On the irrelevance

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Check this dialogue out:


(ANTI-)DIALECTICAL DIALOGUE No 1

The Transformation of Quantity into Quality

Worker: So anyway, we'd only planned an ordinary peaceful protest outside the factory gates, but far more turned up than we expected – a real morale booster. Suddenly somebody shouts "the gate's open" and everybody just starts piling in – that's what the mood was like by that time, we thought we could do whatever we bloody liked. It wasn't long before the lot of us were inside, and that's when the occupation kicked off, I suppose, even though nobody planned it out like that.

Dialectician: Yeah, exciting stuff, I was reading about it. Wish I'd been there myself – the atmosphere must have been great. … You know, there's a name for that kind of thing.

Worker: What do you mean?

Dialectician: Well, we call it "the transformation of quantity into quality".

Worker: Eh?

Dialectician: The transformation of quantity into quality. And vice versa too.

Worker: Sorry mate, you've lost me.

Dialectician: It's OK, it’s OK. I know it doesn't mean anything to you now, but I was going to explain.

Worker: Yeah, well … Alright, look, here's the deal: you get me another pint of this and I'm all ears. Ask for the Hoegaarden – they've got it on tap now.

Dialectician (returning with the drinks): Here you are. Alright then, you ready?
Worker: Thanks, mate, cheers. Just a sec'. (Drinks back, then nods)

Dialectician: Well … what I meant was that all the stuff you were telling me about, you know, the protest starting out as one thing, then as more people keep coming it turns into something else, yeah? So a run-of-the mill protest becomes an occupation. That make sense?

Worker: Yeah, course it does – that's pretty much what I just told you.

Dialectician: Well let's take it a step further then. More people joining the protest, that's a change in quantity. But when the protest turns into an occupation, that's a change in quality. Yes?

Worker: I suppose so. … You're leaving out the bit about the gate opening, but go ahead.

Dialectician: Right, well this is what I meant a couple of minutes ago when I said we had a name for it: "the transformation of quantity into quality", you see? This is what we call a dialectical law, a law explaining how things change.

Worker: Maybe I shouldn't butt in yet, but I thought I'd already explained what happened as well as your law of change did – better, in fact.

Dialectician: Yes, well, the point is these laws – this is just one of them – these laws can explain all kinds of change, not just what happened here last week. I mean, you may need to fill in a few details for particular cases, but think of the kind of, you know, leverage it would give you if you knew the laws that tell you how things change, if you knew what they were. It could be political change, like getting rid of Blair, or social change, like getting rid of capitalism.

Worker: Now that'd be the day.

Dialectician: Or it could be change in nature, like, you know, the evolution of different species … or like the Big Bang and the formation of the universe.

Worker: Well … I thought scientists were managing to cover all that kind of thing well enough by themselves. … Or are you saying that they're really using your laws of change, maybe sometimes without knowing it?

This was not written by yours truly, but you can read the rest at my site, here:

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

[seraphim]

LMAO, I did think it was written by you actually that's a nice easy way to explain why most (well all I guess) dialetical discussions are BS.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

No, it was written by 'Babeuf', a collaborator of mine.

[seraphim]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 02, 2007 12:12 pm
No, it was written by 'Babeuf', a collaborator of mine.
Well you can tell him/her that it's ammusing and informative so which ever they were going for they acomplished both.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

He/she plans more of the same in the coming months on other aspects of this useless 'theory'.

[BobKKKindle$]

That was an amusing read :D

I know you do take an interest in this area, Rosa, but I would be interested to know why you consider refuting dialectics too be of so much importance. The article suggests that dialectics can obscure the nature of class struggle from an analytical point of view, but how does this actually affect the activity of revolutionaries in real life - do you think evaluating material reality and events through dialectical 'reasoning' affects the praxis of Marxists in a negative way?

I don't mean to offend in any way - but aren't there more important aspects of Marxist thought that should be criticised - economic analysis, for example?

EDIT: On your site you say you agree with Historical Materialism. But I have always been under the impression that there are important similarities between the concept of the dialectic and Marx's conception of historical change - for example, the idea that there exists within capitalism and other modes of production a 'contradiction' that develops over time and results in revolutionary change is, at least on a superficial level - to me, someone who has not read much in the dialectic - similar to the dialectical and Hegelian concept of thesis, antithesis, and quantative and qualitative change. Interested to hear your opinion on this.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BK, thanks for that. No offense taken!! :)

The reason I have devoted the last ten years to his work (indeed I have been working on and off this project for the last 25) is because I think I can show that this 'theory' is not only useless, it is part of the reason why revolutionary socialism is so unsuccessful.

The details behind that estimation can be found in Essay Nine Parts One and Two at my site, or in summary here:

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

Now, I do not think I can contribute anything to Marxist economic theory (but I will endeavour to revamp historical materialism along non-Hegelian lines when I have finished trashing dialectics, in about another ten years' time!). So that is why I do not do what you suggest.

Now, if I am right, and this theory is part of the reason for our long-term failure, then the theoretical struggle I am engaged on is one of the most important in our entire history.

That is why I am devoting so much effort to it.

Added on edit:

Well, as I noted above, I think HM can be re-written along non-Hegelian lines (to retrieve the ideas that in fact influenced Hegel -- both he and Marx derived HM from the Scottish School of Historical Materialists, Ferguson, Millar, Smith and Hume -- and probably also from Rousseau, Herder and Vico).

The 'thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis' idea derives from a mis-reading of Hegel.

There is more on that here:

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

Fourth post down.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Heh, its kinda like that Socrates Vs Jesus dialog, where the worker is Socrates!!

[babeuf]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 12:12 pm
LMAO, I did think it was written by you actually that's a nice easy way to explain why most (well all I guess) dialetical discussions are BS.
Seraphim: I, babeuf, confirm my existence and my authorship of that dialogue. I'm currently employed as Rosa's butler (I'm attempting a union drive among the kitchen staff, but keep that to yourself).


Well you can tell him/her that it's ammusing and informative so which ever they were going for they acomplished both.

You're welcome. I wrote it because after a series of disputes over dialectical materialism early this year, I saw too many dialectical comrades evading awkward questions by keeping discussion up in the clouds of metaphysics. At the same time, ironically, they also condemned their anti-dialectical critics for being too technical, as if their own dialectical gibberish was the common currency of shop-floor conversation.

The dialogue was an attempt to force discussion back down to earth. The starting point was a real industrial dispute taking place at the time of writing. My fictitious dialectician may not seem like the brightest spark, but I can assure you I had to make him sharper than many of his real-world counterparts, in order to stop the dialogue from collapsing too early. Almost every twist and turn in the dialogue is based on tendencies I've observed among dialecticians in real discussion.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrades might like to know that I have sacked this individual for letting it be known I have a butler.

[PS anyone want to apply for a vacancy...?]

[babeuf]

Originally posted by bloody_capitalist_sham+June 02, 2007 02:07 pm--> (bloody_capitalist_sham @ June 02, 2007 02:07 pm)Heh, its kinda like that Socrates Vs Jesus dialog, where the worker is Socrates!![/b]
Thanks BCS, but to be pedantic, Socrates and Jesus were both mystics, whereas my dialogue had an advantage: only one mystic.

Although to give Jesus his due, from what little can be gleaned about him, he was much closer to, say, Moqtada al-Sadr, than to anyone Bush would invite to lead a prayer-breakfast.


Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 12:44 pm
The article suggests that dialectics can obscure the nature of class struggle from an analytical point of view, but how does this actually affect the activity of revolutionaries in real life - do you think evaluating material reality and events through dialectical 'reasoning' affects the praxis of Marxists in a negative way?
The "analytical point of view" is neither here nor there: Dialectical Materialism "obscures the nature of class struggle" from a revolutionary socialist point of view. But don't get me (or Rosa) wrong. We don't think for a moment that Dialectical Materialism is some kind of malign spirit tripping up revolutionaries. Revolutionaries adopt DM for material reasons: an incoherent and hermetic discourse is of great assistance when events don't go our way - it enables them to deny reality much more readily, and gives them a tool they can use to command assent from others in the same organisation. This may seem fine in the short term as a morale booster for some, but it cuts us off from other workers and reduces our credibility. In the long run, it has played a significant part in destroying political organisations that could have played a useful role. Now that's quite a big deal, I would say - for revolutionaries, not analytic philosophers. (I have some very concrete recent instances in mind, but I'm afraid I can't discuss them in a public forum, for reasons of organisational loyalty, as I think you'll understand. ;) )


Rosa [email protected] 02, 2007 06:59 pm
Comrades might like to know that I have sacked this individual for letting it be known I have a butler.
Careful Madam, you may force me to divulge information about certain distasteful, um ... favours :wacko: you demanded before you would allow me the occasional use of your summer villa in Capri.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Now I understand Rosa, but Babeuf, in writing such informative AND amusing articles (not to mention plain enough for me to understand what the hell diamat is beyond the four terms and related etc. of dialectics, thesis, antithesis, and synthesis), is turning YOU into HIS dialectician. ;) :D


Although to give Jesus his due, from what little can be gleaned about him, he was much closer to, say, Moqtada al-Sadr, than to anyone Bush would invite to lead a prayer-breakfast.

Interesting that you bring up that rather ordinary cleric :huh:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hey Babeuf, baby, that is the last time I will let you wear my underwear. :angry:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

And Hammer, read this about 'thesis/anti-thesis/synthesis':

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

Fourth post down.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I see, such that what I thought was Hegelian thought was little more than "vulgar Hegelianism" - much like the vulgar Marxism ("economism") of the Big-E Economists of Lenin's day and of today (plain economic determinism and Clinton's "it's the economy, stupid" slogan).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

You can console yourself with the fact that even Marx got this wrong!!

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 02, 2007 10:21 pm
Hey Babeuf, baby, that is the last time I will let you wear my underwear. :angry:
Oh great, anti-dialectics has gone all Alan Ayckbourn :rolleyes:

You posted this pathetic, fictional, strawman argument months ago, Rosa.

It was crap then. It's crap now.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


You posted this pathetic, fictional, strawman argument months ago, Rosa.

It was crap then. It's crap now.

Well, since you are incapable of defending your 'theory', except you use scatological language, any criticism from you is praise indeed.

However, scatological is a step up from dialectical -- so there is hope for you yet.

[babeuf]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 03, 2007 12:58 am
You posted this pathetic, fictional, strawman argument months ago, Rosa. It was crap then. It's crap now.
Mmmm ... That's how I like my men: all abuse and no argument. :wub:

[Wanted Man]

Even though I might be a hopeless dialectical mystic, I also like Hoegaarden. I think we really have some common ground here.

Edit to make this not be spam: it's actually pretty nicely written. Not to the extent that I'd be convinced, but it's a nice light alternative to all the essays. I do definitely agree with how incredibly lame the "boiling water" analogy is.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RJD, I'll pass your comments on to Babeuf!

[Wanted Man]

Also tell him that, while the old Hoe' is great, the best Belgian white is definitely St. Bernardus Witbier. You can't go wrong with monks. Of course, after the revolution, it will be brewed by dialectical monks.

Anyway, the title says "(ANTI-)DIALECTICAL DIALOGUE No 1". Am I to assume that there will be a No 2? Will it be as good, or will the sequel prove disappointing?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

There are more on the way; he's working on dialogue 2 as we speak.

'Dialectical monks', eh, and after the revolution, too??

But I thought religion would vanish along with mysticism, then?

Or, will mysticism only be believed by the openly religious after the revolution??