39;s of books and articles later).

But, despite this, perhaps you might like to tell us what you mean by this meaningless term: &#39;dialectical contradiction&#39;. Someone needs to; it has remained without an effective champion now for 200 years.

Hegel badly screwed up (as that Essay also shows); but I am sure someone as logically proficient as your good self can repair the damage.

[And those Essays also explain why the traditional, ancient Greek method of abstraction is a dead end. But if you refuse to be helped, you perhaps deserve to remain in darkness.]

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 21, 2007 04:27 am
I am sure someone as logically proficient as your good self can repair the damage.


Ah, jeez, your too nice :wub: ......I just had a horrible thought : that could be sarcasm..... maybe you didn&#39;t mean it :( .....ah, well, in a dialectical world I guess I gotta be able to deal with complexity. :P

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


I just had a horrible thought : that could be sarcasm.....ah, well, in a dialectical world I guess I gotta be able to deal with complexity.

Too bad you are incapable of saying just what such a world would be like.

[gilhyle]

But if I thought it was really important I&#39;d probably try....answering the original question: I&#39;m the one who doubts the importance of this stuff at this time.

Just one obseration - singular terms that nominalise what might otherise be covered by plural collective terms are common in language, I just dont buy the idealist argument that that linguistic practice is the source of metaphysics. But you could lend it significant support one way: languages vary greatly in the extent to which such terms occur in them. If you could show that there is a greater tendency to metaphysics in languges where such terms are most common you would have proven your point. But given that such terms are much less common in French than in English (althoguh I suspect more common in German than English) you might not be able to prove the point.

[gilhyle]

BTW I just tried to start into that essay and within two pages I come across "plainly, if there are no forces, there can be no DM-&#39;contradictions&#39;" ...

Yet for me the concept of &#39;force&#39; is an empiricist one, roundly criticised by Hegel when few others criticised it, systematically rejected by dialecticians.

It is set out as the inadequately grounded foundation of your essay - thus setting up the straw man at the beginning and eliminating the basis for debate on a common ground already:unsure:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


But if I thought it was really important I&#39;d probably try....answering the original question: I&#39;m the one who doubts the importance of this stuff at this time.

So, that&#39;s another cop out, then.

Pity Engels never took this route, or we&#39;d have been spared that execrable &#39;Anti-Duhring&#39;.


Just one obseration - singular terms that nominalise what might otherwise be covered by plural collective terms are common in language, I just dont buy the idealist argument that that linguistic practice is the source of metaphysics. But you could lend it significant support one way: languages vary greatly in the extent to which such terms occur in them. If you could show that there is a greater tendency to metaphysics in languges where such terms are most common you would have proven your point. But given that such terms are much less common in French than in English (althoguh I suspect more common in German than English) you might not be able to prove the point.

This is where your failure to read my Essays shows up -- I do exactly this.

And, thanks for your opinion (i.e., that relating to your &#39;not buying&#39; the idea that metaphysics derives from linguistic practice), but there is no way that you are capable of launching an effective critique of this (over and above its continual denial).

Moreover, I am as impressed with this (repeated claim of yours) as I am sure you&#39;d be if someone said, &#39;All this falling rate of profit and organic composition of capital stuff: I do not buy it&#39;, and that is all they kept saying.

Especially if you knew they knew no economics (as you know no logic).

And still: you are incapable of defending a single one of your mystical beliefs.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


BTW I just tried to start into that essay and within two pages I come across "plainly, if there are no forces, there can be no DM-'contradictions'" ...

Yet for me the concept of 'force' is an empiricist one, roundly criticised by Hegel when few others criticised it, systematically rejected by dialecticians.

Schelling's critique is far better.

But, as idealists they could offer no alternative.

And, as I am sure you failed to notice, the passage you quoted was from a basic introductory essay, at the beginning of which I say:


Please note that this Essay deals with very basic issues -- even at the risk of serious distortion.

It has only been ventured upon because a handful of comrades (who were not well-versed in Philosophy) wanted a very simple guide to my principle arguments against DM.

Hence, it is not aimed at experts!

Anyone who objects to the superficial nature of the analysis/claims made below must take these caveats into account or navigate away from this page. It is not intended for them.

Those wanting more details should consult the relevant Essays published at the main site.

And, I later say on this issue:


[However, this is a complex issue; for more details I can only refer the reader to my extensive discussion here and here.]

Referencing this 65,000+ word essay on this one topic:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2008_02.htm

Where I quote the many DM-classicists (and modern DM-authors) who disagree with you, and claim the exact opposite.

So, pick a fight with them; I take no view on the existence of 'forces' but DM-fans (like Citizen Z, now BTB) certainly use them to provide a physical correlate for 'dialectical contradictions' (you know: that bogus 'concept' you cannot explain).


It is set out as the inadequately grounded foundation of your essay - thus setting up the straw man at the beginning and eliminating the basis for debate on a common ground already:unsure:

It's you that does not know what she is talking about, as the above Essay shows.

[And, as the interventions of you and other DM-fans have amply shown, you do not want a debate, you merely wish to evade the issues, and attribute to me things I do not believe, in 'defence'of your piss-poor 'theory'. I learnt this years ago (you all argue the same way, and make the same weak claims -- and not a one of you can defend a single DM-notion), so I do not prat about; I go for the throat every time. Because of your semi-religious commitment to this mystical 'theory', rational argument will never sway you, so I just give you (all) a hard time for the contribution you have made to ruining Marxism.]

[gilhyle]

You say

"the LOI can only apply to objects (or perhaps to their names), if it applies anywhere. This means that identity statements are at best &#39;necessary truths&#39; (although I should want to call them "grammatical propositions"), not tautologies."
A

And then further on you say:

"these signs in effect express a rule that is applicable to other signs/symbols; they do not express an identity between lifeless marks on the page, or between propositions that exist in an ethereal realm somewhere. "

and again

"where the sign for identity (etc.) is used, it expresses a relation between objects (or an object and itself), not between concepts, predicates or propositions. "

Putting these together it might appear that your use of &#39;object&#39; is a reference to &#39;signs/symbols&#39;, rather than to material objects lifeless marks. concepts predicates or propositions

But I am not confident that that is your meaning ?

A bit later you say that "objects cannot be true or false" which leads me to think you use the term object where others might use &#39;variable&#39;, but again I am not convinced.

Elsewhere you talk of "names (or objects?) " and you are seeking to argue that "&#39;abstract identity&#39; can only be conjured into existence if relational expressions are changed into names." and I take this to be the same argument as made a little earlier when you claimed that "there is no such thing as Identity (i.e., it is not an object, but a relation); "


Once again you do spek of "names here, or some other singular designating expression"...which might lead me to wonder if &#39;object&#39; is a synonym for the concept of a singular designating expression, i.e. a slightly broader concept than that of &#39;name&#39; but similar in logical import.

I pursue this point to be clear on what I take,, on one reading, to be an argument that the LOI must apply to &#39;objects&#39; and the LOC can only apply to propositions, so one cannot be derived from the other.

Having said that, the core point to focus on in any discussion of this would - I think - be the claim that "if names and predicates are both objects (or they name them), then their identity (or lack of it) naturally becomes a &#39;problem&#39;. But, if only names name things here, and predicates merely describe objects so named, then the many hours devoted to this bogus problem can be seen for what it is: a monumental waste of time." I think this sentence goes to the heart of a transition that occured in philosophy after the fall of German and British idealism, under the influence of Frege whereby the requirement for a concept of totality was denied on the basis of a clarification of the logic of relations.

BTW, I want to look back over Hegel to see if he claims as Lawler seems to suggest that "Hegel maintains that the defenders of the concept of abstract identity, or identity unrelated to difference, become prey to a logical self-contradiction, by affirming difference of identity, while at the same time trying to deny this"[Ibid., p.20......I somewhat doubt this formulation, but its worth thinking about.

I&#39;ll read the rest later

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil, thank you for at least trying to make sense of all this; unlike with most DM-fans, I just get wall-to-wall bluster, and wilfull ignorance.


Putting these together it might appear that your use of &#39;object&#39; is a reference to &#39;signs/symbols&#39;, rather than to material objects lifeless marks. concepts predicates or propositions

In some places, I am reporting in indirect speech a traditonal approach to the use of the identity sign, in others I am revealing my own opinion.

[Recall, I am not trying to write a thesis on identity, merely destroy the logic underpinning Hegel.]

As you no doubt know, logicians since Frege have been unclear whether identity is a relation between objects (or a reflexive relation between an object and itself), or merely whether it is one which appertains to the signs we use to depict them.

And they are also somewhat unlcear over the distinction between signs and objects themselves.

Wittgenstein tried to clear this up in the best critique there is of this mess, and I largely follow him.

[I reference works (in Essay Six) which explicate his ideas in detail.]

Now several of the questions you ask me look like they have been put together rather hastily; these for example:


Putting these together it might appear that your use of &#39;object&#39; is a reference to &#39;signs/symbols&#39;, rather than to material objects lifeless marks. concepts predicates or propositions

But I am not confident that that is your meaning ?

A bit later you say that "objects cannot be true or false" which leads me to think you use the term object where others might use &#39;variable&#39;, but again I am not convinced.

So, it is difficult to respond, since it is not too clear what you are saying.

Variables cannot be true or false, only spoken token sentences (if we are talking about everyday empirical truth -- but you will need to say).

In certain forms of logic, as I am sure you know, propositions are treated as objects (or propostional functions are -- often called &#39;open sentences&#39;), so are variables (whether these are first or second order quantifier expressions, mass or count noun variables, monadic or diadic predicate variables, and so on). Hence, in order to cater for all these views, I deliberatly ran several things together.

My point being (partially) that, even though we are clearer today than Hegel was (who was less clear than Aristotle), many logicians are still stuck in the same metaphysical quagmire that held Hegel.


I think this sentence goes to the heart of a transition that occured in philosophy after the fall of German and British idealism, under the influence of Frege whereby the requirement for a concept of totality was denied on the basis of a clarification of the logic of relations.

There is some truth in this, but the main influence on Frege came from mathematics; he only turned to this area in order to help clarify the sloppy use of terms in that discipline.

I trust now that you will examine the writings of dialecticians with the same care and attention to detail you devoted to mine.

[gilhyle]

I am a bit clearier - I think - on what you are doing.

When I wrote, I was using the term variable to mean &#39;sentence variable&#39;. I was trying to orient in relation to the various uses of &#39;object&#39; that you rightly say are out there, though I must admit that the question was posed in my mind as &#39; is this Russel&#39;s concept of object or the Tractatus concept ?&#39;

I guess I continue to struggle aournd three issues:

1. Substitutability; It continues to seem to me the case that where the principle of identiy (Law, whatever) is referred to in these marxist texts what is referred to is the claim that where a propositional sentence is put in the place of a sentence variable in all and only the occurences of a particular sentence variable in a valid logical schema, then truth functionality will not be undone.

Hegel is then saying that

a) in order to be able to formulate this rule we must conceive of an alternative practice in which more than one sentence was substituted or in which not all occurencs of that sentence variable were subject to substitution.

b) he is observing that the pplication of the rule will not sustain truth functionality in ordinary speech (as distinct from a logical schema, where that body of ordinary speech involves a change of point of reference.

In suggesting this, I am in danger of understating Hegel&#39;s claims to make them uncontroversial. This is a familar problem for Hegel interpreters, he often has interesting but invalid interpretations to which he is open and valid but uninteresting interpretataions to which he is open. The challenge my interpretation might well face would be that it would not do the work inthat part of the Docrtine of Essence in Hegel&#39;s Logic that he requires it to do if my interpretation were correct....but that is a separate discussion.

2. If Hegels argument is wrong, his overall conclusions could still be correct, or I might better say &#39;useful&#39;. It is often observed that many of the arguments within his logic fail, many of the transitions are slipshod, but there is an understandable reluctance to leave aside his doctrine of the concept because of that. This argument extends to particularaly to many Marxists who have sought to mimic the form of arguments in that part of Hegel&#39;s Docrine of Essence which Engels emphasised. One could argue that that argument fails....while still taking dialectics seriously.

3. History of Philsosophy or History of Ideas: It remains unclear to me wheher you are engaged in the former or the latter, where the history of philosophy is an historical analysis done within the discipline of history and the latter is a process of developing new ideas by bouncing them off past ideas. for example in the 1970s some of the work on possible worlds used to be done by studying cartesiansim. For example also, if you were making an historical claim that there have been many marxists who have been fooled by their understanding of Hegel&#39;s way of deriving his conclusions and Engels way of reproducing those arguments concerning dialectics into believing that the basic laws and methods of logic are invalid, there would clearly be some truth in this. If you make the braoder claim that the popularity of dialectics has CAUSED the degeneration of the revolutionary movement, I would think there was very little truth in that. If you were making the claim that sectarianism can be expressed through dialectics (Gerrry Healy etc.), I would think there was a lot of truth in that. If you were claiming that all advocacy of dialectics necessarily leads to degeneration, I wouldlthink the history book would not support that conclusion and so on.

What you say about identity is somewhat conttroversial within Logic - I think you might agree. But even if it is all true, what does it show ? I dont mean what does your whole website show, I mean what does this bit on Lawlor illustrate ? It certainly shows that an explication of the limitiations of a law of identity does not tell us what a material dialectical contradiction is, contrary to the expectations of some who have highlighted the critique of the law of identity. It also shows that at least some Marxists have thought that they could use the lOI explain what a material dialectical contradication is and have got very confused in the process. Is that what it is meant to show, because if it is, it mostly works.

If it is ment to show more, THIS PART on Lawlerdoes not do (and may not be intended to do) that.

But since it is most likely that it would be the concept of the totality which would facilitate the articulation of what such a conradiction is, then its essay Six (isnt that the one on totality ? ) that would be the key essay ? Is that fair ? I ask this because I dont want to focus my limited attention span on your somewhat conroversial remarks on identity if the real issue is elsewhere.

What do you think ?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil; once more thankyou for your careful comments.


Hegel is then saying that

a) In order to be able to formulate this rule we must conceive of an alternative practice in which more than one sentence was substituted or in which not all occurrences of that sentence variable were subject to substitution.

Forgive me for saying this, but you have to do an awful lot of 'cleaning up' and 'bending of the texts' to make Hegel say anything as remotely clear as this. Plus, it ignores his (confused) distinction between a proposition and a 'judgement'.

I'd like to see where Hegel says anything even nearly like it!

Or this:


b) he is observing that the application of the rule will not sustain truth functionality in ordinary speech (as distinct from a logical schema, where that body of ordinary speech involves a change of point of reference.

You are using terms introduced by Frege (and subsequent logicians) to expound Hegel!

I wish Hegel had been this clear, but he wasn't; so I am still interested in seeing where he said any of this.


If Hegels argument is wrong, his overall conclusions could still be correct, or I might better say 'useful'.

But his conclusion is as clear as mud, and based on series of gross syntactical errors (and he reproduces those errors in that 'conclusion').


History of Philosophy or History of Ideas: It remains unclear to me whether you are engaged in the former or the latter,

I am not engaged in an academic exercise; I hope, however, to turn several of my ideas into a finished PhD thesis (work on my thesis on Wittgenstein had to be cut short because of serious family problems).

But in the Essays you see before you, I am doing neither. My one aim is to destroy this theory, by the most comprehensive route possible, and I will continue in that one aim until either it, or I, am dead.


If you make the broader claim that the popularity of dialectics has CAUSED the degeneration of the revolutionary movement, I would think there was very little truth in that. If you were making the claim that sectarianism can be expressed through dialectics (Gerry Healy etc.), I would think there was a lot of truth in that. If you were claiming that all advocacy of dialectics necessarily leads to degeneration, I would think the history book would not support that conclusion and so on.

As we have debated before, this is not my claim. I think there have been objective factors behind the failure of our movement (how could I deny this!), but DM has helped in its own not insignificant way to make matters far worse that they would otherwise have been.

Here is a summary of what I hope to show in Essays Nine Part Two and Essay Ten (when they are published later this year -- links and references omitted):


A) DM was used by the Stalinised Bolshevik Party (after Lenin died) to justify the imposition of an undemocratic (if not an anti-democratic and terror-based) structure on both the Communist Party and the population of the former USSR.

This new and vicious form of the* 'dictatorship of the proletariat' was justified by Stalin on the grounds that, since Marxist theory sees everything as 'contradictory', greater central control was in order if greater freedom was to be achieved; freedom and necessity were thus 'dialectically-linked'. The "withering-away of the state" was in fact confirmed by its ever-growing power. So, less democracy was more democracy! Indeed, that very contradiction illustrated the truth of DM!

Moreover, the idea that socialism could be created in one country was justified by, among other things, the dubious invention of 'internal' versus 'external' contradictions, bolstered by an appeal to 'primary' and 'secondary' contradictions, along with the convenient idea that some contradictions were not 'antagonistic'.

Hence, the obvious class differences that soon emerged in the former USSR were in fact 'harmonious'; the real enemies (i.e., the source of all those nasty 'primary' contradictions) were the external, imperialist powers. All so eminently contradictory.

So, strikes were not just banned they were suppressed, and with levels of force rarely seen outside of fascist states.

More practice, more dead workers.

We can see today the effect all this 'applied dialectics' had on the former USSR and its satellites in Eastern Europe.

Only those who still have their dialectical blinders on will disagree with the judgment that these failed states were not a ringing endorsement of Marxism.

The fact that not a single worker's hand was raised in their defence between 1989 and 1991 merely confirms that assessment.

Indeed, the dire political consequences of the idea that socialism could be built in one country can be seen in the subsequent use to which dialectics was put to defend this counter-revolutionary idea, and to try to limit (or deny) the damage it inevitably caused to the international workers' movement.

Stalinism and Trotskyism parted company partly because of this; a spilt movement, partly down to DM. Those who know the history of Bolshevism will also know the damage that this deep rift has inflicted on Marxism world-wide, ever since.

[Anyone who thinks the above is prejudicial to Stalinism only needs to reflect on the fact that the contrary idea --, that socialism could be built in one country --, has also been refuted by history.]

Hence, DM was used to justify the catastrophic and reckless class-collaborationist tactics imposed on both the Chinese and Spanish revolutions, just as it was employed to rationalise the ultra-left, "social fascist" post-1929 about-turn. This crippled the fight against the Nazis by suicidally splitting the left in Germany, pitting communist against socialist, while Hitler laughed all the way into power.

This 'theory' then helped rationalise the rotation of the Communist Party through another 180o in the next class-collaborationist phase, the "Popular Front" --, and then through another 180o (in order to 'justify' the unforgivable Hitler-Stalin pact) as part of the re-discovered 'revolutionary defeatist' stage --, and through yet another 180o two years later in the shape of 'The Great Patriotic War', following upon Hitler's invasion of the 'Mother Land'.

Post-1945, one more flip saw the invention of 'peace-loving' nations versus the evil US Empire. History was now the struggle of 'progressive' nations against reactionary regimes, the class war lost in all the dust kicked up by so much dialectical spinning.

[Indeed, Marx would by now be doing much, much more than 180o in his grave!]

Every single one of these 'somersaults' had a catastrophic impact on the international workers' movement. Collectively, they cast a long shadow across the entire communist movement, reducing it to that sad, reformist excuse that we see among us today.

However, far, far worse, these 'contradictory' about-turns helped pave the way for fascist aggression and the Third Reich. In that case, this 'theory' has played its own shameful, but indirect part in the deaths of millions of workers and countless millions of Jews, Gypsies, Russians and Slavs -- alongside the many hundreds of thousands of mentally-ill and handicapped victims of the Nazis.

Because of their continual, Hermetically-inspired twists and dialectical turns, STD's in effect all but invited the Nazi tiger to rip European humanity to shreds.
And it was only too happy to oblige.

[STD = Stalinist Dialectician.]

The negative effect of all this on the reputation of Marxism among the great mass of workers cannot be over-estimated, howsoever hard one tries.

Of course, not all of this is the sole fault of this mystical theory; but it is undeniable that it was a major factor in helping to rationalise the above political gyrations (for whatever other reasons these were in fact taken), and sell them to party cadres. Over the years, this had an inevitable and demoralising effect.

Moreover, no other theory could have permitted with such ease the adoption of continual, almost overnight, changes in strategy and tactics --, or have rationalised so effectively the pathetic excuses that were given for the criminally unacceptable political about-turns imposed on the Communist Party internationally by post-1925 Stalinism.

Nor, indeed, have so effortlessly licensed the grinding to dust of the core of the old Bolshevik Party in the 1930's, as scores of leading Bolsheviks were put on trail on trumped-up charges, and then executed.

Millions dead, Bolshevism in tatters and Marxism a foul stench in the nostrils of workers everywhere.

DM: tested in practice?

A resounding success?

Absolutely!

But, only for the ruling-class.

[UO = Unity of Opposites.]

B) Similar faults bedevilled the CCP under Mao; for example, the use of 'primary' and 'secondary' contradictions to justify the suicidal alliances with the Guomindang, the use of UO's to rationalise one-party, autocratic rule, the reference to 'leaps' to excuse the murderous and lunatic "Great Leap Forward".

The list is almost endless.

DM: tested in practice?

Once again: indeed so! And we can see the results today in that model 'socialist state': China.

Of course, at the very least, this means that approximately 20% of the population of the planet cannot now (and might not in the foreseeable future) ever be won to any credible form of Marxism, since the vast majority of them have been inured to it, having seen the dire consequences of this contradictory theory (which preaches 'proletarian democracy' but won't actually trust them with any, and the "mass-line" while practicing mass oppression --, these dialectical 'contradictions' rationalised along sound Stalinist lines).

Chinese workers and peasants thus need no one to inform them of the results of 'practice'; the vast majority can see for themselves the political and social consequences of this theory.

And now, the very same theory is used to justify the existence of 'socialist' billionaires!

[What's that you say? A contradiction in terms? You clearly do not 'understand' dialectics!]

C) Trotskyism has similarly been cursed by the Dialectical Deity:* its founder succeeded in wedding his followers to the crazy dialectical idea that the 'socialist' regime in Moscow was contradictory. Hence, because 'materialist dialectics' demanded it, all good Trotskyists should defend the USSR as a workers' state --, albeit deformed/degenerated. This crippled the politics of these comrades in the run-up to WW2 -- who, while advocating an anti-imperialist stance, were quite happy to defend Stalinist imperialism.

Hence, as if to compound this monumental gaffe, Trotsky used dialectics to justify the murderous Stalinist invasion of Finland!

More practice --, more dead workers. More ordure heaped on Marxism.

Do you begin to see a pattern?

After Trotsky was murdered by a 'progressive' Stalinist agent with an ice pick, the application of 'scientific dialectics' to the contradictory nature of the USSR split the Fourth International into countless warring sects, who have continued to fragment to this day.

Indeed, this is the only aspect of dialectics that Trotskyists have managed to perfect in practice, as the movement continues to splinter under its own 'internal contradictions'.

Unfortunately, Trotsky's heirs could not quite agree which was the more important principle: loyalty to their founder's 'dialectical method', or to Marx's belief that the emancipation of the working class is an act of the working class itself -- and thus not an act of the Red Army/Russian tanks (in Eastern Europe), or of 'Third World' guerrillas, nationalist/'progressive' dictators, or even of radicalised students (to name but a few of the groups that have been 'dialectically substituted' for the working class by assorted Trotskyists ever since).

Dialectics has been used, and is still used, to justify every conceivable form of substitutionism imaginable.

[As I show in Essay Nine Part One and* Two (summary here): dialectics is indeed the ideology of substitutionist elements in our movement.]

All this has fatally wounded Trotskyism. It might never recover.

These are just three examples of the thoroughly malignant influence this Hermetic theory has had on our movement. There are many more.

Is it any wonder then that since the 1920's (at least) Marxism* has been to success what George W Bush has been to intellectual achievement?


But even if it is all true, what does it show ? I don’t mean what does your whole website show, I mean what does this bit on Lawler illustrate ? It certainly shows that an explication of the limitations of a law of identity does not tell us what a material dialectical contradiction is, contrary to the expectations of some who have highlighted the critique of the law of identity. It also shows that at least some Marxists have thought that they could use the LOI explain what a material dialectical contradiction is and have got very confused in the process. Is that what it is meant to show, because if it is, it mostly works.

My website is aimed at showing that not one single DM-notion/concept/thesis makes the slightest bit of sense (and, indirectly, at showing the same is the case with respect to analogous metaphysical nostrums), and that those which make empirical claims are scientifically either incorrect or are too confused to assess for their truth or falsity.


If it is meant to show more, THIS PART on Lawler does not do (and may not be intended to do) that.

But since it is most likely that it would be the concept of the totality which would facilitate the articulation of what such a contradiction is, then its essay Six (isn’t that the one on totality ? ) that would be the key essay ? Is that fair ? I ask this because I don’t want to focus my limited attention span on your somewhat controversial remarks on identity if the real issue is elsewhere.

What do you think ?

Well, since Lawler's is the best article/attempt I have yet seen (unless you know of one better??), my claim that this bogus concept ('dialectical contradiction') is as meaningless as any other metaphysical notion (and worse, it is a meaningless mess -- so it's fourth-rate metaphysics!), and of no use at all in Historical Materialism.

The 'concept' of the 'Totality' is taken apart in Essay Eleven Parts One and Two. Essay Six is devoted to Trotsky (and indirectly to Hegel) on Identity.

As I show there: even against such a background, this bogus phrase ('dialectical contradiction) is non-sensical.

Finally, I wasn't sure what your last question was asking. About what, do I think?

[gilhyle]

of course you are correct, Hegel never said that. He was entirley contained within the &#39;philosophy of the act of Judgement&#39; with which Kant sought to supercede empiricism. My point is merely that if I was ever trying to relate a dialectical concept to the basics of logic, I would probably adopt this course and, it seems, its crtique of LOI could be saved by adopting this course or something like it - would take more reflection to get it right. My observation is this: you often go beyond showing that the historical writings suffered from certain problem, you also consider and seek to dismiss a range of additional possible strategies. to achieve your desired result, you would need to dismiss the kind of approach I have hinted at.

......OK all that has been most helpful. Funnily enough, we probably disagree as much on the State Capitalism issue as on the dialectics issue...another day, another thread.

Personally, I always find it very useful to see the value in what someone is doing, particularly if I disagree with them - cos seeing the value helps me to focus. (Ive also bookmarked a piece on Wittgenstein&#39;s logic from one of your footnotes that I want to take a look at and I hope I can get back to your site with enough time to think about Essay 11, cos that is what its all about.) However, although I spent years on this stuff, I find it hard to persuade myself that its worth the effort.

As to your question is there a better writer on Marxist dialectics, I would hesitate to recomend one. I have never found Illyenkov as good as I am told he is; but everything is relative (how trite I am &#33;). Caudwell is not without merit, but he is suggestive rather than definitive and precocious (how do you spell that ?) rather than considered. Roy Edgely was always a little bit intereesting....there is more, but none of that is going to rock your world.

I mentioned before that I think Robert Pippin: Hegels Idealism and Jean Hyppolite: Logic and Existence are the best things on Hegels writings I know of, although there are a lot of ambitious works in recent years, only some of which I have read..... but I seem to remember you saying before you had worked through Pippin.

I want to look for a reference to something some polish guy did that I seem to recall wasnt without merit, an attempt to formalise dialectics that I seem to recall thinking was misconceived but interesting. The references are on another computer. I&#39;ll post the reference if I find it - but by the sounds of things you may well have been through it already.

Just two more observations: I am immediately attracted to the critical perspective on the use of dialectics within the Stalinist tradition that your extract sets out. Marcuse and (I think it was) Jordan made some efforts in this direction and various people have written about the Lysenko period and I seem to recall some stuff on dialectics in Mao&#39;s China that I dont have references for. It is certainly true that people like me who stand - more or less - in the dialectical and trotskyist tradition have not looked with any care at the philosophical mechanics of the rhetoric of the use of dialectics within the Stalinist tradition. Such an approach potentially contrasts well with the hagiographic approach of Helena Sheehan in her Marxism and the Philosophy of Science.

Secondly, the role of substitutionism within the history of Trotskyism was particularly associated with Pablo, though not exclusively, as I am sure you know. Any attempt to ascribe this method to Trotskyism as such needs to face up to the political - rather than philosophical response - that substitutionism was just a way to escape trotsky&#39;s approach to the united front tactic. But that is also another days discussion.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil, once more, thankyou for your well-considered response.


My observation is this: you often go beyond showing that the historical writings suffered from certain problem, you also consider and seek to dismiss a range of additional possible strategies. to achieve your desired result, you would need to dismiss the kind of approach I have hinted at.

Well, I can see your point, I just wonder why you would want to waste even one second trying to make this Hermetic mess work. That is quite apart from the fact that in the event you will have to abandon the spirit of the Hegelian enterprise, and turn him into a quasi-analytic philosopher (of a rather confused kind) in order to make his ideas even slightly clearer.

You might be better occupied watching your toe-nails grow. :D

Such an endeavour in fact reminds me of the many centuries wasted by Christian philosophers trying to make, say, the incarnation of Christ comprehensible/consistent: a total waste of time, and ultimately doomed to fail.

I must agree: Caudwell is excellent (I have used some of his ideas in Essay Twelve, in order to provide the first ever comprehensive Marxist account of the origin of metaphysics); he is perhaps one of the most intelligent dialecticians ever to write on this (but he is absolutely no help at all in trying to make &#39;dialectical contradictions&#39; clear), and Edgley is thoroughly confused.

Ilyenkov is among the best of the (quasi-)Stalinists (along with Oizerman), but still hopelessly confused, too.

[When I asked for a better DM-theorist, I was in fact being somewhat ironic; I have in fact read the lot (and perhaps more that even you have heard of), many times over; that is why I said Lawler was the best I have ever seen -- i.e., he is the best of the worst.]

Pippin and Hippolyte are good, but their lack of facility with logic makes their work of little value. [Now Beiser is excellent - a first-rate Hegel interpreter, who almost manages to make his &#39;system&#39; work (but only if you ignore Hegel&#39;s many logical blunders).]

Sheehan&#39;s work is excellent; I use it extensively (along with others like Joravsky, Lobkowicz, Wetter, Loren Graham, Bakhurst, and others).

My attempt to analyse the Stalinist use of DM was in fact a late addition (since, when I began, I only aimed to influence opinion in the Trotskyist &#39;movement&#39; (some hope&#33;)). But now my work is out there on the internet, it seemed to me that I had to address the deleterious effects of this mystical doctrine on them, too (and on the Maoists -- the latter is, in fact much easier to do&#33;). So, my research in this direction is in its early stages (and since 3/4&#39;s of my books and papers are in storage right now while I move, that research has been held back somewhat). I also aim to learn Russian, so I can examine original documents, and access material that has not been translated (like the work of Deborin, for example).


Secondly, the role of substitutionism within the history of Trotskyism was particularly associated with Pablo, though not exclusively, as I am sure you know. Any attempt to ascribe this method to Trotskyism as such needs to face up to the political - rather than philosophical response - that substitutionism was just a way to escape trotsky&#39;s approach to the united front tactic

I rather think that substitutionism among us Trots goes way beyond Pablo -- as the evidence I have gathered indicates.

In fact, it&#39;s almost universal.

[CrimsonTide]

Can someone please post a link to a very basic overview of Dialectical Materialism? I have no clue what it actually is.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Try these:

http://www.marxist.com/study-guide-dialect...materialism.htm (http://www.marxist.com/study-guide-dialectical-materialism.htm)

http://www.marxist.com/Theory/JPickard.html

A very basic oppositional essay of mine can be found here:

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

[Pandii]

CrimsonTide-
I found the John Pickard and Rosa&#39;s introductions gread theroy reading for DM, really helped me get a grasp on the *ahem* subject.
Happy learning CrimsonTide&#33;
Pandii xx

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I am glad my Essay helped you, Pandii&#33; :)

[gilhyle]

I checked that &#39;polish&#39; reference I remembered vaguely and ....realised why I didnt remember it : I never read it &#33;&#33;. Its not polish, and you probably know it:

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Logi/LogiShpe.htm


Had this reference in the same place which some readers might find useful as a view over the landscape (though I disagree with its key claim):

Robin Hirsch : Logic and Dialectics
hhttp://eserver.org/clogic/2004/hirsch.html

Always wanted to read Deborin...only ever found one or two things in English

I agree about Beiser (forgot about him)

As to why I am still interested in dialectics, I wrote the following many years ago (found it when I looked up the reference) in which I speak about objective logic (meaning dialectics):

.........We have now reached the point where we can begin to understand what the idea of an ‘objective logic’ means, as distinct from a ‘formal logic’ or a ‘subjective logic’. If a formal logic is a study of a relation, such as a relation of implication and a subjective logic is a study of decision making, then an objective logic is different from both. It is neither the study of the relation, or the subject but of the object. If formal logic tells us what form a mental act must take to trace a relation of implication and if a subjective logic tells what form a mental act must take to persuade a person, an objective logic tells us what form a mental act must take to reflect what causes it to exist.

This simple idea turns out to be devastatingly convoluted when set out formally, rather than being observed in the practical process of thinking. But its form must be seen to give the revolutionary the best tools for tracing a path between the ideological delusions that call out to her. Against this, consciousness an objective logic allows us to see both the force and the content of scientific theory and conventional opinion, without adhering to them. It facilitates the historical appreciation of ideas, rather than casting us into the dilemma acceptance or rejection of those views. It does this without forcing us into any mere relativism either, because it is based on affirming that all such theories and views are part of the mental activity of a species that, in however twisted a way, is always developing views that correspond more or less with an objective reality.

To understand the politics of this we need only understand that to pass judgement on something does not always require that we enter into its détail and engage with it on its own terms. I may know little of quantum mechanics and still sense the fundamental difficulty with its conceptual framework. I may know little of how the U.S. state works and still sense that it finds a way to produce laws which facilitate capital. Dialectics is a way to judge totalities in abstraction from the détail. By analogy we might think of it as like statistics which heroically generalises across population from, often miniscule samples, claiming results whose occurrence it cannot explain in détail. It should be clear how this capacity can be critical to the revolutionary.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that, once more, Gil.

I have seen this &#39;Greek&#39; material already; I think it is third-rate stuff (I might critique it in a later version of Essay Twelve).

I am aware of Robin&#39;s article (it is a major step in the right direction; and I referenced it in Essay Four); I sent a long critique of his Essay to &#39;Cultural Logic&#39; in September 2005, but they turned it down (it was far too long&#33;).

Most of that material now appears in Essays Four, Eight and Six.

I e-mailed Robin about his Essay, but he failed to respond.

Your comments on Formal Logic puzzle me, since, from what you say, you seem to have confused it with a formal sort of psychology:


If formal logic tells us what form a mental act must take to trace a relation of implication and if a subjective logic tells what form a mental act must take to persuade a person, an objective logic tells us what form a mental act must take to reflect what causes it to exist.

I am not sure what &#39;mental acts&#39; have to do with logic of any sort.

I appreciate your attempt to make dialectics relevant, but cannot actually follow your argument -- or, rather, what little I was able to follow does not seem to be relevant to any sort of logic (known to humanity, as yet), and neither does it seem at all obvious that the confused ideas one finds in Hegel will help in any way at all, whatever one decides about the former.


Dialectics is a way to judge totalities in abstraction from the détail.

Well, I doubt that anything you find in Hegel will help you on this score (for reasons I rehearse in Essay Eleven Parts One and Two) -- but worse: since his ideas are far more difficult to grasp than the subject matter they were supposed to explicate, we&#39;d make significant progress by ignoring all he had to say.

[To use your quantum mechanics example: one might as well try to make that area of physics clear by appealing to the Kabbalah&#33;]

Historical materialism copes quite nicely with the issues you mention, so long as Hegel&#39;s gross confusions are kept well away from it.

[gilhyle]

Your response is entirely reasonable. The sense of the term &#39;logic&#39; in the phrase &#39;dialectical logic&#39; is very different from the sense of that term as it is commonly used in modern philosophy and in ordinary logic today. It is a feature of Marxism that this term &#39;logic&#39; is widely used within it to refer to dialectics but without either excavating the historical usage of that term in early 19th century Germany or independently defining a usage for the term which differentiates the usage from the more conventional usage of the term &#39;logic&#39;.

this issue arises with the terms &#39;logic&#39;, &#39;contradiction&#39; and &#39;science&#39; and others that Marxism takes over from an antiquated form of philosophy, just as Marxism is replete with terms from political economy that are not used by economics.

But I see this as a predictable part of the landscape of an oppositional ideology, marginalised within capitalist society which relies on isolated moments of excellance, rather than a systematic and properly funded practice of an on-going discipline.

And that is how I also see dialectics. I think there are very significant criticisms of the materialist conception of history, Marxist political economy and marxist tactics which can be produced within a capitalist society and which have real force. Some of these are very difficult to deal with. For example, take the kind of criticisms of historical materialism in Rigby&#39;s book Marxism and History or the kind of criticisms of Law of the Tendency of the Law of Profit to Fall troubled over by Simon Clarke in his book The Marxist Theory of Crisis (just two examples I see on the book shelf in ffront of me).

I believe we can only answer those criticisms by recognising that something methodologically unusual has been going on in the revolutionary opposition in 19th and 20th century capitalism. I believe a conception that I would call &#39;dialectics&#39; allows those methodologically unusual approaches to be articulated (as Marx did in the 1857 Introduction) in a general way.

If there is something methodologically unusual going on in oppositional theory within capitalism, why is that happening ? It is happening because communism cannot develop the kind of scientific practice that can be undertaken within disciplines that the dominant mode of production is happy to sponsor. Rather, Marxism must take the short-cut of being driven by a normative perspective in a way similar to that Hegel tried to outline (without his having likked it to revolutionary thinking) Ciezkowski began the process of showing how Hegel&#39;s ideas could be used that way.

It is also true of such an oppositional ideology that its most abstract formulation should also be its most vulnerable aspect. In other words, it is part of being a precarious oppositional ideology that the hardest part of Marxism to formulate and defend would be its general conception of its method - dialectics, particularly since this method is a method for taking shortcuts and as such has an arbitrary character and is wide open to abuse. (You listed some of those abuses) Marxism will always be told that its methodology is indeterminate and confused. Those criticisms are, to a point, correct. But it is of the nature of revolutionary politics, that such a methodology is the correct one for it. We might wish that otherwise, but it isnt.

If we then zero in on the current period, we have to say that the cultural weakness of Marxism in the present time makes the attempt to set out the general form of that Marxist methodology at least temporarilyredundant. Frankly, Marxist theory is so dislocated from the weak threads of class struggle in this time of deep retreat by class organisations that even a successful articulation of a general Marxist method would have little or no political resonance.

Consequenntly, it does not surprise me that reflective people interested in Marxism often now think Marxism does not &#39;need&#39; dialectics; the articulation of dialectics has little to offer today. If substantial contributions to Marxist political, economic and historical theory emerge, a new sense will emerge of how revolutionary theory must differ from the methodologies of the sciences and ordinary language analysis which are facilitated by the dominant ideology.

Consequently, I draw the unusual conclusion that dialectics is an important practical part of Marxism and not worth spending effort on at this time.Interestingly you draw the almost diametrically opposite conclusion that dialectics is not a valid part of Marxism but is worth spending time on.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Once more, thanks for that Gil.

It&#39;s late, so I will reply tomorrow.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil, I agree; the differential use of &#39;logic&#39; here is confusing, but Hegel pointedly tried to produce an immanent critique (as it is now called) of the bowdlerised Aristotelian Logic of his day, and since he was clearly a poor/incompetent logician (committing errors not even Aristotle would have made), the &#39;logic&#39; that has descended from him should be renamed (as, perhaps, &#39;syntactic spaghetti&#39;), or abandoned completely.

I do not think it can be repaired; the people who have tried to do so have not only failed to notice the serious errors Hegel made (mainly because they have approached the subject with a somewhat insecure grasp of logic themselves), they have in fact merely reduplicated them.

The &#39;problems&#39; you mention are, I think, a direct consequence of the use of unworkable Hegelian concepts (ones which Marx himself was abandoning -- hence his &#39;coquetted&#39; comment in Kapital); so trying to re-jig them will, if anything, prolong the agony.

Oppositional politics has no need of Hegel or his mystical ideas; indeed the exact opposite is the case --, since those ideas arose from an age-old ruling class tradition (one that is outlined in Essay Sixteen Part Twelve; but will be expanded upon greatly in Essay Twelve Part Six), that is not just anti-materialist, it is fundamentally incoherent.

So, no wonder Marxism suffers from &#39;difficulties&#39;.

You hope for a new dawn; I fear, it will turn into another seemingly endless tunnel.

And all the while, the ruling-class will laugh all the way to the next attack on workers.

[gilhyle]

There you have our mutual opposition.

When I get the time and energy together I will try to read your material on totality to see if I have anything constructive to say on that - the heart of the issue.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


There you have our mutual opposition.

I am sorry, I did not get this.

What do you mean?

[gilhyle]

I mean we have opposite assessments of the origins of the political degeneration of Trotskyism as well as opposite views of dialectics. Right or wrong, I dont think dialectics &#39;caused&#39; the political problems of Trotskyism to any degree at all - incidentally we also have opposite views on the nature of the USSR, I oppose the state capitalist theory.....we are in quite complete disagreement on many of the key issues, although I suspect we have approached these issues from similar pre-occupations.

All these differences, I suspect have a common thread running through them and if I get some time and energy to study your stuff I might be able to get a bit more depth into my understanding of those differences. I recognise that your work is substantial and that means spending a bit of effort on it will reveal something.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil, I agree; I do not think that DM caused the problems you mentioned, but it did make it much easier to justify bogus arguments in support of certain interpretations of the nature of the Stalinist state (you can see Trotsky himself doing this in 'In Defense of Marxism', and Ted Grant doing something similar in his 'critique' of Cliff's theory. Mandel also did similar things (as have others since)).

Although those who knew him well tell me Cliff accepted dialectics, he never made a fetish of it.

I suspect that this allowed him to break free from the orthodox Trotskyist view of the former USSR, etc.

Same with me.

[rioters bloc]

i still don&#39;t entirely understand dialectics, or the arguments for and against.. philosophy is not my forte and i have a hard time applying it to practical political situations.


...but that&#39;s exactly what i have to do for class&#33;

so i was wondering.. could anyone perhaps give me a brief summation on a materialist/anti-materialist perspective on a political issue today (anywhere but in australia) and how it does/doesn&#39;t drive social change? and it can be as brief as you like.. i just need to have some sort of grasp on it so i can expand on it myself. cheers in advance&#33;

[rioters bloc]

gah i meant - it can be a dialectical materialist/anti-dialectical materialist view.

for example - some of Marx&#39;s critics say that the whole concept is flawed, as the revolution he predicted as a result of the tensions in society has not happened yet in any industrialised nation. explanations?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RB, well critics like me do not blame Marx for this &#39;theory&#39;, since it was invented by Engels, Plekhanov and Dietzgen.

I have written an introductory Essay (for the case against) at my site designed especially for guys like you:

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

You will find links in that Essay to sites where the case for the defence is put in simple terms too.

As to its application to contemporary political events, I deny it has any. Worse: I have been asking those who accept this theory for such examples for many years, and have yet to be given a clear example, or any at all -- nor have I encountered a single one in all the scores of books and articles I have read on this &#39;theory&#39;.

[rioters bloc]

hey RL, thanks for replying&#33; am reading your site now. although the white on black is hurting my eyes a bit (its 1am here and i&#39;ll be up all night :P)

what do you believe drives social change then? i tend to agree with you but i&#39;m unsure about the alternatives.

sorry for being such a n00b.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The class war drives social change -- mediated by the inter-play between the forces and relations of production.

I might change that background colour&#33; Loads of people do not like it&#33;

[Pandii]

Rioters Bloc_
Rosa&#39;s essays are really great, teaching the n00b to the advanvced believer in DM, or the advanced opposer to DM&#33;
I really enjoy the way she writes, and have used many of her examples and questions when backing up my own dis-belief in the DM idea.
Let us know about your paper when it&#39;s done&#33;

Pandii xx

[Entrails Konfetti]

That piece written by Alan Woods that Red Lenin posted-- the damned scroll bar wouldn&#39;t stop shrinking. Honestly, how can anyone have time or the attention span to read that&#33;

Trotsky: "A pound of sugar isn&#39;t the same as the other pound of sugar".

How informative.

Really the best thing when consideriong social uphevals, think in some terms of psychology-- but not in the rigid theories created by Doctors, only think of it in the sense of what people are capable of (like what Milgram did, he didn&#39;t prove a point with his experiment, he just showed what people do), know a bit of sociology (you will coincidentally if you understand class-struggle), and most importantly history, but not in "just the facts", think of how societies developed, and where they might go.

Its simple.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Of course, Milgram&#39;s &#39;experiments&#39; were highly artificial, and thus are no indication of what people &#39;will do&#39;.

And Woods&#39; &#39;arguments&#39; are all taken apart at my site.

By the way, Pandi -- thanks for those comments.

Glad my work is of some help. :)

[Hiero]

The class war drives social change -- mediated by the inter-play between the forces and relations of production.

I might change that background colour! Loads of people do not like it!

What forces? And what does "inter-play" between these forces and relations of production mean?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hiero:


And what does "inter-play" between these forces and relations of production mean?

I'll fill this gaping hole in your Marxist education just as soon as you explain what a 'dialectical contradiction' is, and why Mao's theory (indeed, why dialectics in general) does not imply that change is in fact impossible:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1350764&postcount=23

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1350765&postcount=24

Have a nice fume...:)

[Hiero]

Hiero:



I'll fill this gaping hole in your Marxist education you just as soon as you explain what a 'dialectical contradiction' is, and why Mao's theory (indeed, why dialectics in general) does not imply that change is in fact impossible:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1350764&postcount=23

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1350765&postcount=24

Have a nice fume...:)
What is this?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hiero:


What is this?

It's called a "reply"

Looks like your comprehension is more severely limited than even I had imagined.

Anyway, let me know if the above sentence is too difficult for you...:)

[Hiero]

Hiero:



It's called a "reply"

Looks like your comprehension is more severely limited than even I had imagined.

Anyway, let me know if the above sentence is too difficult for you...:)
It is you who is facing difficulty, you can't even explain what you mean by inter play, and what you include as forces. I am guessing you just through these generalisation in because you assume no one to really ask.

But this is your style, you make an insult and post a link to large amounts of nothing to avoid debate.

You really are pathetic.

[Decolonize The Left]

It is you who is facing difficulty, you can't even explain what you mean by inter play, and what you include as forces. I am guessing you just through these generalisation in because you assume no one to really ask.

But this is your style, you make an insult and post a link to large amounts of nothing to avoid debate.

You really are pathetic.

Actually, the link most likely answers your question. Whether or not you wish to take the time to educate yourself is your choice - Rosa laid it out there for you to use should you choose.

Also, "interplay" is an interaction between two designated subjects - in this case, the subjects are the relations of production and the forces of production. You can conceive of these general terms as the worker-employer/proletariat-capitalist relation, and the means of production (forces). At least that's how I interpret the quote.

- August

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that AW, but your reasonableness is wasted on dialectically-distracted comrades like Hiero here. Indeed, I was rather like you back in the 1980s, but 25 years of hatred, lies and abuse has taught me otherwise.

Hence my open contempt.

[Hiero]

Actually, the link most likely answers your question. Whether or not you wish to take the time to educate yourself is your choice - Rosa laid it out there for you to use should you choose.

Her outlay of her ideas is horrible, I am not going to read through it.


Also, "interplay" is an interaction between two designated subjects - in this case, the subjects are the relations of production and the forces of production. You can conceive of these general terms as the worker-employer/proletariat-capitalist relation, and the means of production (forces). At least that's how I interpret the quote.

Well you can assume that is what she really means. But unless she can say in her own words I have no idea what she is talking about, it sounds very general with no real meaning.

It sounds like she has just replaced the word contradiction from the Marxist analysis, I can't see how two seperate things such as forces of production (if I asssume that is what she means by "forces) and relations of production simply "interplay".

I have read in Marxist analysis how the relations of production and the productive forces form a system, and in such a system as capitalism they contradict. I have never heard how they "interplay".

But Rosa is going to have to explain in her own words what she means by these two things interplaying. Though she wont, and can assume she has just thrown the words out there as a replacement for the dialectical-materialist analysis.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hiero:


Her outlay of her ideas is horrible, I am not going to read through it.

Good -- stay ignorant; you are only a danger to yourself in that state.


Well you can assume that is what she really means. But unless she can say in her own words I have no idea what she is talking about, it sounds very general with no real meaning.

It sounds like she has just replaced the word contradiction from the Marxist analysis, I can't see how two seperate things such as forces of production (if I asssume that is what she means by "forces) and relations of production simply "interplay".

I have read in Marxist analysis how the relations of production and the productive forces form a system, and in such a system as capitalism they contradict. I have never heard how they "interplay".

But Rosa is going to have to explain in her own words what she means by these two things interplaying. Though she wont, and can assume she has just thrown the words out there as a replacement for the dialectical-materialist analysis.

This is a bit rich coming from someone who can't explain the phrase 'dialectical copntradiction', and does not know how to show that Mao's theory (and that of other dialecticians in general) does not imply that change is impossible.:lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

See what I mean AW! I have had 25 years of this sort of pig ignorance from dialectically-distracted comrades.

[black magick hustla]

i never understood why people found it appealing to obfuscate clarity with dumb terms. i think marxists need to understand the importance of clarity in the face of philosophers and charlatans. one of the reasons why the ruling class can control people is because they appeal to things that sound really complex but in reality are nonsense or, are simpler.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Marmot, it's their opiate. I have posted this before, but here it is again:


1) The founders of this quasi-religion weren't workers; they came from a class that educated their children in the classics and in philosophy. This tradition taught that behind appearances there is a hidden world, accessible to thought alone, which is more real than the material universe we see around us.

This way of seeing things was invented by ideologues of the ruling class, who viewed reality this way. They invented it because if you belong to, benefit from or help run a society which is based on gross inequality, oppression and exploitation, you can keep order in several ways.

The first and most obvious way is through violence. This will work for a time, but it is not only fraught with danger, it is costly and it stifles innovation (among other things).

Another way is to persuade the majority (or a significant section of "opinion formers" and administrators, at least) that the present order either works for their benefit, is ordained of the 'gods', or that it is 'natural' and cannot be fought, reformed or negotiated with.

Hence, a world-view is necessary for the ruling-class to carry on ruling in the same old way. While the content of this ruling ideology may have changed with each change in the mode of production, its form has remained largely the same for thousands of years: Ultimate Truth is ascertainable by thought alone, and it can therefore be imposed on reality dogmatically.

So, these non-worker founders of our movement, who had been educated to believe there was this hidden world that governed everything, looked for principles in that invisible world that told them that change was inevitable, and part of the cosmic order. Enter dialectics, courtesy of the dogmatic ideas of a ruling-class mystic called Hegel.

2) That allowed the founders of this quasi-religion to think of themselves as special, as prophets of the new order, which workers, alas, could not quite grasp because of their defective education and reliance on ordinary language and 'common sense'.

Fortunately, history had predisposed these prophets to ascertain the truth about reality for them, which meant they were their 'naturally-ordained' leaders. That in turn meant these 'leaders' were also teachers of the 'ignorant masses', who could thus legitimately substitute themselves for the unwashed majority -- in 'their own interests', you understand, since the masses were too caught up in 'commodity fetishism' to see the truth for themselves.

And that is why DM is a world-view, and why it serves as an opiate.

In that case, it is why dialecticians cling on to this theory like grim death (and become very emotional (and abusive!) when it is attacked by yours truly), since it provides them with a source of consolation that, despite outward appearances to the contrary, and because this hidden world of 'essences' tells them that dialectical Marxism will one day be a success, everything is in fact peachy, and nothing in the core theory needs changing -- in spite of the fact that that core theory says everything changes! Hence, it is ossified into a dogma, and imposed on reality. A rather nice unity of opposites for you to ponder.

So, this 'theory' insulates the militant mind from the facts.

In that case:

Dialectics is the sigh of the depressed dialectician, the heart of their heartless world. It is the opiate of the party. The abolition of dialectics as the illusory happiness of the party hack is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about their condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

[el_chavista]

Still we, communists from backward countries, use those terms like loanwords to our leftist slang. So, whenever a comrade complete a task we congratulate her by saying "Hey, you got a dialectical understanding of the situation!" But when he fails we tell him "Oh, you didn't grasp enough dialectically the problem."

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

El C, indeed. The jargon one finds in dialectics works like a talisman -- a lucky charm or magic word.

[Hiero]

So what is this interplay between "forces" and relations of production?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hiero:


So what is this interplay between "forces" and relations of production?

Once more:

I'll fill this gaping hole in your Marxist education just as soon as you explain what a 'dialectical contradiction' is, and why Mao's theory (indeed, why dialectics in general) does not imply that change is in fact impossible:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...4&postcount=23

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...5&postcount=24

[Hiero]

I have put forward my explanation, you choose to take no notice of it.

I am just going to assume that you have no idea what your talking about and used these terms as buzz-words and they have no real meaning.

If you really are that petty and you have an explanation but wont explain it to me untill I acccept your doctrine, then why don't you post your explanation for other people to see?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hiero:


I have put forward my explanation, you choose to take no notice of it.

Where?


I am just going to assume that you have no idea what your talking about and used these terms as buzz-words and they have no real meaning.

Assume what you like; until I see a satisfactory explanation (the first in nearly 200 years!) of the obscure phrase 'dialectical contradiction', as well as your solution to the fatal defect I exposed in dialectics (i.e., that if it were true, change would be impossible), I have absolutely no intention of answering a single question of yours along these lines.


If you really are that petty and you have an explanation but wont explain it to me untill I acccept your doctrine, then why don't you post your explanation for other people to see?

I have no 'doctrine' (as I have pointed out to you several times) -- you mystics are the doctrinaire wallies around here.

[Hiero]

Ugh, you're pathetic.

I put forward my explanation in another thread which you have read. I provided original responses not reposting of old long drawn out threads and did so in a manner of a few paragraphs. I never asked you to agree nor expected you to accept my explanation and I do not care if you went either way. However I put my view forward and that is the point. Now you can't do the same, because you'e pathetic.

If you wont show other users include myself any civil response on this forum, do not in the future every respond or quote my any any thread regarding anything that is about dialectics. If you do I will continue to ignore your responses untill you choose to grow up and provide responses when your theory is questioned.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hiero:


Ugh, you're pathetic.

Ah, the by-now-familar-dialectical-abuse. No change there then.

[So, Heraclitus was wrong. Some things do not change. You mystics are living proof of the falsity of at least this dialectical dogma. Thanks for that!]


I put forward my explanation in another thread which you have read. I provided original responses not reposting of old long drawn out threads and did so in a manner of a few paragraphs. I never asked you to agree nor expected you to accept my explanation and I do not care if you went either way. However I put my view forward and that is the point. Now you can't do the same, because you'e pathetic.

Which thread was that?

This one:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mao-39-contradictions-t64308/index.html?p=986357

If so, perhaps you can point out where your path-breaking reply is to be found.

If not, then which thread contained this mythical response of yours?

And if it was so short and to the point, as you say, you should be able to repeat it with ease -- and I will trash it once more.


If you wont show other users include myself any civil response on this forum, do not in the future every respond or quote my any any thread regarding anything that is about dialectics. If you do I will continue to ignore your responses untill you choose to grow up and provide responses when your theory is questioned.

You gave up the right to merit a 'civil response' from me the moment you began to verbally abuse me many moons ago.

And I hope you do continue to ignore me -- I'd hate to think I was responsible for separating you from your ignorance.