Scrapping Dialectics: What would be lost?

[Hyacinth]

The assertion that dialectics is somehow central to Marxism, and by extension that you cannot have Marxism without dialectics, is thrown around from time to time. I have never been exactly clear on what exactly would be lost (apart from confusion) if dialectics were to be scrapped? What is it that Marxism would fail to be able to explain? Why would it no longer be Marxism?

Would a proponent of dialectics care to explain this?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Not much, comrade. ;)

"Double-duth" dialectics jargon cannot CONNECT with the workers' movement (again, merger formula).

Now, if some dialectician here wishes to prove me wrong, then let that person illustrate the "dialectics" behind "peace, land, and bread."

[Hyacinth]

Not much, comrade. ;)

"Double-duth" dialectics jargon cannot CONNECT with the workers' movement (again, merger formula).

Now, if some dialectician here wishes to prove me wrong, then let that person illustrate the "dialectics" behind "peace, land, and bread."
Excellent point. I would actually add this to my set of questions: even setting aside the theoretical aspects of dialectics (which I think nonsense), what exactly is suppose to be its practical impact on the communist movement?

[Zurdito]

you would the lose the understanding that all things are permanently changing and that the character of something can never be established by studying the thing itself, but by observing its role as part of and in relation to a permanently developing whole, and udnerstanding the way in which the relation of the whole to that thing define the qualities of that thing, which then act back on the whole, etc.

[Die Neue Zeit]

you would the lose the understanding that all things are permanently changing and that the character of something can never be established by studying the thing itself, but by observing its role as part of and in relation to a permanently developing whole, and understanding the way in which the relation of the whole to that thing define the qualities of that thing, which then act back on the whole, etc.

Zurdito, all of what you just said could have been said in two words instead of one lengthy, quasi-legalese sentence: avoiding reductionism.

[trivas7]

The assertion that dialectics is somehow central to Marxism, and by extension that you cannot have Marxism without dialectics, is thrown around from time to time. I have never been exactly clear on what exactly would be lost (apart from confusion) if dialectics were to be scrapped? What is it that Marxism would fail to be able to explain? Why would it no longer be Marxism?

Would a proponent of dialectics care to explain this?


What would be lost is the entirety of Marxism qua philosophy -- historical materialism which interprets history scientifically. Without a worldview -- historical materialism -- and a methodology -- dialectics -- there's nothing to explain and nothing by which to explain anything.

[trivas7]

Zurdito, all of what you just said could have been said in two words instead of one lengthy, quasi-legalese sentence: avoiding reductionism.

"Avoiding reductionism" doesn't constitute a philosophy.

[Svante]

the truth woul d b e lost.

[Kami]

the truth woul d b e lost.
Care to back that up?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


you would the lose the understanding that all things are permanently changing and that the character of something can never be established by studying the thing itself, but by observing its role as part of and in relation to a permanently developing whole, and udnerstanding the way in which the relation of the whole to that thing define the qualities of that thing, which then act back on the whole, etc.

Not so; not only can we explain change in ordinary language far better than in dialectics, dialectics itself cannot explain change, as I demonstrated here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=986357&postcount=2

So, by scrapping dialectics, we would lose nothing except a theory that has presided over 150 years of almost total failure.

And good riddance...

[Hyacinth]

What would be lost is the entirety of Marxism qua philosophy -- historical materialism which interprets history scientifically. Without a worldview -- historical materialism -- and a methodology -- dialectics -- there's nothing to explain and nothing by which to explain anything.That’s downright idealism. What you’re saying amounts to asserting that the world, somehow, depends on dialectics for its existence.

The world, which is presumably what we’re trying to explain, is still there no matter what methodology you choose. For example, if your pet theory denied gravity, I don’t think you’d be able to jump off a skyscraper (without a parachute) and hope to survive. The world is indifferent to your theories.

[Hyacinth]

Not so; not only can we explain change in ordinary language far better than in dialectics, dialectics itself cannot explain change... Quite right. I would challenge any dialectician to offer a meaningful dialectical statement (if such a thing exists) which cannot be translated into ordinary language. Anything dialectics can do, ordinary language can be better.

[trivas7]

That’s downright idealism. What you’re saying amounts to asserting that the world, somehow, depends on dialectics for its existence.


Not all philosophy is idealist.

It's man who is trying to explain the world; it's man who needs a philosophy to change it.

[trivas7]

Z:
Not so; not only can we explain change in ordinary language far better than in dialectics, dialectics itself cannot explain change, as I demonstrated here:


So all you're saying here is that you're not a Marxist -- which is predicated on dialectical materialism. Fine with me.

[Die Neue Zeit]

No "peace, land, and bread" dialectician-takers so far... :crying:


"Avoiding reductionism" doesn't constitute a philosophy.

Maybe, but it is a challenge for those claiming to be revolutionary Marxists, and reductionism can present itself in a whole manner of forms: binary thinking, traditional schematism, turning necessities into virtues, spontaneism, organizational fetishism, etc. :p

[Hyacinth]

Not all philosophy is idealist.I never claimed that all philosophy was idealist; I stated that dialectics is idealist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism).


It's man who is trying to explain the world; it's man who needs a philosophy to change itHardly. In order to effectively change anything you likely need, at least some, understanding of what you’re trying to change. Not any philosophy will do, especially not ones that are either false, and certainly not those that don’t even qualify for the relatively high position of being able to be false, i.e. those that are nonsense.

[Dean]

The assertion that dialectics is somehow central to Marxism, and by extension that you cannot have Marxism without dialectics, is thrown around from time to time. I have never been exactly clear on what exactly would be lost (apart from confusion) if dialectics were to be scrapped? What is it that Marxism would fail to be able to explain? Why would it no longer be Marxism?

Would a proponent of dialectics care to explain this?


I think that if we were to completely lose the social connotation for the dialectical movement, we would lose a lot of what makes marxism a really analytical system. But I think that we should be able to look at the rest of marxism as it exists analytically, and I don't think dialectics really has much to offer.

[Hyacinth]

So all you're saying here is that you're not a Marxist -- which is predicated on dialectical materialism. Fine with me.You’ve made a claim, that Marxism is predicated on dialectical materialism, without backing it up. That is what is at question here. If this is so, please show us some central component of Marxism that either a) cannot be rephrased into ordinary language, or b) isn’t nonsense that we should abandon.

[Hyacinth]

I think that if we were to completely lose the social connotation for the dialectical movement, we would lose a lot of what makes marxism a really analytical system. But I think that we should be able to look at the rest of marxism as it exists analytically, and I don't think dialectics really has much to offer.Sorry, could you elaborate? I’m afraid I’m not following you. (I’m not even clear on whether you’re opposed to or in support of dialectics).

[Dean]

Sorry, could you elaborate? I’m afraid I’m not following you. (I’m not even clear on whether you’re opposed to or in support of dialectics).

I'm not opposed to it becasue I don't know what opposing it would entail.

I used to think that it was a neat idea, but I was always kind've uncertain, there awas always something missing. Then I realized that it was describign nothing more than serious inquiry, within the framework of a specific dynamic. I think it is therefore needlessly restrictive, and in many cases pretty empty.

Like I pointed out before, I am not really in support of it, because it seems pretty useless. But I think the terminology, and the relevence it has in society, is positive in that it grants a more inquisitive air to what it means to be a marxist.

[Hyacinth]

I'm not opposed to it becasue I don't know what opposing it would entail.

I used to think that it was a neat idea, but I was always kind've uncertain, there awas always something missing. Then I realized that it was describign nothing more than serious inquiry, within the framework of a specific dynamic. I think it is therefore needlessly restrictive, and in many cases pretty empty.

Like I pointed out before, I am not really in support of it, because it seems pretty useless. But I think the terminology, and the relevence it has in society, is positive in that it grants a more inquisitive air to what it means to be a marxist.Alright, thank you, that clears things up. I would agree with you that it is useless, but would go further and say that it is useless precisely because it is nonsense. As for the Hegelian terminology, I think it serves to obscure Marxist ideas, which can easily be communicated in ordinary language, and hence made accessible to ordinary people.

[Led Zeppelin]

So, by scrapping dialectics, we would lose nothing except a theory that has presided over 150 years of almost total failure.

And good riddance...

Hey there Rosa, welcome back to the forum.

I was walking through a bookshop today and came across the book The Parallax View (Short Circuits) wherein Zizek attempts to rehabilitate dialectics, and apparantly he's quite succesful at it because that book is now considered his magnum opus.

Here's a short description:


Lacanian-Hegelian philosopher and pop culture critic who divides his time between America and Slovenia, Zizek is one of the few living writers to combine theoretical rigor with compulsive readability, and his new volume provides perhaps the clearest elaboration of his theoretical framework thus far. Expatiating on such subjects as Heidegger, neuroscience, the war on terror and The Matrix, he seeks to rehabilitate dialectical materialism by replacing the popular "yin-yang" interpretation (the struggle between opposites that ultimately form a whole) with a theory of the "gap which separates the One from itself." One example is a tribe whose two subgroups draw mutually exclusive plans of their village: their deadlock "implies a hidden reference to a constant... an imbalance in social relations that prevented the community from stabilizing itself into a harmonious whole." Discussing Abu Ghraib and pedophilia in the Catholic Church, Zizek explores how an ideological edifice is sustained by underground transgressions: "Law can be sustained only by a sovereign power which reserves for itself the right... to suspend the rule of law(s) on behalf of the Law itself." Based on his interpretation of Lacanian psychoanalysis, he envisions a society in which public law would no longer sustain itself through its own obscene breach.

Now, you just claimed that dialectics has had nothing but 150 years of failure, this while Engels, Lenin and Trotsky all claimed that their understanding of dialectics made their ideas applicable and more importantly correct.

If it really had nothing but 150 years of failures, don't you think people like Lenin, Trotsky, Zizek, Sartre etc. would have given up on it already? Or are they just too dogmatic in your opinion?

You see, this is why I can never take your position on this matter seriously. It implies that you are right when others much more knowledgable than you were wrong.

EDIT: By the way, the only reason I won't debate you head-on about dialectics is because I admittedly have not studied the matter thoroughly. Lenin said it was quite a complicated matter, and struggled with it himself, so it's not something you can do by just reading one or two books. When I have studied the matter though, I will definitely get back to you and refute you in debate, like CommunistLeague and Severian already have. :)

[Hit The North]

Quite right. I would challenge any dialectician to offer a meaningful dialectical statement (if such a thing exists) which cannot be translated into ordinary language. Anything dialectics can do, ordinary language can be better.
What does that mean? You're just saying that the jargon used by dialecticians could just be replaced with a different jargon. That would work if your "ordinary language" described the same patterns of change which dialectics aspires to describe.

Because it's not an issue of linguistics. As you point out, reality does not depend upon what language, what concepts are used to describe it - it exists independently of, and obliviously to, how we speak or think about it. Although this is a grossly simplistic way of seeing it and, crucially, not the whole story when it comes to social reality.

Of course to really understand the relationship between how the world is and how we conceive, speak and act in it, we need the ability to model a complex, inter-related causality which is what dialectics seeks to do.

Now, above, Rosa argues, as do you, that history and social change can be explained using ordinary language. However, that doesn't tell us who's "ordinary language" you're referring to. Adam Smith's? Jeremy Bentham's? Adolph Hitler's? George W. Bush's? In fact, apart from sounding like a sensible dose of Anglo realism, it doesn't tell us anything at all.

Instead of you anti-dialecticians coming on here and telling us what you're against, why not tell us what you're actually for.

[trivas7]

I never claimed that all philosophy was idealist; I stated that dialectics is idealist

This is admission that you don't know what dialectics vis-a-vis Marxism is.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Instead of you anti-dialecticians coming on here and telling us what you're against, why not tell us what you're actually for.

^^^ Historical materialism???

[trivas7]

Maybe, but it is a challenge for those claiming to be revolutionary Marxists, and reductionism can present itself in a whole manner of forms: binary thinking, traditional schematism, turning necessities into virtues, spontaneism, organizational fetishism, etc. :p

What this has to do with the original post re dialectics & its relevance to Marxism is beyond me.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CZ:


That would work if your "ordinary language" described the same patterns of change which dialectics aspires to describe.

First of all, ordinary language contains literally thousands of words that can be used to depict countless types of change, in a level of detail and precision unmatched even by science. Here are just a few:


Vary, alter, adjust, amend, revise, edit, bend, straighten, twist, turn, wrap, pluck, tear, mend, mutate, transmute, sharpen, modify, develop, expand, contract, constrict, swell, flow, differentiate, divide, unite, fast, slow, rapid, hasty, melt, harden, drip, cascade, drop, pick up, fade, wind, unwind, meander, peel, scrape, file, scour, dislodge, is, was, will be, will have been, had, will have had, went, go, going, gone, lost, age, flood, crumble, disintegrate, erode, corrode, rust, flake, percolate, tumble, mix, separate, cut, chop, crush, grind, shred, slice, dice, saw, spread, fall, climb, rise, ascend, descend, slide, slip, roll, spin, oscillate, undulate, rotate, wave, quickly, slowly, instantaneously, suddenly, gradually, snap, join, resign, part, rapidly, sell, buy, lose, find, search, cover, uncover, stretch, compress, lift, put down, win, ripen, germinate, conceive, gestate, die, rot, perish, grow, decay, fold, many, more, less, fewer, steady, steadily, jerkily, smoothly, quickly, very, extremely, exceedingly, intermittent, continuous, continual, push, pull, slide, jump, run, walk, swim, drown, immerse, break, charge, retreat, assault, dismantle, pulverise, disintegrate, dismember, replace, undo, reverse, repeal, enact, quash, hour, minute, second, instant, invent, innovate, rescind, destroy, annihilate, boil, freeze, thaw, cook, liquefy, solidify, congeal, neutralise, flatten, crimple, evaporate, condense, dissolve, mollify, pacify, calm down, terminate, initiate, instigate, enrage, inflame, protest, challenge, expel, eject, remove, overthrow, expropriate, scatter, gather, assemble, defeat, strike, revolt, riot, march, demonstrate, rebel, campaign, agitate, organise…

More details here:

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

Secondly, dialectics can neither describe nor explain change; that was established here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=986357&postcount=2


Because it's not an issue of linguistics. As you point out, reality does not depend upon what language, what concepts are used to describe it - it exists independently of, and obliviously to, how we speak or think about it. Although this is a grossly simplistic way of seeing it and, crucially, not the whole story when it comes to social reality.

It may not depend on language, but we certainly use language to depict it, and here ordinary language beats dialectics into a pulp.


Now, above, Rosa argues, as do you, that history and social change can be explained using ordinary language. However, that doesn't tell us who's "ordinary language" you're referring to. Adam Smith's? Jeremy Bentham's? Adolph Hitler's? George W. Bush's? In fact, apart from sounding like a sensible dose of Anglo realism, it doesn't tell us anything at all.

The ordinary language of the working class, the language you use every day (when you are not trying to 'philosophise'), the language found in Socialist Worker (minus the Hegelian gobbledygook -- which, mercifully, is very rarely found in that fine paper). Examples given above.


Instead of you anti-dialecticians coming on here and telling us what you're against, why not tell us what you're actually for.

Speaking for myself, the same things as SW:


What does the SWP do?

Build the movement

Whether in opposition to war, racism or privatisation, we have thrown ourselves into building the biggest mobilisations possible. The last few years have shown how the actions of ordinary people through strikes, protests and everyday resistance provide hope for transforming our world. We believe the greater this movement, the greater the chance of putting an end to the global dominance of capitalism and war.

Keep it broad

Long manifestos don’t win such struggles — practical unity does. We fight alongside anybody or any organisation that wants to build the movement. The anti-war movement has gained its strength from its unity and breadth. That’s why we fight to main the principles unity of all the coalitions and campaigns with which we are involved. We respect people with ideas that are different from ours. So, while we seek to persuade people of our revolutionary ideas, we resist moves to narrow the movement to those who are already part of the radical left.

Keep it radical

We believe the anti-war movement is stronger because of the anti-imperialism at its core. The movement for global justice is stronger for its anti-capitalism and stronger still when it links to working class resistance. We strive to be the anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist voice of the movements we build. We want to win fellow activists to these ideas. Millions of people are already drawing the connections between the war on Iraq, the occupation of Palestine, the bleeding dry of the global south, attacks on working people in Britain and the global rule of profit. We seek to deepen that process.

Fight to win

At the beginning of the 21st century humanity faces poverty, war and environmental destruction. In the SWP we believe we have to seize the opportunity to put an end to the barbarity of capitalism and fight to create a different kind of society. There has rarely been a better or a more necessary time to show that another world is possible.

http://www.swp.org.uk/about.php

Not an ounce of dialectics in the above, and amazingly, it's written in ordinary language!

Anyone would think they were trying to communicate with workers!

The very idea...

[Die Neue Zeit]

trivas7, my original post lambasted dialectical "analysis" and jargon for being incapable of connecting with the workers' movement. I then responded to Zurdito's quasi-legalese response above. Then you said that "avoiding reductionism doesn't constitute a philosophy."

My response that you quoted was a rebuttal to your remark.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


So all you're saying here is that you're not a Marxist -- which is predicated on dialectical materialism. Fine with me.

1) This would be fine if Marxism was set of dogmas cast in stone; but it isn't.

2) Like any science, Marxism has to reject that which is incorrect and which does not work. In that case, dialectics should be dropped into the trash can of history.

3) I challenge you to try to respond to my thorough demolition of this mystical 'theory'. Links above, and in my signature.

4) I have been a revolutionary Marxist now for over 25 years, and believe in a workers revolution (and the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc.) more now that back when I joined.

5) I would never accuse you of not being a Marxist, and resent your attempt to say that of me.

6) As I have shown several times at this site, Marx also rejected this mystical theory. For example, here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1125488&postcount=11

But more fully here:

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

So I am in excellent company.

[trivas7]

You’ve made a claim, that Marxism is predicated on dialectical materialism, without backing it up. That is what is at question here. If this is so, please show us some central component of Marxism that either a) cannot be rephrased into ordinary language, or b) isn’t nonsense that we should abandon.

I'm sorry, but this is too silly to argue re. Marx writes perfectly ordinary language that anyone with normal intelligence can understand. It's not the language you disagree with, it's Marxism qua philosophy that you disagree with.

[Hit The North]

^^^ Historical materialism???

Fine. Now give me a thorough outline of this method without mentioning the interconnections of phenomena such as nature and human society; forces & relations of production; or material relations and ideology, which Marxist dialectics attempts to understand.

[Hit The North]

Rosa, it's nice to have you back :). But you talk as if the limits of our analysis of the world begins and ends with a copy of Socialist Worker. If that was the case, why do we bother with ISJ?

Besides, my point above was that its not the words that are important but the way they are mobilised into conceptual tools which help us to understand the world around us. If the truth of theoretical argument came down to who deployed the most "ordinary language" then the most philistine argument would always prevail - and your mate, Wittgenstein, could be consigned to the dustbin.

EDITED to add: besides employing a dialectic analysis certainly doesn't preclude anyone from using all those words for change you mentioned.

[Die Neue Zeit]

CZ, I think Rosa is more well versed in HM than I am. Sufficed to say, at least I've got my geocentric model (including the magnetosphere, which is affected by the core :D ). ;)

[Hit The North]

CZ, I think Rosa is more well versed in HM than I am. Sufficed to say, at least I've got my geocentric model (including the magnetosphere, which is affected by the core :D ). ;)

Yes but your, ahem, analogy aside, answer the question. You're fond of firing little broadsides against dialectics, tell me what you think and stop hiding behind Rosa.

EDITED to add: There are a number of attempts to outline a non-dialectical version of historical materialism. Which do you think is the best one?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Fine. Now give me a thorough outline of this method without mentioning the interconnections of phenomena such as nature and human society; forces & relations of production; or material relations and ideology, which Marxist dialectics attempts to understand.

The key word here is "attempts." I just think that dialectics has worn out its usefulness, given the increased information content amongst the general population, as well as given the shifts in language.

Yes, there are interconnections, forces and relations, etc. But using a method more suitable for ideas (the idealism of Hegel) to describe matter, energy, material interactions, etc... well...

For example, the merger formula that I speak of is NOT the unity of opposites (because there is no fundamentally "hostile" relationship between political socialism and Marxism on the one hand and the workers' movements on the other). So what "dialectical law" can be used, then? Totality (which allegedly "describes" parallels and other distant relationships)?




EDITED to add: There are a number of attempts to outline a non-dialectical version of historical materialism. Which do you think is the best one?

Again, I'm not as well-versed in HM as Rosa. However, I've got old threads debunking the notion that Stalin's post-revisionist successors were same-old, same-old "Marxist-Leninists" (Stalinists):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenin-stalin-and-t66656/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/limitations-directly-materialist-t68278/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/two-stalinisms-t63356/index.html?t=63356

[Hit The North]

For example, the merger formula that I speak of is NOT the unity of opposites (because there is no fundamentally "hostile" relationship between political socialism and Marxism on the one hand and the workers' movements on the other). So what "dialectical law" can be used, then? Totality (which allegedly "describes" parallels and other distant relationships)?No one has suggested that your merger formula has anything to do with the unity of opposites. Nevertheless, the relationship between the communists and the working class is a living relation. The historical movement towards merger would be conditioned by levels of class consciousness which themselves are influenced by levels of class struggle which is dependent upon the material fortunes of capital, which itself is dependent upon the success of regimes of exploitation which are, to a certain extent, reliant upon the coercive power of the capitalist state which itself can be off-set by the organized resistance of organised labour, which in turn impacts upon levels of class struggle and class consciousness, etcetera through our dialectical spiral of mediation.

Now, I've just dashed that off and it's perhaps not analytically accurate but you get the point?

[Die Neue Zeit]

To be blunt, you might as well have used the words "cyclical relationship." ;)

Furthermore, there are points in that cycle that can connected to one another without having to be dependent on just one factor: the historical movement towards the merger can be conditioned directly by the material fortunes of capital, as well as clarity in language, and so on. ;)

[Hit The North]

To be blunt, you might as well have used the words "cyclical relationship." ;)


And if I had, would it be any less dialectical?

[Hyacinth]

Now, you just claimed that dialectics has had nothing but 150 years of failure, this while Engels, Lenin and Trotsky all claimed that their understanding of dialectics made their ideas applicable and more importantly correct.

If it really had nothing but 150 years of failures, don't you think people like Lenin, Trotsky, Zizek, Sartre etc. would have given up on it already? Or are they just too dogmatic in your opinion?

You see, this is why I can never take your position on this matter seriously. It implies that you are right when others much more knowledgable than you were wrong.
Philosophers have been wrong on many matters for a lot longer of a period of time than 150 years. Roughly the entire history of metaphysics consists in error upon error carried over from generation to generation due to a misunderstanding of language. Dialectics is just yet another of these errors.

You must keep in mind that dialectics, alongside most metaphysical systems, was constructed prior to the advent of formal logic. Formal logic provides us with a much better tool for understanding certain propositions, and it shows the emptiness of metaphysical jargon. The mere fact that a sentence has a grammatically correct form doesn’t make it meaningful.

Moreover, it isn’t only a few of us here on this board who are anti-dialectics (and, more broadly, anti-metaphysics), but much of the history of 20th century analytic philosophy is the same.


What does that mean? You're just saying that the jargon used by dialecticians could just be replaced with a different jargon. That would work if your "ordinary language" described the same patterns of change which dialectics aspires to describe.

Because it's not an issue of linguistics. As you point out, reality does not depend upon what language, what concepts are used to describe it - it exists independently of, and obliviously to, how we speak or think about it. Although this is a grossly simplistic way of seeing it and, crucially, not the whole story when it comes to social reality.

Of course to really understand the relationship between how the world is and how we conceive, speak and act in it, we need the ability to model a complex, inter-related causality which is what dialectics seeks to do.

As Rosa said, it isn’t an issue of replacing one jargon with another. Ordinary language does a better job of describing these phenomenon than dialectics. In fact, speaking more broadly, many age-old philosophical problems exist only in philosophical language, to paraphrase Wittgenstein, when [ordinary] language goes on holiday. The problem with metaphysics in general, and dialectics in particular, isn’t even that it poorly describes the world, it doesn’t even describe the world at all.

[Hyacinth]

Nevertheless, the relationship between the communists and the working class is a living relation.
This is a good example of a statement that really I don’t understand. And I’m not being intentionally obtuse. What exactly is a “living relation”?

(I really don’t take any issue with anything that you’ve said following that sentence, that was, more or less, clear; but I fail to see how calling something a “living relation”, whatever that means, illuminates anything, let along the relationship between the communist movement and the working class.)

[Hyacinth]

Fine. Now give me a thorough outline of this method without mentioning the interconnections of phenomena such as nature and human society; forces & relations of production; or material relations and ideology, which Marxist dialectics attempts to understand.I don’t see what any of that has to do with dialectics. Dialectics is all that nonsense about the unity of opposites, changing quantity into quality (or vice versa, I forget which), etc.

Talking about the forces and relations of production, the interaction between the natural world and human society, between technology and human society, etc. doesn’t invoke any queer metaphysical laws such as those mentioned above.

We can talk about the interaction of these things (people, technology, nature, the economy, etc.) without any recourse to the unity of opposites, etc.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CZ:


But you talk as if the limits of our analysis of the world begins and ends with a copy of Socialist Worker. If that was the case, why do we bother with ISJ?

The vast bulk of ISJ is written in ordinary language (with a few technical terms thrown in).

Dialectical gobbledygook rarely appears even there. When it does, I send them a letter complaining, which they never publish. [They sometimes publish my letters the SW, though.]

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=10917

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/SW_Letter_001.htm

But, since Socialist Worker is aimed at speaking to the class, no wonder it uses the language of the class, and refrains from using Hegel-speak.


Besides, my point above was that its not the words that are important but the way they are mobilised into conceptual tools which help us to understand the world around us. If the truth of theoretical argument came down to who deployed the most "ordinary language" then the most philistine argument would always prevail - and your mate, Wittgenstein, could be consigned to the dustbin.

No one supposes that theoretical arguments should always (or typically) be cast in ordinary language; but the impenetrable jargon derived from Hegel is a different matter.

That jargon cannot explain change, as I have have shown.

And I do not know why you mentioned Wittgenstein in this context.


besides employing a dialectic analysis certainly doesn't preclude anyone from using all those words for change you mentioned.

But, dialecticians can only attempt to explain change by using such words, in which case, we can cut the dialectics out, and just use ordinary language at no loss to Marxism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Rosa and CZ, I vividly remember my old dialectics thread on corporate synergy. Then I realized that the notion of "quantity into quality" was nonsense except in the "realm" of ideas:

The physical quantities still exist. For example, the capital assets of the to-be-parent and of the to-be-subsidiary will still remain immediately after the acquisition is ratified by the respective companies' shareholders. It is the combined management style - already a qualitative factor - that improves, which then creates synergy, as measured by an improved share price. However, this "quality" is measurable, so it's more of a quantity.

On the other hand, maybe I'm just babbling on here: quantity (consolidation) -> quality (combined management) -> quantity (improved share price).



BTW, CZ, in regards to "living relations," why don't you just employ the simpler word "dynamics"? :confused:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Look, JR, this useless 'law' only works because practically every single one of its significant terms has been left hoplessly vague and obscure.

No one seems to know what 'quality' means (or rather, as soon as anyone tries to define it, several classic examples that Engels and other fans of the dialectic refer to no longer work), or how long a 'node' (or 'leap') is supposed to last. Furthermore, the thermodynamic dimensions of the system to which 'matter or energy' is supposd to be added have been left vague, too. Moreover, no one seems to know what 'added' means here (does it mean expended' or 'incorporated'?).

Consider an example: you push a crate along a rough floor. Energy has been 'added' (expended) in/to the system (but, what system though?), but you can do this all day long, and nothing new will emerge. Blow the crate up (energy 'added' -- but to what?), and you get change.

The thermodynamic boundaries are also vague, as I said (so much so that we have no idea to what the energy or matter has been 'added'). Here is how I have made this point clear in Essay Seven:


Consider the Bombardier Beetle:

"Bombardier beetles store two separate chemicals (hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide) that are not mixed until threatened. When this occurs the two chemicals are squirted through two tubes, where they are mixed along with small amounts of catalytic enzymes. When these chemicals mix they undergo a violent 'exothermic' chemical reaction. The boiling, foul smelling liquid partially becomes a gas and is expelled with a loud popping sound...." [Wikipedia.]

If the original system is the said beetle, then we have here a change in quality (this animal has turned into noxious beetle), where once we had an ordinary insect, but for no change in matter or overall energy in that animal (contradicting Engels). Sure matter is subsequently lost, but before that happens, the beetle has already changed (or it would not happen!).

Even more annoying, the above change is part of that beetle's 'development', so this example is not susceptible to the challenges we met earlier.

Or consider another --, and one more familiar to most dialecticians than the Bombardier Beetle is --, the Widget in certain cans of beer:

"A can of beer is pressurised by adding liquid nitrogen, which vaporises and expands in volume after the can is sealed, forcing gas and beer into the widget's hollow interior through a tiny hole -- the less beer the better for subsequent head quality. In addition, some nitrogen dissolves in the beer which also contains dissolved carbon dioxide.

"The presence of dissolved nitrogen allows smaller bubbles to be formed with consequent greater creaminess of the subsequent head. This is because the smaller bubbles need a higher internal pressure to balance the greater surface tension, which is inversely proportional to the radius of the bubbles. Achieving this higher pressure is not possible just with dissolved carbon dioxide because of the greater solubility of this gas compared to nitrogen would create an unacceptably large head.

"When the can is opened, the pressure in the can quickly drops, causing the pressurised gas and beer inside the widget to jet out from the hole. This agitation on the surrounding beer causes a chain reaction of bubble formation throughout the beer. The result, when the can is then poured out, is a surging mixture in the glass of very small gas bubbles and liquid.

"This is the case with certain types of draught beer such as draught stouts. In the case of these draught beers, which before dispensing also contain a mixture of dissolved nitrogen and carbon dioxide, the agitation is caused by forcing the beer under pressure through small holes in a restrictor in the tap. The surging mixture gradually settles to produce a very creamy head." [Wikipedia.]

Change in quality, no change in quantity.

It could be argued that there is a difference in matter and/or energy in this can, namely the rung pull and gases near the opening. That is undeniable, but are they significant? What causes the change in quality is the Widget, not the ring pull. This can be seen by the fact that in cans where there is no Widget, the above does not happen.

However, someone could still object that the above differences in matter/energy are relevant to the subsequent change in quality; after all, they set in motion those very changes.

There are several problems with this response. First, we saw above (in Note 5) that there was no question-begging way to define the energy locale of such DM-changes.

Secondly, it is questionable that the removal of a ring pull, and the loss of small quantities of vapour amounts to the addition/removal of matter or energy from the beer/Widget ensemble itself. This, naturally, raises issues touched on in Note 5, and above. What exactly is the DM-system here? Until we are told, this objection itself cannot succeed. Even after we are told, that cannot help but beg the question (as noted above), for it will be plain that any new demarcation lines will have been drawn in order to save this 'Law', making it eminently subjective.

Finally, after the ring pull has been removed, and the small quantity of vapour has escaped, the beer/Widget ensemble will undergo a qualitative change for no new matter or energy input into that system, violating the first 'Law'. Anyone who objects to the 'line' being drawn just here (i.e., corralling-off this system at the Widget/beer boundary just after the ring pull has been removed) will need to advance objective criteria for it to be re-drawn somewhere else.

Now, if that boundary is re-drawn to include the removed ring pull and the escaped vapour, then, once more, no new energy or matter will have been added to that system (i.e., the beer/Widget/ring-pull/vapour ensemble) even while it will have undergone a qualitative change.

Anyway, the aforementioned ring-pull could be removed by a battery-operated device inside the can, controlled by an internal timer, meaning that the resulting change in quality was occasioned by no new energy 'added' to the can/beer/widget/battery-device system.

So, this law is far too vague and imprecise for anyone to be able to say if it applies to 'ideas; or not. And it is entirely unclear how it might be repaired.

[Even if we were able to answer the many other objections to this 'law' that I have raised in the aformetnioned Essay.]

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm

It is high time we forgot Engels (or Hegel) ever mentioned it.

[Hit The North]

Rosa and CZ, I vividly remember my old dialectics thread on corporate synergy. Then I realized that the notion of "quantity into quality" was nonsense except in the "realm" of ideas:

The physical quantities still exist. For example, the capital assets of the to-be-parent and of the to-be-subsidiary will still remain immediately after the acquisition is ratified by the respective companies' shareholders. It is the combined management style - already a qualitative factor - that improves, which then creates synergy, as measured by an improved share price. However, this "quality" is measurable, so it's more of a quantity.


Let's get things straight. Dialectics cannot be applied to explain all changes. If I change my shirt (or push a crate across the floor :rolleyes:) I don't try and apply dialectics to it. That would be ridiculous. Likewise, I don't know if Marx was interested in applying the quantitative-qualitative relation to the merger of particular companies (although that's not to say that the movement towards merger and monopoly is not part of the internal dialectic of capitalism). But just because it can't be applied to everything doesn't mean that it only takes place in the "realm of ideas". In fact, that seems even more mysterious. How can an increase in the quantity of ideas result in their qualitative transformation?


On the other hand, maybe I'm just babbling on here: Well that's a likely theory :lol:


BTW, CZ, in regards to "living relations," why don't you just employ the simpler word "dynamics"? :confused:
So you understood that by using the term "living relation" I was indicating dynamism. So the term wasn't that opaque and mysterious! But, sure, if you prefer the term "dynamic relation" then by all means express yourself that way.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CZ:


Let's get things straight. Dialectics cannot be applied to explain all changes. If I change my shirt (or push a crate across the floor ) I don't try and apply dialectics to it.

Every dialectician I have debated with over the last 25 years has his or her own idea of where the boundaries of this 'theory' lie, and they are all different (which makes this 'theory' eminently subjective); and now we have CZ and his non-dialectical shirt.

But, according to Lenin, this theory explains everything, and all change, in the entire universe, for all of time -- including a glass tubler!


"A tumbler is assuredly both a glass cylinder and a drinking vessel. But there are more than these two properties and qualities or facets to it; there are an infinite number of them, an infinite number of 'mediacies' and inter-relationships with the rest of the world...

"[I]f we are to have true knowledge of an object we must look at and examine all its facets, its connections and 'mediacies'. That is something we cannot ever hope to achieve completely, but the rule of comprehensiveness is a safeguard against mistakes and rigidity….

"[D]ialectical logic requires that an object should be taken in development, in change, in 'self-movement' (as Hegel sometimes puts it). This is not immediately obvious in respect of such an object as a tumbler, but it, too, is in flux, and this holds especially true for its purpose, use and connection with the surrounding world." [Lenin (1921), p.93.]

"Flexibility, applied objectively, i.e., reflecting the all-sidedness of the material process and its unity, is dialectics, is the correct reflection of the eternal development of the world." [Lenin (1961), p.110. Bold emphasis added.]

"Nowadays, the ideas of development…as formulated by Marx and Engels on the basis of Hegel…[encompass a process] that seemingly repeats the stages already passed, but repeats them otherwise, on a higher basis ('negation of negation'), a development, so to speak, in spirals, not in a straight line; -- a development by leaps, catastrophes, revolutions; -- 'breaks in continuity'; the transformation of quantity into quality; -- the inner impulses to development, imparted by the contradiction and conflict of the various forces and tendencies acting on a given body, or within a given phenomenon, or within a given society; -- the interdependence and the closest, indissoluble connection of all sides of every phenomenon…, a connection that provides a uniform, law-governed, universal process of motion -– such are some of the features of dialectics as a richer (than the ordinary) doctrine of development." [Lenin (1914), pp.12-13. Bold emphases added.]

"[Among the elements of dialectics are the following:] [I]nternally contradictory tendencies…in [a thing]…as the sum and unity of opposites…. [E]ach thing (phenomenon, process, etc.)…is connected with every other…. [This involves] not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other….

"In brief, dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This embodies the essence of dialectics….

"The identity of opposites…is the recognition…of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature…. The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their 'self-movement', in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the 'struggle' of opposites…. [This] alone furnishes the key to the self-movement of everything existing….

"The unity…of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute….

"To begin with what is the simplest, most ordinary, common, etc., [sic] with any proposition...: [like] John is a man…. Here we already have dialectics (as Hegel's genius recognized): the individual is the universal…. Consequently, the opposites (the individual is opposed to the universal) are identical: the individual exists only in the connection that leads to the universal. The universal exists only in the individual and through the individual. Every individual is (in one way or another) a universal. Every universal is (a fragment, or an aspect, or the essence of) an individual. Every universal only approximately embraces all the individual objects. Every individual enters incompletely into the universal, etc., etc. Every individual is connected by thousands of transitions with other kinds of individuals (things, phenomena, processes), etc. Here already we have the elements, the germs of the concept of necessity, of objective connection in nature, etc. Here already we have the contingent and the necessary, the phenomenon and the essence; for when we say John is a man…we disregard a number of attributes as contingent; we separate the essence from the appearance, and counterpose the one to the other….

"Thus in any proposition we can (and must) disclose as a 'nucleus' ('cell') the germs of all the elements of dialectics, and thereby show that dialectics is a property of all human knowledge in general." [Lenin (1961), pp.221-22, 357-58, 359-60. Bold emphases added.]

Lenin, V. (1914), 'The Marxist Doctrine', reprinted in Lenin (1970), pp.1-18.

--------, (1921), 'Once Again On The Trade Unions, The Current Situation And The Mistakes Of Comrades Trotsky And Bukharin', reprinted in Lenin (1980), pp.70-106.

--------, (1961), Philosophical Notebooks, Collected Works, Volume 38 (Progress Publishers).

--------, (1970), Karl Marx (Foreign Languages Press).

--------, (1980), On The Question Of Dialectics (Progress Publishers).

Notice, Lenin includes "every phenomenon" and the entire world, for all of time. indeed, for Lenin, every proposition contains the "nucleus" of dialectics!

So the proposition "CZ changed his shirt" attests to the dialectical nature of reality, according to Lenin (and other dialecticians I could quote).

So, much as you would like to remove these ridiculous consequences from the loopy 'theory' that dialecticians unwisely borrowed from Hegel, and 'sanitise' it -- a bit like Christians who try to 'sanitise' the Bible -- it won't wash.

Finally:


But just because it can't be applied to everything doesn't mean that it only takes place in the "realm of ideas". In fact, that seems even more mysterious. How can an increase in the quantity of ideas result in their qualitative transformation?

I note that, just like every other dialectician, you ignore the serious theoretical weaknesses with this 'law' pointed out in my last post -- no surprise there, for dialectics is just Mickey Mouse Science writ large, as I argued in Essay Seven:


As far as the other examples dialecticians use to illustrate this 'Law' are concerned: there are far too few in number that actually work (even if the above difficulties are ignored) to justify the epithet "Law" being attached to one and all. If in comparison, say, Newton's Second Law of motion worked as fitfully as this 'Law' does (or was as vaguely-defined and/or as non-mathematical), physicists would be right to refuse to describe it as a law. Hence, if the rate of change of momentum was proportional to the applied force in only a few instances (and even then this was the case only if key terms were either ignored, ill-defined or twisted out of shape), no one would take it seriously.

But, this is Mickey Mouse Science, after all.

In general, however, the examples usually given by DM-fans to illustrate this 'Law' are almost without exception either anecdotal or impressionistic. If someone were to submit a paper to a science journal purporting to establish the veracity of a new law with the same level of vagueness, imprecision, triteness, lack of detail/mathematics, and overall theoretical naivety, it would be rejected at the first stage. Indeed, dialecticians would themselves treat with derision any attempt to establish, say, either the truth of classical economic theory or the falsity of Marx's own work with an evidential display that was as crassly amateurish as this --, to say nothing of the contempt they would show for such theoretical wooliness. In such circumstances, those who might be quick to cry "pedantry" at the issues raised in this and other Essays published at this site would become devoted pedants, and nit-pick with the best.

Now, anyone who has studied or practiced real science will know this to be true. It is only in books on DM (and internet discussion boards) that Mickey Mouse material of this sort seems acceptable.

Hence, this 'Law' can be made to work in a few selected instances if we bend things enough (and if we fail to define either "quality", "node", or "leap" -- and if we ignore Hegel's own 'definition' of a quality into the bargain). In contrast there are countless examples where this 'Law' does not apply, no matter how we try to twist things.

Why Engels's first 'Law' was ever called a law is therefore something of a Dialectical Mystery.

As I said, Marxism is well rid of this mystical rubbish.

[Dean]

What does that mean? You're just saying that the jargon used by dialecticians could just be replaced with a different jargon. That would work if your "ordinary language" described the same patterns of change which dialectics aspires to describe.

Because it's not an issue of linguistics. As you point out, reality does not depend upon what language, what concepts are used to describe it - it exists independently of, and obliviously to, how we speak or think about it. Although this is a grossly simplistic way of seeing it and, crucially, not the whole story when it comes to social reality.

Of course to really understand the relationship between how the world is and how we conceive, speak and act in it, we need the ability to model a complex, inter-related causality which is what dialectics seeks to do.

Now, above, Rosa argues, as do you, that history and social change can be explained using ordinary language. However, that doesn't tell us who's "ordinary language" you're referring to. Adam Smith's? Jeremy Bentham's? Adolph Hitler's? George W. Bush's? In fact, apart from sounding like a sensible dose of Anglo realism, it doesn't tell us anything at all.

Instead of you anti-dialecticians coming on here and telling us what you're against, why not tell us what you're actually for.


No, the point is that "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" is not a special idea in the history of philosophy or exploratory science. We are simply for rational studies in any field, at least I am.

[Dean]

I'm sorry, but this is too silly to argue re. Marx writes perfectly ordinary language that anyone with normal intelligence can understand. It's not the language you disagree with, it's Marxism qua philosophy that you disagree with.

I'm assuming you've read the German, then?

I've read some very simple translations, and some that made my head spin. The quote in this topic is a very good example:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/importance-human-spontaneity-t79645/index.html

I took one from a book which used a personal translation (~1970, before the work had been translated elsewhere), and the other was from Marxists.org. I would pick the former anyday, unfortunately I only have portions, not a full piece.

[Hit The North]

We are simply for rational studies in any field, at least I am.

Fine. So tell me what rational method you recommend for understanding how society works. Positivism? Interpretivism? Structuration theory?

[Hit The North]

I don’t see what any of that has to do with dialectics. Dialectics is all that nonsense about the unity of opposites, changing quantity into quality (or vice versa, I forget which), etc.

Talking about the forces and relations of production, the interaction between the natural world and human society, between technology and human society, etc. doesn’t invoke any queer metaphysical laws such as those mentioned above.



But this is exactly what Marxist dialectics is concerned with.


We can talk about the interaction of these things (people, technology, nature, the economy, etc.) without any recourse to the unity of opposites, etc.

Yes, and many have. Max Weber. Emile Durkheim. Talcott Parsons. Gerry Cohen. But my argument would be that none of them have been as successful as Marx, Engels and Lenin's dialectical approach.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ah, I see, CZ: the old ignore stuff you do not like/cannot answer ploy.

Nice mystical trick that one...

[Hit The North]

Sorry, Rosa, which stuff is that?

[Dean]

Fine. So tell me what rational method you recommend for understanding how society works. Positivism? Interpretivism? Structuration theory?
Humanistic sociology.

[trivas7]

Ah, I see, CZ: the old ignore stuff you do not like/cannot answer ploy.


Can be please be so kind as tell from what philosophy you criticize Marxist dialects? Can you state your philosophical premises? I ask because it's frankly hard for me to imagine where else but from Marx championing the idea of classless communist society comes from.

[Hit The North]

Humanistic sociology.

Sounds interesting. Tell me more. :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Can be please be so kind as tell from what philosophy you criticize Marxist dialects? Can you state your philosophical premises? I ask because it's frankly hard for me to imagine where else but from Marx championing the idea of classless communist society comes from.

I do not have one, nor do I want one. So, I have no philosophical premises.

And I do not disagree with historical materialism (indeed, I accept as a scientific account of history and how to change it).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CZ:


Sorry, Rosa, which stuff is that?

Before I tell you, I think your next appointment with Specsavers is overdue...

[Hit The North]

Probably.. but until that happy day, please help me out.

[trivas7]

Humanistic sociology.

In whose humanist sociology is there mention of the class struggle and the ushering in of a communist society?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CZ:


Probably.. but until that happy day, please help me out.

Sorry, but among my many amazing skills, performing eye tests is not one of them.

[Volderbeek]

The concept of "class struggle" comes directly from Hegel's master-slave dialectic. This irresolvable class antagonism is the crucial starting point, not just for Marxism, but for anyone on the far left.

Similarly, Marx's conception of history as progressing via revolutions is based on Hegel's historical dialectic. Otherwise, social classes are seen as mutually beneficial with revolutions taking place only when the master class fails to perform adequately (bad economic conditions and such).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V returns, no less confused than before:


The concept of "class struggle" comes directly from Hegel's master-slave dialectic. This irresolvable class antagonism is the crucial starting point, not just for Marxism, but for anyone on the far left.

No, dingbat, the concept of the class struggle comes directly from history and the relation between classes.

Hegel merely mystified things -- and confused you.


Similarly, Marx's conception of history as progressing via revolutions is based on Hegel's historical dialectic. Otherwise, social classes are seen as mutually beneficial with revolutions taking place only when the master class fails to perform adequately (bad economic conditions and such).

We have alrerady estabished that Marx abandoned every shread of Hegel in Das Kapital.

Your memory seems to be going.

[trivas7]

No, dingbat, the concept of the class struggle comes directly from history and the relation between classes.

We have alrerady estabished that Marx abandoned every shread of Hegel in Das Kapital.


This is nonsense. Without a scientific theory to explain history any account of class struggle and classes differs not a whiff from bourgois history. That scientific theory is dialectics. Without an understanding of Hegel Das Kapital could never have been written.

From the introduction of Robert Tucker's "Marx-Engels Reader":

[...]Marx created his theory of history as a conscious act of translation of Hegel's theory into what he, Marx, took to be its valid or scientific form...For Marx, as for others on the Hegelian left in Germany, Feuerbach's "transformational criticism" of Hegel was an intellectual innovation of epochal importance. The message that Hegelian theory has truth-value if one applies the method of inversion came with a ring of revelation. It meant that one could go on making good use of Hegel while escaping the toils of his colossal and seemingly so otherworldly system. One could discover social reality, the reality of the human predicament in history, by turning Hegel "right side up."

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


This is nonsense. Without a scientific theory to explain history any account of class struggle and classes differs not a whiff from bourgois history. That scientific theory is dialectics. Without an understanding of Hegel Das Kapital could never have been written.

Oh dear, looks like dialectical myopia has struck again -- where did I deny we need a scientific theory to help us understand history?

What we do not need is a mystical theory drawn from Hegel.

Good job Marx abandoned the dialectic in Das Kapital, then, isn't it?

[If you had bothered to read a few of the threads here before mouthing-off, you would have seen the proof of that fact.]

And it is no good quoting Tucker at me; he is just spouting dogma -- a bit like you.

[Hit The North]

Trivas:

Good job Marx abandoned the dialectic in Das Kapital, then, isn't it?

[If you had bothered to read a few of the threads here before mouthing-off, you would have seen the proof of that fact.]


This has not been "proved" to anyone's satisfaction except your own.


And it is no good quoting Tucker at me; he is just spouting dogma -- a bit like you.

So in the absence of proof, your own assertion is no less dogmatic than Tucker's.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CZ:


This has not been "proved" to anyone's satisfaction except your own.

No need to 'satisfy' anyone; it is enough that Marx and I agree on this.

Anyway, you (and several others) gave up when it was obvious the evidence was against you.


So in the absence of proof, your own assertion is no less dogmatic than Tucker's.

Unfortunately for you, I have proof -- which you cannot answer.

[Hit The North]

No need to 'satisfy' anyone; it is enough that Marx and I agree on this.And the last time you spoke to Marx and he told you this was when? :lol:

[trivas7]

Good job Marx abandoned the dialectic in Das Kapital, then, isn't it?


Your contention is absurd. Marx writes in the preface to the 1st German edition of Das Kapital: "[...] and it is the ultimate aim of this work, to lay bare the economic law of motion of modern society".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CZ:


And the last time you spoke to Marx and he told you this was when?

Here's when: about the same time as you showed some capacity to reason.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Your contention is absurd. Marx writes in the preface to the 1st German edition of Das Kapital: "[...] and it is the ultimate aim of this work, to lay bare the economic law of motion of modern society".

What has that got to do with anything I have said?

I agree 100% with Marx's scientific analysis of history. That why we do not need dialectics, and neither did Marx.

How many more times do you need telling?

Or has all that mysticism addled your brain -- like far too many other fans of the dialectic who post here?

[trivas7]

I agree 100% with Marx's scientific analysis of history.


Then you agree with what he wrote in the afterword to the third German edition of Das Kapital:


My dialectical method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. [...] The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel's hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.

[Dean]

Then you agree with what he wrote in the afterword to the third German edition of Das Kapital:


My dialectical method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. [...] The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel's hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.That quote becomes much more interesting in its unabridged form:



The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised nearly thirty years ago, at a time when it was still the fashion. But just as I was working at the first volume of “Das Kapital,” it was the good pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre Epigonoi [Epigones – Büchner, Dühring and others] who now talk large in cultured Germany, to treat Hegel in same way as the brave Moses Mendelssohn in Lessing’s time treated Spinoza, i.e., as a “dead dog.” I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even here and there, in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him. The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.

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

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Then you agree with what he wrote in the afterword to the third German edition of Das Kapital:

Sure, but you quote selectively, for Marx also quoted a reviewer thus:


"After a quotation from the preface to my 'Criticism of Political Economy,' Berlin, 1859, pp. IV-VII, where I discuss the materialistic basis of my method, the writer goes on:*

'The one thing which is of moment to Marx, is to find the law of the phenomena with whose investigation he is concerned; and not only is that law of moment to him, which governs these phenomena, in so far as they have a definite form and mutual connexion within a given historical period. Of still greater moment to him is the law of their variation, of their development, i.e., of their transition from one form into another, from one series of connexions into a different one. This law once discovered, he investigates in detail the effects in which it manifests itself in social life. Consequently, Marx only troubles himself about one thing: to show, by rigid scientific investigation, the necessity of successive determinate orders of social conditions, and to establish, as impartially as possible, the facts that serve him for fundamental starting-points. For this it is quite enough, if he proves, at the same time, both the necessity of the present order of things, and the necessity of another order into which the first must inevitably pass over; and this all the same, whether men believe or do not believe it, whether they are conscious or unconscious of it. Marx treats the social movement as a process of natural history, governed by laws not only independent of human will, consciousness and intelligence, but rather, on the contrary, determining that will, consciousness and intelligence. ... If in the history of civilisation the conscious element plays a part so subordinate, then it is self-evident that a critical inquiry whose subject-matter is civilisation, can, less than anything else, have for its basis any form of, or any result of, consciousness. That is to say, that not the idea, but the material phenomenon alone can serve as its starting-point. Such an inquiry will confine itself to the confrontation and the comparison of a fact, not with ideas, but with another fact. For this inquiry, the one thing of moment is, that both facts be investigated as accurately as possible, and that they actually form, each with respect to the other, different momenta of an evolution; but most important of all is the rigid analysis of the series of successions, of the sequences and concatenations in which the different stages of such an evolution present themselves. But it will be said, the general laws of economic life are one and the same, no matter whether they are applied to the present or the past. This Marx directly denies. According to him, such abstract laws do not exist. On the contrary, in his opinion every historical period has laws of its own.... As soon as society has outlived a given period of development, and is passing over from one given stage to another, it begins to be subject also to other laws. In a word, economic life offers us a phenomenon analogous to the history of evolution in other branches of biology. The old economists misunderstood the nature of economic laws when they likened them to the laws of physics and chemistry. A more thorough analysis of phenomena shows that social organisms differ among themselves as fundamentally as plants or animals. Nay, one and the same phenomenon falls under quite different laws in consequence of the different structure of those organisms as a whole, of the variations of their individual organs, of the different conditions in which those organs function, &c. Marx, e.g., denies that the law of population is the same at all times and in all places. He asserts, on the contrary, that every stage of development has its own law of population. ... With the varying degree of development of productive power, social conditions and the laws governing them vary too. Whilst Marx sets himself the task of following and explaining from this point of view the economic system established by the sway of capital, he is only formulating, in a strictly scientific manner, the aim that every accurate investigation into economic life must have. The scientific value of such an inquiry lies in the disclosing of the special laws that regulate the origin, existence, development, death of a given social organism and its replacement by another and higher one. And it is this value that, in point of fact, Marx's book has.'

"Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method?" [Marx (1976), pp.101-02. Bold emphases added.]

You will note that Marx calls this the 'dialectic method', and 'his method', but it is also clear that it bears no relation to the sort of dialectics you have had forced down your throat, for in it there is not one ounce of Hegel -- no quantity turning into quality, no contradictions, no negation of the negation, no unities of opposites, no totality...

So, Marx's method has had Hegel totally extirpated. For Marx, putting Hegel on 'his feet' is to crush his head.

And of the few terms Marx uses of Hegel's in Das Kapital, he tells us this:


"and even, here and there in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the mode of expression peculiar to him."

So, the 'rational core' of the dialectic has not one atom of Hegel in it, and Marx merely 'coquetted' with a few bits of Hegelian jargon in Das Kapital.

That is hardly a ringing endorsement of this mystical theory.

And it is little use you telling me he called Hegel a 'mighty thinker', since he pointedly put that in the past tense:


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

Moreover, one can call a theorist a 'mighty thinker' and totally disagree with him or her. [For instance, I think Plato was a 'mighty thinker' but I disagree with 99% of what he said.]

Still less is there any use in your referring to the Grundrisse -- Marx saw fit not to publish that work, but he did publish the above comments.

So, Marx and I agree that 'his method' contains no Hegel whatsoever; only I go even further and ditch the jargon with which Marx 'coquetted'.

Now, we have been over this many times here, as I told you, in numerous threads.

May I suggest you bother to read a few threads before making a fool of yourself here in future.

[trivas7]

So, the 'rational core' of the dialectic has not one atom of Hegel in it[...]

So, then, what is the 'rational core' of dialectic?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


So, then, what is the 'rational core' of dialectic?

We do not need to speculate, for Marx told us:


"After a quotation from the preface to my 'Criticism of Political Economy,' Berlin, 1859, pp. IV-VII, where I discuss the materialistic basis of my method, the writer goes on:*

'The one thing which is of moment to Marx, is to find the law of the phenomena with whose investigation he is concerned; and not only is that law of moment to him, which governs these phenomena, in so far as they have a definite form and mutual connexion within a given historical period. Of still greater moment to him is the law of their variation, of their development, i.e., of their transition from one form into another, from one series of connexions into a different one. This law once discovered, he investigates in detail the effects in which it manifests itself in social life. Consequently, Marx only troubles himself about one thing: to show, by rigid scientific investigation, the necessity of successive determinate orders of social conditions, and to establish, as impartially as possible, the facts that serve him for fundamental starting-points. For this it is quite enough, if he proves, at the same time, both the necessity of the present order of things, and the necessity of another order into which the first must inevitably pass over; and this all the same, whether men believe or do not believe it, whether they are conscious or unconscious of it. Marx treats the social movement as a process of natural history, governed by laws not only independent of human will, consciousness and intelligence, but rather, on the contrary, determining that will, consciousness and intelligence. ... If in the history of civilisation the conscious element plays a part so subordinate, then it is self-evident that a critical inquiry whose subject-matter is civilisation, can, less than anything else, have for its basis any form of, or any result of, consciousness. That is to say, that not the idea, but the material phenomenon alone can serve as its starting-point. Such an inquiry will confine itself to the confrontation and the comparison of a fact, not with ideas, but with another fact. For this inquiry, the one thing of moment is, that both facts be investigated as accurately as possible, and that they actually form, each with respect to the other, different momenta of an evolution; but most important of all is the rigid analysis of the series of successions, of the sequences and concatenations in which the different stages of such an evolution present themselves. But it will be said, the general laws of economic life are one and the same, no matter whether they are applied to the present or the past. This Marx directly denies. According to him, such abstract laws do not exist. On the contrary, in his opinion every historical period has laws of its own.... As soon as society has outlived a given period of development, and is passing over from one given stage to another, it begins to be subject also to other laws. In a word, economic life offers us a phenomenon analogous to the history of evolution in other branches of biology. The old economists misunderstood the nature of economic laws when they likened them to the laws of physics and chemistry. A more thorough analysis of phenomena shows that social organisms differ among themselves as fundamentally as plants or animals. Nay, one and the same phenomenon falls under quite different laws in consequence of the different structure of those organisms as a whole, of the variations of their individual organs, of the different conditions in which those organs function, &c. Marx, e.g., denies that the law of population is the same at all times and in all places. He asserts, on the contrary, that every stage of development has its own law of population. ... With the varying degree of development of productive power, social conditions and the laws governing them vary too. Whilst Marx sets himself the task of following and explaining from this point of view the economic system established by the sway of capital, he is only formulating, in a strictly scientific manner, the aim that every accurate investigation into economic life must have. The scientific value of such an inquiry lies in the disclosing of the special laws that regulate the origin, existence, development, death of a given social organism and its replacement by another and higher one. And it is this value that, in point of fact, Marx's book has.'

"Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method?" [Marx (1976), pp.101-02.]

No Hegel anywhere in site.

[PRC-UTE]

Now, if some dialectician here wishes to prove me wrong, then let that person illustrate the "dialectics" behind "peace, land, and bread."

The dialectics behind that slogan were: to exist, the ruling class of Tsarist Russia had to tolerate the existence of labouring and producing classes whose interest lay in destroying that ruling class (contradiction).

Seen from the perspective of dialectics, the class struggle is one between the social nature of labour and the private charactar of property. Capital must tolerate the social nature of labour, even as its very existence threatens capital. So the class struggle is not just a struggle for a higher wage, shorter hours, but these are manifestations of the class struggle, something deeper that is not as readily accesible in other modes of thought.

The Marxist critique of materliasm in Marx's day was (to crudely summarise) that materialism of the time only studied the existence of matter whereas Marx and Engels inserted the subjectivity of humanity as central to a process. Love or hate dialectics, it doesn't change the fact that they would not have arrived at their conclusions without it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PRC, this is not so. Both Marx and Hegel got the core ideas for historical materialism from the Scottish Historical Materialists (Ferguson, Miller, Smith, etc.), and other 'enlightement' thinkers, and Marx derived his class analysis from previous socialists and his own experience of the class struggle in Germany (and later in England).

All Hegel did was mystify this, and thus slow Marx down.

[PRC-UTE]

PRC, this is not so. Both Marx and Hegel got the core ideas for historical materialism from the Scottish Historical Materialists (Ferguson, Miller, Smith, etc.), and other 'enlightement' thinkers, and Marx derived his class analysis from previous socialists and his own experience of the class struggle in Germany (and later in England).

All Hegel did was mystify this, and thus slow Marx down.

I've always heard that Marx derived his ideas from:

German philosophy (which he trashed);

French Republicanism;

British political economy (which you refer to above as historical materialism).

If you want to assert that dialectics weren't an ingredient (more accurately, he used a critique of Hegel) then okay, but that's a new one to me.

You can make the unfounded claim that it slowed him down- but I don't know that you were in touch with his actual mental processes enough that we can take that theory seriously.

Marx modified and built-upon the existing philosophy of materialism, and it does seem that dialectics was the philosophical tool he used to insert subjective humanity into the mix.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This is the standard line, but the 'German Idealists' (i.e, Hegel) got their ideas from those I mentioned.

And it did slow him down, for he wasted at least 20 years trying to come to grips with the incomprehensible (i.e'., Hegel's work), only to abandon it when he wrote Kapital.

Moreover, one does not have to be in touch with Marx's actual 'mental processes' to be able to see this fact from his biography, and what he tells us in Kapital.

Finally, we do not need dialectics to help us insert 'subjectivity' into anything.

We get the latter from ordinary language.

[Hit The North]

Finally, we do not need dialectics to help us insert 'subjectivity' into anything.

We get the latter from ordinary language.

It strikes me that the above statement can only be sincerely made by someone who has never attempted to study social life.

[trivas7]

Trivas:
We do not need to speculate, for Marx told us:

"Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method?" -- Marx (1976), pp.101-02.

No Hegel anywhere in site.

But if this isn't the dialectical method of Hegel applied to a materialist conception of history -- what is it?

[trivas7]

Trivas:
So, I have no philosophical premises.

And I do not disagree with historical materialism

You contradict yourself.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CZ:


It strikes me that the above statement can only be sincerely made by someone who has never attempted to study social life.

Just as this could only be made by someone who has read more sociology than is perhaps good for any human being.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


You contradict yourself.

Why?


But if this isn't the dialectical method of Hegel applied to a materialist conception of history -- what is it?

Historical materialism, with Hegel totally excised -- as Marx indicated.

[trivas7]

Historical materialism, with Hegel totally excised -- as Marx indicated.

This is a tautalogy. Historical materialism isn't the method applied to a materialist conception of history.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


This is a tautalogy.

You appear not to know what this word means.



Historical materialism isn't the method applied to a materialist conception of history

And I thought I was pedantic.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The Marxist critique of materialism in Marx's day was (to crudely summarise) that materialism of the time only studied the existence of matter whereas Marx and Engels inserted the subjectivity of humanity as central to a process. Love or hate dialectics, it doesn't change the fact that they would not have arrived at their conclusions without it.

Thanks for that clarification against vulgar materialism, comrade. Nevertheless, I prefer to use the term "subjective dynamics" as opposed to "dialectics," which has the fetish of binary analysis.

You yourself praised my geocentric model over the reductionist base-superstructure. The former is based on "subjective dynamics" (so yes, ideas are important).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JR, why have you posted the same comment twice? Here and in the other dialectics thread.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I posted in THIS thread by mistake (multi-tab browsing and what not). :(

Besides, you didn't respond to this comment of mine. :(

[Hit The North]

CZ:

Just as this could only be made by someone who has read more sociologythan is perhaps good for any human being.

How very Thatcherite of you :lol:

God forbid that anyone interested in changing society should also want to study it!

[Hit The North]

Thanks for that clarification against vulgar materialism, comrade. Nevertheless, I prefer to use the term "subjective dynamics" as opposed to "dialectics," which has the fetish of binary analysis.


While I understand your aversion to the word 'dialectic', given a certain tradition within our movement - encapsulated here in an ironic, almost dialectic inversion, by Rosa - to keep Marxist dialectics mired in Hegelian confusion - the term "subjective dynamics" is even worse! If you're only dealing with the subjective side then you're failing to produce a complex, multi-faceted model of social life - in fact you're falling into the reductionism (but its opposite) which seems to haunt your (mis)reading of Trotsky.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Actually, my response was to PRC-UTE's "Marx and Engels inserted the subjectivity of humanity as central to a process" - unless you two dialecticians want to have at each other again. :D

[Hit The North]

Actually, my response was to PRC-UTE's "Marx and Engels inserted the subjectivity of humanity as central to a process"

Yeah, I'm butting in to your conversation. Hope you don't mind :). My criticism still applies, though.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CZ:


How very Thatcherite of you

How very inaccurate of you.


God forbid that anyone interested in changing society should also want to study it!

And where, pray, did I say that?

Looks like being a mod has put you into invention hyperdrive.


While I understand your aversion to the word 'dialectic', given a certain tradition within our movement - encapsulated here in an ironic, almost dialectic inversion, by Rosa - to keep Marxist dialectics mired in Hegelian confusion - the term "subjective dynamics" is even worse! If you're only dealing with the subjective side then you're failing to produce a complex, multi-faceted model of social life - in fact you're falling into the reductionism (but its opposite) which seems to haunt your (mis)reading of Trotsky.

By 'inversion' I take it you mean that my view of this 'theory' and Marx's agree almost word for word, as you have had proven to you more times than even you make stuff up.

And what is so wrong with 'reductionism'?

You dialecticians engage in it all the time -- reducing everything to 'unities of opposites', 'contradictions', and the like.

If it's sauce for the dialectical goose, why not the materialist gander?

[trivas7]

Rosa --

Although I find your thesis vague at best, I've come across the writings of Z.A.Jordan that seem to echo your dislike of attributing the use of the dialectic to Marx, viz. http://marxmyths.org/jordan/article.htm.



Dialectical materialism as formulated in Anti-Duhring has been traditionally regarded as the common product of Marx and Engels.

The only justification of the traditional belief that Anti-Duhring represents not only Engel's but also Marx's Naturphilosophie comes form Engels himself:

"I must note in passing that inasmuch as the mode of outlook expounded in this book was founded and developed in far greater measure by Marx, and only in an insignificant degree by myself, it was understood between us that this exposition of mine should not be issued without this knowledge. I read the whole manuscript to him before it was printed and the tenth chapter of the part of economics (From the Critical History) was written by Marx.[...] As a matter of fact, we had always been accustomed to helping each other out in special subjects."
Jordan goes on to say that it was Sidney Hooks who in the early thirties challenged the accepted opinion that from the beginning of the personal, intellectual, and literary friendship the views of Marx and Engels were identical, considering they were minds of very different order.



The fully developed division of the 'theory of Marxism' into dialectical materialism (providing the most genereal assumptions and procedures) and historical materialism (based on dialectical materialism and applying its laws to the study of society and history) can be found only in Marxism-Leninism, that is, Lenin's interpretation of the doctrine attributed to him by Marx and Engels. But many basic Leninist ideas are contained in their rudimentary form in Anti-Duhring or are based upon the views of Engels expounded in this work. In particular, contrary to the views of some exponents, Engels tried to deduce dialectics of society from dialectics of nature and to provide the communist world outlook with a Naturphilosophie. In the Preface to the second edition of Anti-Duhring Engels confessed that his work contained more than he originally intended to say. He realized post factum that in his examination and refutation of Duhring's doctrine his 'negative criticism became positive' and the 'the polemic was transformed into a more or less connect exposition of the communist world outlook'.

Notwithstanding Engel's original uneasiness, Anti-Duhring became the main source of knowledge about the 'philosophy of Marx and Engels'. Unintentionally and somewhat unknowingly, Engels established the tradition which ascribed to Marx a coherent monistic system of materialistic metaphysics in the accepted sense of this term, comprising a philosophy of nature, a theory of society, and a view of history, all three derived from a common set of first principles and logically supporting each other. Anti-Duhring is the original and most important source of this tradition, and, in particular, of the false belief that the materialist conception of history is closely connected with or deductible from philosophic materialism.

Engels interpretation of Marx, later codified by Lenin and Stalin into the canonical doctrine of so-called Marxism or Marxism-Leninism, was, however, subject to some important revision. In the early twenties Georg Lukacs maintained that when Engels extended Marxian dialectics outside the realm of history and society, he misunderstood Marx entirely. About the same time Karl Korsch argued that Marx's historical materialism did not need the support of philosophical materialism or even of the materialism expounded by Engels in Anti-Duhring. Similarly, a few years later Sidney Hook claimed that Marx did not conceive of dialectical materialism as doctrine of nature, distinct from a theory of society and history, for the attempt to apply the dialects to nature was incompatible whith his basic position. Sidney Hook was supported by Bertrand Russell and, more recently, by a number of other scholars and historians. If the view of these writers is essentially correct and Anti-Duhring does not provide a substantially true account of Marx's philosophy, the question arises as to how Marx's philosophical position should still be described.

Marx believed that man is an object of nature; that his mind or soul is not a supernatural entity; that there is an essential unity of mind and body; and that human behaviour can be explained by means of empirical hypotheses to be tested by the procedures accepted in natural science. But these beliefs do not make of Marx a dialectical materialist, nor even a materialist in the usual sense of the word unless naturalism and materialism are considered identical.

In order to disentangle this intricate cluster of conflicting influences and intellectual loyalties, the impact of Hegelianism and French positivism upon Marx and Engels has to be re-examined. There is much evidence that in their formative years both Marx and Engels were affected by these two schools of thought (i.e. naturalism and positivism), which at the time were the major centres of philosophical attraction. While the examination of the Marx and Engels to Hegelianism and positivism has an inherent interest of its own, it also affords an occasion for defining and explaining the important differences in the their respective philosophical positions. It may also help towards an understanding of how dialectical materialism, a conception essentially alien to the philosophy of Marx, emerged from and replaced the naturalism of Marx.
This doesn't firmly convince me of anything conclusive, as he goes on to say:



Historically, the incompatibility of naturalism and positivism on the one hand and Hegelianism on the other is not as unquestionable as it might appear. F.A.Hayek introduced the term 'Hegelian positivism' to denote a trend among thinkers -- Ernest Renan and Hippolyte Taine in France, Marx and Engels in Germany, Benedetto Croce in Italy, John Dewey in the United States -- who succeeded in combining the ideas derived from Hegel and Comte. 'Hegelian positivism' is an apt expression to designate Engels's dialectical materialism. As presented in Anti-Duhring, dialectical materialism combines the elements of three different trends of thought, namely, the naturalism of Marx, Hegelian philosophy, and French positivism. The contribution of each of these trends to the final outcome has to be examined before the historical development and logical analysis of dialectical materialism are undertaken.

[Hit The North]

And where, pray, did I say that?

Your disdain for the discipline is implicit.


By 'inversion' I take it you mean that my view of this 'theory' and Marx's agree almost word for word, as you have had proven to you more times than even you make stuff up.

No, if I'd been referring to that absurd claim, I'd have settled on the word 'fantasist'.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yeah, I'm butting in to your conversation. Hope you don't mind :). My criticism still applies, though.

Well, I'm not a dialectician, but I was briefly open to "subjective dynamics." I'm still waiting for Comrade Hyacinth to chip in. :(


And what is so wrong with 'reductionism'?

You dialecticians engage in it all the time -- reducing everything to 'unities of opposites', 'contradictions', and the like.

If it's sauce for the dialectical goose, why not the materialist gander?

Rosa, you seriously NEED to read Chapter 1 of my WIP in Article Submissions (WITBD).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas, I am aware of Jordan's article, and those of others who argue for the standard line, against Jordan (and more recent commentators who argue alongside Jordan). In fact, I reference them here (Note 6):

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

Here is part of what I say (the references can be found at the end of the above Essay):


I do not propose to enter into the debate whether or not Marx himself agreed with Engels that there is a dialectic at work in nature. The few scattered remarks that are usually dredged up to suggest that he did are far from conclusive, especially since most of them occur in footnotes, prefaces, asides and afterthoughts (etc.) -- as Terrell Carver notes:

"It is interesting that the major texts by Marx that are cited in conjunction with Engels' claims are often footnotes and tangential remarks. The 1859 preface, for example, contains a 'guiding thread,' which Engels re-voiced as a lapidary doctrine, beginning with his book review of the same year. Marx himself consigned these few sentences of text to a footnote to Capital, volume 1, surely not the place for one of the scientific discoveries of the age. Originally it came from a hastily drafted preface and was intended merely to guide the reader; as a footnote to another text it seems exactly that, a footnote…. There may be a highly ironic authorial strategy in Marx that reverses footnotes to texts in terms of speaking to the reader, but as a way of reading Marx, in my view, this focus on footnotes and odd sentences tends toward the cabalistic.

"References to Hegel are similarly cast by Marx himself in a prefatory and comparative vein, typically in the second preface to Capital, volume 1, in which he comments at length on someone else's (a Russian reviewer's) comparison of his (Marx's) method to the one employed by 'that mighty thinker' (Hegel). There are few references indeed to 'dialectic' in Marx, and none to its centrality to explaining anything and everything (Carver 1981, ch.5). Marx merely comments that he 'coquetted' with Hegelian terminology in the opening chapters of Capital, volume 1, and makes a limited number of qualified comparisons elsewhere in the text. My point here with respect to commentators is that these remarks and passages are not so much 'taken out of context' as put into a context supplied by the Engelsian tradition…." [Carver (1999), pp.25-26.]

This whole issue has been debated at length many times. The case against the 'received' view can be found in Carver (1980, 1981, 1983, 1984a, 1984b, 1989, 1998a, 1998b, 1999). See also Jordan (1967), Levine (1975, 1984, 2006).

The 'orthodox' view (that Marx and Engels were in total agreement on everything, possibly even over their favourite colour) can be found in Novack (1978), pp.85-115, Rees (1994), pp.48-56, and Sheehan (1993), pp.48-64. Cf., also Stanley and Zimmerman (1984) and Welty (1983).

A thorough survey of the entire matter can be found in Rigby (1992, 1998), with a brief overview in Rigby (1999). In fact, Rigby argues rather forcefully in favour of the 'orthodox' interpretation, but he does this only so that he can then use it as a stick with which to beat HM. Nevertheless, Rigby's arguments are far from conclusive themselves since he manifestly relies on the aforementioned scattered remarks, footnotes, asides and peripheral comments to make his case....

[HM = Historical Materialism.]

I, however, have my own arguments (and I push them much further than anyone has ever dared to before).

Moreover, I approach this issue as a revolutionary Marxist, unlike Hook and Jordan.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JR, Ok, but not today!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CZ:


Your disdain for the discipline is implicit.

'Implict' where?


No, if I'd been referring to that absurd claim, I'd have settled on the word 'fantasist'.

This is a bit rich coming from a mystic who can't defend his ideas.

[trivas7]

I, however, have my own arguments (and I push them much further than anyone has ever dared to before).

Moreover, I approach this issue as a revolutionary Marxist, unlike Hook and Jordan.

to the contrary, again:



'...it is clear that to turn an object right round changes neither its nature nor its content by virtue merely of a rotation! A man on his head is the same man when he is finally walking on his feet.' - Louis Althusser

[Die Neue Zeit]

Just a question to Rosa...

Granted that Lenin talked about the wrong prerequisite work when dealing with Capital (Hegel's Logic), but what about this quote by someone else:

"Only owing to Anti-Dühring did we learn to read and understand Capital the right way."

??? :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


to the contrary, again:

Althusser is, as usual, a rather poor guide in philosophy, and an even worse one in human anatomy.

Leave a man/woman on his/her head, unsupported, and he/she will die.

Same with Hegel's 'rational core'.

And, of course, right way up, or upside down (or dressed in a pink TuTu), it matters not --, dialectics has no 'rational core'; on that Althusser is correct.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JR:


"Only owing to Anti-Dühring did we learn to read and understand Capital the right way."

Whoever said that is an idiot; the Tokyo telelphone directory would have been better than 'Anti-Duhring' in this respect. In its 'philosophical' capacity, it is without doubt one of the worst books ever written by a Marxist.

[trivas7]

dialectics has no 'rational core'
Then what did you mean to say by quoting Marx when I asked you specifically re the 'rational core' of dialectics?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1158816&postcount=75

[Die Neue Zeit]

JR:

Whoever said that is an idiot; the Tokyo telephone directory would have been better than 'Anti-Duhring' in this respect. In its 'philosophical' capacity, it is without doubt one of the worst books ever written by a Marxist.

Actually, the upside-down "Pauline" founder of "Marxism" himself said this ("Only owing to Anti-Dühring did we learn to read and understand Capital the right way"). His most famous disciple apparently forgot about this when saying that Hegel's Logic was the prerequisite work. :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Then what did you mean to say by quoting Marx when I asked you specifically re the 'rational core' of dialectics?

You obviously do not read too well; here it is again:


Trivas:


Then you agree with what he wrote in the afterword to the third German edition of Das Kapital:

Sure, but you quote selectively, for Marx also quoted a reviewer thus:


"After a quotation from the preface to my 'Criticism of Political Economy,' Berlin, 1859, pp. IV-VII, where I discuss the materialistic basis of my method, the writer goes on:*

'The one thing which is of moment to Marx, is to find the law of the phenomena with whose investigation he is concerned; and not only is that law of moment to him, which governs these phenomena, in so far as they have a definite form and mutual connexion within a given historical period. Of still greater moment to him is the law of their variation, of their development, i.e., of their transition from one form into another, from one series of connexions into a different one. This law once discovered, he investigates in detail the effects in which it manifests itself in social life. Consequently, Marx only troubles himself about one thing: to show, by rigid scientific investigation, the necessity of successive determinate orders of social conditions, and to establish, as impartially as possible, the facts that serve him for fundamental starting-points. For this it is quite enough, if he proves, at the same time, both the necessity of the present order of things, and the necessity of another order into which the first must inevitably pass over; and this all the same, whether men believe or do not believe it, whether they are conscious or unconscious of it. Marx treats the social movement as a process of natural history, governed by laws not only independent of human will, consciousness and intelligence, but rather, on the contrary, determining that will, consciousness and intelligence. ... If in the history of civilisation the conscious element plays a part so subordinate, then it is self-evident that a critical inquiry whose subject-matter is civilisation, can, less than anything else, have for its basis any form of, or any result of, consciousness. That is to say, that not the idea, but the material phenomenon alone can serve as its starting-point. Such an inquiry will confine itself to the confrontation and the comparison of a fact, not with ideas, but with another fact. For this inquiry, the one thing of moment is, that both facts be investigated as accurately as possible, and that they actually form, each with respect to the other, different momenta of an evolution; but most important of all is the rigid analysis of the series of successions, of the sequences and concatenations in which the different stages of such an evolution present themselves. But it will be said, the general laws of economic life are one and the same, no matter whether they are applied to the present or the past. This Marx directly denies. According to him, such abstract laws do not exist. On the contrary, in his opinion every historical period has laws of its own.... As soon as society has outlived a given period of development, and is passing over from one given stage to another, it begins to be subject also to other laws. In a word, economic life offers us a phenomenon analogous to the history of evolution in other branches of biology. The old economists misunderstood the nature of economic laws when they likened them to the laws of physics and chemistry. A more thorough analysis of phenomena shows that social organisms differ among themselves as fundamentally as plants or animals. Nay, one and the same phenomenon falls under quite different laws in consequence of the different structure of those organisms as a whole, of the variations of their individual organs, of the different conditions in which those organs function, &c. Marx, e.g., denies that the law of population is the same at all times and in all places. He asserts, on the contrary, that every stage of development has its own law of population. ... With the varying degree of development of productive power, social conditions and the laws governing them vary too. Whilst Marx sets himself the task of following and explaining from this point of view the economic system established by the sway of capital, he is only formulating, in a strictly scientific manner, the aim that every accurate investigation into economic life must have. The scientific value of such an inquiry lies in the disclosing of the special laws that regulate the origin, existence, development, death of a given social organism and its replacement by another and higher one. And it is this value that, in point of fact, Marx's book has.'

"Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method?" [Marx (1976), pp.101-02. Bold emphases added.]

You will note that Marx calls this the 'dialectic method', and 'his method', but it is also clear that it bears no relation to the sort of dialectics you have had forced down your throat, for in it there is not one ounce of Hegel -- no quantity turning into quality, no contradictions, no negation of the negation, no unities of opposites, no totality...

So, Marx's method has had Hegel totally extirpated. For Marx, putting Hegel on 'his feet' is to crush his head.

And of the few terms Marx uses of Hegel's in Das Kapital, he tells us this:


"and even, here and there in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the mode of expression peculiar to him."

So, the 'rational core' of the dialectic has not one atom of Hegel in it, and Marx merely 'coquetted' with a few bits of Hegelian jargon in Das Kapital.

That is hardly a ringing endorsement of this mystical theory.

And it is little use you telling me he called Hegel a 'mighty thinker', since he pointedly put that in the past tense:


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

Moreover, one can call a theorist a 'mighty thinker' and totally disagree with him or her. [For instance, I think Plato was a 'mighty thinker' but I disagree with 99% of what he said.]

Still less is there any use in your referring to the Grundrisse -- Marx saw fit not to publish that work, but he did publish the above comments.

So, Marx and I agree that 'his method' contains no Hegel whatsoever; only I go even further and ditch the jargon with which Marx 'coquetted'.

Now, we have been over this many times here, as I told you, in numerous threads.

May I suggest you bother to read a few threads before making a fool of yourself here in future.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1158574&postcount=73

Read it again, and slower, if that will help.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I am sorry JR, I could not follow this:


Actually, the upside-down "Pauline" founder of "Marxism" himself said this ("Only owing to Anti-Dühring did we learn to read and understand Capital the right way"). His most famous disciple apparently forgot about this when saying that Hegel's Logic was the prerequisite work.

Who the hell are you talking about?

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/millenni/smith4.htm

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ok, thanks, but I could not find that quotation here.

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://marxmyths.org/jordan/article.htm

"Only owing to Anti-Dühring did we learn to read and understand Capital the right way." :D

http://www.isreview.org/issues/59/feat-engels.shtml

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ah Kautsy! I'd never have guessed. It's several years since I read Jordan.

Thanks.

A week ago, I wrote to the International Social Review making the above point to them: that this book is (philosophically) among the very worst ever written by a Marxist.

Let's see if they publish it.

[gilhyle]

In his letter to Engels of 3st July 1865, Marx acknowledges that Capital has a dialectical structure. In his letter to Engels of 27 November 1882, Marx congradulates Engels, with evident approval, on some of his ideas on the dialectics of nature. Again, in a letter to Engels on 7 Nov 1867, Marx describes Capital as the first attempt to apply the dialectical method to political economy. In his letter of 27th June 1867 to Engels, Marx refers Engels to the end of Chp 111 of Capital Vol. 1 as attesting to Hegels law of the transformation of quantity into quality.....I could go on.

However, that said Rosa is correct TO THIS EXTENT, the doctrine of being (of which the laws of the transformation of quantity into quality etc. are part) is for Marx and Engels a minor part of the dialectical doctrine. Thus in a letter on Hegel's Logic to Carl Schmidt of November 1891 Engels directs the reader away from the doctrine of being to the doctrine of essence, which is what the above reviewer's quotation, approvingly quoted by Marx, is referring to. Marx does indeed disagree radically with Hegel, no doubt. The only issue is the content of the disagreement.

However as Engels says to Schmidt, it is a schoolroom exercise to identify the paralogisms and other errors by which Hegel constructs his false system, "what is far more important is to discover the truth and the genius behind the falsity of the form" (MECW Vol.49 P.286)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil, we have been through this many times; CZ tried this stuff out on us several months ago, and it did not wash then:


In his letter to Engels of 3st July 1865, Marx acknowledges that Capital has a dialectical structure. In his letter to Engels of 27 November 1882, Marx congradulates Engels, with evident approval, on some of his ideas on the dialectics of nature. Again, in a letter to Engels on 7 Nov 1867, Marx describes Capital as the first attempt to apply the dialectical method to political economy. In his letter of 27th June 1867 to Engels, Marx refers Engels to the end of Chp 111 of Capital Vol. 1 as attesting to Hegels law of the transformation of quantity into quality.....I could go on.

Well, according to Marx, we know what a 'dialectical' structure is:


"After a quotation from the preface to my 'Criticism of Political Economy,' Berlin, 1859, pp. IV-VII, where I discuss the materialistic basis of my method, the writer goes on:*

'The one thing which is of moment to Marx, is to find the law of the phenomena with whose investigation he is concerned; and not only is that law of moment to him, which governs these phenomena, in so far as they have a definite form and mutual connexion within a given historical period. Of still greater moment to him is the law of their variation, of their development, i.e., of their transition from one form into another, from one series of connexions into a different one. This law once discovered, he investigates in detail the effects in which it manifests itself in social life. Consequently, Marx only troubles himself about one thing: to show, by rigid scientific investigation, the necessity of successive determinate orders of social conditions, and to establish, as impartially as possible, the facts that serve him for fundamental starting-points. For this it is quite enough, if he proves, at the same time, both the necessity of the present order of things, and the necessity of another order into which the first must inevitably pass over; and this all the same, whether men believe or do not believe it, whether they are conscious or unconscious of it. Marx treats the social movement as a process of natural history, governed by laws not only independent of human will, consciousness and intelligence, but rather, on the contrary, determining that will, consciousness and intelligence. ... If in the history of civilisation the conscious element plays a part so subordinate, then it is self-evident that a critical inquiry whose subject-matter is civilisation, can, less than anything else, have for its basis any form of, or any result of, consciousness. That is to say, that not the idea, but the material phenomenon alone can serve as its starting-point. Such an inquiry will confine itself to the confrontation and the comparison of a fact, not with ideas, but with another fact. For this inquiry, the one thing of moment is, that both facts be investigated as accurately as possible, and that they actually form, each with respect to the other, different momenta of an evolution; but most important of all is the rigid analysis of the series of successions, of the sequences and concatenations in which the different stages of such an evolution present themselves. But it will be said, the general laws of economic life are one and the same, no matter whether they are applied to the present or the past. This Marx directly denies. According to him, such abstract laws do not exist. On the contrary, in his opinion every historical period has laws of its own.... As soon as society has outlived a given period of development, and is passing over from one given stage to another, it begins to be subject also to other laws. In a word, economic life offers us a phenomenon analogous to the history of evolution in other branches of biology. The old economists misunderstood the nature of economic laws when they likened them to the laws of physics and chemistry. A more thorough analysis of phenomena shows that social organisms differ among themselves as fundamentally as plants or animals. Nay, one and the same phenomenon falls under quite different laws in consequence of the different structure of those organisms as a whole, of the variations of their individual organs, of the different conditions in which those organs function, &c. Marx, e.g., denies that the law of population is the same at all times and in all places. He asserts, on the contrary, that every stage of development has its own law of population. ... With the varying degree of development of productive power, social conditions and the laws governing them vary too. Whilst Marx sets himself the task of following and explaining from this point of view the economic system established by the sway of capital, he is only formulating, in a strictly scientific manner, the aim that every accurate investigation into economic life must have. The scientific value of such an inquiry lies in the disclosing of the special laws that regulate the origin, existence, development, death of a given social organism and its replacement by another and higher one. And it is this value that, in point of fact, Marx's book has.'

"Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method?" [Marx (1976), pp.101-02. Bold emphases added.]

In this summary of Marx's method, there is not one atom of Hegel. So, Marx and Engels diverge here -- in this published work, as opposed to any other unpublished remarks you might succeed in scraping together -- and even then, Marx tells us he is being non-serious with Hegelian terms, merely 'coquetting' with them.

Nice try attempting to excuse your own class-compromise, but it wasn't.

[Hit The North]

Gil, of course, you are correct. There is plentiful documentary evidence from Marx's own pen to confirm that he thought of his work (especially Capital) as dialectical.

Rosa's desperate attempt to hang her interpretation off the singular use of the word "coquette" doesn't bear scrutiny.

Furthermore, her constant repetition of this passage amounts to nothing more than spam - an attempt to create noise to drown out any further debate of the issues.

My advice would be to ignore her further interventions in this matter unless she has something new to add.
__________________________________________________ ___

Rosa,

Any further attempt to spoil debate and to use up bandwidth by endlessly quoting from the Postface will be treated as spam and trashed.

We get your point. We just don't buy it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CZ:


Gil, of course, you are correct. There is plentiful documentary evidence from Marx's own pen to confirm that he thought of his work (especially Capital) as dialectical.

Rosa's desperate attempt to hang her interpretation off the singular use of the word "coquette" doesn't bear scrutiny.

Ah, but you perhaps do not know of this:


"After a quotation from the preface to my 'Criticism of Political Economy,' Berlin, 1859, pp. IV-VII, where I discuss the materialistic basis of my method, the writer goes on:

'The one thing which is of moment to Marx, is to find the law of the phenomena with whose investigation he is concerned; and not only is that law of moment to him, which governs these phenomena, in so far as they have a definite form and mutual connexion within a given historical period. Of still greater moment to him is the law of their variation, of their development, i.e., of their transition from one form into another, from one series of connexions into a different one. This law once discovered, he investigates in detail the effects in which it manifests itself in social life. Consequently, Marx only troubles himself about one thing: to show, by rigid scientific investigation, the necessity of successive determinate orders of social conditions, and to establish, as impartially as possible, the facts that serve him for fundamental starting-points. For this it is quite enough, if he proves, at the same time, both the necessity of the present order of things, and the necessity of another order into which the first must inevitably pass over; and this all the same, whether men believe or do not believe it, whether they are conscious or unconscious of it. Marx treats the social movement as a process of natural history, governed by laws not only independent of human will, consciousness and intelligence, but rather, on the contrary, determining that will, consciousness and intelligence. ... If in the history of civilisation the conscious element plays a part so subordinate, then it is self-evident that a critical inquiry whose subject-matter is civilisation, can, less than anything else, have for its basis any form of, or any result of, consciousness. That is to say, that not the idea, but the material phenomenon alone can serve as its starting-point. Such an inquiry will confine itself to the confrontation and the comparison of a fact, not with ideas, but with another fact. For this inquiry, the one thing of moment is, that both facts be investigated as accurately as possible, and that they actually form, each with respect to the other, different momenta of an evolution; but most important of all is the rigid analysis of the series of successions, of the sequences and concatenations in which the different stages of such an evolution present themselves. But it will be said, the general laws of economic life are one and the same, no matter whether they are applied to the present or the past. This Marx directly denies. According to him, such abstract laws do not exist. On the contrary, in his opinion every historical period has laws of its own.... As soon as society has outlived a given period of development, and is passing over from one given stage to another, it begins to be subject also to other laws. In a word, economic life offers us a phenomenon analogous to the history of evolution in other branches of biology. The old economists misunderstood the nature of economic laws when they likened them to the laws of physics and chemistry. A more thorough analysis of phenomena shows that social organisms differ among themselves as fundamentally as plants or animals. Nay, one and the same phenomenon falls under quite different laws in consequence of the different structure of those organisms as a whole, of the variations of their individual organs, of the different conditions in which those organs function, &c. Marx, e.g., denies that the law of population is the same at all times and in all places. He asserts, on the contrary, that every stage of development has its own law of population. ... With the varying degree of development of productive power, social conditions and the laws governing them vary too. Whilst Marx sets himself the task of following and explaining from this point of view the economic system established by the sway of capital, he is only formulating, in a strictly scientific manner, the aim that every accurate investigation into economic life must have. The scientific value of such an inquiry lies in the disclosing of the special laws that regulate the origin, existence, development, death of a given social organism and its replacement by another and higher one. And it is this value that, in point of fact, Marx's book has.'

"Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method?" [Marx (1976), pp.101-02. Bold emphases added.]

As you probably have not noticed before, Marx calls this 'his method', which means that the 'dialectic method', as Marx understands it contains not one shred of Hegel. No 'unities of opposites', no 'contradictions', no 'negation of the negation', no 'quantity into quality', no 'totality', etc., etc.

I can live with that, but you and Gil can't.


Furthermore, her constant repetition of this passage amounts to nothing more than spam - an attempt to create noise to drown out any further debate of the issues.

My advice would be to ignore her further interventions in this matter unless she has something new to add.

I really do not think you should call Marx's comment on his own method 'spam' -- and we both know why I have to keep repeating it, since you keep ignoring it.

And then you have the cheek to say I am distorting Marx!

Now, unless you have something new to say on this, that is, over and above repeating your determination to ignore Marx, may I suggest you butt out of this debate.

[Hit The North]

Actually I've decided not to trash your recent post and just allow you to bore the entire forum with your childish behaviour.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CZ:


Actually I've decided not to trash your recent post and just allow you to bore the entire forum with your childish behaviour.

As far as 'childish behaviour' is concerned, we can all remember the tantrums you threw when I used to trash threads; so I suspect that that is the real reason for your second thoughts.

In that case, I can take lessons from you in how to master 'childish behaviour'. I am clearly the amatuer here.

[Volderbeek]

V returns, no less confused than before

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/9380/vforvendettaac3.png


No, dingbat, the concept of the class struggle comes directly from history and the relation between classes.Haha, dingbat. Now you're using slang from an old racist? I'm actually more like "Meathead"...

But, seriously, plenty of people studied history and class relations and didn't come to those conclusions. Even the socialists of the time thought there was a "social contract". Marx himself explicitly bashed narrative history.


We have alrerady estabished that Marx abandoned every shread of Hegel in Das Kapital.

Your memory seems to be going."We" didn't establish anything. You simply made an argument that I didn't agree with and still don't. Perhaps we can continue that here.

[Volderbeek]

In his letter to Engels of 27 November 1882, Marx congradulates Engels, with evident approval, on some of his ideas on the dialectics of nature.

They don't have that one at marxists.org so I can't check it, but good find if that is true. I noticed Rosa simply ignored this as it's not covered by the usual method reference (not that that was ever very convincing to start with).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:


But, seriously, plenty of people studied history and class relations and didn't come to those conclusions. Even the socialists of the time thought there was a "social contract". Marx himself explicitly bashed narrative history.

So? They were idiots.

Marx got his ideas of class from the actual events in Germany and Britain, and from French and British socialists (this is all documented in Hal Draper's exhaustive study of Marx's political development) -- and his historical method from the Scottish materialists, among others -- Hegel merely slowed him down.


"We" didn't establish anything. You simply made an argument that I didn't agree with and still don't. Perhaps we can continue that here.

We esatblished Marx abandoned the dialectic (that is, as you ruling-class dupes understand it), since the contrary argument failed -- and according to what Marx told us.


I noticed Rosa simply ignored this as it's not covered by the usual method reference (not that that was ever very convincing to start with).

Unfortunately for you and Gil, I have the Collected Works of Marx and Engels in front of me, and the letter in question is on page 385 of Volume 46 (the letter itself is 3 short paragraphs long). It mentions Lafargue and Guesde, and certain reports from Paris. But there is no mention of dialectics. There is this, however (I quote it in full):

"Your verification of the role of the second power when energy is transmitted with change of form is very pretty, and I congratulate you on it."

As the editors point out, this is in reference to a letter Engels sent Marx on the 23rd of the same month (pp.383-85). In that letter, Engels rehearses an odd view of energy that does not appear in Dialectics of Nature, or in Anti-Duhring, which he calls a 'universal law', but which thereafter quietly drops from history. There is no more mention of it in the correspondence.

Engels then says he has to get back to the dialectics of nature, but he does not connect this odd law with his work on dialectics.

Marx is, as always, polite to his benefactor, but pointedly does not say whether he agrees with Engels or not. But even if he had, what this has to do with dialectics is entirely unclear.

Now, all of this has been chewed over many times in the literature I referenced above, so why you think this is a 'smoking gun' I do not know; still less do I know why Gil referred to it.

Engels entertained many dotty ideas that Marx quietly ignored, including this:


"Comparison with animals proves that this explanation of the origin of language from and in the labour process is the only correct one. The little that even the most highly-developed animals need to communicate to each other does not require articulate speech. In a state of nature, no animal feels handicapped by its inability to speak or to understand human speech. It is quite different when it has been tamed by man. The dog and the horse, by association with man, have developed such a good ear for articulate speech that they easily understand any language within their range of concept (sic)…. Anyone who has had much to do with such animals will hardly be able to escape the conviction that in many cases they now feel their inability to speak as a defect…. Let no one object that the parrot does not understand what it says…. [W]ithin the limits of its range of concepts it can also learn to understand what it is saying. Teach a parrot swear words in such a way that it gets an idea of their meaning…; tease it and you will soon discover that it knows how to use its swear words just as correctly as a Berlin costermonger. The same is true of begging for titbits." [Engels (1876), pp.356-57.]

Engels, F. (1876), 'The Part Played By Labour In The Transition From Ape To Man', in Marx and Engels (1968), pp.354-64.

Marx, K., and Engels, F. (1968), Selected Works In One Volume (Lawrence and Wishart).

Human labour creates language -- correct.

Parrots have language, but are not humans, nor have they engaged in collective labour -- dotty.

So, no wonder I 'ignored' this letter; you would do well to copy me.

Anyway, you are a fine one to talk; you ignore much of what I have to say since you cannot answer it.

[gilhyle]

Well Ill just give others here Haldane's summary of the argument in the letter I referenced and for which Marx congradulated Engels and let them judge for themselves whether the argument is about the dialectics of nature :


"In a letter to Marx on November 23rd, 1882, he (Engels) points out that Siemens, in his presidential address to the British Association, has defined a new unit, that of electric power, the Watt, which is proportional to the resistance multiplied by the square of the current whereas the electromotive force is proportional to the resistance multiplied by the current. He compares these with the expressions for momentum and energy, discussed in the essay on "The measure of motion - work," and points out that in each case we have simple proportionality (momentum as velocity and electromotive force as current) when we are not dealing with transformation of one form of energy into another. But when the energy is transformed into heat or work the correct value is found by squaring the velocity or current. "So it is a general law of motion which I was the first to formulate." We can now see why this is...

[gilhyle]

..... so. The momentum and the electromotive force, having directions, are reversed when the speed and current are reversed. But the energy remains unaltered. So the speed or the current must come into the formula as the square (or some even power) since (-x) 2 = x2."

This is patently an argument about dialectics since it is about change of form and it is patently about natural phenomena. You talk, but what are saying other than the unevidenced speculation that Marx did not mean what he wrote ?

Btw Rosa, checked the other letters yet ? Since you have the MECW work your way through the volumes; there must be a dozen other references....though if you rely on the index you'll miss some of them.

You know Rosa, you'd be better off just to say openly that you disagree with Marx's method and you think you know how to reconstruct his theory without it.....Gerry Cohen admitted as much after years of pretending he was a follower of Marx, just do the same and discuss substance instead of playing with camoflage.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


Well Ill just give others here Haldane's summary of the argument in the letter I referenced and for which Marx congradulated Engels and let them judge for themselves whether the argument is about the dialectics of nature :


"In a letter to Marx on November 23rd, 1882, he (Engels) points out that Siemens, in his presidential address to the British Association, has defined a new unit, that of electric power, the Watt, which is proportional to the resistance multiplied by the square of the current whereas the electromotive force is proportional to the resistance multiplied by the current. He compares these with the expressions for momentum and energy, discussed in the essay on "The measure of motion - work," and points out that in each case we have simple proportionality (momentum as velocity and electromotive force as current) when we are not dealing with transformation of one form of energy into another. But when the energy is transformed into heat or work the correct value is found by squaring the velocity or current. "So it is a general law of motion which I was the first to formulate." We can now see why this is...

Thanks for that Gil, but what has this got to do with dialectics, and with the fact that this topic was quietly dropped by Engels, and Marx, despite Haldane's hagiographic approach to anything Engels had to say?

Those questions become all the more pressing when we recall that Haldane was one ot the Stalinist biologists who thought Lysenko was the bee's knees.

His judgement was, therefore, somewhat suspect.

Ah, but you have an answer:


This is patently an argument about dialectics since it is about change of form and it is patently about natural phenomena. You talk, but what are saying other than the unevidenced speculation that Marx did not mean what he wrote ?

Correct me if I am wrong, but what has change of 'form' got to do with dialectics -- not even Engels was stupid enough to put that in his screwy 'laws'.

And, Marx was always polite with his benefactor; since Marx was not a physicist, how could he pass informed comment on this rather odd law, that no one else seems to know anything about (other than Stalinist hacks)?


Btw Rosa, checked the other letters yet ? Since you have the MECW work your way through the volumes; there must be a dozen other references....though if you rely on the index you'll miss some of them.

You know Rosa, you'd be better off just to say openly that you disagree with Marx's method and you think you know how to reconstruct his theory without it.....Gerry Cohen admitted as much after years of pretending he was a follower of Marx, just do the same and discuss substance instead of playing with camoflage.

I, and many others have gone through these. And the conclusion is as Terrel Carver says.

But, if you have a specific letter no one else has seen before, do let us know.

Until then, I rather think I'll put more weight on Marx's published comments. You dialectical dupes can believe what you like from the scraped-together asides, comments and passing remarks you find in a few letters (many of which have to be twisted to make them even sound like they are about your precious dialectics, as we have jsut seen).

Can you imagine, in connection with the work of any other great thinker, that his/her ideas would be read exclusively from off-the-cuff remarks in a few scattered letters, especially those which are not consistent with his/her own published remarks?

But, with you mystics, apparently this is all OK.

And Gerry Cohen can speak for himself; I have been a Marxist for probably longer than you have been able to read anything other than kiddy comics.

So, you can stuff this where the Hermetic sun does not shine:


You know Rosa, you'd be better off just to say openly that you disagree with Marx's method

You continue to say such things in the face of the long quote I keep posting from Das Kapital (that CZ also ignores), which tells you that concerning Marx's method, he and I agree 100%.

You have to cling on to a moth-eaten tradition that history has already refuted, and based on fragmentary remarks in unpublished letters -- you are the one who rejects Marx's stated method, not me.

I wouldn't mind if this wonderful theory of yours was the very epitome of success; but it is the exact opposite.

That alone should tell you something -- or it would if your brain had not been clooged-up with ruling-class garbage.

[trivas7]

You know Rosa, you'd be better off just to say openly that you disagree with Marx's method and you think you know how to reconstruct his theory without it.....Gerry Cohen admitted as much after years of pretending he was a follower of Marx, just do the same and discuss substance instead of playing with camoflage.
Indeed. No Marxist is she.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Indeed. No Marxist is she.

And, what evidence have we that you are a Marxist -- except of course your fondness for dogma?

Oh dear! Silly me -- that actually disqualifies you...

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Well, to be fair, you didn't exactly answer the real question that I wanted answered in the Anti-Duhring thread (and the implied question wasn't about the book, but about who said a certain quote about that book ;) ).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JR, fair enough, but I think we would be using our time more wisely debating quotes about the Tokyo telephone directory rather than this execrable book.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I was referring to Kautsky's philosophical outlook, damn it!!! :cursing:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I know; and I was lamenting the fact that he did not spend more time on the Tokyo telephone directory, a far better use of his time.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As if a Tokyo telephone directory existed in Kautsky's time... or are you referring to totality? :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Good point -- perhaps then the Sears catalogue....

[gilhyle]

Gil:

And, Marx was always polite with his benefactor; since Marx was not a physicist, how could he pass informed comment on this rather odd law, that no one else seems to know anything about (other than Stalinist hacks)?

I, and many others have gone through these. And the conclusion is as Terrel Carver says.



You know what is really disappointing about all this is not that you wont engage with the evidence, thats predictable ...Terrel Carver, give me a break !!!, but this slander against Marx.

Anti Duhring, published if I recall in 1877, am I right ? A book that sold exceptionally well in the the German socialist movement. And you speculate that to be kind to his 'benefactor', i.e. for the sake of money, filthy lucre, Karl Marx - what ever else he was a man of integrity - should, contrary to all the other actions of his life, have consciously disregarded what you speculate (without evidence) was a theory he supposedly disagreed with, a theory which was gaining wide influence in the working class, a theory that he knew would be associated with him because he was Engels' closest colleague, because he wrote a chapter of the book and wrote a preface to edited highlights (Socialism Utopian and Scientific), .....such a false theory was gaining influence in the class and Marx did nothing about that, according to you because this man (Engels) was his benefactor. In effect you charge Marx for money with allowing false ideas to circulate through the class and to be associated with him and his reputation.

How little you think of that great man. In your charges against him you are in the company of Vogt, Loria, Bakunin. Im glad to say you are in the company of no one who has any regard to the facts of the man's life. Whatever else he was he was a man of personal integrity who protected his own reputation militantly, because his influence in the class relied on it and because he valued that above all else, maybe even more than his own family.

There is an old idea that we charge others with the offences of which we are capable ourselves. Well it may or may not be true. But your unwarranted, unevidenced charge of such a miserly, unprincipled compromise says more about you than it does about Karl Marx.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Oooh dear, hit a painful dialectical nerve, have we? The irrational, quasi-religious fervour seeps to the surface in yet another dialectical druggie.

Gil:


You know what is really disappointing about all this is not that you wont engage with the evidence, thats predictable ...Terrel Carver, give me a break !!!, but this slander against Marx.

Another priceless lie from he/she who ignores what Marx had to say in Das Kapital, when I do not.


A book that sold exceptionally well in the the German socialist movement. And you speculate that to be kind to his 'benefactor', i.e. for the sake of money, filthy lucre, Karl Marx - what ever else he was a man of integrity - should, contrary to all the other actions of his life, have consciously disregarded what you speculate (without evidence) was a theory he supposedly disagreed with, a theory which was gaining wide influence in the working class, a theory that he knew would be associated with him because he was Engels' closest colleague, because he wrote a chapter of the book and wrote a preface to edited highlights (Socialism Utopian and Scientific), .....such a false theory was gaining influence in the class and Marx did nothing about that, according to you because this man (Engels) was his benefactor. In effect you charge Marx for money with allowing false ideas to circulate through the class and to be associated with him and his reputation.

So? I publish stuff at my site, written by theorists with whom I disagree over many things. This proves nothing.

You seem to think that these two shared the same brain, or were as sectarian as you are.

Ah, now we get to the hagiography:


How little you think of that great man. In your charges against him you are in the company of Vogt, Loria, Bakunin. Im glad to say you are in the company of no one who has any regard to the facts of the man's life. Whatever else he was he was a man of personal integrity who protected his own reputation militantly, because his influence in the class relied on it and because he valued that above all else, maybe even more than his own family.

How little you think of Marx is shown by two revealing facts:

1) You ignore his actual words in Kapital (I'd quote them again, but CZ will only trash them).

2) You try to implicate him in a rotten and incomprehensible ruling-class theory. Some Marxist you are!


There is an old idea that we charge others with the offences of which we are capable ourselves. Well it may or may not be true. But your unwarranted, unevidenced charge of such a miserly, unprincipled compromise says more about you than it does about Karl Marx.

Applies to you, too, Oh Unprincipalled One.

Except, I can defend myself -- and you cannot; you just hero worship, and cling to the dialectical opiates that have addled your brain.

Now unless you have something interesting to say (ha!), bog off and do something more useful -- like straightening-out the coastline of Norway.

[gilhyle]

Amazing, Facts are that Marx never criticised anti duhring, you explain that by Engels being Marx's benefactor, I point out that that means you are accusing Marx with being corrupted by the desire for money and your response is that that responnse is 'hagiography'. How far have you gone into the dominant class view that you should think that selling one's reputation for money is OK and that denying that is 'hagiography'. How far are you corrupted by this society that you cant see that it is perfectly normal for a man to express his disagreement with a benefactor who is wrong and I dont need to be a hagiographer to ascribe to Marx that kind of basic personal integrity. What kind of commentator, I wonder, are you who denies him this basic personal integrity just so you can be right ?

[eyedrop]

Now unless you have something interesting to say (ha!), bog off and do something more useful -- like straightening-out the coastline of Norway. Warning! Off-topic

Yes please. I'm sick of all those curvy expensive "highways" and tunnels we have to make. Thanks for a laugh.

[Hyacinth]

Now, I’m in agreement w/ Rosa that dialectics really wasn’t central (or, for that matter, even peripheral) to the latter Marx (specifically Capital), nevertheless, let us, for the sake of argument, suppose that indeed Marx was committed to dialectics. So what? In that case Marx was [*gasp*] wrong on that point. I fail to see how Marxism can’t go on without dialectics. The onus is on the dialectitians to show how dialectics is necessary for historical materialism.

As well, despite all the back-and-forth banter on dialectics on these boards, I have yet to see any dialectician actually directly respond to Rosa’s arguments in her very thorough, and well done, lambasting of dialectical nonsense.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


Amazing, Facts are that Marx never criticised anti duhring, you explain that by Engels being Marx's benefactor, I point out that that means you are accusing Marx with being corrupted by the desire for money and your response is that that responnse is 'hagiography'. How far have you gone into the dominant class view that you should think that selling one's reputation for money is OK and that denying that is 'hagiography'. How far are you corrupted by this society that you cant see that it is perfectly normal for a man to express his disagreement with a benefactor who is wrong and I dont need to be a hagiographer to ascribe to Marx that kind of basic personal integrity. What kind of commentator, I wonder, are you who denies him this basic personal integrity just so you can be right?

And Marx never expressed agreement with it.

Get over it.

But he did summarise his method in Kapital, from which every shred of Hegel had been removed.

You like to ignore that since it does not fit in with your class-compromised view of Marx.

In fact, you prefer unpublished, ambigous remarks and asides of his, and indirect inferences. How very scientific of you.

And who said Marx was 'corrupted'; I merely said he was always polite to his friend and benefactor.

A simple, straight-forward, courteous human response -- Marx, may I remind you was not a saint, nor was he a robot.

And we know you are not a robot, since you get rather emotive when your opiate is attacked.

You need your daily Dialectical Methodone, don't you?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hyacinth, I have to agree with you -- except, for me, Marx's towering authority would be damaged if one of these dialectical dupes here can show he did accept this loopy 'theory'. Which is one reason I am defending his corner so diligently.

Even then, it would still not make it any the less loopy, on that you are right.

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

Thanks for that, eyedrop!

[Die Neue Zeit]

Now, I’m in agreement w/ Rosa that dialectics really wasn’t central (or, for that matter, even peripheral) to the latter Marx (specifically Capital), nevertheless, let us, for the sake of argument, suppose that indeed Marx was committed to dialectics. So what? In that case Marx was [*gasp*] wrong on that point. I fail to see how Marxism can’t go on without dialectics. The onus is on the dialectitians to show how dialectics is necessary for historical materialism.

As well, despite all the back-and-forth banter on dialectics on these boards, I have yet to see any dialectician actually directly respond to Rosa’s arguments in her very thorough, and well done, lambasting of dialectical nonsense.

While I'm against dialectical materialism ("di-alectic" being a fancy way of saying "reductionist binary thinking"), I am somewhat open to dynamic materialism.

After all, dynamic materialism covers historical materialism (I dunno why the original focused too much on history :confused: ), while addressing concepts such as synergy and totality - without going into logical errors and/or irrationality.

[trivas7]

The onus is on the dialectitians to show how dialectics is necessary for historical materialism.
What is historical materialism without looking at history dialectically? Bourgesoise history is history without dialectics.



As well, despite all the back-and-forth banter on dialectics on these boards, I have yet to see any dialectician actually directly respond to Rosa’s arguments in her very thorough, and well done, lambasting of dialectical nonsense.What is Rosa's argument? That dialectics makes no sense? That's no argument, it's an unfounded thesis.

[PRC-UTE]

I fail to see how Marxism can’t go on without dialectics. The onus is on the dialectitians to show how dialectics is necessary for historical materialism.

Do you agree with the idea that the seeds of socialism are within capitalism now, developed by the social process of labour and that socialism will superseed capitalism as a result of its inner processes, as Marxian theory argues?

Dialectical thinking is basically about looking at social change in a different way; that not only is there conflict in capitalist society, but that this conflict points to a specific kind of outcome.

I think the problem as chiefly arisen as a result of the Marxist-Leninist claims that dialectics are a 'world integral outlook' that explains everything, which is nonsense.



As well, despite all the back-and-forth banter on dialectics on these boards, I have yet to see any dialectician actually directly respond to Rosa’s arguments in her very thorough, and well done, lambasting of dialectical nonsense.

Luís, Gilhyle, CZ and myself have responded directly. I've been slightly more restrained because although I defend dialectics, I dont' see it as some kind of cardinal principle.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


What is historical materialism without looking at history dialectically? Bourgesoise history is history without dialectics.

Not so; Marx's theory of history is non-dialectical.

Moreover dialectics does not work, as you have had proven to you (but you just ignore it).


What is Rosa's argument? That dialectics makes no sense? That's no argument, it's a unfounded thesis.

You have not read my argument, so you are in no position to judge.

And if you disagree with what you have read, let's see your objections.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PRC:


Do you agree with the idea that the seeds of socialism are within capitalism now, developed by the social process of labour and that socialism will superseed capitalism as a result of its inner processes, as Marxian theory argues?

Dialectical thinking is basically about looking at social change in a different way; that not only is there conflict in capitalist society, but that this conflict points to a specific kind of outcome

Historical materialism (HM) does not need dialectics; there are enough resources in ordinary language to account for change and conflict, when these are co-opted for use in HM.

And, as I have shown, dialectics cannot even explain change. Of course, if you think my argument here is defective, let's see your objections.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ You didn't comment yet on dynamic materialism. :(


Luís, Gilhyle, CZ and myself have responded directly. I've been slightly more restrained because although I defend dialectics, I dont' see it as some kind of cardinal principle.

Why not adopt dynamic materialism instead, comrade?

[Comrade Rage]

Do we have to have the same anti-dialectics/pro-dialectics debate every month?

[Hyacinth]

Hyacinth, I have to agree with you -- except, for me, Marx's towering authority would be damaged if one of these dialectical dupes here can show he did accept this loopy 'theory'. Which is one reason I am defending his corner so diligently.
And best of luck with said defence, though I don’t think you’ll need it. Dialecticians have enough trouble keeping clear as to what their theory is suppose to say, let along defending that Marx subscribed to such nonsense.

Speaking of which, despite the repeated claims that dialectics is central to historical materialism, and that one cannot be a historical materialist without also being a dialectical materialist (sic), I have yet to see any actual argument to this effect. I’m more than willing to change my mind if anyone can show that you can’t have historical materialism without dialectics.

[Hyacinth]

What is historical materialism without looking at history dialectically? Bourgesoise history is history without dialectics.
Well, can you please enlighten me as to what “looking at historical dialectically” is? I really don’t know. If all you mean by that is explaining change in history, I fail to see how dialectics is necessary for that.


What is Rosa's argument? That dialectics makes no sense? That's no argument, it's a unfounded thesis.
You clearly haven’t take even a glance at Rosa’s meticulous arguments against dialectics at her website (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/). And unlike the nonsense Hegel spouts what Rosa has to say is quite intelligible. I suggest you take a look at that *and* then you can come back and critique what she has to say.

[Hyacinth]

Do we have to have the same anti-dialectics/pro-dialectics debate every month?
I *wish* we would actually have a debate, comrade, but frankly no dialectician here takes the time to respond to Rosa’s arguments.

[Hyacinth]

Do you agree with the idea that the seeds of socialism are within capitalism now, developed by the social process of labour and that socialism will superseed capitalism as a result of its inner processes, as Marxian theory argues?

Dialectical thinking is basically about looking at social change in a different way; that not only is there conflict in capitalist society, but that this conflict points to a specific kind of outcome.
I fail to see what any of that has to do with dialectics. We can account for change without reference to dialectics.

Actually, I think a good question to all supporters of dialectics out there, *what* do you mean by “dialectics”? What are the axioms, so to speak, of “dialectics” according to you? That is something that I am altogether unclear on.


Luís, Gilhyle, CZ and myself have responded directly. I've been slightly more restrained because although I defend dialectics, I dont' see it as some kind of cardinal principle.
Do you, per chance, have a link to said exchange? I would be most curious to see it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hyacithn:


Speaking of which, despite the repeated claims that dialectics is central to historical materialism, and that one cannot be a historical materialist without also being a dialectical materialist (sic), I have yet to see any actual argument to this effect. I’m more than willing to change my mind if anyone can show that you can’t have historical materialism without dialectics.

Well, so far, all they have is 'tradition' -- a fine thing for erstwhile radicals to have to appeal to!

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

JR: sorry I haven't commented; but you posted it while I was in bed, fast asleep!

[trivas7]

Well, can you please enlighten me as to what “looking at historical dialectically” is?

Marx's "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" and "The Civil War in France" are examples of looking at history dialectically.



You clearly haven’t take even a glance at Rosa’s meticulous arguments against dialectics at her website (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/).I'm sorry, but I couldn't get past the first para of R's "@nti-dialectics" webpage. Her first sentence: "First of all nothing said here is aimed at undermining Historical Materialism [HM], or revolutionary socialism in general." is self-defeating. "Naturally, this is a highly controversial allegation" -- what allegation? So why don't you simply tell me what her argument is?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Marx's "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" and "The Civil War in France" are examples of looking at history dialectically

I'd like you to try to prove this rather rash statement.


I'm sorry, but I couldn't get past the first para of R's "@nti-dialectics" webpage. Her first sentence: "First of all nothing said here is aimed at undermining Historical Materialism [HM], or revolutionary socialism in general." is self-defeating. "Naturally, this is a highly controversial allegation" -- what allegation? So why don't you simply tell me what her argument is?

I rather think we prefer you stay ignorant -- you are less danger to the workers' movement that way.

[gilhyle]

Gil:
But he did summarise his method in Kapital, from which every shred of Hegel had been removed.


SInce this debate is moving on, I wont go back here to the serious slander hidden in the mealy mouthed concept of 'politeness'

But I just go back to the key point as to what Marx actually believed at the time he published Kapital.- namely that the true laws of dialectics are already contained in Hegel, though in a mystical form.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


SInce this debate is moving on, I wont go back here to the serious slander hidden in the mealy mouthed concept of 'politeness'

Dear me, do you think Marx was slandering himself by being polite?

Who'd have thought it! That conclusion certainly never even so much as crossed my mind. I can see very little gets past you.


But I just go back to the key point as to what Marx actually believed at the time he published Kapital.- namely that the true laws of dialectics are already contained in Hegel, though in a mystical form.

Unfortunately for you, Marx abandoned this mystical theory, and told us so in Kapital, quoting a reviewer who, according to Marx, summarised 'his method', in which there was not one atom of Hegel.

No 'quantity turning into quality', no 'contradictions', no 'negation of the negation', no 'unities of opposites', no 'Totality' or any of the other Hermetic guff we have come to know and loathe.

I'd quote it for you, since you seem not to have seen it before -- but CZ has gotten a little twitchy over this, having forgotten that you mystics have very poor short-term memories.

But, it's posted above, in this thread, if you can recall how to scroll back aways.

Anywho, let me know if you need help; perhaps I can PM it to you?

Just being polite...:)

[Hyacinth]

Marx's "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" and "The Civil War in France" are examples of looking at history dialectically.
I’m quite familiar with the works, and I fail to see anything dialectical about them. If you’d care to give me more concrete example *and* explain why they’re dialectical I’d appreciate it.


I'm sorry, but I couldn't get past the first para of R's "@nti-dialectics" webpage. Her first sentence: "First of all nothing said here is aimed at undermining Historical Materialism [HM], or revolutionary socialism in general." is self-defeating. "Naturally, this is a highly controversial allegation" -- what allegation? So why don't you simply tell me what her argument is?
So, in short, you’re admitting that you haven’t even looked at the arguments. You took one look at the first sentence, saw that it disagreed with your opinion, and decided to conclude that it must be false.

Consider Rosa’s arguments consists of, to date, thirteen essays of considerable length, I’m afraid I cannot sum up that in a few paragraphs. Moreover, do your own homework, her arguments are up online for everyone and anyone to see. I cannot be held accountable for your laziness.

[Hyacinth]

Well, so far, all they have is 'tradition' -- a fine thing for erstwhile radicals to have to appeal to!
I’m reminded of what Marx had to say on the issue:

"The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living," he wrong in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. "And when they seem to be engaged in revolutionizing themselves and things, in creating something entirely new, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service and borrow from them names, battle slogans and costumes in order to present the new scene of world history in this time-honored disguise and borrowed language. Thus Luther donned the mask of the Apostle Paul, the revolution of 1789 to 1814 draped itself alternately as the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, and the revolution of 1848 knew nothing better than to parody, in turn, 1789 and the tradition of 1793 to 1795....The social revolution of the nineteenth century cannot draw its poetry from the past, but only from the future. It cannot begin with itself before it has stripped off all superstition in regard to the past....In order to arrive at its content, the revolution of the nineteenth century must let the dead bury their dead. There the phrase went beyond the content, here the content goes beyond the phrase."

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Good quote!

[There are in fact 18 major essays at my site and about another 20 minor ones.]

[Hit The North]

Re. the 18th Brummaire quote:

It is a great passage! The way in which it describes the constraint history exerts over the free praxis of human beings even when they are engaged in revolutionizing their own conditions of existence; and how the revolutionary content of the movement sometimes becomes draped in the ideological form of tradition. It really is quite dialectical.

Only Marx could have written it in such a way.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CZ:


It really is quite dialectical.

Like born again Christians, who see 'god' everywhere, you dialectical dupes see the 'dialectic' all over the place, too.

But, what precisely is 'dialectical' about this passage, except your emotional desire to see this mysterious process everywhere you look?

Hyacithn quoted it to show how you lot are nothing if not traditional; we both did not expect immediate confirmation of that fact.

[Hyacinth]

It really is quite dialectical. I’m quite curious, honestly, what exactly is “dialectical” about that quote? I agree fully with you that the passage “describes the constraint history exerts over the free praxis of human beings even when they are engaged in revolutionizing their own conditions of existence; and how the revolutionary content of the movement sometimes becomes draped in the ideological form of tradition”, yet I find nothing dialectical about any of that. I have the sneaking suspicion that you’re using the term “dialectics” in a manner different from how I understand it.

[PRC-UTE]

I fail to see what any of that has to do with dialectics. We can account for change without reference to dialectics.


Arguing that capitalism will be superseeded by socialism as a result of of its own contradictions working themselves out is the dialectical method, it's what Marx argued.

If you don't want to use dialectics, fine. It's the constant claim that dialectics are no good, or 'mystical' that is off to me- it comes up with materialist conclusions, conclusions that historically weren't reached without it.

Here's what I posted again:

Do you agree with the idea that the seeds of socialism are within capitalism now, developed by the social process of labour and that socialism will superseed capitalism as a result of its inner processes, as Marxian theory argues?

Dialectical thinking is basically about looking at social change in a different way; that not only is there conflict in capitalist society, but that this conflict points to a specific kind of outcome.

[trivas7]

I’m quite familiar with the works, and I fail to see anything dialectical about them. If you’d care to give me more concrete example *and* explain why they’re dialectical I’d appreciate it.

"Teacher teach thyself."



So, in short, you’re admitting that you haven’t even looked at the arguments. You took one look at the first sentence, saw that it disagreed with your opinion, and decided to conclude that it must be false.
Consider Rosa’s arguments consists of, to date, thirteen essays of considerable length, I’m afraid I cannot sum up that in a few paragraphs. You're unable to sum up any argument of Rosa's at all. I have to concur with you.

[Hyacinth]

You're unable to sum up any argument of Rosa's at all. I have to concur with you.
??? :confused: I don’t know what you’re implying.

Regardless, I feel no need to sum up any of her arguments when they are all available for public consumption on her website, and unlike many dialecticians, Rosa writes very clearly, so comprehending what she has to say doesn’t require much effort.

[Hyacinth]

Arguing that capitalism will be superseeded by socialism as a result of of its own contradictions working themselves out is the dialectical method, it's what Marx argued.
Well, to be precise Marx claimed, in the Manifesto, that either capitalism will be overthrown and replaced with communism or that the class struggle will result in the mutual ruin of the contending classes, but let’s not split hairs.

As for the bold+italicized text I’m at a complete loss as to what that means. Obviously you’re not using the term “contradiction” in the formal sense (or even the ordinary sense), but regardless, I have some idea of what you have in mind by that, I’ll let it pass.

What I’m really as a loss to is the “working themselves out in the dialectical method”? WTF does that mean?


If you don't want to use dialectics, fine. It's the constant claim that dialectics are no good, or 'mystical' that is off to me- it comes up with materialist conclusions, conclusions that historically weren't reached without it.
To be perfectly honest I don’t claim that dialectics is “no good” or that it is “mystical”, I don’t even understand what dialectics is suppose to be, to me it is simply nonsense, as such I can’t really make any claims about it. I’m more than willing to evaluate the merits or demerits of dialectics if anyone would actually explain it to me in a sensible manner. But, to date, I have not seen any such account of dialectics that elevates it from nonsense.


Here's what I posted again:

Do you agree with the idea that the seeds of socialism are within capitalism now, developed by the social process of labour and that socialism will superseed capitalism as a result of its inner processes, as Marxian theory argues?

Dialectical thinking is basically about looking at social change in a different way; that not only is there conflict in capitalist society, but that this conflict points to a specific kind of outcome.
Well, “seeds of socialism” is clearly a metaphor. If by it you mean something like: the conditions that will result in a communist revolution, and the overthrow of the capitalist system, are conditions that are a consequence of capitalism itself, then yes. I agree with this.

But, once again, I fail to see how any of this is dialectical. Please define “dialectics.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PRC:


Arguing that capitalism will be superseeded by socialism as a result of of its own contradictions working themselves out is the dialectical method, it's what Marx argued.

I have shown that dialectics cannot explain change, summaried here (this is applied to Mao's theory, but it is just as easy to extend it to that of others, such as Lenin):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=986357&postcount=2

In full here (this is applied to dialectics as a whole):

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm

Or more directly here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm#Dialectics-Cannot-Explain-Change

Now, if you disagree with my arguments, fine -- but we need to see your reasons. Until then, it might be wise to stop making such unfounded claims.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


You're unable to sum up any argument of Rosa's at all. I have to concur with you.

No need to; it's been done here:

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

Now, that link is in my siganture, and it is on the page you accessed, to which you took such emotional exception, so you have no excuse.

Parts of the above have even been copied to this site, in the '@nti-dialectics made easy' thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=762149&postcount=1

Even shorter summaries can be found here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Anti-D_For_Dummies%2001.htm

and here:

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

The latter was an article published in Weeky Worker about 6 months ago.

So, you have only yourself to blame if you remain ignorant.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


From the Preface of the First German edition of "Das Kapital":

Thanks for that, which only adds more proof to the already overwhelming case I have constructed here that Marx was not a dialectician.

[trivas7]

PRC:
I have shown that dialectics cannot explain change,[...]

Why should I care what dialectics cannot explain if throughout all this you never tell me what you think dialectics is?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Why should I care what dialectics cannot explain if throughout all this you never tell me what you think dialectics is?

Eh?

I quote literally scores of dialecticians in my Essays (and in the ones linked to above), who try to tell us what dialectcis is.

The point is that it is impossible to say what this mystical theory is; not only do you lot all disagree among yourselves, what you do say is so vague and imprecise, it is hard to make anything of it.

So, no wonder I do not tell you; you dialecticans have yet to tell humanity what this 'theory' of yours is.

[trivas7]

I quote literally scores of dialecticians in my Essays (and in the ones linked to above), who try to tell us what dialectcis is.

The point is that it is impossible to say what this mystical theory is; not only do you lot all disagree among yourselves, what you do say is so vague and imprecise, it is hard to make anything of it.

So, no wonder I do not tell you; you dialecticans have yet to tell humanity what this 'theory' of yours is.

So like Don Quixote you fight windmills where we 'dialecticians' are thinking they are warriors, is that it?

I submit "Dialectics is Not Great -- How Hegel Poisons Everything" as the title of your thesis!

I think there is this truth to be said re your thesis: At some point in his thinking Marx understood that his interest in philosophy had to be overcome dialectically and thus done away with by the historical program of communist revolution. It was Stalin taking his queues from Lenin ("the three components of Marxism") and Lenin's reading of Engels who promulgated Marxism as a totalist orthodoxy. In truth, at the beginning of his revolutionary 'career' Marx was no longer interested in philosophy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Perhaps Marx moved on to dynamic materialism in Das Kapital (you know, with all the talk about credit's role in capitalism, and perhaps a move away from his reductionist thinking in the Manifesto regarding "simplified" class relations)? :D


Well, “seeds of socialism” is clearly a metaphor. If by it you mean something like: the conditions that will result in a communist revolution, and the overthrow of the capitalist system, are conditions that are a consequence of capitalism itself, then yes. I agree with this.

Indeed. Labour-time vouchers can't exactly be found in capitalist economic relations, can they? :(

[Hyacinth]

Perhaps Marx moved on to dynamic materialism in Das Kapital (you know, with all the talk about credit's role in capitalism, and perhaps a move away from his reductionist thinking in the Manifesto regarding "simplified" class relations)? :D
Well, we can hardly take the Manifesto, a propaganda pamphlet, as a serious statement of Marx’s theories.

[trivas7]

Perhaps Marx moved on to dynamic materialism in Das Kapital (you know, with all the talk about credit's role in capitalism, and perhaps a move away from his reductionist thinking in the Manifesto regarding "simplified" class relations)? :D


I think it was there implicit in his earlier philosophical interest in alienation re which he wrote alot -- which he had to feel personally on a gut level. Marx was a geek, a rara avis. Already this alienation is a visceral negation of the negation. Perhaps I'm being influenced by the wonderful warts-and-all characterization of Francis Wheen's Karl Marx which I just finished.

From Henri Lefebvre's "Dialectical Materialism":


The theoretical and philosophical origins of dialectical materialism are to be found not in Hegel's Logic but in his Phenomenology. For Marx this was the key to the Hegelian system. It was here that we recover the actual content of human life, that upward movement 'from earth to heaven'. It therefore contains the positive aspects of Hegel's idealism. Hegel resolves the world into ideas but he is not content merely to record passively the objects of thought, he seeks to expose the act of their production. The result is that, 'within the speculative exposition', he gives us a real exposition which graps the thing itself. Here, according to the Manuscript of 1844, Hegel considers the 'creation of man by himself as a process...' He examines the objectification of man in a world of external objects and his deobjectification (his becoming aware of himself) as a transcending of his alienation. He half sees that labour is essentially a creative activity and grasps that objective man -- the only real man -- is the result of this creative power. According to the Phenomenology the relation of man to himself and to the human species, his realization of himself, is made possible only by the activity of the whole of humanity, and presupposes the enitre history of the human race.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, we can hardly take the Manifesto, a propaganda pamphlet, as a serious statement of Marx’s theories.

Tell that, comrade, to the excess number of "Manifesto" communists. :(

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


So like Don Quixote you fight windmills where we 'dialecticians' are thinking they are warriors, is that it?

No, I am fighting a theory that has presided over 150 years of almost total failure, as real in its effects as the mystcial rubbish one finds in the Bible.

The point is, of course, that it is no use complaining to me if no sense at all can be made of the dialectic, since that is the fault of you dialecticians.

You certainly can't explain it, or defend it.


I submit "Dialectics is Not Great -- How Hegel Poisons Everything" as the title of your thesis!

In fact it is "The Alchemy of Revolution".


I think there is this truth to be said re your thesis: At some point in his thinking Marx understood that his interest in philosophy had to be overcome dialectically and thus done away with by the historical program of communist revolution. It was Stalin taking his queues from Lenin ("the three components of Marxism") and Lenin's reading of Engels who promulgated Marxism as a totalist orthodoxy. In truth, at the end of his revolutionary 'career' Marx was no longer interested in philosophy.

In fact, Marx gave up the dialectic, as you lot understand it, in Das Kapital.

[gilhyle]

I have yet to see any dialectician actually directly respond to Rosa’s arguments in her very thorough, and well done, lambasting of dialectical nonsense.

I think that is more than a bit unfair. I wont speak for other participants in these discussions, who have often made telling points, but I will refer only to my own previous posts.

I have repeatedly argued that there is a pattern in Rosa's writings and that pattern includes the following features:

- repeated substitution of bluster for argument in the face of difficulties;
- lack of clarity as to whether she is arguing that dialectics is wrong or meaningless and inappropriate slippage from one to the other as suits her rhetorical purpose;
- establishing that a proposition is vague and concluding that it is, therefore, meaningless : which just does not follow;
- internal inconsistency in that she makes use of (unarticulated) criteria of meaning which are philosophical in character (i.e. can only be defended by taking philosophical stances) while claiming that she does not engage in philosophy; (and btw which cant be defended successfully, I suspect)
- undue reliance on analogical arguments to mysticism (e.g. dialectical arguments have x characteristic, mystical arguments have x characteristic, therefore dialectical arguments are mystical; : again, this does not follow)
- a range of arbitrary techniques in handling source material which are quite inconsistent with good standards of hermeneutics (for example excluding reference to private letters to establish subjective beliefs of Karl Marx - no biographer in the world would accept this methodology;)
- critical reliance on profoundly difficult and unsupported claims (e.g. that historical materialism can be fully articulated without reliance on dialectical formulations and that the structure of Kapital is not dialectical) which we are all meant to take on trust although similar claims have been repeatedly made by others over the last 150 years who have then repeatedly failed to deliver);
- solipsism in that when she comes across dialectical formulations that are complex she will draw the conclusion that they are meaningless just because she doesnt understand them ! Again, this does not follow and the human race is under no obligation to think only those thoughts that are self-evidently meaningful to Rosa.
- idealism concering the causes of degeneration in the revolutionary movement, in that she explains that by reference to the philosophical ideas held by Marxists rather than by reference to political and economic developments;
- she glorifies a mystical 'working class' ordinary language in an idealist manner, which ignores the fact that their discourse, consciousness and language is as much part of capitalist society as anyone else's

Rosa repeatedly demands that people read her website. I have dipped into it in various places and I find these characteristics again and again. I wouldnt read ANY author who displayed these characteristics because these are the characteristics of bad philosophy and bad writing. Consequently I am uninclined to wade through it. Am I worng ? Persuade me why I should read all her stuff.

That is not to say that there is nothing good in Rosa's work. I suspect any half decent editor could edit Rosa's writings down into an 80-100, 000 indictment of shoddy thinking about dialectics in Marxism.....and such an indictment would be correct ! And I would definitely read it and have regard to it. The problem with Rosa is that she has taken a reasonable, but limited observation about a weakness in Marxism and has tried to place on that observation a weight it will not bear - and this error on her part is closely tied to the fact that she is an analytical philosopher (though not that good a one, really).

Rosa shares a problem with many others attracted to the Communist movement over the years - namely that she sympathises with the revolutionary tradition but comes herself from the post-Kantian rationalist tradition which continues the values and perspectives of the Enlightenment. For those people, Hegel, Marx, Engels etc broke basic rules of good reasoning. Believing that, she and others. like her could take a principled approach and try to articulate a new theory of communism. They rarely do - they tend instead to try to rescue Marx and condemn the tradition from whence he came. Of course, this creates incredible confusion and complex, hybrid perspectives that serve no political purpose but to further weaken the revolutionary movement (which is weak enough already for more fundamental reasons).

These hybrids are best understood as an attempt to restructure Marxism into a personal philosophy conforming to the predilections and pre-conceptions of one individual. Marxism is not such a personal philosophy. It is a view designed to assist a class as a whole to overcome an immense historical obstacle.

The difference can be illustrated. For example, if I were to answer the original question on this thread, I have no doubt Rosa would want to answer that what I had said was meaningless, by which she would mean that she had not understood it. that is not the correct question. The correct question is whether what I would say assists or acts as an obstacle to the revolutionary movement. (Clearly if it actually was meaningless, that would be more important, but what humans say are rarely unintentionally meaningless.)

[gilhyle]

Gil:

Unfortunately for you, Marx abandoned this mystical theory, and told us so in Kapital, quoting a reviewer who, according to Marx, summarised 'his method', in which there was not one atom of Hegel.

No 'quantity turning into quality', no 'contradictions', no 'negation of the negation', no 'unities of opposites', no 'Totality' or any of the other Hermetic guff we have come to know and loathe.

Just being polite...:)

I cited you a letter by Marx where he explicitly cites part of of Capital as an illustration of a dialectical law, you never responded to that.

But, just to be clear, you would presumably accept you were wrong if Marx had in fact written in or after 1867 that that the true laws of dialectics are already contained in Hegel, though in a mystical form ?

[trivas7]

^^^Well said, gilhyle, but perhaps my judgment of her writing is less sympathetic than yours: in truth Rosa has no thesis, attacking dialectics is a peculiar unprincipled fetish of hers.

[Hyacinth]

I think that is more than a bit unfair. I wont speak for other participants in these discussions, who have often made telling points, but I will refer only to my own previous posts.
To be fair all I said is that I had never seen anyone do it, not that it hadn’t been done. At the moment I just got up and have to be on my way, I’ll take a detailed look at your post later in the day. But I appreciate the reply.

[PRC-UTE]

Well, to be precise Marx claimed, in the Manifesto, that either capitalism will be overthrown and replaced with communism or that the class struggle will result in the mutual ruin of the contending classes, but let’s not split hairs.

Yes, and there's no guarantee the world won't end tomorrow. I believe it was in a letter to Engels that Marx first mentioned the now famous 'socialism or barbarism' slogan.

But the idea is that if human civilisation keeps progressing, the contradictions within capitalism, such as the ever increasingly social nature of labour that threatens capital, yet capital must tolerate to make a profit that will produce socialism.



As for the bold+italicized text I’m at a complete loss as to what that means. Obviously you’re not using the term “contradiction” in the formal sense (or even the ordinary sense), but regardless, I have some idea of what you have in mind by that, I’ll let it pass.

I don't know why the text was in italics, it wouldn't let me change the formatting... anyway. No, contradiction doesn't mean the same as in ordinary languge, it's more than two opposing forces. It is a conflict between opposing forces within one system or totality that can only be resolved by the destruction of that system.



What I’m really as a loss to is the “working themselves out in the dialectical method”? WTF does that mean?

To be perfectly honest I don’t claim that dialectics is “no good” or that it is “mystical”, I don’t even understand what dialectics is suppose to be, to me it is simply nonsense, as such I can’t really make any claims about it. I’m more than willing to evaluate the merits or demerits of dialectics if anyone would actually explain it to me in a sensible manner. But, to date, I have not seen any such account of dialectics that elevates it from nonsense.

Well, “seeds of socialism” is clearly a metaphor. If by it you mean something like: the conditions that will result in a communist revolution, and the overthrow of the capitalist system, are conditions that are a consequence of capitalism itself, then yes. I agree with this.

But, once again, I fail to see how any of this is dialectical. Please define “dialectics.

Change and motion through internal processes.

It doesn't seem as significant a breakthrough as it once did, but you have to understand that Marxism is pirmarily a critique of the materialism of Marx's time. It was static, didn't deal with change or dynamics. Dialectics need to be understood in that context, and I think the flaw in Rosa's argument is that she ignores this.

[trivas7]

So like Don Quixote you fight windmills where we 'dialecticians' are thinking they are warriors, is that it?




No, I am fighting a theory that has presided over 150 years of almost total failure, as real in its effects as the mystcial rubbish one finds in the Bible.


You miss the point entirely.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PRC:


Change and motion through internal processes.

Are you suggesting that billiard balls move themselves?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


You miss the point entirely.

Must be learning that off you...

[NoValue]

PRC:



Are you suggesting that billiard balls move themselves?

but the point is not into what the motion of the balls is atributed to,but how you can get the balls into the holes.
the one who searches to atribute motion in separate things can find it only in the name of god.
in terms of practise dialectical materialism is the practical way of thinking.
the direct oposite like your way of thinking rosa...well you know the word...sends you straight in the hands of god...who moves everything.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil (I thought you were told to go off and straighten the coastline of Norway, a far more useful, and considerably easier task, than explaining dialectics):


I have repeatedly argued that there is a pattern in Rosa's writings and that pattern includes the following features:

You have said such things several times, just like Blair said things about Saddam and WMD, but when it you are asked for evidence, you always go rather quiet (only later to reappear with the same baseless allegations a month or so later -- can we expect to see these again in August?).

Now, you hair-brained-Hermeticists might find actual evidence a distraction, preferring the a priori dogma you pinched from traditional ruling-class thought, but us materialist require it, and will not be budged from this minimal standard. So, let's see your evidence; otherwise withdraw these allegations.


repeated substitution of bluster for argument in the face of difficulties

But you are the one who does this; when I pointed out, for example, that you repeatedly confuse the meaning of words with the sense of indicative sentences, you ignored it -- perhaps because you do not understand this distinction. Furthermore, you repeatedly ignore Marx's own words in Das Kapital which indicate quite clearly that his 'method' contained not one atom of Hegelian gobbledygook.

Most of my posts go into unprecedented detail; but you just ignore 90% of it, plainly on the grounds that, like other dialectical dunces here, you can't answer my criticisms. Your posts consist mainly of a few sentences; sometimes a paragraph or two. On the odd occasion, like here, you might post a few hundred words (often containing yet more baseless allegations). We have already had you admitting that you make stuff up about my ideas.

I go into detail; you skip past it all, ignoring stuff you do not like, or cannot answer. Who then is the blusterer here?


lack of clarity as to whether she is arguing that dialectics is wrong or meaningless and inappropriate slippage from one to the other as suits her rhetorical purpose

This is a fine accusation coming from the Bishop of B*llocks, and who is a fan of the god-father of confusion, Hegel.

But, to repeat: once again your own confusion here is over the meaning of words and the sense of sentences -- you attribute to me your own confusion in this regard, erroneously depicting my ideas in your own words, and then blame me for it!

And here it is again:


establishing that a proposition is vague and concluding that it is, therefore, meaningless : which just does not follow

You really are a plonker, aren't you?

We have been over this countless times, and still you refuse to let a few clear thoughts into your head, a head so full of Hegelian noise, I am surprised you can hear the alarm clock in the morning. I have never claimed a proposition is vague and therefore meaningless, and I challenge you to find a single quote where I say this, or even imply it.

You know so little logic/philosophy of logic that you are rather like those know-nothing creationists who get Darwin wrong, and then think they have refuted him if they pick holes in their own misrepresentation of his ideas.

I said the case for your defence (that you are not a dialectical plonker) gets weaker with each post of yours; thanks for confirming it.

Now, can you provide the evidence that I have said any of this, or will withdraw this slur?


internal inconsistency in that she makes use of (unarticulated) criteria of meaning which are philosophical in character (i.e. can only be defended by taking philosophical stances) while claiming that she does not engage in philosophy; (and btw which cant be defended successfully, I suspect)

I do not have any criteria of meaning, articulated or not.

In that case, this allegation is going to be impossible for you to prove, for if the criteria you allege of me are indeed unarticulated, you won't find them anywhere in my posts, or at my site. But that has not stopped you from accusing me of this, again, with no evidence.

And, we have only just been over the second baseless allegation here (that I have secret philosophical "stances"). When challenged, you could not say what these were (or rather you made a feeble attempt to identify them).

Moreover, you seem to work on the principle that if someone attacks something, they must also either secretly support it, or believe in it. So, if I attack all of philosophy as expressing ruling-class hot air, and containing non-sensical twaddle, and seek to demolish it, then I must harbour secret philosophical doctrines of my own.

But, as I pointed out earlier, that is as brainless as asserting that a doctor must be infected with a disease if he/she is to eradicate it from the planet, or the equally crass idea that us Marxists must all be secret supporters of the capitalism system because we criticise it and seek to end it!

I speculated that not even you were stupid enough to believe this, but it now looks like I was being far too kind to you.


undue reliance on analogical arguments to mysticism (e.g. dialectical arguments have x characteristic, mystical arguments have x characteristic, therefore dialectical arguments are mystical.

This is not my argument; my argument is based on a historical analysis (not yet published) of the origin of the mystical ideas found in Hegel, and how dialecticians like you have failed to 'invert' them, to extract their 'rational' core.

After that argument has been established, I then use the common characteristics between dialectics and practically every known mystical system (and these are quite striking) as a confirmation of that prior argument. So, once again, you have attributed to me figments of your own imagination.

You are at least a consistent liar.


a range of arbitrary techniques in handling source material which are quite inconsistent with good standards of hermeneutics (for example excluding reference to private letters to establish subjective beliefs of Karl Marx - no biographer in the world would accept this methodology

But, you are the one who relies on brief footnotes, passing comments, asides and unpublished letters, but who then ignores Marx's own words (and his published words, too, and not in a passing comment) that quite clearly tell us that Marx abandoned the dialectic as you lot understand it: "his method" contains not one ounce of Hegel --, no 'quantity into quality', no 'contradictions', no 'unities of opposites', no 'negation of the negation', no 'totality'.

I'd quote that passage again, but CZ will only trash it since he, too, does not like to be reminded of the fact that Marx ditched your 'theory'.

And so what if no biographer accepts this methodology? More fool them for adopting your preference for unpublished comments over published ones.

Anyway, one biographer has accepted this: Terrell Carver in his biography of Engels, and in his history of the relation between Marx and Engels. You don't like this man's work since it upsets your class-compromised view of Marx -- and that is the only reason.


critical reliance on profoundly difficult and unsupported claims (e.g. that historical materialism can be fully articulated without reliance on dialectical formulations and that the structure of Kapital is not dialectical) which we are all meant to take on trust although similar claims have been repeatedly made by others over the last 150 years who have then repeatedly failed to deliver)

Not 'unsupported' at all; you just have not read the evidence (well, have you read all 1.35 million words at my site?) But that does not stop you making yet another baseless allegation.

And you can hardly blame me for the logically-challenged idiots that you refer to (who have, according to you, tried over the last 150 years to do what I am doing); someone had to get it right one day. Too bad for you that that someone is me.


solipsism in that when she comes across dialectical formulations that are complex she will draw the conclusion that they are meaningless just because she doesn't understand them ! Again, this does not follow and the human race is under no obligation to think only those thoughts that are self-evidently meaningful to Rosa.

That claim is based on the fact that no one over the last 200 years has been able to explain a single dialectical idea -- and that includes you. When asked, you either shy away, or, on the odd occasion, you post a few paragraphs of verbal spaghetti.

And, for sure, the human race is under no such obligation; but then again, the vast majority of human beings have turned their backs on your loopy 'theory' -- so I rather think I'm in good company here. You, of course, are welcome to prefer the non-sensical ideas of ruling-class hacks -- good for the cv, is it?


idealism concerning the causes of degeneration in the revolutionary movement, in that she explains that by reference to the philosophical ideas held by Marxists rather than by reference to political and economic developments

Not so; this is the most common allegation I have to face from you mystics. Your heads are so full of guff, you just cannot read simple English. I have said on many occasions that I accept Trotsky's analysis of the degeneration of the Russian revolution; I merely go further and examine the links between our core theory (dialectics) and the degeneration of Dialectical Marxism -- using Lenin's idea that in defeat revolutionaries seek consolation in mysticism. Nothing idealist about that. After all, you do it!

Now this is spelt out in extensive detail at my site; you can only say such things by ignoring, yet again, my actual argument.

No surprise there then.


she glorifies a mystical 'working class' ordinary language in an idealist manner, which ignores the fact that their discourse, consciousness and language is as much part of capitalist society as anyone else's

Why is the material language of the working class 'mystical' (a fine accusation coming from a fan of Hegel, the arch-mystic!)?

And, I deny what you say about their language, and defy you to substantiate it; it is not 'part of capitalist society'. Go on, smarty pants, let's see you prove it.


Rosa repeatedly demands that people read her website. I have dipped into it in various places and I find these characteristics again and again. I wouldn't read ANY author who displayed these characteristics because these are the characteristics of bad philosophy and bad writing. Consequently I am uninclined to wade through it. Am I wrong ? Persuade me why I should read all her stuff.

Where do I 'demand' this?

What I do say is that no one is forced to read my essays, but anyone who tries to criticise my ideas without doing so, or who makes allegations about my ideas that are not supported by what I have said in my essays, or which run contrary to things I have said in them, is a fool.

And that includes you.

I will not try to persuade you to read my essays, since I prefer you in your present ignorant state of mind.

What I will say is that, in order to have the charges against you dropped that you are a consummate fool, you need to stop making ill-informed allegations about my ideas in absence of having read my essays.

You would not tolerate for one minute a critic of Hegel or Marx who boasted about not having read either.

Why then do you apply different standards to me?

Well, we both know why: I have revealed to one and all the class-compromised nature of your pet theory, and, just like practically every other dialectician I have debated with over the last 25 years, you react emotively, and irrationally, since I have attacked your 'opiate'. One and all: you react like fundamentalist Christians: you will say anything, do anything to try to silence me, or rubbish my ideas (and without having read them).

And then you wonder why I get a little tetchy sometimes!

You can see the evidence for yourself here; this page contains links to the debates here at RevLeft, and at other forums, where almost to a man and woman, dialecticians have all made the same allegations about me, and all without any evidence (they all make stuff up about me and my ideas, like you do, and most of them are highly abusive from the start -- all react emotionally and irrationally, again, like you):

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


Rosa shares a problem with many others attracted to the Communist movement over the years - namely that she sympathises with the revolutionary tradition but comes herself from the post-Kantian rationalist tradition which continues the values and perspectives of the Enlightenment. For those people, Hegel, Marx, Engels etc broke basic rules of good reasoning. Believing that, she and others. like her could take a principled approach and try to articulate a new theory of communism. They rarely do - they tend instead to try to rescue Marx and condemn the tradition from whence he came. Of course, this creates incredible confusion and complex, hybrid perspectives that serve no political purpose but to further weaken the revolutionary movement (which is weak enough already for more fundamental reasons).

And you have a problem: like so many other petty-bourgeois comrades, you prefer the a priori dogmatic thought forms of boss-class theory.

And, I have no need to articulate a 'new theory', since the one I accept has been pretty well articulated by others (Trotsky, Lenin, Marx, etc.). Once more, you can only make such comments if you ignore my repeatedly stated political affiliations in this regard.


These hybrids are best understood as an attempt to restructure Marxism into a personal philosophy conforming to the predilections and pre-conceptions of one individual. Marxism is not such a personal philosophy. It is a view designed to assist a class as a whole to overcome an immense historical obstacle.

One small, niggling point -- hardly worth mentioning really -- but where is my 'personal philosophy'? Since your whole point depends on this, one would have thought you would have at least enlightened your readers in this one area.

So, where is it? Is this yet another invention on your part?

I fear it is. You may recall I said you would slip back into bad old habits; you mystics just cannot resist making stuff up, can you? And I have asked you that one several times before, too!

Do you really want to make a habit of proving me right all the time?


The difference can be illustrated. For example, if I were to answer the original question on this thread, I have no doubt Rosa would want to answer that what I had said was meaningless, by which she would mean that she had not understood it. that is not the correct question. The correct question is whether what I would say assists or acts as an obstacle to the revolutionary movement. (Clearly if it actually was meaningless, that would be more important, but what humans say are rarely unintentionally meaningless.)

Ah, more invention.

You are a serial fabulist, aren't you?

That is probably what makes you a first rate dialectician, and third rate critic all in one go...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

No value:


but the point is not into what the motion of the balls is atributed to,but how you can get the balls into the holes.
the one who searches to atribute motion in separate things can find it only in the name of god.
in terms of practise dialectical materialism is the practical way of thinking.
the direct oposite like your way of thinking rosa...well you know the word...sends you straight in the hands of god...who moves everything.

Sorry, you are wrong, but since I have just spent over a hour composing a long reply to Gilhyle, I haven't the energy to explain why, so forgive me if I refer you to two earlier discussions:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenin-refutes-mechanics-t42171/index.html?t=42171

http://www.revleft.com/vb/can-light-bulbs-t44424/index.html?t=44424

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Well said, gilhyle, but perhaps my judgment of her writing is less sympathetic than yours: in truth Rosa has no thesis, attacking dialectics is a peculiar unprincipled fetish of hers.

Yes, trust a dogmatist like you to believe unsupported allegations like these.

And, because you cannot answer my arguments (you do not know enough philosophy or logic to even begin to take me on) you are reduced to name-calling.

So, just like all the other dialecticians with whom I have 'debated' this over the last 25 years -- not one of you is capable of defending this 'theory' of yours -- you believe a pack of lies just because it seems to support your mystical faith.

Engels will be turning in his grave, at least he tried to defend dialectics.

[NoValue]

Rosa the problem with all you are trying to prove is the use of arguments.
With the use of arguments a lawyer can prove that a certain person is honest
no matter if he is a son of a b**ch in his dayly practise.
Generaly[by the use of abstract-dialectic thinking]we could say that with the use of arguments anyone could prove almost anything,while in practise allmost nothing at all.:D

[Volderbeek]

So? They were idiots.

I wouldn't say they were idiots, they just didn't work in the framework of irresolvable class conflict.


Marx got his ideas of class from the actual events in Germany and Britain, and from French and British socialists (this is all documented in Hal Draper's exhaustive study of Marx's political development) -- and his historical method from the Scottish materialists, among others -- Hegel merely slowed him down.I believe Draper considered Marx an innovator for introducing democratic ideas into socialism. I also consider him an innovator, but rather that he introduced Hegel's master-slave dialectic to the idea of class, leading him to consider it an irresolvable conflict that would only end when the master-slave relationship was abolished. And I don't think even Marx himself would like your reduction of his historical method to mere Scottish economism.


We esatblished Marx abandoned the dialectic (that is, as you ruling-class dupes understand it), since the contrary argument failed -- and according to what Marx told us.Oh yes, he calls his method the dialectic, but we're supposed to assume that it was a meaningless label he used for fun. :rolleyes:


Unfortunately for you and Gil, I have the Collected Works of Marx and Engels in front of me, and the letter in question is on page 385 of Volume 46 (the letter itself is 3 short paragraphs long). It mentions Lafargue and Guesde, and certain reports from Paris. But there is no mention of dialectics. There is this, however (I quote it in full):

"Your verification of the role of the second power when energy is transmitted with change of form is very pretty, and I congratulate you on it."

As the editors point out, this is in reference to a letter Engels sent Marx on the 23rd of the same month (pp.383-85). In that letter, Engels rehearses an odd view of energy that does not appear in Dialectics of Nature, or in Anti-Duhring, which he calls a 'universal law', but which thereafter quietly drops from history. There is no more mention of it in the correspondence.

Engels then says he has to get back to the dialectics of nature, but he does not connect this odd law with his work on dialectics.I did say I hadn't seen it myself.


Marx is, as always, polite to his benefactor, but pointedly does not say whether he agrees with Engels or not. But even if he had, what this has to do with dialectics is entirely unclear.His benefactor?! Yeesh...just because you're anti-social doesn't mean you have to project this on Marx. Engels was his close personal friend and collaborator; I don't think he was afraid of hurting his feelings or something.


Now, all of this has been chewed over many times in the literature I referenced above, so why you think this is a 'smoking gun' I do not know; still less do I know why Gil referred to it.It's interesting, then, why you don't just reference this literature. Otherwise, this is a self-contained debate.


Human labour creates language -- correct.

Parrots have language, but are not humans, nor have they engaged in collective labour -- dotty.
Parrots don't really have language - that's just semantics.


Anyway, you are a fine one to talk; you ignore much of what I have to say since you cannot answer it.That's ridiculous! You can see here that I'm almost (I stress the almost) as neurotic as you when it comes to replying to everything. If you mean that I haven't gone to your site, read everything, and made detailed responses, I haven't the time or motivation for that. I did take a look there once or twice, naturally, and found just one of the 13 "essays" came out to about 200 printer pages. Assuming they're all about the same, that's 2600 pages of full-size printer paper (8.5"x11"). And this isn't narrative fiction or something, it's thick academic (and heavily polemical) writing.

[Volderbeek]

I also want to comment - and this is directed at everyone who did this - on the claim that historical materialism is scientific.

The study of history is in no meaningful way a science. It does no experiments nor does it make direct observations. Even using the word in a very loose sense, and considering historical materialism as a detached, objective analysis, is not accurate as it looks at history based on how the interplay of class struggle and productive technology shape history with an implication that these things advance together when they don't necessarily have to (we do this because we want them to so we focus on this effect).

[trivas7]

Rosa the problem with all you are trying to prove is the use of arguments.
With the use of arguments a lawyer can prove that a certain person is honest
no matter if he is a son of a b**ch in his dayly practise.

What are you suggesting, pistols at twenty paces? :rolleyes:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

NoValue:


Rosa the problem with all you are trying to prove is the use of arguments.
With the use of arguments a lawyer can prove that a certain person is honest
no matter if he is a son of a b**ch in his dayly practise.
Generaly[by the use of abstract-dialectic thinking]we could say that with the use of arguments anyone could prove almost anything,while in practise allmost nothing at all.

Not so; anyone cannot prove anything.

Go on: prove you are a carrot.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:


Oh yes, he calls his method the dialectic, but we're supposed to assume that it was a meaningless label he used for fun.

1) Marx was aware of the classical meaning of this word -- he clearly was returning to that.

2) He himself, not me, quoted a passage which he said encapsulated 'his method', in which not one atom of Hegel can be found (despite an earlier attempt of yours to shoe-horn some into it).


I did say I hadn't seen it myself.

And yet you were quite happy to rejoice over the fact that I had 'ignored' it!


Yeesh...just because you're anti-social doesn't mean you have to project this on Marx. Engels was his close personal friend and collaborator; I don't think he was afraid of hurting his feelings or something.

1) How do you know I am 'anti-social'?

2) What has it got to do with this anyway?

3) I suppose you believe that these two agreed over absolutely everything, do you? This is quite remarkable, and would probably be the first time in human history when two individuals agreed over absolutely everything. Quite frankly, that is not even remotely credible.

4) Marx had already told us, in a published work, that 'his method' contained not one ounce of Hegel. So we already know he disagreed with Engels here.


It's interesting, then, why you don't just reference this literature. Otherwise, this is a self-contained debate.

Already done it; you need to keep up.


Parrots don't really have language - that's just semantics.

No, it's basic Marxism.

Parrots no more have language than a tape recorder does. They just repeat sounds.

Clearly, you are as batty as Engels.


That's ridiculous! You can see here that I'm almost (I stress the almost) as neurotic as you when it comes to replying to everything. If you mean that I haven't gone to your site, read everything, and made detailed responses, I haven't the time or motivation for that. I did take a look there once or twice, naturally, and found just one of the 13 "essays" came out to about 200 printer pages. Assuming they're all about the same, that's 2600 pages of full-size printer paper (8.5"x11"). And this isn't narrative fiction or something, it's thick academic (and heavily polemical) writing.

Not so, you miss most of the material in my posts.

You do not have to read my essays, but only a fool comments on things he/she has not read.

That makes you a fool.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:


The study of history is in no meaningful way a science. It does no experiments nor does it make direct observations. Even using the word in a very loose sense, and considering historical materialism as a detached, objective analysis, is not accurate as it looks at history based on how the interplay of class struggle and productive technology shape history with an implication that these things advance together when they don't necessarily have to (we do this because we want them to so we focus on this effect).

'Scientific' in the wider German sense of that word.

Now buzz off ignoramus.

[trivas7]

From John Rees's "Trotsky and the dialectical of history" (the full essay is here: http://www.marxisme.dk/arkiv/reesj/1990/trot-dia/trot-dia.htm#ch5):


Trotsky's notebooks on dialectics and his other related writings provide more than a defence of the materialist conception of history. They provide an account of the Marxist method which resolutely refuses all crude reductionism and which articulates a dialectical method which is sophisticated enough to give proper weight to all the different political, ideological and philosophical elements within the totality – without lapsing into idealism.

Of course, the idea that any analysis must be mediated by the different, distinct levels of reality was present in Hegel's account of the dialectic. But Hegel's idealism, especially in his later years, robbed these levels of analysis of any real power, flattening out his own account of reality into a sterile dialectic formula. It is this interpretation of the dialectic with which Stalinism and the Marxism of the Second International had most in common. They too needed a fatalistic, closed form of the dialectic which justified the status quo. They too needed to iron out the volatility, the uniqueness and unevenness in the world that the dialectic was first developed to explain. Trotsky is a true inheritor of Marx and Engels' materialist transformation of the Hegelian dialectic. His materialist analysis deals with real history unfolding in time and space, not just the timeless patterns of consciousness. It therefore needed to develop concepts which were either undeveloped or unknown in Hegel. Trotsky's concepts of combined and uneven development, his notion of a 'differentiated unity' and his distinction between the form of the dialectic in nature and the dialectic in history are an important contribution to this task.

Trotsky's reply to these arguments contains an excellent explanation of why the dialectic is an essential part of Marxism. Trotsky first sketches an account of why:
American 'radical' intellectuals accept Marxism without the dialectic (a clock without a spring) . . . The secret is simple. In no other country has there been such a rejection of class struggle as in the land of 'unlimited opportunity'. The denial of social contradictions as the moving force of development led to the denial of the dialectic as the logic of contradictions in the domain of theoretical thought. Just as in the sphere of politics it was thought possible everybody could be convinced of the correctness of a just' programme by means of clever syllogisms and society could be reconstructed through 'rational' measures, so in the sphere of theory it was accepted that Aristolian logic, lowered to the level of 'common sense', was sufficient for the solving of all problems.
Pragmatism, a mixture of rationalism and empiricism, became a national philosophy in the United States. [13] (http://www.marxisme.dk/arkiv/reesj/1990/trot-dia/trot-dia.htm#note013)
This historical circumstance was most damaging to the intelligentsia because, argued Trotsky, 'the academically trained petty bourgeoisie['s] ... theoretical prejudices have been given a finished form at the school bench.' Academics assume that because they have 'succeeded in gaining a great deal of knowledge both useful and useless without the aid of the dialectic they can continue excellently through life without it.' But the test of great events always reveals that 'in reality they dispense with the dialectic only to the extent that they fail to check, sharpen and theoretically polish their tools of thought.' [14] (http://www.marxisme.dk/arkiv/reesj/1990/trot-dia/trot-dia.htm#note014)
Trotsky replies to those who argue that questions of method are not important in reaching correct political conclusions:
What is the meaning of this thoroughly astonishing reasoning? Inasmuch as some people through a bad method sometimes reach correct conclusions, and inasmuch as some people through a correct method not infrequently reach incorrect conclusions, therefore ... the method is not of great importance ... Imagine how a worker would react upon complaining to his foreman that his tools were bad and receiving the reply: With bad tools it is possible to turn out a good job, and with good tools many people only waste material. I am afraid that such a worker, particularly if he is on piece-work, would respond to the foreman with an unacademic phrase. [15] (http://www.marxisme.dk/arkiv/reesj/1990/trot-dia/trot-dia.htm#note015)
Trotsky then goes on to spell out the essence of the dialectic. He makes some elementary points that bear repetition since they are still not widely understood even among Marxists.
Firstly, Trotsky insists that the dialectic is not an alternative to 'normal' scientific methods or formal logic. These methods are perfectly valid within certain limits, just as Newtonian physics is perfectly adequate for many purposes. Formal logic, however, like Newtonian physics, has proved inadequate to deal with the 'more complicated and drawn out processes.' So the dialectic stands in the same relation to formal logic as Newtonian physics stands to relativity theory or, as Trotsky puts it, as 'that between higher and lower mathematics.' [16] (http://www.marxisme.dk/arkiv/reesj/1990/trot-dia/trot-dia.htm#note016)
Secondly, Trotsky warns against seeing the dialectic as 'a magic master key for all questions.' The dialectic is not a pocket calculator or a mathematical formula into which it is possible to punch the problem and allow it to compute the solution. This would be an idealist method more akin to Hegel than Marx. A materialist dialectic must grow from a patient, empirical examination of the facts not be imposed on them. Although on occasion Trotsky defined the dialectic as a method of analysis, here he is pointing to a deeper truth. A dialectical method is only possible because reality itself is dialectically structured. It is from this material dialectic that the dialectical method must emerge and against this material dialectic that it must constantly check itself. For Trotsky the dialectic 'does not replace concrete scientific analysis. But it directs this analysis along the correct road.' [17] (http://www.marxisme.dk/arkiv/reesj/1990/trot-dia/trot-dia.htm#note017)
Trotsky had already elaborated this point in his 1926 essay Culture and Socialism:
Dialectics cannot be imposed on the facts; it has to be deduced from facts, from their nature and development. Only painstaking work on a vast amount of material enabled Marx to advance the dialectical system of economics to the conception of value as social labour. Marx's historical works were constructed in the same way, and even his newspaper articles likewise. Dialectical materialism can be applied to new spheres of knowledge only by mastering them from within. The purging of bourgeois science presupposes a mastery of bourgeois science. You will get nowhere with sweeping criticism or bald commands. Learning and application here go hand in hand with critical reworking. [18] (http://www.marxisme.dk/arkiv/reesj/1990/trot-dia/trot-dia.htm#note018)
Trotsky saw that it was the inadequacies and contradictions of formal logic that drove theorists toward dialectical formulations. Even those who pride themselves on a 'deductive method' which proceeds 'through a number of premises to the necessary conclusion' frequently 'break the chain of syllogisms and, under the influence of purely empirical considerations, arrive[s] at conclusions which have no connection with the previous logical chain.' Such ad hoc empirical adjustments to the conclusions of formal logic betray a 'primitive form of dialectical thinking.' The only way to escape this 'primitive' combination of abstract logic and empiricism is to combine these elements 'more fully, much better, on a much broader scale, and more systematically ... through dialectical thinking. [19] (http://www.marxisme.dk/arkiv/reesj/1990/trot-dia/trot-dia.htm#note019)
The reason why formal logic is often forced to abandon its own procedures in the face of the facts is that it attempts to analyse a living, evolving reality with static concepts. Formally things are defined statically, according to certain fixed properties – colour, weight, size and so on. This is denoted by the expression 'A is equal to A'. Trotsky, following Engels' formulations, gives a 'very concise sketch' of the inadequacies of this way of looking at the world:
In reality 'A' is not equal to 'A'. This is easy to prove if we observe these two letters under a lens-they are quite different to each other. But, one can object, the question is not the size or the form of the letters, since they are only symbols for equal quantities, for instance, a pound of sugar. The objection is beside the point; in reality a pound of sugar is never equal to a pound of sugar – a more delicate scale always discloses a difference. Again one can object: but a pound of sugar is equal to itself. Neither is this true – all bodies change uninterruptedly in size, weight, colour etc. They are never equal to themselves. [20] (http://www.marxisme.dk/arkiv/reesj/1990/trot-dia/trot-dia.htm#note020)
It is not even true, Trotsky continues, that a pound of sugar is equal to itself 'at a given moment in time'. Even in an infinitesimal moment of time the pound of sugar is undergoing microscopic changes – 'existence itself is an uninterrupted process of transformation.' At this point a word of warning is necessary. A criticism sometimes levelled at this kind of example is that it is trying to explain the changes taking place in the pound of sugar. This is obviously not the case. An explanation would have to proceed from the established properties of sugar and the surrounding air etc, to the laws governing the changes in these properties and their interaction. The example merely shows that, since the sugar is in the process of transformation, no static formal definition will even be adequate to formulate the question, never mind deliver the answer. And since we have to formulate the question dialectically, we are justified in hypothesising that the answer will be dialectical as well.
The doctrine that 'A equals A' is satisfactory only under conditions where the scale of change is not vital to our understanding-as when we buy a pound of sugar. But for more complex tasks in politics, history and science generally this will not do. Common sense and formal logic are agreed on static definitions of, for instance, 'capitalism', 'freedom' or 'the state.' Much of modern social science is obsessed precisely with this kind of classification and definition, the 'motionless imprints of a reality that consists of eternal motion.' But 'dialectical thinking analyses all phenomena in their continuous change, while determining in the material conditions of those changes that critical limit beyond which "A ceases to be A".' This method gives theory a 'succulence' which 'brings it closer to the living phenomena. Not capitalism in general, but a given capitalism at a given stage of development.' [21] (http://www.marxisme.dk/arkiv/reesj/1990/trot-dia/trot-dia.htm#note021) Although he recognised that Hegel's dialectic was only an 'anticipation' of scientific thought, Trotsky concludes this passage by saying:
Hegel in his Logic established a series of laws: change of quantity into quality, development through contradictions, conflict of content and form, interruption of continuity, change of possibility into inevitability, etc., which are just as important for theoretical thought as the simple syllogism for more elementary tasks. [22] (http://www.marxisme.dk/arkiv/reesj/1990/trot-dia/trot-dia.htm#note022)
As we have already seen this brief outline of the dialectic, like Engels own account, met with sustained criticism. It is said to be an all-embracing determinism, predicting the inevitable unfolding of history according to spurious dialectical laws. The idea that the dialectic applies to the natural world as well as the social world, which Trotsky clearly believes, has been cited as evidence for this determinism. Nature develops blindly and unconsciously, it is argued, and so any dialectic which applies both to the natural world and the social world must end in denying conscious human agency any role in social change. Even Lukacs shared the view that the dialectic could not be applied to the natural world without running the risk of turning Marxism into determinism. For others Hegel himself was a determinist and this is evinced as further proof that the dialectic is an unscientific fatalism. In the last 30 years such accusations have been the common coin of idealists and empiricists alike, of structuralists, Althusserians, post-modernists and analytical Marxists.
Trotsky did not meet such criticisms at the time of the debate in the American SWP. He was mostly concerned with the substantive issue of the class nature of Russia and touched on dialectics only in outline. But some years earlier, in 1933-35, he did study Hegel while working on his biography of Lenin. In preparation for his study of Lenin's Philosophical Notebooks, Trotsky studied Aristotle, Descartes and, especially, Hegel. The notebooks and the notes that he continued to make until the time of the debate in the SWP contain some of the most incisive thinking about the dialectic since Marx, albeit in fragmentary notes. They form a remarkable unity with his earlier comments on the dialectic in the 1920s and his polemical defence of the dialectic in the debate with Burnham. Many of the formulations bear directly on the objections now frequently raised against the dialectic. Since these notebooks have only been available in the last few years I shall deal with them in some detail.
Trotsky begins by making some important observations on the difference between the Hegelian and the Marxist dialectic. Hegel had insisted on the identity between men's consciousness of the world and the real structure of the world itself, the identity of knowing and being. Hegel believed that the history of the world mirrored the unfolding of human consciousness. This is the root of his idealism. Marx refused to accept the dialectic in this form, although he understood that Hegel had struck an important blow against Kantian dualism by asserting that thought and reality were part of one whole and could not be separated into two distinct spheres. So how should a materialist theory interpret this relationship'' Lenin, in an important aside in the Philosophical Notebooks, remarked that Marxists should prefer the formulation 'the unity of knowing and being' rather than the 'identity of knowing and being.' Trotsky elaborates this insight:
According to Hegel being and thinking are identical (absolute idealism). Materialism does not adopt this identity – it premises being to thought ...
The identity of being and thinking according to H[egel] signifies the identity of objective and subjective logic, their ultimate congruence. Materialism accepts the correspondence of the subjective and objective, their unity, but not their identity, in other words it does not liberate matter from its materiality, in order to keep only the logical framework of regularity, of which scientific thought (consciousness) is the expression. [23] (http://www.marxisme.dk/arkiv/reesj/1990/trot-dia/trot-dia.htm#note023)
Hegel's Logic is of course a massive example of a 'logical framework' constructed by 'liberating matter from materiality.' However this edifice can only be kept from collapsing by doing both enormous violence to the facts, so that they fit into the construction, and also by hammering the logical framework until it fits the facts. Trotsky is arguing that a materialist dialectic must both show how dialectical logic can only arise from a dialectical reality and that the relationship between thought and reality cannot be as rigid and constricted as it is in Hegel's idealism. For Marxists the dialectic in history – the contradiction between the forces and relations of production, the clash of the class struggle – cannot have a structure identical to the intellectual process by which we come to understand history. The dialectical method involves analytically separating a chaotic social whole into its various constituent economic formations, classes, institutions, personalities and so on. It then involves showing how these factors interrelate and contradict each other as part of a totality. Such an intellectual operation gives us a finished picture of the dialectic in history, but it is not itself the same as that dialectic. Trotsky goes on to spell out some of the implications that this distinction involves:
What does logic express? The law of the external world or the law of consciousness? The question is posed dualistically, [and] therefore not correctly [for] the laws of logic express the laws (rules, methods) of consciousness in its active relationship to the external world. The relationship of consciousness to the external world is a relationship of the part (the particular, specialised) to the whole. [24] (http://www.marxisme.dk/arkiv/reesj/1990/trot-dia/trot-dia.htm#note024)
Trotsky is allowing for interaction and contradiction to emerge between thought and reality in a way that was inadmissable for Hegel. Any materialist theory must develop a method capable of dealing with all history's lapses, leaps, inconsistencies and unevenness. To meet this challenge the distinction between the Hegelian unity and the Marxist identity of thought and material reality is vital. Trotsky calls this kind of distinction a 'differentiated unity'. Indeed, he uses this phrase to describe the term dialectical materialism itself. [25] (http://www.marxisme.dk/arkiv/reesj/1990/trot-dia/trot-dia.htm#note025) Differentiated unity is a concept which Trotsky uses again and again to distinguish a dialectical materialist approach from a reductionist, deterministic approach. It is particularly useful when it come to the question of the dialectic in nature.
Trotsky realised that natural scientists were less directly affected by the class nature of the dominant ideology than social scientists. He based this belief on the fact that while the bourgeoisie no longer needs to transform the social structure and so no longer has need of a critical social science, as it did in its revolutionary years, it still does need to transform the natural world. The competition between different capitals, the drive to accumulate, mean that capitalism still needs to advance its ability to transform nature and to develop new technology. Of course the class nature of this process leaves its mark even on natural science-by compartmentalising areas of study and subordinating research to the needs of economic and military competition. And the more science attempts to generalise, the more it attempts to overcome this compartmentalisation and restriction, the more it has to confront philosophical issues. And the more it confronts these issues the more it is liable to fall victim to the ideological prejudices of the ruling class.
So, for nature to be fully understood, it had to be seen as a totality and in its full connection with society. Following Marx and Engels, Trotsky sees Darwin's theory of evolution as an important breakthrough for a materialist understanding of history but argues that it is 'less concrete, with less content, than the dialectical conception.' This is partly because of Darwin's refusal to generalise his findings. He remained a Christian and therefore ultimately compromised the importance of his own theory. But partly also Darwin did not have a conscious dialectical method which would have enabled him to refine his findings, seeing them in the broader framework. Such a framework would have made it easier to see that there is no impenetrable barrier between 'nature' and 'human society'. Human beings' battle for survival is, as Marx put it, the 'everlasting, nature-imposed condition of human existence.'
Nature had to be seen dialectically, not just in its connection to society, but in itself as well. Trotsky, again following Marx, saw that human beings are part of the natural world and that any attempt to break this unity would result in dualism:
Dialectics is the logic of development. It examines the world-completely and without exception-not as the result of creation, of a sudden beginning, the realisation of a plan, but as a result of motion, of transformation. Everything that is became the way it is as a result of lawlike development.
... the organic world emerged from the inorganic, consciousness is a capacity of living organisms depending upon organs that originated through evolution. In other words 'the soul' of evolution (of dialectics) leads in the last analysis to matter. The evolutionary point of view carried to a logical conclusion leaves no room for either idealism or dualism, or for the other species of eclecticism. [26] (http://www.marxisme.dk/arkiv/reesj/1990/trot-dia/trot-dia.htm#note026)
In other words, the alternative to seeing both history and nature as dialectical in structure is to assume that nature has a series of laws totally separate from those governing human society. The result is either to reduce nature to an unknowable realm (a Kantian thing-in-itself), or to abandon the theory of evolution because it assumes that humans did grow out of nature and are still part of nature.
Trotsky had already made some similar observations in his 1925 speech on 'Dialectical Materialism and Science'. Here he argued that each of the sciences were bound in a totality. Psychology 'in the final instance' rests on physiology, which rests on chemistry, mechanics and physics. Without such an approach 'there is not and cannot be a finished philosophy linking all phenomena into a single system.' [27] (http://www.marxisme.dk/arkiv/reesj/1990/trot-dia/trot-dia.htm#note027) In his notebooks on dialectics he put it even more strongly:
All evolution is a transition from quantity into quality ... Whoever denies the dialectical law of the transition from quantity into quality must deny the genetic unity of plants and animal species, the chemical elements, etc. He must, in the last analysis, turn back to the biblical act of creation. [28] (http://www.marxisme.dk/arkiv/reesj/1990/trot-dia/trot-dia.htm#note028)
Such phrases inevitably raise the objection that Trotsky is reducing everything to matter, that he is importing the blind, deterministic laws of the natural sciences into Marxism and generally paving the way for a vulgar materialism in the manner of the Second International. Careful reading of 'Dialectical Materialism and Science' alone should dispel these objections. For instance, Trotsky argues:
Human society has not developed in accordance with a pre-arranged plan or system, but empirically, in the course of a long, complicated and contradictory struggle of the human species for existence, and, later for greater and greater mastery over nature itself. The ideology of human society took shape as a reflection of and an instrument in this process-belated, desultory, piecemeal, in the form, so to speak, of conditioned reflexes, which are in the final analysis reducible to the necessities of the struggle of collective man against nature. [29] (http://www.marxisme.dk/arkiv/reesj/1990/trot-dia/trot-dia.htm#note029)
Without losing sight of its material base, Trotsky spells out that human ideology is not simply a 'reflection' of the historical process but also 'an instrument in this process,' and so cannot be pre-determined. Elsewhere in the same speech he uses the idea of a 'differentiated unity' in his analysis of the sciences. We have seen that he argues that psychology rests on physiology which rests on chemistry and so on. But he goes on to say that 'chemistry is no substitute for physiology.' In fact, 'Chemistry has its own keys' which must be studied separately using 'a special approach, special research technique, special hypotheses and methods.' Trotsky concludes, 'each science rests on the laws of the other sciences only in the so-called final instance.' [30] (http://www.marxisme.dk/arkiv/reesj/1990/trot-dia/trot-dia.htm#note030)
This understanding prevents Trotsky from crudely applying natural laws to society. He warns that it is a 'fundamental mistake' when 'the methods and achievements of chemistry or physiology, in violation of all scientific boundaries, are transplanted to human society.' It is true, says Trotsky, that 'human society is surrounded on all sides by chemical processes'. Nevertheless, 'public life is neither a chemical nor a psychological process, but a social process which is shaped by its own laws. [31] (http://www.marxisme.dk/arkiv/reesj/1990/trot-dia/trot-dia.htm#note031)
But what of the dialectic itself? It is one thing to say that the laws of natural science cannot be automatically transferred to the analysis of society, but where does this leave the claim that the writ of the dialectic runs in both the natural and the social world? Trotsky has a startlingly original approach to these questions in his notebooks on dialectics. He continues to insist that human beings are part of nature, that the conscious grew out of the unconscious. 'Our human reason is nature's youngest child' he argues. But the development of this consciousness marks a new historical phase which cannot simply be analysed using the tools that are adequate for objective nature:
Dialectical cognition is not identical with the dialectic of nature. Consciousness is a quite original part of nature, possessing peculiarities and regularities that are completely absent in the remaining part of nature. Subjective dialectics must by virtue of this be a distinctive part of objective dialectics – with its own special forms and regularities. [32] (http://www.marxisme.dk/arkiv/reesj/1990/trot-dia/trot-dia.htm#note032)
Trotsky then goes on to argue, in an aside levelled at Hegel's attempt to transfer the dialectic of consciousness onto the dialectic of nature, that 'the danger lies in the transference-under the guise of "objectivism" – of the birth pangs, the spasm of consciousness, to objective nature.' Actually, since Hegel, few have tried to claim that nature reproduces the patterns of human consciousness. The main danger, at least within the socialist movement, has been the opposite. It was a feature of both Stalinism and the Marxism of the Second International that they tried to reduce the dialectic to a series of positive laws which rigidly determined the course of history. Trotsky's differentiation between the form of the dialectic appropriate in nature and that adequate for the study of society both preserves the unity of the dialectic (thus avoiding dualism) and also prevents a deterministic interpretation of Marxism. Trotsky sums up the relationship between theory and practice in words which strongly recall Marx's use of the term 'practical-critical activity':
The dialectic of consciousness (cognition) is not thereby a reflection of the dialectic of nature, but is a result of the lively interaction between consciousness and nature and – in addition – a method of cognition, issuing from this interaction. [33] (http://www.marxisme.dk/arkiv/reesj/1990/trot-dia/trot-dia.htm#note033)
For Marx 'practical-critical activity', or practice, meant the unique capability of human beings to consciously alter the material world which determines their existence-a capacity summarised in the famous epigram, 'Men make their own history, but not in conditions of their own choosing.' Trotsky points to the same dialectical combination of subjective and objective factors in human action when he says that the 'attempt to set up a hostile opposition' between determinism, 'the philosophy of objective causality', and teleology, 'the philosophy of subjective purposes', is 'a product of philosophical ignorance.' [34] (http://www.marxisme.dk/arkiv/reesj/1990/trot-dia/trot-dia.htm#note034)
Such distinctions between the dialectic in nature and that in history inevitably mean a transformation of some key dialectical concepts. Trotsky, for instance, puts great stress on one particular dialectical lawthe transition from quantity into quality. This emphasis differs from that given in many accounts of the dialectic which stress the negation of the negation. A distorted account of the negation of the negation can be used to accuse Marxism of determinism. Crudely, the argument runs that the contradiction between capitalism and its antithesis, the working class, must inevitably be resolved in a synthesis, a socialist society in which classes disappear. The negation is negated. The Marxists of the classical Marxist tradition have long argued that the resolution of such contradictions is not automatic, but a question that can only be resolved in struggle. Marx and those who followed him have insisted only that the struggle between the classes is inevitable, but not its outcome. Marx argued, in the Communist Manifesto, that the outcome of the struggle might either be socialism or 'the common ruin of the contending classes', Luxemburg stressed that 'socialism or barbarism' was the choice facing humanity while Lenin insisted that 'the capitalists can always solve the crisis so long as the working class is prepared to pay the price.' So far this century the price has proved very high: two world wars, fascism, Stalinism, famine, mass unemployment and the permanent threat of nuclear annihilation.
Trotsky's interpretation of the dialectic is wholly in this spirit. He says that the dialectic gives us the 'forms of the transformation of one regime into another' but then continues:
... in such a general fore: it is only a matter of possibility ... Thus, from the possibility of a bourgeois victory over the feudal classes until the victory itself there were various time lapses, and the victory itself frequently looked like a semi-victory.
In order for the possibility to become a necessity there had to be a corresponding strengthening of some factors and the weakening of others, a definite relationship between these strengthenings and weakenings. In other words: it was necessary for several quantative changes to prepare the way for a new constellation of forces. [35] (http://www.marxisme.dk/arkiv/reesj/1990/trot-dia/trot-dia.htm#note035)
Trotsky is so committed to viewing the dialectic in history as tendency not a deterministic law that he defines the negation of the negation, or triad (the thesis negated by the antithesis in turn negated by the synthesis), as 'the "mechanism" of the transformation of quantity into quality.'
Trotsky expresses his understanding of the dialectic particularly sharply in the notebooks, but he had been using the method for much longer. His analysis of the role of the individual in history shows just how brilliantly he wielded the Marxist method.

[trivas7]

So, just like all the other dialecticians with whom I have 'debated' this over the last 25 years -- not one of you is capable of defending this 'theory' of yours -- you believe a pack of lies just because it seems to support your mystical faith.

You expect me to defend a notion that you say doesn't exist? OTC, it is incumbent on you to prove your non-existent thesis.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas, thanks for the Rees article, but one of the reasons I began my project of demolishing dialectics back in 1998 was Rees's book on this execrable theory ('The Algebra of Revolution'), and his work on Trotsky in this article (most of which is reproduced in the aforementioned book).

So, I do not know why you think it is going to help; Rees just repeats the same old errors the rest of you make, and will continue to make. I told him face to face in 1990 he knew no logic but was happy to pontifcate about it, just like Trotsky -- I'd have been better off telling the cat, for all the good that did.


You expect me to defend a notion that you say doesn't exist? OTC, it is incumbent on you to prove your non-existent thesis.

I expect you to defend a theory you say you accept; clearly you can't.

My ideas are defended at depth in my essays.

I hope you never read them.

[Hyacinth]

I have repeatedly argued that there is a pattern in Rosa's writings and that pattern includes the following features:

- repeated substitution of bluster for argument in the face of difficulties;
<snip>
- she glorifies a mystical 'working class' ordinary language in an idealist manner, which ignores the fact that their discourse, consciousness and language is as much part of capitalist society as anyone else's
Might I get links to some threads that contain these exchanges? Since, after all, you’ve only given me your conclusions, rather than any arguments for them.

[Hyacinth]

No, contradiction doesn't mean the same as in ordinary languge, it's more than two opposing forces. It is a conflict between opposing forces within one system or totality that can only be resolved by the destruction of that system.
Alright, let me ask you this... it seems to me that all you’re really doing is using certain technical terms which Marx (for better or worse) borrowed from Hegel to describe perfectly ordinary processes. Would you agree with this?

If so, then wouldn’t it be advisable to drop Marx’s jargon in favour of terms which are more contemporary, and hence more accessible to contemporary audiences? Whatever “contradiction” meant to Marx it is clear that the word is no longer used that way in English (apart from the few dialecticians around), as such, if your aim is to reach a wide modern audience, and show them the relevance of Marxism today, wouldn’t it be best if your vocabulary was also made modern?


Change and motion through internal processes.

It doesn't seem as significant a breakthrough as it once did, but you have to understand that Marxism is pirmarily a critique of the materialism of Marx's time. It was static, didn't deal with change or dynamics. Dialectics need to be understood in that context, and I think the flaw in Rosa's argument is that she ignores this.
Let’s suppose that this was indeed the case, just for the sake of argument, that dialectics did indeed somehow at the time provide some important insight. Why should we suppose that it is relevant now? In saying that dialectics corrected a deficiency of the materialism that existed in Marx’s time, is it still the case that materialism today is similarly deficient?

Science advanced; we’ve made considerable process in understanding both the natural and social worlds. Dialectics, on the other hand, as a theory seems to remain static. What progress has been made in dialectics? Have the “laws of dialectics” been tested? Have they been modified in all the time that has passed since its inception?

[NoValue]

NoValue:



Not so; anyone cannot prove anything.

Go on: prove you are a carrot.

Sorry,i dont have a motive at all and i am not a sophist.
Whats this? Some kind of a test in order to see if there is still a metaphysical chance in a dialectical world?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

No value:


Sorry,i dont have a motive at all and i am not a sophist.
Whats this? Some kind of a test in order to see if there is still a metaphysical chance in a dialectical world?

You are no logician, either, or you'd know you cannot prove a falsehood.

[gilhyle]

....you would presumably accept you were wrong if Marx had in fact written in or after 1867 that the true laws of dialectics are already contained in Hegel, though in a mystical form ?

Hyacinth, I dont have links, but the relevant discussions are all over this philosophy forum over the last year or so - not hard to find.

Rosa, I wont answer your long post, except to clarify that I never said I make things up about you. What I said was that IF anything I said misrepresented your view I was sorry about that as nothing is served by misrepresenting other people....and then I went on to explain some of the features of your approach which make it necessary to speculate somewhat on the hidden (or undeveloped) perspectives which underpin your expressed views - entirely different thing. [By the way if any one is persuaded by Rosa's responses on any of the points summarised in my long post, I am happy to go back over it, but I just dont want to divert this thread into the ten or so parrallel discussions it would take to pursue all points which I only referred to and purposely did not elaborate in my original post. The point of my post was that those criticisms exist, not that to persuade anyone that they are correct.]

Most importantly, Rosa, you claim that your position is clearly confirmed by a quote of another author by Marx which he approves and which does not contain a citation of Hegel. That is rather a lot to hang on that indirect form of expression, just as you hang a lot on the interpretataion of the verb to coquette. However, I have asked you a clear question, requoted above. Yes or no - would such a quotation from Marx disprove your claim ?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hyacinth:


Might I get links to some threads that contain these exchanges? Since, after all, you’ve only given me your conclusions, rather than any arguments for them.

Are you kidding?:)

Gil regularly makes stuff up like this, and when asked to, never supplies the proof.

Why do you think I treat her/him with sucg contempt?

You can find links to all the pages where I have wiped the floor with, er sorry, debated with Gil (and others) here:

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

By the way, did you read my reply to Gil, above?

[NoValue]

ok Rosa ill give it a try...
Here is some Tool lyrics on carrots:

-And the angel of the Lord came unto me, snatching me up from my place of slumber. And took me on high, and higher still until we moved to the spaces betwixt the air itself. And he brought me into a vast farmlands of our own midwest. And as we descended, cries of impending doom rose from the soil. One thousand, nay a million voices full of fear. And terror possesed me then. And I begged, "Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?" And the angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots! You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust." And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat like the tears of one million terrified brothers and roared, "Hear me now, I have seen the light! They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers!" Can I get an amen? Can I get a hallelujah? Thank you Jesus.-:cool:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hyacinth, you see what I mean:


Hyacinth, I dont have links, but the relevant discussions are all over this philosophy forum over the last year or so - not hard to find.

Gil:


Rosa, I wont answer your long post, except to clarify that I never said I make things up about you. What I said was that IF anything I said misrepresented your view I was sorry about that as nothing is served by misrepresenting other people....and then I went on to explain some of the features of your approach which make it necessary to speculate somewhat on the hidden (or undeveloped) perspectives which underpin your expressed views - entirely different thing. [By the way if any one is persuaded by Rosa's responses on any of the points summarised in my long post, I am happy to go back over it, but I just dont want to divert this thread into the ten or so parrallel discussions it would take to pursue all points which I only referred to and purposely did not elaborate in my original post. The point of my post was that those criticisms exist, not that to persuade anyone that they are correct.]

As usual, when challenged, you skulk off, and refuse to substantiate your lies.

And, we can be sure you'll repeat them again, in a month or so -- see ya then...


Most importantly, Rosa, you claim that your position is clearly confirmed by a quote of another author by Marx which he approves and which does not contain a citation of Hegel. That is rather a lot to hang on that indirect form of expression, just as you hang a lot on the interpretataion of the verb to coquette. However, I have asked you a clear question, requoted above.

If that were my only evidence, you might have a point, but it isn't, so you don't.

But, you'd know that if you read my Essays, before mouthing off about them.


Yes or no - would such a quotation from Marx disprove your claim ?

You demand I answer your question, but refuse to answer mine. Typical.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

No Point:


ok Rosa ill give it a try...
Here is some Tool lyrics on carrots:

-And the angel of the Lord came unto me, snatching me up from my place of slumber. And took me on high, and higher still until we moved to the spaces betwixt the air itself. And he brought me into a vast farmlands of our own midwest. And as we descended, cries of impending doom rose from the soil. One thousand, nay a million voices full of fear. And terror possesed me then. And I begged, "Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?" And the angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots! You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust." And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat like the tears of one million terrified brothers and roared, "Hear me now, I have seen the light! They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers!" Can I get an amen? Can I get a hallelujah? Thank you Jesus.-

As I said, you know no logic...

[NoValue]

Yea.thats true.i am a bad sophist.the essence of logic for you is to supply arguments that look logical.I am sure you could do better than me on proveing I am a carrot,since i dont think i am one.I had no intension to give such looking logical arguments...
If you see my post I say you can prove almost anything with arguments.
Of course as a good sophist you didnt see that...and just because some things get definetly insane as the wold moves...sophisms die..
That of course doesnt mean that someone cant still believe he is a carrot,or that you found a way to prove dm wrong.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

No V:


Yea.thats true.i am a bad sophist.the essence of logic for you is to supply arguments that look logical.I am sure you could do better than me on proveing I am a carrot,since i dont think i am one.I had no intension to give such looking logical arguments...
If you see my post I say you can prove almost anything with arguments.
Of course as a good sophist you didnt see that...and just because some things get definetly insane as the wold moves...sophisms die..
That of course doesnt mean that someone cant still believe he is a carrot,or that you found a way to prove dm wrong.

I'd like to see you prove that you can prove anything with arguments. [Up to now, you have just assumed it -- or copied it uncritically off Lenin.]

Or even prove this, for example: Castro is a CIA agent...

[NoValue]

No V:



I'd like to see you prove that you can prove anything with arguments. [Up to now, you have just assumed it -- or copied it uncritically off Lenin.]

Or even prove this, for example: Castro is a CIA agent...

wanting me to be a sophist who goes around and proves things of no practical value is like me wanting you to be a scientist that does the excactly oposite.so you go around talkin about the mistakes of Karl Marx but you dont give us a better reflection of the world we live in your great writings that you oftenly direct us to read as they were facts.
And you know...the way out of these stupid thinking which is called scholasticism is practice....real life which dont give a damn about it.

[trivas7]

I expect you to defend a theory you say you accept; clearly you can't.
My ideas are defended at depth in my essays.

I accept dialectics as essential to Marxist theory, I don't need to defend them. You, OTOH, have no ideas to defend.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

No V:


wanting me to be a sophist who goes around and proves things of no practical value is like me wanting you to be a scientist that does the excactly oposite.so you go around talkin about the mistakes of Karl Marx but you dont give us a better reflection of the world we live in your great writings that you oftenly direct us to read as they were facts.
And you know...the way out of these stupid thinking which is called scholasticism is practice....real life which dont give a damn about it.

Then withdraw the rash claim that anything can be proved.


so you go around talkin about the mistakes of Karl Marx but you dont give us a better reflection of the world we live in your great writings that you oftenly direct us to read as they were facts.

Where do I say Marx made 'mistakes'?

And I have no need to offer a 'better reflection' on the world, since I fully accept Historical Materialism, which you'd know if you read what I have to say before passing opinion on it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas, now reduced to rather sad declarations of faith in the holy dialectic:


I accept dialectics as essential to Marxist theory, I don't need to defend them. You, OTOH, have no ideas to defend.

On the contrary, as I noted above, I defend my ideas in unprecedented detail both here and at my site.

And, despite your touching declaration of faith, you are like those naive Christians who refuse to defend their ideas, but demand of us atheists that we prove 'god' does not exist.

Whatever your pathetic excuses, the bottom line is that you cannot defend this faith of yours, which works for you just like a religious opiate (which in turn explains why you resemble those naive Christians, and why you cling on to it so desperately).

[trivas7]

On the contrary, as I noted above, I defend my ideas [...].

Ideas? Er, what ideas? Verbage, perhaps.

[PRC-UTE]

PRC:

Are you suggesting that billiard balls move themselves?

I wasn't aware that billard balls are a complex social system containing forces in contradiction (opposition that cannot be resolved without revolution) with each other...

And I've always argued against using dialectics in every situation, argued against it being considered a 'world integral outlook'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Ideas? Er, what ideas? Verbage, perhaps.

No, you are mistaken; I wasn't referring to your posts.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PRC:


I wasn't aware that billard balls are a complex social system containing forces in contradiction (opposition that cannot be resolved without revolution) with each other...

According to Lenin, everything in the entire universe is self-moving. So, not only do billiard balls move themselves, given what Lenin says, but light bulbs must be able to change themselves.

Here is the argument:

First, consider a question that is well worth asking: Do objects move one another, themselves, or a bit of both?

Dialecticians have a revolutionary answer. But you might not like it.

Lenin put things this way:


"The identity of opposites…is the recognition…of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature…. The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their 'self-movement', in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the 'struggle' of opposites. The two basic (or two possible? or two historically observable?) conceptions of development (evolution) are: development as decrease and increase, as repetition, and development as a unity of opposites (the division of a unity into mutually exclusive opposites and their reciprocal relation).

"In the first conception of motion, self-movement, its driving force, its source, its motive, remains in the shade (or this source is made external -- God, subject, etc.). In the second conception the chief attention is directed precisely to knowledge of the source of 'self-movement'.

"The first conception is lifeless, pale and dry. The second is living. The second alone furnishes the key to the 'self-movement' of everything existing; it alone furnishes the key to the 'leaps,' to the 'break in continuity,' to the 'transformation into the opposite,' to the destruction of the old and the emergence of the new.

"The unity (coincidence, identity, equal action) of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute." [Lenin (1961), pp.357-58. Italic emphases in the original. Bold emphases added.]

This is a rather odd passage since it seems to suggest that things can move themselves. If so, much of modern mechanics will need to be re-written. On this view, presumably, when someone throws a ball, the action of throwing does not in fact move the ball. On the contrary, the ball moves itself, and it knows exactly where it is going and how to get there, traversing its path independently of gravity. Intelligent projectiles like this, it seems, need no guidance systems -- they happily 'self-develop' from A to B like unerring homing pigeons.

To make matters worse, Lenin did not assert this innovative piece of mechanics just the once:


"Nowadays, the ideas of development…as formulated by Marx and Engels on the basis of Hegel…[encompass a process] that seemingly repeats the stages already passed, but repeats them otherwise, on a higher basis ('negation of negation'), a development, so to speak, in spirals, not in a straight line; -- a development by leaps, catastrophes, revolutions; -- 'breaks in continuity'; the transformation of quantity into quality; -- the inner impulses to development, imparted by the contradiction and conflict of the various forces and tendencies acting on a given body, or within a given phenomenon, or within a given society; -- the interdependence and the closest, indissoluble connection of all sides of every phenomenon…, a connection that provides a uniform, law-governed, universal process of motion -– such are some of the features of dialectics as a richer (than the ordinary) doctrine of development." [Lenin (1914), pp.12-13.]

Now, these comments come from a published essay (on Marx), so the loose phraseology associated with this new theory of motion cannot be put down to the fact that Lenin's earlier words appeared in unpublished notebooks.

Perhaps then this is the point of that old anti-dialectical joke:

Q: How many dialecticians does it take to change a light bulb?

A: None at all, the light bulb changes itself.

A touch unfair? Maybe so, but could this scientific regression on Lenin's part (where he seems to want to return to pre-Aristotelian theories of motion and change) be the result of a mere slip of the dialectical pen? Perhaps Lenin was using language non-literally or metaphorically. Indeed, this is what some bemused DM-fans try to claim when confronted with this example of pre-Galilean mechanics -- which is a get-out that is worryingly reminiscent of the way that theologians used to try to rescue the Book of Genesis when faced with the discoveries of modern science.

Is it possible then that Lenin did not really mean what he said? Or is there a suggestion in what he did say that he thought change in fact has more complex, external causes, too?

Well, as if to disappoint his fans, and provide no help at all for those who still think that dialectics has anything of worth to teach modern science, Lenin not only repeated this odd claim, he "demanded" that all DL-fans see things this way:


"Dialectical logic demands that we go further…. [It] requires that an object should be taken in development, in 'self-movement' (as Hegel sometimes puts it)…." [Lenin (1921), p.90. Italic emphasis added.]

Here, not only are objects said to be capable of moving themselves, but Lenin even says that DL "requires" us to view motion in no other way.

[DL = Dialectical Logic.]

It looks, therefore, like Lenin was committed to the belief that not only can light bulbs change themselves, but also that books on dialectics write themselves -- and that DM-fans similarly fool themselves into believing far too much of what they found in Hegel.

Well, perhaps Lenin was merely referring to the development of certain systems, and not the movement of objects from place to place? If so, the impertinent 'counter-example' from earlier (i.e., the one about light bulbs) would neither be valid nor sensible.

But Lenin's words were pretty clear; he asserted that DL demands and/or requires that "objects" (not processes, nor yet systems, but objects) be taken in "development, in 'self-movement'", so he included both -- development and self-movement -- in this caveat. And, all this is quite apart from the fact that, as we have seen, Lenin counterposed this view of reality to that of mechanical materialists, who hold that objects move because of the action of external forces:


"In the first conception of motion, self-movement, its driving force, its source, its motive, remains in the shade (or this source is made external -- God, subject, etc.). In the second conception the chief attention is directed precisely to knowledge of the source of 'self-movement'.

"The first conception is lifeless, pale and dry. The second is living. The second alone furnishes the key to the 'self-movement' of everything existing; it alone furnishes the key to the 'leaps,' to the 'break in continuity,' to the 'transformation into the opposite,' to the destruction of the old and the emergence of the new." [Lenin (1961), p.358. Bold emphasis added.]

There would be no contrast here if objects did not move themselves in the DM-scheme-of-things, both developmentally and as they move from place to place. As we will see, this is indeed how Lenin has since been interpreted by his epigones: holding to the view that things self-develop and self-locomote.

And Lenin was not alone in wanting to return modern science to this ancient 'theory' of change and motion, i.e., one that views nature as a living, self-developing organism, or as a Whole that contains nothing but organisms of this sort --, which, like animals, propel themselves about the place. On this view, nature is en-souled, enchanted, and all things are alive or are governed by some form of intelligence/will.

Other DM-worthies have made similar claims. Here is Bukharin:


"The basis of all things is therefore the law of change, the law of constant motion. Two philosophers particularly (the ancient Heraclitus and the modern Hegel…) formulated this law of change, but they did not stop there. They also set up the question of the manner in which the process operates. The answer they discovered was that changes are produced by constant internal contradictions, internal struggle. Thus, Heraclitus declared: 'Conflict is the mother of all happenings,' while Hegel said: 'Contradiction is the power that moves things.'"

Not to be outdone, Plekhanov joined this backward-facing stampede, too:


"'All is flux, nothing is stationary,' said the ancient thinker from Ephesus. The combinations we call objects are in a state of constant and more or less rapid change…. In as much as they change and cease to exist as such, we must address ourselves to the logic of contradiction….

"…[M]otion does not only make objects…, it is constantly changing them. It is for this reason that the logic of motion (the 'logic of contradiction') never relinquishes its rights over the objects created by motion….

"With Hegel, thinking progresses in consequence of the uncovering and resolution of the contradictions inclosed (sic) in concepts. According to our doctrine…the contradictions embodied in concepts are merely reflections, translations into the language of thought, of those contradictions that are embodied in phenomena owing to the contradictory nature of their common basis, i.e., motion….

"…[T]he overwhelming majority of phenomena that come within the compass of the natural and the social sciences are among 'objects' of this kind…[ones in which there is a coincidence of opposites]. Diametrically opposite phenomena are united in the simplest globule of protoplasm, and the life of the most undeveloped society…." [Plekhanov (1908), pp.92-96. Bold emphases alone added.]

Countless secondary DM-figures say more or less the same sort of thing. [Details at my site, in Essay Eight Eight Part One (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2008_01.htm), Note 3.

For example, here are Woods and Grant:


"Dialectics explains that change and motion involve contradiction and can only take place through contradictions.... Dialectics is the logic of contradiction....

"So fundamental is this idea to dialectics that Marx and Engels considered motion to be the most basic characteristic of matter.... [And, referring to a quote from Aristotle, they add (RL)] [t]his is not the mechanical conception of motion as something imparted to an inert mass by an external 'force' [B]but an entirely different notion of matter as self-moving....

"The essential point of dialectical thought is not that it is based on the idea of change and motion but that it views motion and change as phenomena based on contradiction.... Contradiction is an essential feature of all being. It lies at the heart of matter itself. It is the source of all motion, change, life and development. The dialectical law which expresses this idea is the unity and interpenetration of opposites....

"The universal phenomena of the unity of opposites is, in reality, the motor-force of all motion and development in nature. It is the reason why it is not necessary to introduce the concept of external impulse to explain movement and change -- the fundamental weakness of all mechanistic theories. Movement, which itself involves a contradiction, is only possible as a result of the conflicting tendencies and inner tensions which lie at the heart of all forms of matter....

"...Matter is self-moving and self-organising." [Woods and Grant (1995), pp.43-45, 47, 68, 72. Bold emphases added.]

Unfortunately, Lenin and his co-dialecticians failed to take any real note of the origin of these ancient ideas: Hermetic Philosophy is based on the belief that the universe is alive; indeed it is a cosmic egg -- later transmogrified by Hegel into a Cosmic Ego.

Since eggs appear to develop all of their own, and because Hegel's immaterial and immanent cosmic Ego self-develops, it clearly seemed 'natural' for Lenin and his epigones to think this of nature, too.

Nevertheless, not even eggs develop of their own; in fact, it is hard to think of a single thing in the entire universe (of which we have any knowledge) that develops of its own, or which moves itself. Not even Capitalism does. Switch off the Sun and watch American Imperialism fold a whole lot quicker than Enron.

And yet, if Lenin were correct, no object in the universe could possibly interact with any other (since that would amount to external causation, and objects would not be self-motivated). Self-motivated beings must, it seems, be causally isolated from their surroundings, or they would not be self-motivated. This in turn must mean that, despite appearances to the contrary, nothing in reality interacts with anything else. That would, of course, make a mockery of the other DM-claim that everything in reality is interconnected.

So, based on the bird-brained doctrines of ancient mystics, and no evidence at all, we find Lenin once again propounding cosmic ideas that do not make sense even in DM-terms -- and ones that not even chickens observe.

References at my site, at the end of Essay Eight Part One (link above).

PRC:


And I've always argued against using dialectics in every situation, argued against it being considered a 'world integral outlook'.

I am glad to hear it, for you are part of the way toward recovery.

But, this is ultimately an indefensible position; dialectics applies everywhere, or nowhere at all.

Why that is so we can leave for another thread.

[PRC-UTE]

erhaps then this is the point of that old anti-dialectical joke:

Q: How many dialecticians does it take to change a light bulb?

A: None at all, the light bulb changes itself.


LOL, I'll have to remember that one.

I've always thought Engels was wrong to apply dialectics to nature, I never understood that one myself (and as stated above, I've always argued against this interpretation). However I still think that applied to social life it yields a lot of useful insights and explanatory power.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PRC:


However I still think that applied to social life it yields a lot of useful insights and explanatory power.

Well, if you read the dialectical classics, and take them at their word, it turns out that dialectics cannot explain change, either in the social world or in nature.

One or two comrades have tried to neutralise my demolition of this theory by saying that when dialecticians tell us that change is the result of 'internal' (and/or 'external') contradictions, and a struggle between opposites, and that everything sooner or later turns into its opposite, they do not mean this literally (!).

But that is rather like those who try to 'sanitise' the Book of Genesis by telling us that it is all metaphorcal, or allegorical...

Apart from that, it leaves such comrades with no theory of change.

At least Engels, Lenin, and the rest of the classicists had theory of change (one they got from Hegel) -- which does not work; but they at least thought about the issues involved.

Comrades here, who argue in the way I indicated, have no theory of change whatsoever, and have not given change any sort of thought at all.

All they have done is panic in the face of my demolition of the classic dialectical theory of change, and moved to a fall-back position that leaves them with no account of why things change the way they do, and into what they do.

[Or they smuggle into dialectics, concepts from ordinary language to bale this theory out; which means, naturally, that it is ordinary language that can explain change, not dialectics, as I maintain.]

Once more, you can find my demolition here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm#Dialectics-Cannot-Explain-Change

[Hyacinth]

Are you kidding?:)

Gil regularly makes stuff up like this, and when asked to, never supplies the proof.

Why do you think I treat her/him with sucg contempt?

You can find links to all the pages where I have wiped the floor with, er sorry, debated with Gil (and others) here:

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

By the way, did you read my reply to Gil, above?
Indeed, I read your reply. I was just (perhaps unjustifiably) trying to be generous and give him the benefit of doubt. And thanks for the links, though I have my doubts I’ll find anything like a point-by-point response to the arguments in your essays.

I must say, you have far more patience than I in that you’ve actually taken the time to refute dialectical nonsense. I was rather surprised to find that there are still people who take this sort of stuff seriously; I thought the Hegelian disease (as that apt quite from Max Eastman in your signature calls it) was confined to a few Continental philosophy departments, and some English departments. Imagine my shock to discover otherwise.

[Hyacinth]

I accept dialectics as essential to Marxist theory, I don't need to defend them. You, OTOH, have no ideas to defend.
So dialectics for you is just a matter of faith? Sort of like how Christians accept the trinity as essential to Christianity (despite the fact that in early Church history this was a huge point of contention, and it was decided by bishops who voted on it because Constantine was sick of all the bickering and infighting in his new religion, and despite the fact that there really isn’t any Biblical basis for the doctrine)?

If not, then dialectics does indeed require defending.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, I am a seasoned campaigner, and I have seen it all over the last 25 years. There is nothing new; dialecticians in general make the same sort of replies, month in, month out, year in year out, with little variation, just as they did 25 years ago, and countless times in between.

I both know how to wind them up and how to wipe the floor with them, since they are not used to being attacked in the way I approach this 'theory' of theirs and so cannot cope. They in effect run around like headless chickens.

A few of them make pathetic attempts to defend their 'theory', some try to deflect attention from the fact that they cannot do so (Trivas being at one end of that spectrum, Gilhyle at the other), and some just sulk. A good example of the latter can be found in the 'debate' here:

http://aporrealos.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12027&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=d981e3a432862ef9f60789805e7d8877

And, like Gilhyle, they all like to make stuff up about my ideas (without actually having studied them!), and, when pressed, they never quite seem to get around to providing the proof. A good example of that can be found here:

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=99383&start=0&sid=bc8e80c020d5c3d038037932a413b993

The original poster here published a blatant lie about me, and refused to admit it, even when confronted with the evidence. [That 'debate' has been going on now for nearly 4 months!]

[trivas7]

So dialectics for you is just a matter of faith? Sort of like how Christians accept the trinity as essential to Christianity (despite the fact that in early Church history this was a huge point of contention, and it was decided by bishops who voted on it because Constantine was sick of all the bickering and infighting in his new religion, and despite the fact that there really isn’t any Biblical basis for the doctrine)?

If not, then dialectics does indeed require defending.

Hyacinth:


I don't believe that anyone who is anti-dialectics on this forum actually understands it, if they did then I'm sure they would have came to the same conclusion as Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky etc. on the matter; that it is more of a useful tool than the formal metaphysical mode of thought of "ordinary understanding (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/u/n.htm#understanding)" which begins with a fixed definition of a thing according to its various attributes.

[JimFar]

Hyacinth wrote:


So dialectics for you is just a matter of faith? Sort of like how Christians accept the trinity as essential to Christianity (despite the fact that in early Church history this was a huge point of contention, and it was decided by bishops who voted on it because Constantine was sick of all the bickering and infighting in his new religion, and despite the fact that there really isn’t any Biblical basis for the doctrine)?

If not, then dialectics does indeed require defending.Well, as a matter of fact, the emergence of dialectical materialism as the official philosophy of the Soviet Union followed a path not unlike the one that was followed by Christianity in regards to the emperor Constantine. In the 1920s, Soviet Marxists were, on philosophical matters, split into two camps: the so-called mechanists who argued that a specific Marxist philosophy was unnecessary and the so-called "dialecticians" or Deborinists (after the philosopher Abram Deborin), who maintained that Marxism did require a philosophy as its basis and that the required philosophy was one based on Hegelian dialectics. See http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00529.html
for further details.

[Hyacinth]

Hyacinth wrote:

Well, as a matter of fact, the emergence of dialectical materialism as the official philosophy of the Soviet Union followed a path not unlike the one that was followed by Christianity in regards to the emperor Constantine. In the 1920s, Soviet Marxists were, on philosophical matters, split into two camps: the so-called mechanists who argued that a specific Marxist philosophy was unnecessary and the so-called "dialecticians" or Deborinists (after the philosopher Abram Deborin), who maintained that Marxism did require a philosophy as its basis and that the required philosophy was one based on Hegelian dialectics. See http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00529.html
for further details.
Most enlightening! I wasn’t aware of this interesting historical tidbit before. Thanks.

[Hyacinth]

I don't believe that anyone who is anti-dialectics on this forum actually understands it.
Indeed, I’m sure the Christians would say the exact same thing: if you only properly understood the Bible you wouldn’t deny the existence of God.

Rather than spout empty platitudes, would you instead care to enlighten all of us errant brethren as to what the proper understanding of dialectics is?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that Jim.

In fact, as I am sure you know, in the years following the revolution, soviet scientists and younger philosophers rejected both dialectics and all of philosophy as ruling-class ideology (a sort of crude version of my thesis).

However, in order to consolidate his power (and that of the bureaucracy he fronted), Stalin supported Deborin's attack on these 'crude materialists', as anyone who questions Dialectical Holy Writ is called. When they had been seen off, and Deborin had served his purpose, he was ditched.

In this way, mysticism came to dominate the Stalinist state, ossified later as Daimat, and was used by the Stalinised Bolshevik Party to justify anything they saw fit, and its opposite, sometimes 24 hours later. Because it glories in contradiction, this 'theory; is ideally suited for use by any and all opportunists and substitutionists.

As Lenin had predicted, when revolutions are defeated, Marxists turn to mysticism as a form of consolation.

And Trotsky, too, only showed a keen interest in dialectics after the defeat of the Russian revolution by Stalin, the defeat of the Chinese revolution, and his own politcal quaranteen.

The same is true of Lenin, who showed scant interest in this 'theory' until after 1905, when he, too, confirmed his own prognosis, and turned to dialectical mysticism.

Since then, and because we experience little other than defeat on the left, comrades world-wide have super-glued themselves to this Hermetic source of consolation, and that is why they react so emotively, and irrationally to any attack on this 'heart of a heartless world', their opiate: Dialectical Methodone.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas, I do not know why you are quoting Led Zepp here; I answered his post earlier.

Now, if you think my answer was defective in some way, let's hear your objections.

[Hit The North]

Since then, and because we experience little other than defeat on the left, comrades world-wide have super-glued themselves to this Hermetic source of consolation, and that is why they react so emotively, and irrationally to any attack on this 'heart of a heartless world', their opiate: Dialectical Methodone.

Is this the sort of lullaby anti-dialecticians sing to themselves at this time of night?

1. The retreat into theory in the wake of defeat is a rational response, as we look to understand the course of events, analyse them and come to conclusions. What else would you have us do? Pretend we were victorious? Give up altogether?

2. If this leads comrades to reach for the dialectic, this is because the dialectic is a part of the conceptual tools bequeathed us by Marx and Engels. It comprises the heart of our hermeneutic tradition. You believe this is a mistake. Fine. Develop your own method.

3. The central idea which keeps hope alive for revolutionaries is not a set of mystical pronouncements drawn from dialectics; it is an understanding that the class struggle continues, as capitalism cannot abolish it; that the contradictions at the heart of the system cannot be resolved by the system itself and that our opportunity will come again.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CZ:


Is this the sort of lullaby anti-dialecticians sing to themselves at this time of night?

It is in fact part of the script of a new film: 'Citizen Zero: Man -- Or Hole in a Polo Mint?"


1. The retreat into theory in the wake of defeat is a rational response, as we look to understand the course of events, analyse them and come to conclusions. What else would you have us do? Pretend we were victorious? Give up altogether?

The retreat into mysticism is an irrational response to the same, one that Lenin described, and one you lot have duly performed.


2. If this leads comrades to reach for the dialectic, this is because the dialectic is a part of the conceptual tools bequeathed us by Marx and Engels. It comprises the heart of our hermeneutic tradition. You believe this is a mistake. Fine. Develop your own method.

But, as we have already established, Marx abandoned this mystical theory in Das Kapital. I'd post the proof, but you think Marx's words are 'spam'.

And, no need to develop my own method; Marx has saved me the job.


3. The central idea which keeps hope alive for revolutionaries is not a set of mystical pronouncements drawn from dialectics; it is an understanding that the class struggle continues, as capitalism cannot abolish it; that the contradictions at the heart of the system cannot be resolved by the system itself and that our opportunity will come again.

As I said: Dialectical Methodone. Thanks for confirming it.:lol:

[Hit The North]

R:
It is in fact part of the script of a new film: 'Citizen Zero: Man -- Or Hole in a Polo Mint?"Snappy. I like it. :)


The retreat into mysticism is an irrational response to the same, one that Lenin described, and one you lot have duly performed.Unsurprisingly, that's no answer. :rolleyes:


As I said: Dialectical Methodone. Thanks for confirming it.:lol:Very interesting that you don't believe this:
the class struggle continues, as capitalism cannot abolish it... the contradictions at the heart of the system cannot be resolved by the system itself and our opportunity will come again.So what, apart from your colossal ego, keeps you active in revolutionary politics?

Oh, I forgot... You're not, are you? :lol:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Here's a major problematic example with the dialectic. Pre-Commune Marx had, as his "thesis," bourgeois capitalism. He then set up the proletariat as its "anti-thesis." The "synthesis" was the faulty notion of socialism being worker-controlled capitalism.

While he ditched this crap by 1875, unfortunately Lenin clung onto this dialectic (which, unfortunately, has not done the working class much good :( ):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/social-proletocracy-marx-t80882/index.html


The dialectics of history is such that the war, by extraordinarily expediting the transformation of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism, has thereby extraordinarily advanced mankind towards socialism.

Imperialist war is the eve of socialist revolution. And this not only because the horrors of the war give rise to proletarian revolt—no revolt can bring about socialism unless the economic conditions for socialism are ripe—but because state-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs.

[PRC-UTE]

Hyacinth wrote:

Well, as a matter of fact, the emergence of dialectical materialism as the official philosophy of the Soviet Union followed a path not unlike the one that was followed by Christianity in regards to the emperor Constantine. In the 1920s, Soviet Marxists were, on philosophical matters, split into two camps: the so-called mechanists who argued that a specific Marxist philosophy was unnecessary and the so-called "dialecticians" or Deborinists (after the philosopher Abram Deborin), who maintained that Marxism did require a philosophy as its basis and that the required philosophy was one based on Hegelian dialectics. See http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00529.html
for further details.

Hyacinth seemed surprised by this information, but I'd actually made reference to it in another thread. Dialectical Materialism didn't exist as a seperate theory from Historical Materialism, Marx just applied dialectical reasoning to his studies, which helped him to arrive at his conclusions. Despite what others say that we can use "ordinary language" and "common sense" to arrive at the same conclusions without dialectics, these statements are made in hindsight, after dialectics has developed Marxian analysis.

The grave error made by the SU was (imo) applying DM as a 'world integral outlook', as if everything conformed to this philosophy designed for the study of social life. This had more to do with legitimising their regime and maintaining a cultural dominance, that's at least my theory.

[PRC-UTE]

The same is true of Lenin, who showed scant interest in this 'theory' until after 1905, when he, too, confirmed his own prognosis, and turned to dialectical mysticism.

I don't see how this helps your case as Lenin went on to play a leading role in the October Revolution...

[gilhyle]

If that were my only evidence, you might have a point, but it isn't, so you don't.

not a clear answer - you seem to say that Marx might explicitly contradict you, he might explicitly say that Hegels laws of dialetics were true but in a mystical form and you would still rely on 'other evidence', ie you would still reject such an explicit quotation from Marx because you had other evidence...what other evidence, how can you reject an explicit quote from Marx on this point, are you are are you not open to that kind of empirical refutation or not ? be clear dont gabble.

[Hit The North]

not a clear answer - you seem to say that Marx might explicitly contradict you, he might explicitly say that Hegels laws of dialetics were true but in a mystical form and you would still rely on 'other evidence',

What's more, some key affirmative quotes re. the dialectic are in the same piece of writing where Rosa's 'evidence' comes from. It's as if, at one second, Marx is revealing the truth and then in the very next paragraph he's messing with our heads again!

Basically, Rosa's interpretation of the Postface to the 2nd Edition of Capital is highly selective and not a little dishonest.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Nobody's gonna address my Social-Democratic example of the problem with dialectics? :o

[trivas7]

He [Marx] then set up the proletariat as its "anti-thesis." The "synthesis" was the faulty notion of socialism being worker-controlled capitalism.

Where exactly does Marx characterize socialism as "worker-controlled capitalism"?

[Volderbeek]

1) Marx was aware of the classical meaning of this word -- he clearly was returning to that.

Marx's method was to debate?


2) He himself, not me, quoted a passage which he said encapsulated 'his method', in which not one atom of Hegel can be found (despite an earlier attempt of yours to shoe-horn some into it).But then, no one's really claiming he liked Hegel. I did engage in some of that - it works because dialectics applies to virtually everything by virtue of its abstractness.


And yet you were quite happy to rejoice over the fact that I had 'ignored' it!I don't know if I "rejoiced". Did I have some balloons?


1) How do you know I am 'anti-social'?For one, I read this topic. :laugh:


2) What has it got to do with this anyway?You make Marx out to be a secretly angry panderer.


3) I suppose you believe that these two agreed over absolutely everything, do you? This is quite remarkable, and would probably be the first time in human history when two individuals agreed over absolutely everything. Quite frankly, that is not even remotely credible.Hyperbole is not an argument.


4) Marx had already told us, in a published work, that 'his method' contained not one ounce of Hegel. So we already know he disagreed with Engels here.Except those letters were from after that afterword...


Already done it; you need to keep up.:glare:


No, it's basic Marxism.

Parrots no more have language than a tape recorder does. They just repeat sounds.

Clearly, you are as batty as Engels.Huh? So you agree parrots don't have language? :confused:


Not so, you miss most of the material in my posts.Not counting what I wasn't here for and what I've responded to numerous times in other topics...


You do not have to read my essays, but only a fool comments on things he/she has not read.

That makes you a fool.But I don't comment on your essays, just on what you post here, and in that case I have read it.

[Volderbeek]

'Scientific' in the wider German sense of that word.

The German sense?

Anyway, I looked it up and apparently it is thrown in with the soft sciences. But that was sort of my point anyhow.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


not a clear answer - you seem to say that Marx might explicitly contradict you, he might explicitly say that Hegels laws of dialetics were true but in a mystical form and you would still rely on 'other evidence', ie you would still reject such an explicit quotation from Marx because you had other evidence...what other evidence, how can you reject an explicit quote from Marx on this point, are you are are you not open to that kind of empirical refutation or not ? be clear dont gabble.

You are a fine one to talk; when pressed, you never answer a single question.

If you want to know the evidence, read my essays, otherwise belt up.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CZ:


What's more, some key affirmative quotes re. the dialectic are in the same piece of writing where Rosa's 'evidence' comes from. It's as if, at one second, Marx is revealing the truth and then in the very next paragraph he's messing with our heads again!

Like what?

Is there something you have been keeping back, which you have not yet shared with the good folk here?

Let's see it then.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:


Marx's method was to debate?

In a sense, yes.


But then, no one's really claiming he liked Hegel. I did engage in some of that - it works because dialectics applies to virtually everything by virtue of its abstractness.

So you say, but where's your proof?


Did I have some balloons?

Yes, and they were full of your own hot air.


For one, I read this topic.

So?


You make Marx out to be a secretly angry panderer.

Eh?


Hyperbole is not an argument.

Rhetorically, it is.


Except those letters were from after that afterword...

And they do not contradict it.


So you agree parrots don't have language?

Nothing to 'agree' with.


Not counting what I wasn't here for and what I've responded to numerous times in other topics...

You respond like you have here: one liners. And then you miss out stuff you do not like, or cannot answer.


But I don't comment on your essays, just on what you post here, and in that case I have read it.

Good point; just make sure you stay away from my essays.

I prefer an ignorant mystic -- you are less danger that way.


The German sense?

Anyway, I looked it up and apparently it is thrown in with the soft sciences. But that was sort of my point anyhow.

As I said -- ignorant.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PRC:


I don't see how this helps your case as Lenin went on to play a leading role in the October Revolution...

Here's why dialectics had no part to play in it:


When confronted with the above unwelcome facts, dialecticians sometimes respond with a "Well if dialectics is so dire, how come the Bolsheviks were able to win power in 1917?"

[Non-Leninist DM-fans of course do not have even this to point to as a 'success'!]

As a Leninist myself, I find this 'objection' remarkably easy to answer: the Bolsheviks were successful because they could not, and did not use dialectics (either in its DM- or 'Materialist Dialectics'-form). To be sure, this claim is controversial, but only because no one has thought to question this shibboleth before.

In fact, the material counterweight provided by the soviets prevented the Bolsheviks from employing this useless theory. Had they tried to propagandise/organise Russian workers with slogans such as: "Being is identical with but at the same time different from Nothing...", "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts...", or "Matter without motion is unthinkable" (and the like), they'd have been regarded as complete lunatics, and rightly so.

On the other hand, they could, and did use ideas drawn from HM to help organise the soviets. [All this was covered in detail Part One of this Essay.]

[HM = Historical Materialism.]

And it is no use arguing that dialectical concepts were used 'implicitly' (or that they 'informed' the tactics that Lenin and his party adopted, somehow operating 'behind the scenes'). As we shall see below, since dialectical concepts can be used to justify anything and everything (being inherently and proudly contradictory), had they been used, they could only have been used subjectively (since there is no objective way to tell these incompatible applications apart).

Anyone who takes exception to the above will need to show precisely how Lenin and the Bolsheviks explicitly used dialectical-concepts --, as opposed to their actual employment of HM-concepts (the latter of which were based on a concrete class analysis of events in 1917, and on years of experience relating to the working class). They will thus need to produce written evidence of the Bolshevik's use of dialectical ideas in 1917, and then show how they could possibly have been of any practical benefit to workers in struggle.

Now, I have trawled through the available minutes and decrees of the 'Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party' (from August 1917 to February 1918), and I have so far failed to find a single DM-thesis, let alone one drawn from 'Materialist Dialectics'. [Bone (1974).] To be sure, it is always possible I have missed something, but even if I have, this Hermetic creed hardly forms a prominent part of the day-to-day discussions of active revolutionaries.

Added later: I have now gone though the available documents twice -- still no sign of this Hermetic virus!

In fact, it is conspicuous by its absence.

Hence, the evidence suggests that active revolutionaries made no use of this 'theory'.

Incidentally, although I am still in the process of checking later years, I can find very little mention or use of this 'theory' in subsequent deliberations.

I have also checked the 'Theses, Resolutions and Manifestos of the First Four Congresses of The Third International' [Holt and Holland (1983)], and the only sign of dialectics is a couple of dozen mentions of 'contradictions' in capitalist society (etc.) in over 400 pages. No other example of dialectical jargon appears in the entire volume, and even the word "contradiction" is not used to explain anything, nor does it seem to do any work. Furthermore, most of its 'mentions' appear to have been made by Zinoviev; as far as I can see, Lenin does not use that term anywhere in this book.

Moreover, in Trotsky's 'The Third International After Lenin' [Trotsky (1974)], dialectics is mentioned only fourteen times in nearly 300 pages, and then only in passing. It does no work there either.

And it is even less use someone requiring of me to produce proof that Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not use dialectical ideas, since there is no written evidence that he/they did, as the above indicates. Hence, the contrary case goes by default. Of course, all this is quite independent of the proof offered in these Essays that not a single dialectical concept is useable; after all, as we saw earlier, even Lenin got into a serious muddle when he tried to play around with such ideas, let alone when he attempted to apply them.

As we will soon find out, when dialectical ideas are in fact used, they can be made to justify anything whatsoever (no matter how contradictory that "anything whatsoever" might otherwise appear to be; in fact the more contradictory it is, the more 'dialectical' it seems to be!) -- and it can be, and was used to rationalise any course of action, including those that are both counter-revolutionary and anti-Marxist.

In fact, shortly after the revolution, many younger comrades and Russian Bolshevik scientists argued at length that all of Philosophy (and not just dialectics) was part of ruling-class ideology (which is in fact a crude version of my own thesis!). It was not until the Deborinites won a factional battle in 1925/26 that this trend was defeated (and that was clearly engineered to help pave the way for the further destruction of the gains of October). More about this later.

[On this, see Bakhurst (1991), Joravsky (1961), Graham (1971), Wetter (1958).]

So, 1917 cannot be chalked up as a success for this strain of Hermetic Mysticism.

However, we will see that the disintegration of the results of 1917 can partly be put down to dialectics.

And, even better, I have the evidence to prove it.

This is from Essay Nine Part Two, where you will find the above references, and missing links:

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

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PRC:


Hyacinth seemed surprised by this information, but I'd actually made reference to it in another thread. Dialectical Materialism didn't exist as a seperate theory from Historical Materialism, Marx just applied dialectical reasoning to his studies, which helped him to arrive at his conclusions. Despite what others say that we can use "ordinary language" and "common sense" to arrive at the same conclusions without dialectics, these statements are made in hindsight, after dialectics has developed Marxian analysis.

In the practical affairs of Marxists, the two are indeed separate; and here's why:


It could be argued here that the distinction between DM and HM drawn in this Essay is completely spurious; hence, the claims made at this site are hopelessly misguided.

[DM = Dialectical Materialism; HM = Historical Materialism.]

However, as will be argued in Essay Fourteen Part Two, HM contains ideas that are non-sensical only when they are dressed up in DM-clothing. The eminent good sense made by HM -- even as perceived by workers when they encounter it (often in times of struggle) --, testifies to this fact.

[LOI = Law of Identity.]

But, few militants would ever attempt to agitate strikers with the conundrums found in DM. On a picket line the alleged contradictory nature of motion or the limitations of the LOI do not often crop up. No Marxist of any intelligence would use slogans drawn exclusively from DM to communicate with workers. Consider for example the following: "The Law of Identity is true only within certain limits and the struggle against the occupation of Iraq!" Or "Change in quantity leads to change in quality (and vice versa) and the campaign to keep hospital HH open!" Or even, "Being is at the same time identical with but different from Nothing, the contradiction resolved by Becoming, and the fight against the Nazis!"

Slogans like these would be employed only by militants of uncommon stupidity and of legendary ineffectiveness. In contrast, active revolutionaries employ ideas drawn exclusively from HM to communicate with workers. Socialist Worker, for instance, uses ordinary, material language, coupled with concepts drawn from HM, to agitate and propagandise; rarely does it employ DM-phraseology. The same is true of other revolutionary socialist papers.

Only deeply sectarian rags of exemplary unpopularity and impressive lack of impact use ideas lifted from DM to try to educate and agitate workers. Newsline (the daily paper of the old WRP) used to do this, but like the Dinosaurs it resembled, it is no more. [The NON, it seems, took appropriate revenge upon it.]

[NON = Negation of the Negation.]

It could be objected that no one would actually use slogans drawn from certain areas of HM to agitate workers. But, since that does not mean HM is of no use, the same must be true of DM. For example, who shouts slogans about "Base and Superstructure", or "Relative Surplus Value" on paper sales, or tries to agitate workers with facts about the role of the peasantry in the decline of feudalism? This means the distinction drawn in this Essay is bogus.

To be sure, while it is true that no one shouts slogans about the relation between "Base and Superstructure" on a paper sale, or prints strike leaflets reminding militants of the role of the peasantry in the decline of feudalism, they still use slogans drawn exclusively from HM --, or which connect with HM and as it relates to current events in the class war.

In contrast, none at all are used from DM.

To be sure, most revolutionary papers use some terminology drawn from DM (like "contradiction"), but this forms only a very minor part of their output. Anyway, as will be shown in Part Two of this Essay, the use of such words is merely a traditionalist affectation -- indeed, we have to say this since no sense can be given to this use (as we saw in earlier Essays) --, that is, as a sign of 'orthodoxy', or as an 'in-group'/'out-group' marker (as noted here -- link in the original Essay).

Like Marx in Kapital, such papers "coquette" with Hegelian jargon, but only here and there.

Hence, at least at the level of practice -- where the party interfaces with the working class and material reality --, DM is totally useless. [Indeed, we will see here that there is no evidence that DM was used by the Bolsheviks in October 1917, or for years after. See my earlier post.]

Consequently, tested in practice (or, rather, tested by being left out of practice), the status of DM is plain for all to see: at best it would be a hindrance; at worst, it would totally isolate revolutionaries and make them look ridiculous.

This shows that the distinction between DM and HM which has been drawn here not spurious -- in communicating with workers, militants make this distinction all the time.

This is from Essay Nine Part One, where the argument is further elaborated upon:

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

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CZ:


Snappy. I like it.

You should; it concludes you cannot be the hole since you are far too insubstantial.


Unsurprisingly, that's no answer.

Even less 'unsurprisingly', neither was yours.


Very interesting that you don't believe this:

Quote:

the class struggle continues, as capitalism cannot abolish it... the contradictions at the heart of the system cannot be resolved by the system itself and our opportunity will come again.

Paul Mattick?

However, I don't understand the use of 'contradiction' here, and in 25 years of experience of revolutionary politics, I have yet to meet anyone who does.

So, what is there to 'agree' with?

You might as well have posted:


the class struggle continues, as capitalism cannot abolish it... the tautologies/prepositions/conjuctions/adverbs/adjectives at the heart of the system cannot be resolved by the system itself and our opportunity will come again.

Incomprehensible babble. You are welcome to it.


So what, apart from your colossal ego, keeps you active in revolutionary politics?

The fact that comrades like you make my ego look small in comparison.


Oh, I forgot... You're not, are you?

Yes, you are very forgetful.

I blame dialectics...

[Hit The North]

CZ:


What's more, some key affirmative quotes re. the dialectic are in the same piece of writing where Rosa's 'evidence' comes from. It's as if, at one second, Marx is revealing the truth and then in the very next paragraph he's messing with our heads again!Like what?


Like what??? Do you mean you didn't bother to read on to the end of the Postface to the 2nd German Edition?


Is there something you have been keeping back, which you have not yet shared with the good folk here?

Let's see it then. We've been through this dozens of times but, if you insist:


The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.
and

The contradictions inherent in the movement of capitalist society impress themselves upon the practical bourgeois most strikingly in the changes of the periodic cycle, through which modern industry runs, and whose crowning point is the universal crisis. That crisis is once again approaching, although as yet but in its preliminary stage; and by the universality of its theatre and the intensity of its action it will drum dialectics even into the heads of the mushroom-upstarts of the new, holy Prusso-German empire.
Karl Marx
London
January 24, 1873

The final quote, which ends the piece, hardly sounds like a man who has abandoned the dialectic.

Comrades who are interested to study the Postface in its entirety can read it here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm

[Hit The North]

R:

However, I don't understand the use of 'contradiction' here, and in 25 years of experience of revolutionary politics, I have yet to meet anyone who does.Both Luis Henrique and gilhyle offer coherent examples in the "What is contradiction?" thread.

If your powers of comprehension are not up to it, we can hardly be held responsible for that.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CZ:


Do you mean you didn't bother to read on to the end of the Postface to the 2nd German Edition?

Many times; I fail to se how it supports your revisionist theory.


The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.

Since you quoted Marx, so can I (so this cannot be 'spam').

Here, in a passage Marx took from a reviewer, he tells us the following:


"After a quotation from the preface to my 'Criticism of Political Economy,' Berlin, 1859, pp. IV-VII, where I discuss the materialistic basis of my method, the writer goes on:

'The one thing which is of moment to Marx, is to find the law of the phenomena with whose investigation he is concerned; and not only is that law of moment to him, which governs these phenomena, in so far as they have a definite form and mutual connexion within a given historical period. Of still greater moment to him is the law of their variation, of their development, i.e., of their transition from one form into another, from one series of connexions into a different one. This law once discovered, he investigates in detail the effects in which it manifests itself in social life. Consequently, Marx only troubles himself about one thing: to show, by rigid scientific investigation, the necessity of successive determinate orders of social conditions, and to establish, as impartially as possible, the facts that serve him for fundamental starting-points. For this it is quite enough, if he proves, at the same time, both the necessity of the present order of things, and the necessity of another order into which the first must inevitably pass over; and this all the same, whether men believe or do not believe it, whether they are conscious or unconscious of it. Marx treats the social movement as a process of natural history, governed by laws not only independent of human will, consciousness and intelligence, but rather, on the contrary, determining that will, consciousness and intelligence. ... If in the history of civilisation the conscious element plays a part so subordinate, then it is self-evident that a critical inquiry whose subject-matter is civilisation, can, less than anything else, have for its basis any form of, or any result of, consciousness. That is to say, that not the idea, but the material phenomenon alone can serve as its starting-point. Such an inquiry will confine itself to the confrontation and the comparison of a fact, not with ideas, but with another fact. For this inquiry, the one thing of moment is, that both facts be investigated as accurately as possible, and that they actually form, each with respect to the other, different momenta of an evolution; but most important of all is the rigid analysis of the series of successions, of the sequences and concatenations in which the different stages of such an evolution present themselves. But it will be said, the general laws of economic life are one and the same, no matter whether they are applied to the present or the past. This Marx directly denies. According to him, such abstract laws do not exist. On the contrary, in his opinion every historical period has laws of its own.... As soon as society has outlived a given period of development, and is passing over from one given stage to another, it begins to be subject also to other laws. In a word, economic life offers us a phenomenon analogous to the history of evolution in other branches of biology. The old economists misunderstood the nature of economic laws when they likened them to the laws of physics and chemistry. A more thorough analysis of phenomena shows that social organisms differ among themselves as fundamentally as plants or animals. Nay, one and the same phenomenon falls under quite different laws in consequence of the different structure of those organisms as a whole, of the variations of their individual organs, of the different conditions in which those organs function, &c. Marx, e.g., denies that the law of population is the same at all times and in all places. He asserts, on the contrary, that every stage of development has its own law of population. ... With the varying degree of development of productive power, social conditions and the laws governing them vary too. Whilst Marx sets himself the task of following and explaining from this point of view the economic system established by the sway of capital, he is only formulating, in a strictly scientific manner, the aim that every accurate investigation into economic life must have. The scientific value of such an inquiry lies in the disclosing of the special laws that regulate the origin, existence, development, death of a given social organism and its replacement by another and higher one. And it is this value that, in point of fact, Marx's book has.'

"Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method?" [Marx (1976), pp.101-02. Bold emphases added.]

You will note that Marx calls this the 'dialectic method', and 'his method', but it is also clear that it bears no relation to the sort of dialectics you have had forced down your throat, for in it there is not one ounce of Hegel -- no quantity turning into quality, no contradictions, no negation of the negation, no unities of opposites, no totality...

So, Marx's method has had Hegel totally extirpated. For Marx, putting Hegel on 'his feet' is to crush his head.

This, therefore, is the 'rational kernel', no Hegel at all, and none of his Hemretic concepts.

I did say, many months ago that it might take twenty repetitions of this passage before your short-term memory problems were cured.

Looks like I was right.


The contradictions inherent in the movement of capitalist society impress themselves upon the practical bourgeois most strikingly in the changes of the periodic cycle, through which modern industry runs, and whose crowning point is the universal crisis. That crisis is once again approaching, although as yet but in its preliminary stage; and by the universality of its theatre and the intensity of its action it will drum dialectics even into the heads of the mushroom-upstarts of the new, holy Prusso-German empire.
Karl Marx
London
January 24, 1873

Looks like he was still 'coquetting' with Hegelian jargon.

Good job, too, that I am a little more consistent than Marx, and drop even that.


Both Luis Henrique and gilhyle offer coherent examples here:

Yes I saw that and was not impressed.



Gil, from the thread you mentioned:


One way to understand what dialectical contradiction means is to imagine that if we were confined to thinking/speaking in terms of stable entities in a world where entities were actually subject to change, then to describe the situation to which a dialectical contradiction refers we would need to be able to say of that supposedly stable entity both that it both was x and was not x, where x is a characteristic of the stable entity. It is for this reason that it is called a 'contradiction' although not a logical contradiction. Thankfully, we are not confined in that way. With some difficulty, we find ways of expressing dialectical contradictions without falling foul of the basic logical law of identity.

Another way to understand a dialectical contradiction is to say that if we could only think and speak in terms of what is to come, rather than what is, then to describe the things to which a dialectical contradiction refers we would need to be able to speak of potentialities (i.e. what is becoming) as entities, as Aristotle virtually did.

Bringing these two ideas together, we can see that a dialectical contradiction is a way of speaking about things which situates them simultaneously both spatially and temporally, both as what they have become/are and what they have not yet become but are becoming.

Dialectical contradictions are, therefore, the key feature of the way in which we grasp the dynamic and structural aspects of reality in a single conceptual framework.For the most part dialectical contradictions are littered throughout our speech and are unproblematic. We all know from experience that things are not stable and unchanging over time. We also Know that things are parts of processess, situations in which they must end up as something other than what they now are.

When we speak over short time horizons we can often ignore that. SImilarly when we speak over very long time horizons we can also ignore it and talk only about the process. However, we live mostly in the intermediate time frames in which it matters both what a thing is now, what it once was and what it is becoming.

But, this does not explain what a 'dialectical contradiction' is, it merely glues an obscure term to a load of jargon, admixed with a few ordinary words.

In addition, I have shown in thread here (which you ignored) -- repeated below -- that this notion cannot work, and when it is applied to change, it cannot explain it.

So, this is an ill-defined notion that does not even do what it is supposed to do.

LH from the same thread:


There are material contradictions - which are of course a different thing from logical contradictions - but they are not "two opposing forces" - otherwise a game between Tottenham Hotspurs and Manchester United would be a contradiction.

A material contradiction is a situation in which the continued existence of something requires some factor that in the long term undermines that very existence. For instance:

The development of capitalism requires a growing proletariat - but the existence of a huge proletariat will destroy capitalism.

Accumulation of capital requires substituting dead labour for living labour - but as only living labour provides surplus value, the substitution of dead labour for living labour will drive profit rates down.

These are material contradictions. They give birth conflicts, but they, in themselves, are not such conflicts.

Well, this does not tell us either.

LH and I debated this many months ago, and he had to reject what Engels, Plekhanov and Lenin (among many others) had to say about unities of opposites and contradictions, for these dialectical worthies tell us that such opposites both struggle with one another and turn into one another (which is impossible, as I will show):


"[B]Everything is opposite. Neither in heaven nor in earth, neither in the world of mind nor nature, is there anywhere an abstract 'either-or' as the understanding maintains. Whatever exists is concrete, with difference and opposition in itself. The finitude of things with then lie in the want of correspondence between their immediate being and what they essentially are. Thus, in inorganic nature, the acid is implicitly at the same time the base: in other words its only being consists in its relation to its other. Hence the acid persists quietly in the contrast: it is always in effort to realize what it potentially is. Contradiction is the very moving principle of the world." [Hegel (1975), p.174.]

"The law of the interpenetration of opposites.... [M]utual penetration of polar opposites and transformation into each other when carried to extremes...." [Engels (1954), pp.17, 62.]

"Dialectics, so-called objective dialectics, prevails throughout nature, and so-called subjective dialectics, dialectical thought, is only the reflection of the motion through opposites which asserts itself everywhere in nature, and which by the continual conflict of the opposites and. their final passage into one another, or into higher forms, determines the life of nature. Attraction and repulsion. Polarity begins with magnetism, it is exhibited in one and the same body; in the case of electricity it distributes itself over two or more bodies which become oppositely charged. All chemical processes reduce themselves -- to processes of chemical attraction and repulsion. Finally, in organic life the formation of the cell nucleus is likewise to be regarded as a polarisation of the living protein material, and from the simple cell -- onwards the theory of evolution demonstrates how each advance up to the most complicated plant on the one side, and up to man on the other, is effected by the continual conflict between heredity and adaptation. In this connection it becomes evident how little applicable to such forms of evolution are categories like 'positive' and 'negative.' One can conceive of heredity as the positive, conservative side, adaptation as the negative side that continually destroys what has been inherited, but one can just as well take adaptation as the creative, active, positive activity, and heredity as the resisting, passive, negative activity." [Ibid., p.211.]

"For a stage in the outlook on nature where all differences become merged in intermediate steps, and all opposites pass into one another through intermediate links, the old metaphysical method of thought no longer suffices. Dialectics, which likewise knows no hard and fast lines, no unconditional, universally valid 'either-or' and which bridges the fixed metaphysical differences, and besides 'either-or' recognises also in the right place 'both this-and that' and reconciles the opposites, is the sole method of thought appropriate in the highest degree to this stage. Of course, for everyday use, for the small change of science, the metaphysical categories retain their validity." [Ibid., p.212-13.]

"Further, we find upon closer investigation that the two poles of an antithesis positive and negative, e.g., are as inseparable as they are opposed and that despite all their opposition, they mutually interpenetrate. And we find, in like manner, that cause and effect are conceptions which only hold good in their application to individual cases; but as soon as we consider the individual cases in their general connection with the universe as a whole, they run into each other, and they become confounded when we contemplate that universal action and reaction in which causes and effects are eternally changing places, so that what is effect here and now will be cause there and then, and vice versa." [Engels (1976), p.27.]

"Already in Rousseau, therefore, we find not only a line of thought which corresponds exactly to the one developed in Marx's Capital, but also, in details, a whole series of the same dialectical turns of speech as Marx used: processes which in their nature are antagonistic, contain a contradiction; transformation of one extreme into its opposite; and finally, as the kernel of the whole thing, the negation of the negation. [Ibid., p.179.]

"And so every phenomenon, by the action of those same forces which condition its existence, sooner or later, but inevitably, is transformed into its own opposite…." [Plekhanov (1956), p.77.]

"[Among the elements of dialectics are the following:] [i]nternally contradictory tendencies…in [a thing]…as the sum and unity of opposites…. [This involves] not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other [into its opposite?]….

"In brief, dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This embodies the essence of dialectics….

"The splitting of the whole and the cognition of its contradictory parts…is the essence (one of the 'essentials', one of the principal, if not the principal, characteristic features) of dialectics….

"The identity of opposites…is the recognition…of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature…. The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their 'self-movement', in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the 'struggle' of opposites…. [This] alone furnishes the key to the self-movement of everything existing….

"The unity…of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute…." [Lenin (1961), pp.221-22, 357-58.]

"Hegel brilliantly divined the dialectics of things (phenomena, the world, nature) in the dialectics of concepts…. This aphorism should be expressed more popularly, without the word dialectics: approximately as follows: In the alternation, reciprocal dependence of all notions, in the identity of their opposites, in the transitions of one notion into another, in the eternal change, movement of notions, Hegel brilliantly divined precisely this relation of things to nature…. [W]hat constitutes dialectics?…. [M]utual dependence of notions all without exception…. Every notion occurs in a certain relation, in a certain connection with all the others." [Lenin (1961), pp.196-97.]

"'This harmony is precisely absolute Becoming change, -- not becoming other, now this and then another. The essential thing is that each different thing [tone], each particular, is different from another, not abstractly so from any other, but from its other. Each particular only is, insofar as its other is implicitly contained in its Notion...' Quite right and important: the 'other' as its other, development into its opposite." [Ibid., p.260. Lenin is here commenting on Hegel (1995), pp.278-98; this particular quotation coming from p.285. The translation in the edition I have consulted reads differently from the one Lenin used; Hegel is referring to "tones" here, not "things", as the reference to "harmony" indicates.]

"Dialectics is the teaching which shows how Opposites can be and how they happen to be (how they become) identical,—under what conditions they are identical, becoming transformed into one another, -- why the human mind should grasp these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, becoming transformed into one another." [Ibid., p.109.]

"Development is the 'struggle' of opposites." [Lenin, Collected Works, Volume XIII, p.301.]

"Dialectics comes from the Greek dialego, to discourse, to debate. In ancient times dialectics was the art of arriving at the truth by disclosing the contradictions in the argument of an opponent and overcoming these contradictions. There were philosophers in ancient times who believed that the disclosure of contradictions in thought and the clash of opposite opinions was the best method of arriving at the truth. This dialectical method of thought, later extended to the phenomena of nature, developed into the dialectical method of apprehending nature, which regards the phenomena of nature as being in constant movement and undergoing constant change, and the development of nature as the result of the development of the contradictions in nature, as the result of the interaction of opposed forces in nature....

"Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that internal contradictions are inherent in all things and phenomena of nature, for they all have their negative and positive sides, a past and a future, something dying away and something developing; and that the struggle between these opposites, the struggle between the old and the new, between that which is dying away and that which is being born, between that which is disappearing and that which is developing, constitutes the internal content of the process of development, the internal content of the transformation of quantitative changes into qualitative changes." [Stalin (1976b), pp.836, 840.]

"Why is it that '...the human mind should take these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, transforming themselves into one another'? Because that is just how things are in objective reality. The fact is that the unity or identity of opposites in objective things is not dead or rigid, but is living, conditional, mobile, temporary and relative; in given conditions, every contradictory aspect transforms itself into its opposite....

"In speaking of the identity of opposites in given conditions, what we are referring to is real and concrete opposites and the real and concrete transformations of opposites into one another....

"All processes have a beginning and an end, all processes transform themselves into their opposites. The constancy of all processes is relative, but the mutability manifested in the transformation of one process into another is absolute." [Mao (1961b), pp.340-42.]

"The law of contradiction in things, that is, the law of the unity of opposites, is the basic law of materialist dialectics....

"As opposed to the metaphysical world outlook, the world outlook of materialist dialectics holds that in order to understand the development of a thing we should study it internally and in its relations with other things; in other words, the development of things should be seen as their internal and necessary self-movement, while each thing in its movement is interrelated with and interacts on the things around it. The fundamental cause of the development of a thing is not external but internal; it lies in the contradictoriness within the thing. There is internal contradiction in every single thing, hence its motion and development....

"The universality or absoluteness of contradiction has a twofold meaning. One is that contradiction exists in the process of development of all things, and the other is that in the process of development of each thing a movement of opposites exists from beginning to end....[Ibid, pp.311-18.]

"The second dialectical law, that of the 'unity, interpenetration or identity of opposites'…asserts the essentially contradictory character of reality -– at the same time asserts that these 'opposites' which are everywhere to be found do not remain in stark, metaphysical opposition, but also exist in unity. This law was known to the early Greeks. It was classically expressed by Hegel over a hundred years ago….

"[F]rom the standpoint of the developing universe as a whole, what is vital is…motion and change which follows from the conflict of the opposite.” [Guest (1963), pp.31, 32.]

"The negative electrical pole…cannot exist without the simultaneous presence of the positive electrical pole…. This 'unity of opposites' is therefore found in the core of all material things and events." [Conze (1944), pp.35-36.]

"Second, and just as unconditionally valid, that all things are at the same time absolutely different and absolutely or unqualifiedly opposed. The law may also be referred to as the law of the polar unity of opposites. This law applies to every single thing, every phenomenon, and to the world as a whole. Viewing thought and its method alone, it can be put this way: The human mind is capable of infinite condensation of things into unities, even the sharpest contradictions and opposites, and, on the other hand, it is capable of infinite differentiation and analysis of things into opposites. The human mind can establish this unlimited unity and unlimited differentiation because this unlimited unity and differentiation is present in reality." [Thalheimer (1936), p.161.]

"This dialectical activity is universal. There is no escaping from its unremitting and relentless embrace. 'Dialectics gives expression to a law which is felt in all grades of consciousness and in general experience. Everything that surrounds us may be viewed as an instance of dialectic. We are aware that everything finite, instead of being inflexible and ultimate, is rather changeable and transient; and this is exactly what we mean by the dialectic of the finite, by which the finite, as implicitly other than it is, is forced to surrender its own immediate or natural being, and to turn suddenly into its opposite.' (Encyclopedia, p.120)." [Novack (1971), 94-95; quoting Hegel (1975), p.118, although in a different translation from the one used here.]

"Contradiction is an essential feature of all being. It lies at the heart of matter itself. It is the source of all motion, change, life and development. The dialectical law which expresses this idea is the law of the unity and interpenetration of opposites….

"In dialectics, sooner or later, things change into their opposite. In the words of the Bible, 'the first shall be last and the last shall be first.' We have seen this many times, not least in the history of great revolutions. Formerly backward and inert layers can catch up with a bang. Consciousness develops in sudden leaps. This can be seen in any strike. And in any strike we can see the elements of a revolution in an undeveloped, embryonic form. In such situations, the presence of a conscious and audacious minority can play a role quite similar to that of a catalyst in a chemical reaction. In certain instances, even a single individual can play an absolutely decisive role....

"This universal phenomenon of the unity of opposites is, in reality the motor-force of all motion and development in nature…. Movement which itself involves a contradiction, is only possible as a result of the conflicting tendencies and inner tensions which lie at the heart of all forms of matter....

"Contradictions are found at all levels of nature, and woe betide the logic that denies it. Not only can an electron be in two or more places at the same time, but it can move simultaneously in different directions. We are sadly left with no alternative but to agree with Hegel: they are and are not. Things change into their opposite. Negatively-charged electrons become transformed into positively-charged positrons. An electron that unites with a proton is not destroyed, as one might expect, but produces a new particle, a neutron, with a neutral charge.

"This is an extension of the law of the unity and interpenetration of opposites. It is a law which permeates the whole of nature, from the smallest phenomena to the largest...." [Woods and Grant (1995), pp.43-47, 63-71.]

"This struggle is not external and accidental…. The struggle is internal and necessary, for it arises and follows from the nature of the process as a whole. The opposite tendencies are not independent the one of the other, but are inseparably connected as parts or aspects of a single whole. And they operate and come into conflict on the basis of the contradiction inherent in the process as a whole….

"Movement and change result from causes inherent in things and processes, from internal contradictions….

"Contradiction is a universal feature of all processes….

"The importance of the [developmental] conception of the negation of the negation does not lie in its supposedly expressing the necessary pattern of all development. All development takes place through the working out of contradictions -– that is a necessary universal law…." [Cornforth (1976), pp.14-15, 46-48, 53, 65-66, 72, 77, 82, 86, 90, 95, 117; quoting Hegel (1975), pp.172 and 160, respectively.]

"Opposites in a thing are not only mutually exclusive, polar, repelling, each other; they also attract and interpenetrate each other. They begin and cease to exist together.... These dual aspects of opposites -- conflict and unity -- are like scissor blades in cutting, jaws in mastication, and two legs in walking. Where there is only one, the process as such is impossible: 'all polar opposites are in general determined by the mutual action of two opposite poles on one another, the separation and opposition of these poles exists only within their unity and interconnection, and, conversely, their interconnection exists only in their separation and their unity only in their opposition.' in fact, 'where one no sooner tries to hold on to one side alone then it is transformed unnoticed into the other...'" [Gollobin (1986), p.115; quoting Engels.]

"The unity of opposites and contradiction.... The scientific world-view does not seek causes of the motion of the universe beyond its boundaries. It finds them in the universe itself, in its contradictions. The scientific approach to an object of research involves skill in perceiving a dynamic essence, a combination in one and the same object of mutually incompatible elements, which negate each other and yet at the same time belong to each other.

"It is even more important to remember this point when we are talking about connections between phenomena that are in the process of development. In the whole world there is no developing object in which one cannot find opposite sides, elements or tendencies: stability and change, old and new, and so on. The dialectical principle of contradiction reflects a dualistic relationship within the whole: the unity of opposites and their struggle. Opposites may come into conflict only to the extent that they form a whole in which one element is as necessary as another. This necessity for opposing elements is what constitutes the life of the whole. Moreover, the unity of opposites, expressing the stability of an object, is relative and transient, while the struggle of opposites is absolute, expressing the infinity of the process of development. This is because contradiction is not only a relationship between opposite tendencies in an object or between opposite objects, but also the relationship of the object to itself, that is to say, its constant self-negation. The fabric of all life is woven out of two kinds of thread, positive and negative, new and old, progressive and reactionary. They are constantly in conflict, fighting each other....

"The opposite sides, elements and tendencies of a whole whose interaction forms a contradiction are not given in some eternally ready-made form. At the initial stage, while existing only as a possibility, contradiction appears as a unity containing an inessential difference. The next stage is an essential difference within this unity. Though possessing a common basis, certain essential properties or tendencies in the object do not correspond to each other. The essential difference produces opposites, which in negating each other grow into a contradiction. The extreme case of contradiction is an acute conflict. Opposites do not stand around in dismal inactivity; they are not something static, like two wrestlers in a photograph. They interact and are more like a live wrestling match. Every development produces contradictions, resolves them and at the same time gives birth to new ones. Life is an eternal overcoming of obstacles. Everything is interwoven in a network of contradictions." [Spirkin (1983), pp.143-46.]

"'The contradiction, however, is the source of all movement and life; only in so far as it contains a contradiction can anything have movement, power, and effect.' (Hegel). 'In brief', states Lenin, 'dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This embodies the essence of dialectics…'

"The world in which we live is a unity of contradictions or a unity of opposites: cold-heat, light-darkness, Capital-Labour, birth-death, riches-poverty, positive-negative, boom-slump, thinking-being, finite-infinite, repulsion-attraction, left-right, above- below, evolution-revolution, chance-necessity, sale-purchase, and so on.

"The fact that two poles of a contradictory antithesis can manage to coexist as a whole is regarded in popular wisdom as a paradox. The paradox is a recognition that two contradictory, or opposite, considerations may both be true. This is a reflection in thought of a unity of opposites in the material world.

"Motion, space and time are nothing else but the mode of existence of matter. Motion, as we have explained is a contradiction, -- being in one place and another at the same time. It is a unity of opposites. 'Movement means to be in this place and not to be in it; this is the continuity of space and time -- and it is this which first makes motion possible.' (Hegel)

"To understand something, its essence, it is necessary to seek out these internal contradictions. Under certain circumstances, the universal is the individual, and the individual is the universal. That things turn into their opposites, -- cause can become effect and effect can become cause -- is because they are merely links in the never-ending chain in the development of matter.

"Lenin explains this self-movement in a note when he says, 'Dialectics is the teaching which shows how opposites can be and how they become identical -- under what conditions they are identical, becoming transformed into one another -- why the human mind should grasp these opposites not as dead, rigid, but living, conditional, mobile, becoming transformed into one another.' [Rob Sewell.]

References and links can be found here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/...Explain-Change

It would not be difficult to double or even treble the length of this list of quotations (as anyone who has access to as many books and articles on dialectics as I have will attest), all saying the same thing.

My next post will show how and why this 'theory' cannot work, and why LH had to abandon the classic theory (which you seem not to have noticed in your haste to clutch at this straw).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Surprisingly, dialecticians (like Lenin and Engels and the rest quoted above) are decidedly unclear as to whether objects/processes change because of

(1) a contradictory relationship between their internal opposites, or because

(2) they change into these opposites, or even whether

(3) change itself creates such opposites.

[FL = Formal Logic; NON = Negation of the Negation: UO = Unity of Opposites; DM = Dialectical Materialism.]

All this seems to suggest that objects and processes not only change because of their internal opposites, but that they change into them (and, according to Lenin, they change into all of them!), and that they also produce these opposites while they change --, or they do so as a result of that change.

As we are about to see, the idea that there are such things as "dialectical contradictions" and unities of opposites (etc.), which cause change, presents DM-theorists with some rather nasty dialectical headaches, if interpreted along the lines expressed in the DM-classics.

To see this, let us suppose that object/process A is comprised of two "internal contradictory opposites" O* and O**, and it thus changes as a result. [The same problems arise if these are viewed as 'external' contradictions.]

But, O* cannot itself change into O** since O** already exists! If O** didn't already exist, according to this theory, O* could not change, for there would be no opposite to bring that about. As Gollobin notes:

"Opposites in a thing are not only mutually exclusive, polar, repelling, each other; they also attract and interpenetrate each other. They begin and cease to exist together.... These dual aspects of opposites -- conflict and unity -- are like scissor blades in cutting, jaws in mastication, and two legs in walking. Where there is only one, the process as such is impossible: 'all polar opposites are in general determined by the mutual action of two opposite poles on one another, the separation and opposition of these poles exists only within their unity and interconnection, and, conversely, their interconnection exists only in their separation and their unity only in their opposition.' in fact, 'where one no sooner tries to hold on to one side alone then it is transformed unnoticed into the other...'" [Gollobin (1986), p.115; quoting Engels.]

Hence, it is no good propelling O** into the future so that it is now said to be what O* will change into, since O* will do no such thing unless O** is already there in the present to make that happen!

So, if object/process A is already composed of a 'dialectical union' of O* and not-O* (interpreting O** now as not-O*), how is it possible for O* to change into not-O* when not-O* already exists?

Several alternatives now suggest themselves which might allow dialecticians to paint their way out of this corner. Either:

(1) O* 'changes' into not-O*, meaning there would now be two not-O*s where once there was one: or:

(2) Either O* does not change, or it disappears. O* cannot change into what already exists -- that is, O* cannot change into its opposite, not-O*. In that case, O* either disappears, does not change at all, or changes into something else; or:

(3) Not-O* itself disappears to allow a new not-O* to emerge that O* can and does change into. If so, questions would naturally arise as to how the original not-O* could possibly cause O* to change if is has just vanished. Of course, this option merely postpones the evil day, for the same difficulties will afflict the new not-O* that afflicted the old.

Anyway, as should seem obvious, (2) plainly means that O* does not change into not-O*, it is just replaced by it. Option (1), on the other hand, has the original not-O* remaining the same (when it was supposed to turn into its own opposite -- O* -- according to the DM-classics), and options (2) and (3) will only work if matter and/or energy can be destroyed!

Naturally, these problems merely re-appear at the next stage as not-O* readies itself to change into whatever it changes into. But, in that case there is an added twist, for there is as yet no not-not-O* in existence to make this happen. This means that the dialectical process will grind to a halt, unless a not-not-O* pops into existence to start it up again.

But what could possibly engineer that?

Indeed, at the very least, this 'theory' of change leaves it entirely mysterious how not-O* itself came about in the first place. It seems to have popped into existence from nowhere, too. [Gollobin above sort of half admits this, without realising his mistake.]

Now, not-O* cannot have come from O*, since O* can only change because of the operation of not-O*, which does not yet exist! And pushing the process into the past (via a 'reversed' version of the NON) will merely reduplicate the above problems.

It could be objected that all this seems to place objects and/or processes in fixed categories, which is one of the main criticisms dialecticians make of FL. Hence, on that basis, it could be maintained that the above argument is entirely misguided.

Fortunately, repairs are easy to make: let us now suppose that object/process A is comprised of two changing "internal/external opposites" O* and O**, and it thus develops as a result.

The rest still follows: if object/process A is already composed of a changing dialectical union of O* and not-O*, and O* 'develops' into not-O* as a result, then the above objections still apply. Once more: how is it possible for O* to change into not-O* when not-O* already exists?

Of course, it could be argued that not-O* 'develops' into O* while not-O* 'develops' into O*. [This objection might even incorporate that eminently obscure Hegelian term-of-art: "sublation". More on that presently.]

But if this were so, while it was happening, these two would no longer be 'opposites' of one another --, not unless we widen the term "opposite" to mean "anything that an object/process turns into, and/or any intermediate object/process while that is happening". Naturally, that would make this 'Law' work by definitional fiat, rendering it eminently 'subjective', once more.

But even if this were the case, and such process were governed by "sublation", this alternative will not work.

Let us once again suppose that object/process A is comprised of two changing "internal opposites" O* and not-O*, and thus develops as a result. On this scenario, O* would change/develop into a "sublated" intermediary, but not into not-O*, contradicting the DM-worthies quoted earlier. O* should, of course, change into not-O*, not into some intermediary.

Putting this minor quibble to one side, on this 'revised' view, let us assume that O* changes into that intermediary. To that end, let us call the latter, "O*(1)" (which can be interpreted as a combination of the old and the new; a 'negation' which also 'preserves'/'sublates').

If so, then O*(1) must remain forever in that state, unchanged, for there is as yet no not-O*(1) in existence to make it develop any further.

But, there has to be a not-O*(1) to make O*(1) change further. To be sure, we could try to exempt O*(1) from this essential requirement, and yet, if we do that, there would seem to be no reason to accept the version of events contained in the DM-classics, which tell us that all things/processes change because of the operation of opposites (and O*(1) is certainly a thing/process). Furthermore, if we do make an exemption here, then the whole point of the exercise would be lost, for if some things do and some things do not change according this dialectical 'Law', we would be left with no way of telling which changes were and which were not subject to it.

This is, of course, quite apart from the fact that such a subjectively applied exemption certificate (issued to O*(1)) would mean that nothing at all could change, for everything in the universe is in the process of change, and is thus already a sublated version of whatever it used to be.

Ignoring this, even if O*(1) were to change into not-O*(1) (as we suppose it must, given the doctrine laid down by the DM-prophets), then all the earlier problems would simply reappear, for this could only take place if not-O*(1) already exists to make it happen! But not-O*(1) cannot already exist, for O*(1) has not changed into it yet!

It could be objected that the above abstract argument misses the point; in the real world things manifestly change. For example, it might be the case that John is a boy, but in a few years time it will be the case that John is a man. Now, the fact that other individuals are already men, does not stop John changing into one, as the above argues. So, John can change into his opposite even though that opposite already exists.

Or so it could be claimed.

Maybe so, but according to the DM-worthies above, John can only change because of a struggle between opposites taking place in the here-and-now. Are we now really supposed to believe that "John is a man" is struggling with "John is a boy" -- or that manhood is struggling with boyhood?

Some might be tempted to reply that this is precisely what adolescence is, and yet, in that case, John-as-boy and John-as-a-man would have to be locked in struggle in the present. But, John-as-a-man does not yet exist, and so 'he' cannot struggle with John-as-boy. On the other hand, if John-as-a-man does exist, so that 'he' can struggle with his youthful self, then John-as-boy cannot change into 'him', for John-as-a-man already exists!

Of course, John's 'opposite' is whatever he will become (if he is allowed to develop naturally). But, as noted above, that opposite cannot now exist otherwise John would not need to become him!

Now, in ten or fifteen years time, John will not become just any man, he will become a particular man. In that case, let us call the man that John becomes "Man(J)". But, once again, Man(J) must exist now or John cannot change into him (if the DM-worthies above are to be believed), for John can only become a man if he is locked in struggle with his own opposite, Man(J). But, if that is so, John cannot become Man(J) since Man(J) already exists!

[This is, of course, simply a more concrete version of the argument given earlier.]

Consider another hackneyed example: water turning into steam at 100 degrees C (under normal conditions). Are we really supposed to believe that the opposite that water becomes (i.e., steam) makes water turn into steam? This must be so if the above DM-worthies are to be believed.

Hence, while you might think it is the heat/energy you are putting into the water that turns it into steam, what really happens, according to those wise old dialecticians, is that steam makes water turn into steam!

In that case, save energy and turn the gas off!

So, let us track a water molecule to see what happens to it. To identify it, we shall call it "W1", and the steam molecule it turns into "S1". But, if the DM-worthies above are correct, S1 must already exist, otherwise W1 could not change into it! Again, if that is so, where does S1 disappear to if W1 changes into it?

In fact, according to the above worthies, since opposites turn into one another, S1 must change into W1 at the same time as W1 is turning into S1! So while you are boiling a kettle, according to this Superscientific 'theory', steam must be turning back into the water you are boiling, and at the same rate!

One wonders, therefore, how dialectical kettles manage to boil dry.

This must be so, otherwise, as we saw above, when W1 turns into S1 -- which already exists, or W1 could not change -- there would have to be two S1s where there used to be one! Matter created from nowhere!

Of course, the same argument applies to water freezing (and to any and all other examples of DM-change).

This, of course, does not deny that change occurs, only that DM cannot account for it.

The same analysis can easily be applied to social change and this theory still won't work (the above is a general refutation anyway).

My next post will outline this aspect of my demolition.