New materialism: dynamic materialism???

[Die Neue Zeit]

Maybe it's just my "habit" with words as usual, but I've always found both historical and dialectical materialism at least somewhat deficient.

With historical materialism, certain aspects of analyzing modern class struggle and modern capitalism cannot be derived from past examples unless there is a direct or indirect appeal to the concept of "totality" (by "indirect," I include even the unintended "totality" appeals of anti-dialectics HM-ists like Rosa). With dialectical materialism, there is the fetish for reductionist binary thinking using fancy words that don't connect with "ordinary workers" to make the thinking sound not so binary.

Is it time for both of these to be superseded by the "synthetic" dynamic materialism? Notwithstanding the benefit of having less syllables, dynamic-materialist (or dyna-mat, which sounds like "dynamite" :D ) analysis: surpasses the limits of the "historical" paradigm; explores dynamic relationships, processes, and phenomena (like synergy) beyond the limits of the binary "dialectical" paradigm; and uses words that connect with "ordinary workers."

Thoughts?

[PRC-UTE]

I would say that it's not necessary. You don't have to be schooled in dialectics to utilise it's ideas.

[Hyacinth]

Maybe it's just my "habit" with words as usual, but I've always found both historical and dialectical materialism at least somewhat deficient.

With historical materialism, certain aspects of analyzing modern class struggle and modern capitalism cannot be derived from past examples unless there is a direct or indirect appeal to the concept of "totality" (by "indirect," I include even the unintended "totality" appeals of anti-dialectics HM-ists like Rosa). With dialectical materialism, there is the fetish for reductionist binary thinking using fancy words that don't connect with "ordinary workers" to make the thinking sound not so binary.

Is it time for both of these to be superseded by the "synthetic" dynamic materialism? Notwithstanding the benefit of having less syllables, dynamic-materialist (or dyna-mat, which sounds like "dynamite" :D ) analysis: surpasses the limits of the "historical" paradigm; explores dynamic relationships, processes, and phenomena (like synergy) beyond the limits of the "dialectical" paradigm; and uses words that connect with "ordinary workers."

Thoughts?
Sorry, but I’m completely at a loss as to what you’re getting at.

You’re using “totality” with quotation marks around it, that doesn’t make it an clearer than talking about totality without the quote marks. So, what do you mean by “totality” (with or without the quotes)?

Also, once you’ve defined that, why is it that historical materialism cannot explain modern class struggle without reference to this totality?

While you’re at it, I’m at as much of a loss as to what you mean by “synergy”? As well, how is it that historical materialism cannot explain dynamic (by this I’m assuming you mean changing) relationships, processes, and phenomenon?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sounds interesting, but I am far from comvinced that historical materialism, with a few minor tweakings, can't handle things.

[Holden Caulfield]

thinking using fancy words that don't connect with "ordinary workers"

and


I would say that it's not necessary. You don't have to be schooled in dialectics to utilise it's ideas.


seem linked,

although i don't posess great knowledge on the subject personally i think Jacob's theory would be a useful way to easily enlighten mass groups of people, when i joined the board i didn't know what DM was although i knew it in all but theory, and had to read up on it,

'Dyna-mat' (it is fun to use:lol:) sounds like a plan if it could be both refined and simplified in terminology, after all the sucess of Lenin ( disregarding the sucesses of those like Trotsky) was in his ability to simply convey complex issues

[Hit The North]

personally i think Jacob's theory would be a useful way to easily enlighten mass groups of people,


So far, Jacob hasn't come up with a theory, just another one of his neologisms.

[trivas7]

So far, Jacob hasn't come up with a theory, just another one of his neologisms.
I, for one, am not for neologisms. Marxism has enough already.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Marxism has enough already.

I agree, 'dialectics' being the worst.

[trivas7]

I agree, 'dialectics' being the worst.
But 'dialectics' precedes Marx; it isn't a neologism at all.



With historical materialism, certain aspects of analyzing modern class struggle and modern capitalism cannot be derived from past examples unless there is a direct or indirect appeal to the concept of "totality" (by "indirect," I include even the unintended "totality" appeals of anti-dialectics HM-ists like Rosa).

But "deriving from past examples" this isn't the essence of analyzing dialectically. Properly understood HM is multisidedly dynamic. Read Marx.



With dialectical materialism, there is the fetish for reductionist binary thinking using fancy words that don't connect with "ordinary workers" to make the thinking sound not so binary.
This is true but need not be if understood correctly.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


But "deriving from past examples" this isn't the essence of analyzing dialectically.

Indeed, and we know the reason why: there is no such thing as 'analysing dialectically' -- except in so far as comrades weave together incomprehensible jargon, which they then refuse to, or cannot, explain.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Sorry, but I’m completely at a loss as to what you’re getting at.

Dia-mat and histo-mat are separate ideas. Apparently, trivas the dialectician said that dia-mat is used for the overall hista-mat analysis.

Dyna-mat combines aspects of both, and is used for its own overall analysis.


You’re using “totality” with quotation marks around it, that doesn’t make it an clearer than talking about totality without the quote marks. So, what do you mean by “totality” (with or without the quotes)?

What is the relationship between a past class struggle and a particular class struggle in the present?

According to the Hegelian mumbo-jumbo (correct me if I'm wrong, Rosa), "totality" is the sum of all relationships between EVERYTHING, right down to the relationship between Napoleon's hair and Michaelangelo's Last Judgment painting in the Sistine Chapel. :rolleyes:

The problem with the Hegelian concept is that the particular relationship I explained above isn't exactly dynamic, since it deals with mere objects (you'd have to REALLY stretch out your thinking to beyond rational limits, and venture into the world of idealism).

In dyna-mat, the "totality" is limited to more rational relationships, such as the relationship between a past class struggle and a particular class struggle in the present.

Case in point: the relationships between the relative lack of class struggle during the formation of the SPD in Germany (the excitement over German unification under Prussian control) and the relative lack of class struggle today.

This means that the 1912 Bolshevik organizational model is NOT SUITABLE for Marxist organization in the developed world UNTIL a revolutionary situation (otherwise it becomes SECTARIAN), and that something akin to - but not exactly like - the organizational model of the international proletariat's first vanguard party - the SPD - is more appropriate (ie, working with democratic socialists but NOT "social-democrats" within the same organization). (http://www.revleft.com/vb/sozialdemokratische-partei-deutschlands-t79754/index.html)


Also, once you’ve defined that, why is it that historical materialism cannot explain modern class struggle without reference to this totality?

While you’re at it, I’m at as much of a loss as to what you mean by “synergy”? As well, how is it that historical materialism cannot explain dynamic (by this I’m assuming you mean changing) relationships, processes, and phenomenon?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/business-and-dialectics-t74429/index.html

"Quantity into quality" isn't the best term to describe this dynamic phenomenon in the business world which affects shareholder value; "synergy" is.

Because histo-mat, from my POV, looks only at similarities between time-separated relationships, process, and phenomena (I'm not sure if "similarity" applies to the class struggle example I mentioned above, because there is no "unification" process that trumps class struggle in the US at the moment). The dynamic analysis comes in with the differences between such.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JR, I don't think even Hegel could tell you if you are right about what he meant by 'Totality', so steeped in Hermetic jargon was his 'Logic'.

As Glenn Magee notes in his book on this:


"Another parallel between Hermeticism and Hegel is the doctrine of internal relations. For the Hermeticists, the cosmos is not a loosely connected, or to use Hegelian language, externally related set of particulars. Rather, everything in the cosmos is internally related, bound up with everything else.... This principle is most clearly expressed in the so-called Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus, which begins with the famous lines "As above, so below." This maxim became the central tenet of Western occultism, for it laid the basis for a doctrine of the unity of the cosmos through sympathies and correspondences between its various levels. The most important implication of this doctrine is the idea that man is the microcosm, in which the whole of the macrocosm is reflected.

"...The universe is an internally related whole pervaded by cosmic energies." [Magee (2001), p.13.]

More on that here:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/magee.htm

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Since you're a defender of histo-mat, please define it briefly for the rest of the readers here. :)

It has been argued that the theoretical framework of Sociobiology explains certain facts better than does Historical Materialism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism#Criticisms)

[Hyacinth]

Dia-mat and histo-mat are separate ideas. Apparently, trivas the dialectician said that dia-mat is used for the overall hista-mat analysis.

Dyna-mat combines aspects of both, and is used for its own overall analysis.
Well, I’ll agree with you that historical materialism and dialectical materialism (sic) are distinct ideas (in as much as the confused ramblings that passes for dialectics can be called an “idea”).

But my alarm bells start ringing when you talk about combining the two. Since, as you well know, I consider dialectics to be nonsense, I fail to see how combining dialectical materialism and historical materialism would result in an improvement of the latter.

Perhaps you can state what features of dialectical materialism you consider useful, and explain as well how these features would improve historical materialism.


What is the relationship between a past class struggle and a particular class struggle in the present?

According to the Hegelian mumbo-jumbo (correct me if I'm wrong, Rosa), "totality" is the sum of all relationships between EVERYTHING, right down to the relationship between Napoleon's hair and Michaelangelo's Last Judgment painting in the Sistine Chapel. :rolleyes:

The problem with the Hegelian concept is that the particular relationship I explained above isn't exactly dynamic (you'd have to REALLY stretch out your thinking to beyond rational limits, and venture into the world of idealism).

In dyna-mat, the "totality" is limited to more rational relationships, such as the relationship between a past class struggle and a particular class struggle in the present.
Alright, if I’m following you correct, I agree with what you say. But to me this doesn’t seem to be anything new or profound, you’re stating the obvious fact that not everything is relevant to a particular analysis (though it might be obvious, it is still worth repeating).

I think historical materialism, like any science, already does what you suggest. That is, in order to study anything you first need to have a clear demarcation between objects of your study, and those extraneous to your study. In the case of analysing class struggle we can see the clear relevance of looking at past class struggles and their impact on present class struggle. Whereas we cannot do the same with, say, Napoleon’s hairbrush and present class struggle.



"Quantity into quality" isn't the best term to describe this dynamic phenomenon in the business world; "synergy" is.
What phenomenon are you talking about here?


Because histo-mat, from my POV, looks only at similarities between time-separated relationships, process, and phenomena. The dynamic analysis comes in with the differences between such.
I think that you have a incorrect view of historical materialism. In any science, just as in historical materialism, when you are analyzing data, you not only look for the similarities between things, you also examine the differences, this is what it means to compare something (the expression “compare and contrast” is, in a way, redundant). Marx, when he did engage in historical materialist analysis, very careful not only to discuss similarities between historical events (and from said similarities extrapolate general trends), but, moreover, he placed even greater emphasis on the differences. He paid very careful attention to, for example, the differences between France, the UK, and Germany, and used these differences to account for the differences in the development of capitalism (and the worker’s movement) in said countries.

In short, I think that historical materialism already does what you are suggesting.

[Hyacinth]

^^^ Since you're a defender of histo-mat, please define it briefly for the rest of the readers here. :)
"The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."—Karl Marx, A Contriution to the Critique of Political Economy

That, to me, sums up well the central component of historical materialism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sorry, JR -- no will do.

1) I do not like short 'definitions' of such complex issues.

2) It has already largely been done -- for example in Jerry Cohen's book (if you ignore the techological determinism, functionalism, and poor logic), and by Alex Callinicos (with whom I largely agree on this).

[trivas7]

"The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."—Karl Marx, A Contriution to the Critique of Political Economy


What do you think Marx meant by "social existence" here?

How is this "the central component to historical materialism"?

[Die Neue Zeit]

"The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."—Karl Marx, A Contriution to the Critique of Political Economy

That, to me, sums up well the central component of historical materialism.

Yeah, while it is the central component of "the materialist conception of history it is the central component of what I parrot-call "the materialist conception of dynamics." :D


Perhaps you can state what features of dialectical materialism you consider useful, and explain as well how these features would improve historical materialism.

1) Totality (again, within the dynamic constraints I stated above)
2) The relationship between quantity and quality (but beyond the Hegelian limits and mumbo-jumbo)
3) The notion of "synthesis" (although in dyna-mat this is a variant of the dyna-mat version of #2)

Furthermore, stuff like Maslow's hierarchy of needs - which BADLY needs to be integrated into Marxist analysis in the First World countries (you, know, actualization and what not) - can't be covered by either dia-mat or histo-mat.

[Hyacinth]

What do you think Marx meant by "social existence" here?

How is this "the central component to historical materialism"?
I’ll put it in plain language: the way people live determines how and what they think. (Of course, Marx, I think, was exercising some poetic licence here, it isn’t quite that simple, there is a feedback look between social existence and how and what people think, since the latter tends to reinforce the former; it should most properly said that historical materialism gives priority to material conditions of people’s livelihood.)

This is central to historical materialism since it is a rejection of historical idealism, that history is determined by what people think, and that history can be shaped simply by changing people’s minds.

[Hyacinth]

It has already largely been done -- for example in Jerry Cohen's book (if you ignore the techological determinism, functionalism, and poor logic), and by Alex Callinicos (with whom I largely agree on this).
I’m familiar with Cohen, but not Callinicos; can you perhaps recommend something from the latter?

[Hyacinth]

Also, Rosa, I’m curious. What is your opinion of Ernest Mandel’s parametric determinism?

[trivas7]

I would say that it's not necessary. You don't have to be schooled in dialectics to utilise it's ideas.
I disagree. How can you use effectively what you don't understand?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hyacinth:


Also, Rosa, I’m curious. What is your opinion of Ernest Mandel’s parametric determinism?

I have never actually come across it.

Callinicos's book: "Making History". Ignore the chapter on 'Agency'; it is hopeless.

[Hit The North]

I’ll put it in plain language: the way people live determines how and what they think. (Of course, Marx, I think, was exercising some poetic licence here, it isn’t quite that simple, there is a feedback loo[p] between social existence and how and what people think, since the latter tends to reinforce the former; it should most properly said that historical materialism gives priority to material conditions of people’s livelihood.)

This is central to historical materialism since it is a rejection of historical idealism, that history is determined by what people think, and that history can be shaped simply by changing people’s minds.
Bold added and text edited for clarity.

This "feedback loop" - the mediating relation between past, present and future, structure and agency, material conditions of life and our consciousness of them - this is what we mean by dialectical. I'm all for escaping the convoluted and mysterious language of Hegelianism and speculative philosophy if it helps us to clarify the 'rational kernel' of Marx's usage of the dialectic; and 'feedback loop' is perhaps a candidate. However, feedback loops tend to be self-sustaining whereas a dialectical spiral represents a process of mutual development between two or more interrelated aspects of social reality.

Nevertheless, your need to state a feedback loop indicates, for me, why historical materialism requires such a conceptual tool: it helps us to avoid mono-causal models of history and social life.

[Led Zeppelin]

Furthermore, stuff like Maslow's hierarchy of needs - which BADLY needs to be integrated into Marxist analysis in the First World countries (you, know, actualization and what not)

First of all, why are so obsessed with Maslow's hierarchy of needs? It's not correct and it's flawed at its basis.

If you look at my "hierarchy of needs" it will be different from your "hierarchy of needs", it is a deterministic inane theory:


While Maslow's theory was regarded as an improvement over previous theories of personality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_psychology) and motivation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation), it had its detractors. For example, in their extensive review of research that is dependent on Maslow's theory, Wahba and Bridgewell [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs#cite_note-2) found little evidence for the ranking of needs that Maslow described, or even for the existence of a definite hierarchy at all.

As for "actualization", there's already a philosophy which covers that; existentialism.

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.

The most modern "form" of dialectics (with a defense of it) can be found in the works of Sarte and Zizek, in Critique of Dialectical Reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Dialectical_Reason) and The Parallax View (http://www.amazon.com/Parallax-View-Short-Circuits/dp/0262240513), respectively.

[Raúl Duke]

In dyna-mat, the "totality" is limited to more rational relationships, such as the relationship between a past class struggle and a particular class struggle in the present.

Case in point: the relationships between the relative lack of class struggle during the formation of the SPD in Germany (the excitement over German unification under Prussian control) and the relative lack of class struggle today.

Hmm...I seen people make such analysis and still call it Historical Materialism...


It has been argued that the theoretical framework of Sociobiology explains certain facts better than does Historical Materialism.

I checked the link and it only uses a sociobiology journal article (which I can't access). It's the same rubbish with evolutionary psychologists, amongst themselves they think they are right (although they do have influence) and can say their theory is the best in their own journals, yet still face hard and convincing criticisms from others in the more wider world.


Maslow's hierarchy of needs

Why would Marxism need it? How will it take part of Marxism/dyna-mat?

This project sounds interesting but you'll probably need to do lots of research/write a book/etc to support this new theory.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CZ:


This "feedback loop" - the mediating relation between past, present and future, structure and agency, material conditions of life and our consciousness of them - this is what we mean by dialectical. I'm all for escaping the convoluted and mysterious language of Hegelianism and speculative philosophy if it helps us to clarify the 'rational kernel' of Marx's usage of the dialectic; and 'feedback loop' is perhaps a candidate. However, feedback loops tend to be self-sustaining whereas a dialectical spiral represents a process of mutual development between two or more interrelated aspects of social reality.

All you have done is take perfectly ordinary words, and attach the obscure term 'dialectical' to them -- which is a trick that is no more convincing than that tried out by Christian mystics, who like to attach the equally obscure term 'divine' to similar words.

This would not be quite so bad if a single one of you could explain this 'theory' or make it work; but as I have shown here many times, it cannot even explain change!

Moreover, if this were a successful theory, it is us materialists who would be on the defensive -- the way you lot talk, you'd think dialectics was the most wonderful and successful theory since sliced Aristotle.

But, alas for you dialectical day-dreamers, the situation is the exact opposite. Indeed, one struggles to think of another major political/philosophical theory that is quite so abysmally unsuccessful.

You'd think that you DM-fans would get the message: your 'theory' has already been refuted by history, long before I or Hyacinth were ever thought of.

But, that is where this 'theory' comes into its own, for it convinces it initiates of the exact opposite, since one of the core theses of dialectics is that appearances contradict underlying reality -- hence you never learn from history, you just re-process it so that it conforms to your ideal expectations -- thus providing you lot with badly needed consolation.

No wonder we call dialectics the opiate of petty-bourgeois elements in Marxism. No wonder you cling on to it like the religious cling on to their dogmas.

But, no, in a world where you lot tell us that everything is interconnected, the only two things in the entire universe that are not inter-linked are the long-term failure of Dialectical Marxism and its core theory, 'materialist' dialectics.

You just couldn't make this stuff up...:lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LZ:


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" which begins with a fixed definition of a thing according to its various attributes.

This is a tired old and hackneyed claim made about those of us who are sceptical of this mystical theory, but it is also one that each Marxist sect makes about all the rest (evidence at my site, in Essay Nine Part Two). So we can take this with a pinch of non-dialectical salt.

But, even if that were not so, we would all be in good company, since no one 'understands' this 'theory' -- not Engels, not Plekhanov, not Lenin, not Trotsky, not...

Or if they did, they kept that secret extremely well hidden.

[Led Zeppelin]

This is a tired old and hackneyed claim made about those of us who are sceptical of this mystical theory, but it is also one that each Marxist sect makes about all the rest (evidence at my site, in Essay Nine Part Two). So we can take this with a pinch of non-dialectical salt.

Well I've never used "dialectics" as a way to attack any other ideological tendency or party, that is just inane, and the people who do it only do so because they are petty sectarians.


But, even if that were not so, we would all be in good company, since no one 'understands' this 'theory' -- not Engels, not Plekhanov, not Lenin, not Trotsky, not...

Or if they did, they kept that secret extremely well hidden.

Didn't you say somewhere that Trotsky understood it better than Lenin?

Also, why do you only criticize and attempt to refute the "old" dialecticians but not the modern ones such as Sartre or Zizek?

The most modern "form" of dialectics (with a defense of it) can be found in the works of Sarte and Zizek, in Critique of Dialectical Reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Dialectical_Reason) and The Parallax View (http://www.amazon.com/Parallax-View-Short-Circuits/dp/0262240513), respectively.

Have you read them? Will you attempt to refute them?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LZ:


Well I've never used "dialectics" as a way to attack any other ideological tendency or party, that is just inane, and the people who do it only do so because they are petty sectarians.

You are one in a million then.


Didn't you say somewhere that Trotsky understood it better than Lenin?

Not me, sorry.


The most modern "form" of dialectics (with a defense of it) can be found in the works of Sarte and Zizek, in Critique of Dialectical Reason and The Parallax View, respectively.

Have you read them? Will you attempt to refute them?

I have read this material, and much else besides (e.g., Tony Smith, Chris Arthur, Bertell Ollman, Robert Albritton, Jurgen Habermas, Adorno...).

They all indulge in a priori dogmatics, imposing their ideas on nature and society, just like Hegel did, and just as traditional philosophers have always done.

I will be criticising some of them in a later essay.

When I say no one understands dialectics, I am not just picking on dialecticians -- no one understands traditional philosophy either (dialectics being a rather poor cousin here), since traditional philosophy is nothing other than the systematic capitulation to the misuse of language. Hence, it cannot makes sense, and neither can dialectics.

I have a long general argument to that effect here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2012_01.htm

This is summarised here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-12.htm

[I am about to re-write that summary, since it is not as clear as I'd like it to be.]

[Die Neue Zeit]

I have a feeling that a few of the off-topic posts in this thread should be moved to the "Scrapping Dialectics" thread. :(

[Die Neue Zeit]

Bold added and text edited for clarity.

This "feedback loop" - the mediating relation between past, present and future, structure and agency, material conditions of life and our consciousness of them - this is what we mean by dialectical. I'm all for escaping the convoluted and mysterious language of Hegelianism and speculative philosophy if it helps us to clarify the 'rational kernel' of Marx's usage of the dialectic; and 'feedback loop' is perhaps a candidate. However, feedback loops tend to be self-sustaining whereas a dialectical spiral represents a process of mutual development between two or more interrelated aspects of social reality.

The problem with the "dialectical spiral" is that, in the case of four or more aspects, there is no possibility for direct, dynamic interaction inside the "perimeter" known as the "dialectical spiral." In the case of four aspects forming a quadrilateral interaction, this direct, dynamic interaction which I am referring to is diagonal.


First of all, why are so obsessed with Maslow's hierarchy of needs? It's not correct and it's flawed at its basis.

If you look at my "hierarchy of needs" it will be different from your "hierarchy of needs", it is a deterministic inane theory:

As for "actualization", there's already a philosophy which covers that; existentialism.

There were further developments of that hierarchy, per the wiki.

The point of incorporating this is that there is good reason to trigger revolution in the First World countries, where the alleged "labour aristocracy" exists (no, I don't subscribe to Lenin's LA crap, except to the extent where he was referring to his historical equivalent of modern pro-athlete "celebrities," actor "celebrities," etc.).

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1164355&postcount=29



If historical materialism can be summed up by the axiom "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness," then dynamic materialism can be summed up by the axiom "Philosophers have interpreted the world in various ways; the point however is to change it."


Hmm...I seen people make such analysis and still call it Historical Materialism...

I was merely using an example of the "totality" relationship between a past dynamic and a present dynamic (past-present dynamic). HM does NOT work when dealing with present-present dynamics, and dialectics doesn't take into account the "inside the perimeter" interactions that I mentioned above.


I checked the link and it only uses a sociobiology journal article (which I can't access). It's the same rubbish with evolutionary psychologists, amongst themselves they think they are right (although they do have influence) and can say their theory is the best in their own journals, yet still face hard and convincing criticisms from others in the more wider world.

So far, sociobiology has no problems if applied to non-humans. With us, of course, political ramifications come about.


This project sounds interesting but you'll probably need to do lots of research/write a book/etc to support this new theory.

Reformulating political theory is one thing... reformulating philosophy is an even bigger challenge. :D

[PRC-UTE]

Well, I’ll agree with you that historical materialism and dialectical materialism (sic) are distinct ideas (in as much as the confused ramblings that passes for dialectics can be called an “idea”).

But my alarm bells start ringing when you talk about combining the two. Since, as you well know, I consider dialectics to be nonsense, I fail to see how combining dialectical materialism and historical materialism would result in an improvement of the latter.

Perhaps you can state what features of dialectical materialism you consider useful, and explain as well how these features would improve historical materialism.



The problem with this is your starting point: the two ideas are not seperate, and were not until they became the official ideology of the Communist movement. Marx did not even coin or use the term "dialectical materialism", he merely applied a dialectical critique (motion, change as a restult of inner contradictions for example) to materialism.

[MarxSchmarx]

I am quite intrigued - what insight/explanation does dynamical materialism generate that cannot be provided by, say, conventional social and natural science or philosophy? That is, is there some phenomena that can't be accounted for by conventional science or modern philosophy?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Comrade, I think it's too much of a hassle to scurry in the conventional sciences and philosophy without noticing a discernable link between the various elements in those conventions.

I am merely suggesting that we who profess to be "Marxists" get past BOTH dialectical and historical materialism onto something that isn't reductionist, something that can incorporate aspects of the conventional sciences and philosophy while still acknowledging that there is no "complete, integral world-outlook" (the very first reductionism that I attacked in my WIP).

For example, take the merger formulas that I keep harping about. Some histomat analysis can explain them, and some diamat philosophy can explain them, but we still don't have a complete picture of all the dynamics associated with the merger formulas (ie, those dynamics that are neither historical nor dialectical).

[Hyacinth]

I am quite intrigued - what insight/explanation does dynamical materialism generate that cannot be provided by, say, conventional social and natural science or philosophy? That is, is there some phenomena that can't be accounted for by conventional science or modern philosophy?
Excellent question! I would very much like to hear dialecticians answer it; they made the assertion that dialectical materialism adds “motion, change, etc.” to materialism? How is materialism, and contemporary science, incapable of accounting for change such that we need dialectical materialism?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Comrade, the comrade MS was talking about dyna-mat (in other words, his question was meant for me, specifically), not dia-mat. ;)

[trivas7]

Excellent question! I would very much like to hear dialecticians answer it; they made the assertion that dialectical materialism adds “motion, change, etc.” to materialism? How is materialism, and contemporary science, incapable of accounting for change such that we need dialectical materialism?
Have you read Jonathan Rees's essay?

http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxisme.dk/arkiv/reesj/1990/trot-dia/trot-dia.htm#ch5):

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Have you read Jonathan Rees's essay?

Have you read my demolition of it (and of Trotsky's appallingly bad logic)?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2006.htm

And his name is 'John Rees'; can't you get anything right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rees_(UK_politician)

[Black Light]

I have only recently begun my study of Hegel, and I am new to the forums. So what I say should be judged in that light. Nevertheless, one thing in particular interested me and I would like to comment on it.

Jacob Richter writes:

"In dyna-mat, the "totality" is limited to more rational relationships, such as the relationship between a past class struggle and a particular class struggle in the present.

Case in point: the relationships between the relative lack of class struggle during the formation of the SPD in Germany (the excitement over German unification under Prussian control) and the relative lack of class struggle today."

Not that I am necessarily against what you are trying to do here - namely, what I interpret as being essentially an attempt to render dialectics less amorphous and therefore the concepts deduced therefrom easier to hold up to scrutiny and collective debate, changing the name from dialectics to "dynamics" doesn't bother me in particular. But there are some problems here. Namely, you take one assumed similarity between isolated historical circumstances and draw a direct conclusion for modern tactics. In any system of reasoning this would be faulty, no less in dialectical thinking. You abstract a historical tendency from two periods that are isolated, assuming that the reasons for the tendency (in this case, the relative lack of class struggle) are identical without examining any of the specific contingencies which must've been at work to render the lack of class struggle. The two situations are definitively not the same, the optimum for organizational structure may be similar, but simply pointing to an abstract similarity is no way to make that case.

Although, since you were just making a simple example I can give you the benefit of the doubt and presume your case for an SPD-like organization for the present contains much more than you write here.

Furthermore, simply because dialectics insists on a view of "totality" does not mean there is any relationship between utterly abstract items (Napoleon's hair and Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel in your example). Totality means that concrete things cannot be analyzed in isolation, but must relate to the whole. Class Struggle is a concrete notion, and therefore has to relate to a Totality, such as History. To take one example of class struggle and compare it with another, while at the same time ignoring the relation which connects them (i.e., History) is a false analysis, and cannot arrive at any concrete truth.

Likewise, while I agree that you are right that Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs does need to be incorporated into Marxism, it must be done so as a concrete historical and social phenomenon. That is, we must not take it immediately as it presents itself, but analyze it in relation to the historical milieu in which it can find existence. In other words, we must incorporate it dialectically.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Welcome to the board 'Black Light'.

The reason why Hegel's ideas do not work is explained here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Outline_of_errors_Hegel_committed_01.htm

And 'totality' is no better:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2011_01.htm

[Die Neue Zeit]

Rosa, the dynamic "totality" of which I speak is different from the Hegelian concept.



In dyna-mat, the "totality" is limited to more rational relationships, such as the relationship between a past class struggle and a particular class struggle in the present.

Case in point: the relationships between the relative lack of class struggle during the formation of the SPD in Germany (the excitement over German unification under Prussian control) and the relative lack of class struggle today."

Not that I am necessarily against what you are trying to do here - namely, what I interpret as being essentially an attempt to render dialectics less amorphous and therefore the concepts deduced therefrom easier to hold up to scrutiny and collective debate, changing the name from dialectics to "dynamics" doesn't bother me in particular.

Dynamic materialism (with the far more provocative short-hand "dyna-mat" :D ) = HM + some dialectics + some other modern philosophy + some modern natural sciences (especially physics, but also analyses of chemical reactions, biological reactions, etc. ) + some modern social sciences (like sociobiology)


But there are some problems here. Namely, you take one assumed similarity between isolated historical circumstances and draw a direct conclusion for modern tactics. In any system of reasoning this would be faulty, no less in dialectical thinking. You abstract a historical tendency from two periods that are isolated, assuming that the reasons for the tendency (in this case, the relative lack of class struggle) are identical without examining any of the specific contingencies which must've been at work to render the lack of class struggle. The two situations are definitively not the same, the optimum for organizational structure may be similar, but simply pointing to an abstract similarity is no way to make that case.

Actually, I have taken various examples in terms of that specific timeframe. The most notorious examples, as per my post further down on Belgian social democracy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/sozialdemokratische-partei-deutschlands-t79754/index.html?p=1160833#post1160833), are ones definitely to be avoided. In today's case, the Belgian liberals would be "social-democrats."


Although, since you were just making a simple example I can give you the benefit of the doubt and presume your case for an SPD-like organization for the present contains much more than you write here.

I'd like to hear your thoughts here, even if you're an anarchist:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/sozialdemokratische-partei-deutschlands-t79754/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/united-social-labour-t75056/index.html


Likewise, while I agree that you are right that Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs does need to be incorporated into Marxism, it must be done so as a concrete historical and social phenomenon. That is, we must not take it immediately as it presents itself, but analyze it in relation to the historical milieu in which it can find existence. In other words, we must incorporate it dialectically.

Meh - I'm not a dialectician, for reasons stated in my original post (binary thinking clouded in mystical language).

Indeed, some variant of Maslow's hierarchy of needs to be incorporated, and even then presented as being merely a general rule (as LZ pointed out exceptions).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JR:


Rosa, the dynamic "totality" of which I speak is different from the Hegelian concept

I'm glad to hear it.

Don't know why you need to use that term though.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ What's a better word? "Universe" and "scope" don't seem appropriate. "History" is a very specific form of this "thing" of which I speak. :(

[trivas7]

According to the Hegelian mumbo-jumbo (correct me if I'm wrong, Rosa), "totality" is the sum of all relationships between EVERYTHING, right down to the relationship between Napoleon's hair and Michaelangelo's Last Judgment painting in the Sistine Chapel. :rolleyes:

The problem with the Hegelian concept is that the particular relationship I explained above isn't exactly dynamic, since it deals with mere objects (you'd have to REALLY stretch out your thinking to beyond rational limits, and venture into the world of idealism).

This is wrong, IMO. Dialectics deals with objects only qua things in motion, their logical relationships and interactions.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Dialectics deals with objects only qua things in motion, their logical relationships and interactions.

But, in that case, as I have shown, dialectics cannot explain change --or, alternatively, if dialectics were true, change would be impossible.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JR:


What's a better word? "Universe" and "scope" don't seem appropriate. "History" is a very specific form of this "thing" of which I speak.

Why do we need a single word? We have many terms in language that allow us to speak of collections, interconnected wholes and the like. 'The economy', 'the working class', 'the relations of production', 'international trade', 'the US war machine', 'the poeple of Burma', etc.etc.

[trivas7]

But, in that case, as I have shown, dialectics cannot explain change --or, alternatively, if dialectics were true, change would be impossible.
What do you mean by dialectics in this context?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


What do you mean by dialectics in this context?

I do not mean anything by it, I merely quote the dialectical prophets and show their ideas cannot work:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1167402&postcount=249

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1167412&postcount=250

The full argument can be found here:

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

[trivas7]

I do not mean anything by it, [...]

Then your point is moot.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Then your point is moot.

As 'moot' as yours is unclear.

Once more:


I merely quote the dialectical prophets and show their ideas cannot work

Now, I might not be able to understand the nature of 'god', but that does not stop me pointing out the many incoherences there are in religious belief.

Same here -- with your opiate.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ See, by evoking the word "opiate" in a different context, you are unconsciously applying the materialist conception of dynamics (sorry for the late post). ;)

The dynamic "totality," unlike the dialectical equivalent, raises the subject of multiple opiates of the masses, and the relationships between them. Consumptionism (as opposed to "commodity fetishism," which is not understandable by the average Joe, and as opposed to "consumerism," which is a cheap linguistic attempt by ivory-tower intellectuals to place guilt on the alienated consumer) has become a more potent opiate of the masses than organized religion, so much so that much (not all, but much) of the latter has become part of the former (a dynamic not acknowledged in dialectics).

All the mainstream talk of "decadent materialism" - so lacking amongst the left - demonstrates my point. :)

[trivas7]

Maybe it's just my "habit" with words as usual, but I've always found both historical and dialectical materialism at least somewhat deficient.

With historical materialism, certain aspects of analyzing modern class struggle and modern capitalism cannot be derived from past examples unless there is a direct or indirect appeal to the concept of "totality" (by "indirect," I include even the unintended "totality" appeals of anti-dialectics HM-ists like Rosa). With dialectical materialism, there is the fetish for reductionist binary thinking using fancy words that don't connect with "ordinary workers" to make the thinking sound not so binary.

Is it time for both of these to be superseded by the "synthetic" dynamic materialism? Notwithstanding the benefit of having less syllables, dynamic-materialist (or dyna-mat, which sounds like "dynamite" :D ) analysis: surpasses the limits of the "historical" paradigm; explores dynamic relationships, processes, and phenomena (like synergy) beyond the limits of the binary "dialectical" paradigm; and uses words that connect with "ordinary workers."

Thoughts?
IMO the Hegelian concept of totality isn't in Marx's use of the materialist concept of history, as Marx called historical materialism. Neither is it essentially the analysis of the class struggle looked at historically; rather it is looking at history through the lens of certain social categories dialectically, i.e., nature, the labor-movement, social ideas, the productive forces, and politics working themselves out in an evolutionary process.

And the whole point of the dialectic is to militate against reductionistic, logical or causal thinking.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


IMO the Hegelian concept of totality isn't in Marx's use of the materialist concept of history, as Marx called historical materialism. Neither is it essentially the analysis of the class struggle looked at historically; rather it is looking at history through the lens of certain social categories dialectically, i.e., nature, the labor-movement, social ideas, the productive forces, and politics working themselves out in an evolutionary process.

Maybe so, but only if we interpet 'dialectically' in a way that omits all reference to the following: 'dialectical contradictions', 'unity and identity of opposites', 'quantity passing over into quality', 'negation of the negation', 'interconnected totality', and 'universal change'.

And that is because Marx himself rejected these mystical notions, as he indicated in Das Kapital.

[trivas7]

Trivas:



Maybe so, but only if we interpet 'dialectically' in a way that omits all reference to the following: 'dialectical contradictions', 'unity and identity of opposites', 'quantity passing over into quality', 'negation of the negation', 'interconnected totality', and 'universal change'.

And that is because Marx himself rejected these mystical notions, as he indicated in Das Kapital.
Agreed. Nevertheless, he never repudiated dialectics, neither did he make a fetish of opposing them.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Nevertheless, he never repudiated dialectics, neither did he make a fetish of opposing them.

I am glad to see you have now abandoned the following: 'dialectical contradictions', 'unity and identity of opposites', 'quantity passing over into quality', 'negation of the negation', 'interconnected totality', and 'universal change'.

[trivas7]

Trivas:
I am glad to see you have now abandoned the following: 'dialectical contradictions', 'unity and identity of opposites', 'quantity passing over into quality', 'negation of the negation', 'interconnected totality', and 'universal change'.
What does it mean to 'abandon' concepts that have been the common heritage of political dissent for at least a century? Hegel, too, was aware of contradictions in capitalism. When you abandon history you abandon humanity IMO.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You two just love to have a banter with each other across multiple threads, don't you? ;) Neither of you addressed Post #62 above on opiates.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


What does it mean to 'abandon' concepts that have been the common heritage of political dissent for at least a century? Hegel, too, was aware of contradictions in capitalism. When you abandon history you abandon humanity IMO.

Then your "Agreed" was entirely insincere.

Quite apart from that, 'abadnoning' these mystical concepts will at the very least allow us revolutionaries to develop Historical Materialism scientifically, and perhaps learn from the mistakes of the last 150 years.

Your excuse is no better than "If it was good enough for my grandfather, it's good enough for me...!"

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

Sorry JR, #62 does not seem to exist!

[trivas7]

Quite apart from that, 'abadnoning' these mystical concepts will at the very least allow us revolutionaries to develop Historical Materialism scientifically, and perhaps learn from the mistakes of the last 150 years.

No, Rosa, I deny that dialectics is equivalent to clinging to tradition. Either it is a scientific methodology or it isn't. Either historical materialism is scientific or it isn't, which means either the application of dialectical methodology to history is scientific or it isn't. Historical materialism was first developed by Marx or it wasn't; it's only a matter of carrying on that legacy.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


I deny that dialectics is equivalent to clinging to tradition.

And yet, there is an interesting unity of opposites at work here: you deny it, and yet you cling to tradition all the same.


Either it is a scientific methodology or it isn't. Either historical materialism is scientific or it isn't, which means either the application of dialectical methodology to history is scientific or it isn't. Historical materialism was first developed by Marx or it wasn't; it's only a matter of carrying on that legacy.

1) I am glad to see that you now agree with the 'either-or' of 'common sense'.

2) If historical materialism is to be scientific, then it needs to be cleared of the following mystical notions: 'dialectical contradictions', 'unity and identity of opposites', 'quantity passing over into quality', 'negation of the negation', 'interconnected totality', and 'universal change', and brought into line with Marx's own thinking in Das Kapital.

[trivas7]

Neither of you addressed Post #62 above on opiates.
Your point re the opiate of consumption is well taken, David Edward's Burning All Illusions (http://www.amazon.com/Burning-All-Illusions-Personal-Political/dp/0896085317/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222101219&sr=1-1) is a great read re this. Are you saying that dynamic materialism deals with this whereas traditional dialectics does not?

[Hit The North]

Your point re the opiate of consumption is well taken, David Edward's Burning All Illusions (http://www.amazon.com/Burning-All-Illusions-Personal-Political/dp/0896085317/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222101219&sr=1-1) is a great read re this. Are you saying that dynamic materialism deals with this whereas traditional dialectics does not?

This was also the theme of Marcuse's One Dimensional Man - a comrade not averse to a little dialectical dabbling himself.

It can be found on the Marxist Internet Archive, which I'm having trouble linking to at the moment.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


This was also the theme of Marcuse's One Dimensional Man - a comrade not averse to a little dialectical dabbling himself.

That book is not too bad, except in Chapter Seven Marcuse unforunately tries to criticise Analytic Philosophy from a position of almost total ignorance, making similar points to those advanced by Ernest Gellner (in fact, it is clear he has borrowed from him) in his egregious book 'Words and Things'.

This approach is taken apart here:

http://www.helsinki.fi/~tuschano/writings/strange/

[trivas7]

2) If historical materialism is to be scientific, then it needs to be cleared of the following mystical notions: 'dialectical contradictions', 'unity and identity of opposites', 'quantity passing over into quality', 'negation of the negation', 'interconnected totality', and 'universal change', and brought into line with Marx's own thinking in Das Kapital.
What do mean by "if"? If historical materialism is not scientific no amount of 'clearing' will help. What do you mean by "brought into line with"? Either Capital is a work of historical materialism or it isn't (You can put lipstick on a pig, etc. :blushing: ).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Either Capital is a work of historical materialism or it isn't

Once more, I see you have accepted the 'either-or' of 'common sense', rejecting Hegel and Engels's 'advice':


Instead of speaking by the maxim of Excluded Middle (which is the maxim of abstract understanding) we should rather say: Everything is opposite. Neither in heaven nor in Earth, neither in the world of mind nor of nature, is there anywhere such an abstract 'either-or' as the understanding maintains. Whatever exists is concrete, with difference and opposition in itself. The finitude of things will 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 also the acid is not something that persists quietly in the contrast: it is always in effort to realise what it potentially is.

Hegel's Shorter 'Logic'

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/slessenc.htm


To the metaphysician, things and their mental reflexes, ideas, are isolated, are to be considered one after the other and apart from each other, are objects of investigation fixed, rigid, given once for all. He thinks in absolutely irreconcilable antitheses. "His communication is 'yea, yea; nay, nay'; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." [Matthew 5:37. — Ed.] For him a thing either exists or does not exist; a thing cannot at the same time be itself and something else. Positive and negative absolutely exclude one another, cause and effect stand in a rigid antithesis one to the other.

At first sight this mode of thinking seems to us very luminous, because it is that of so-called sound common sense. Only sound common sense, respectable fellow that he is, in the homely realm of his own four walls, has very wonderful adventures directly he ventures out into the wide world of research. And the metaphysical mode of thought, justifiable and even necessary as it is in a number of domains whose extent varies according to the nature of the particular object of investigation, sooner or later reaches a limit, beyond which it becomes one-sided, restricted, abstract, lost in insoluble contradictions. In the contemplation of individual things it forgets the connection between them; in the contemplation of their existence, it forgets the beginning and end of that existence; of their repose, it forgets their motion. It cannot see the wood for the trees.

Engels's Ludwig Feuerbach

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/introduction.htm

So, I am glad to see you have rejected this nonsense.


What do mean by "if"? If historical materialism is not scientific no amount of 'clearing' will help.

On the contrary, the gobbledygook Engels, Plekhanov and Lenin imported from Hegel has compromised the scientific nature of Historical Materialism.

[trivas7]

On the contrary, the gobbledygook Engels, Plekhanov and Lenin imported from Hegel has compromised the scientific nature of Historical Materialism.
You miss the point entirely.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


You miss the point entirely.

Which point is that? Another you can't explain?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Sorry JR, #62 does not seem to exist!

Post 52 on opiates - my bad :(

The dynamic "totality," unlike the dialectical equivalent, raises the subject of multiple opiates of the masses, and the relationships between them. Consumptionism (as opposed to "commodity fetishism," which is not understandable by the average Joe, and as opposed to "consumerism," which is a cheap linguistic attempt by ivory-tower intellectuals to place guilt on the alienated consumer) has become a more potent opiate of the masses than organized religion, so much so that much (not all, but much) of the latter has become part of the former (a dynamic not acknowledged in dialectics).

All the mainstream talk of "decadent materialism" - so lacking amongst the left - demonstrates my point.


Your point re the opiate of consumption is well taken, David Edward's Burning All Illusions (http://www.amazon.com/Burning-All-Illusions-Personal-Political/dp/0896085317/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222101219&sr=1-1) is a great read re this. Are you saying that dynamic materialism deals with this whereas traditional dialectics does not?

I myself haven't "theorized" much in terms of the materialist conception of dynamics, simply because I'm too busy "unconsciously" applying it to my current programmatic work. :(

But yes, the materialist conception of dynamics deals simultaneously with the religion/spirituality-a-la-carte and especially the silence of the left on it relative to religion-as-opiate talk (the "totality" relationship between traditional dialectics and the silence).

[trivas7]

On the contrary, the gobbledygook Engels, Plekhanov and Lenin imported from Hegel has compromised the scientific nature of Historical Materialism.
And how was it that Marx himself was immune from this disease, given he was a lifelong student of Hegel?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


And how was it that Marx himself was immune from this disease, given he was a lifelong student of Hegel?

Not life-long. He only fell under Hegel's spell when well into his twenties, and then moved away from him all through the rest of his life.

And we can put that down to the materialist influence of the working class with whom Marx became increasingly involved.

Now, answer my questions:


Which point is that? Another you can't explain?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JR, I am not convinced by the traditional account of 'commodity fetishism', and thus by your elaboration of it. I think we need to re-think it more radically.

[trivas7]

Now, answer my questions:
The point is you seem to think that historical materialism is not a science, that it is intellectually bankrupt. If not please explain what makes it scientific. In terms of what paradigm of science? Why don't bourgeois scientists acknowledge it as a science? Is Capital a work of scientific analysis IYO?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


The point is you seem to think that historical materialism is not a science, that it is intellectually bankrupt.

Where do I 'seem' to think this? In fact, I have been at pains to assert the opposite countless times at RevLeft over the last three years, and at my site.

What I have said is that HM is rendered unscientific by the gobblegygook Engels & co imported from Hegel. Marx's version is fine as it stands.


If not please explain what makes it scientific. In terms of what paradigm of science? Why don't bourgeois scientists acknowledge it as a science? Is Capital a work of scientific analysis IYO?

I will be quite happy to do this when:

1) You have answered the many questions I have asked you over the last four or five months, and,

2) When I have finished my project of totally demolishing dialectical materialism.

[Until then, you will find much of my approach to HM in Gerry Cohen's book 'Karl Marx's Theory of History, A Defence' (minus the technological Determinism, the Functionalism, and the logical howlers), but as modified by Alex Callinicos in 'Making History'.]

If you can't wait -- tough...

[JimFar]

Rosa wrote:


[Until then, you will find much of my approach to HM in Gerry Cohen's book 'Karl Marx's Theory of History, A Defence' (minus the technological Determinism, the Functionalism, and the logical howlers), but as modified by Alex Callinicos in 'Making History'.]

Perhaps then Rosa you will address where you stand in reference to the Analytical Marxists; discussing what is living and what is dead in Analytical Marxism, including the reasons why most of the original Analytical Marxists, including Cohen, no longer consider themselves to be Marxists.

I think you have on occasion argued that Marx's materialist conception of history has deep roots within the Scottish Enlightenment, including such writers as Ferguson and Hume. I certainly look forward to reading more from you on that subject.



If you can't wait -- tough...

It will be. :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim, it will be at least another ten years before I even begin to think about writing on this topic.

Sorry!:(

By the way, do you know how I can sigh up for this Forum?

http://www.groupsrv.com/politics/

One or two posters there have said a few idiotic things about my work, and need to be put straight.

You can read about Kant's influence on Marx here:

Ch. 7 of Allen Wood's book Kant's Ethical Thought. He also has a paper on this:

Wood, A. (1998), 'Kant's Historical Materialism' in Kneller and Axinn, Chapter Five.

Kneller, J., and Axinn, S, (1998), Autonomy And Community: Readings In Contemporary Kantian Social Philosophy (SUNY).

I owe these references to Phil Gasper, if you know of him

[JimFar]

Jim, it will be at least another ten years before I even begin to think about writing on this topic.

Sorry!:(



I think you might be making a mistake to wait so long before addressing the topic in depth. Remember the dialecticians like to make the claim that it is dialectics that illuminates Marx's materialist conception of history. Many of the dialectical materialists go so far as to claim that historical materialism is simply the application of dialectical materialism to history. And they make similar claims in regards to things like Marx's critique of political economy and so forth. Therefore, I would submit that part of the fight against the dialecticians requires showing that such things like the materialist conception of history can be elucidated without reference to dialectics and that to do renders the theory to be clearer and more coherent.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, Jim, you might be right; who can say? All I know is that if I can kill this monster then its application in HM falls by the wayside. I have got more than enough on my plate at the moment to be distracted by a 'maybe'.

It is also worth pointing out that when I began this project in earnest in 1998, I had no illusions that I would be able to change the views of the vast majority of comrades. This is because they hold onto this theory for the same sorts of reasons that the religious hold on to theirs: as a means of consolation, but in this case, for 150 years of almost total failure.



Now, since religion will only disappear when the working class remove the conditions that require consolation, the same condition applies to our mystical friends.

Hence, as a materialist, I know that I can't alter their beliefs. It will take the working class to save these sorry individuals from themselves.

[I]I stand no chance whatever I do.

[Hit The North]

Therefore, I would submit that part of the fight against the dialecticians requires showing that such things like the materialist conception of history can be elucidated without reference to dialectics and that to do renders the theory to be clearer and more coherent.

I agree with this. Meanwhile, if Rosa can show how a genuine historical materialism works without the dialectic then she'll be the first person in history to do so.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Meanwhile, if Rosa can show how a genuine historical materialism works without the dialectic then she'll be the first person in history to do so.

Not so; Marx did (and so did Gerry Cohen).

[Hit The North]

BTB:

Not so; Marx did

If that was the case then your own project (as well as Cohen's) would be a waste of time.


(and so did Gerry Cohen).:lol:

So you think that his poor technologically deterministic excuse for HM was a success? Well apart from Cohen himself, you're the only one who thinks so. Besides, his work proved to be an elaborate exit route out of Marxism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


If that was the case then your own project (as well as Cohen's) would be a waste of time.

Not so, there are as in any science (as Lenin argued) always problems to solve.


So you think that his poor technologically deterministic excuse for HM was a success? Well apart from Cohen himself, you're the only one who thinks so. Besides, his work proved to be an elaborate exit route out of Marxism.

1) So, he wimped out. I won't.

2) I have said in many threads here that I reject his technological determinism and his functionalism.

3) Alex Callinicos has a high opinion of Cohen. Check out 'Making History'.

But even if I were the only one on the planet who had a high opinion of Cohen (even Cohen has repudiated his earlier theory!), so what?

[PRC-UTE]

I disagree. How can you use effectively what you don't understand?

well a lot of leftists I know would lean on theories that are dialectical (capitalism is its own gravedigger) yet either refuse to call this an example of dialectics applied to materialism or aren't aware that it is.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ To be fair, "capitalism is its own gravedigger" isn't a negation. Socialized capitalism of the worker-controlled state-capitalist monopoly kind may actually perpetuate itself, and both the extraction of surplus value under bourgeois capitalism and the formation of money-capital could continue indefinitely into this pre-socialist economy. :(

[PRC-UTE]

^^^ To be fair, "capitalism is its own gravedigger" isn't a negation. Socialized capitalism of the worker-controlled state-capitalist monopoly kind may actually perpetuate itself, and both the extraction of surplus value under bourgeois capitalism and the formation of money-capital could continue indefinitely into this pre-socialist economy. :(

the capitalism as its own gravedigger argument relies on the inherent contradictions within capitalism, not so much negation. and not just its destruction, but setting the stage for what could follow due to the increasingly socialised nature of labour

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PRC:


the capitalism as its own gravedigger argument relies on the inherent contradictions within capitalism, not so much negation. and not just its destruction, but setting the stage for what could follow due to the increasingly socialised nature of labour

What 'contradictions' are these? I keep asking, but not one single dialectician can tell me.

[Lynx]

It's an irony?

[trivas7]

[...] I would submit that part of the fight against the dialecticians requires showing that such things like the materialist conception of history can be elucidated without reference to dialectics and that to do renders the theory to be clearer and more coherent.
Agreed; please, be my guest. :cool:

What is historical materialism other than the dialectic applied to human history?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


What is historical materialism other than the dialectic applied to human history?

We have been over this several times; Historical Materialism does not need 'the dialectic' as you understand it. Marx waved goodbye to that in Das Kapital.

If we have to go over this a hundred times before it sinks in, so be it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


It's an irony?

Irony runs the universe, does it?

But, I am sure you were merely joking...

[trivas7]

We have been over this several times; Historical Materialism does not need 'the dialectic' as you understand it. Marx waved goodbye to that in Das Kapital.

Please just answer the question, if you can. Otherwise, my definition stands.

[Hit The North]

BTB:

1) So, he wimped out. I won't.



His exit was a direct result of his technological determinism and functionalism; not a lack of backbone but a theoretical impasse.


2) I have said in many threads here that I reject his technological determinism and his functionalism.Leaving what of value behind?


3) Alex Callinicos has a high opinion of Cohen. Check out 'Making History'.
But according to you, we can safely ignore Alex due to his bourgeois origins. Or is this only a rule of thumb when you deal with exponents of the dialectic?


But even if I were the only one on the planet who had a high opinion of Cohen (even Cohen has repudiated his earlier theory!), so what?But as we know he's repudiated more than just his earlier work. He's repudiated the whole cannon of Marxism. But I guess no one should be surprised that you hold a "high opinion" of yet another anti-Marxist academic. :closedeyes:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Please just answer the question, if you can. Otherwise, my definition stands.

I already have, so it doesn't.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


His exit was a direct result of his technological determinism and functionalism; not a lack of backbone but a theoretical impasse.

My comment was aimed at this one of yours:


Besides, his work proved to be an elaborate exit route out of Marxism.


Leaving what of value behind?

Historical Materialism.


But according to you, we can safely ignore Alex due to his bourgeois origins. Or is this only a rule of thumb when you deal with exponents of the dialectic?

Where have I said that?


But as we know he's repudiated more than just his earlier work. He's repudiated the whole cannon of Marxism. .

As I said, he whimped out.

How many more times do you need telling?


But I guess no one should be surprised that you hold a "high opinion" of yet another anti-Marxist academic

1) Hegel was not a Marxist, and yet the vast majority of Marxists hold him in high regard -- and that includes Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky.

2) Cohen was invited to that Oxford Forum I attended, which was organised by Oxford SWSS.

[Hit The North]

BTB:

Historical Materialism.


A completely neutered version.


Where have I said that?It's one of your key explanations for why otherwise first rate revolutionaries like Engels, Lenin and Trotsky hold on to the dialectic. If their class background distorts their thinking, then how much does it affect Callinicos who, rather than being a professional revolutionary, is a professorial academic?


As I said, he whimped out.

How many more times do you need telling? And how many more time do you need telling that it's not a case of him "whimping out" but it is a problem with his theory? Its reliance on technological determinism and functional explanation means that he has no room for the class struggle. His rejection of the dialectic further means that he has no way of accomodating both the objective and subjective factors in history or to demonstrate how the two interact with each other.


1) Hegel was not a Marxist, and yet the vast majority of Marxists hold him in high regard -- and that includes Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky. Yes, and Marx too; with a critical appreciation equal to those others you mention:


I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker... 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. K. Marx, Capital Vol 1


2) Cohen was invited to that Oxford Forum I attended, which was organised by Oxford SWSS.
So what? Every year we invite George Monbiot and Tony Benn to Marxism. What does that prove?

[JimFar]

A completely neutered version.

And how many more time do you need telling that it's not a case of him "whimping out" but it is a problem with his theory? Its reliance on technological determinism and functional explanation means that he has no room for the class struggle. His rejection of the dialectic further means that he has no way of accomodating both the objective and subjective factors in history or to demonstrate how the two interact with each other.

I think it might be accurate to say that with Cohen, it was both a case of him wimping out and there there were indeed problems with his theory. He could have opted to stick with the theory and work on fixing the problems that had become apparent with it, or he could, as he did, decide to jettison the whole thing as a bad job. I don't think there was anything inherent in his Analytical Marxism which compelled him to choose the latter option rather than the former.

I do think that it is mandatory that a viable interpretation of historical materialism be able to accommodate both objective and subjective factors and that it make ample room for the role of class struggles in the making of history. The question of course is how. I, myself, am rather partial to the attempts by writers like Alan Carling or Paul Nolan to recast historical materialist explanation along Darwinian selectionist lines. I have no idea what Rosa's view of the matter is. But this suggests to me that we don't need Hegel to render historical materialism into a clear and coherent theory. In other words, I think that the issues that stumped Cohen can be resolved without having to regress back to Hegelian metaphysics.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


A completely neutered version.

I disagree, Marx's theory is not 'neutered'.


It's one of your key explanations for why otherwise first rate revolutionaries like Engels, Lenin and Trotsky hold on to the dialectic. If their class background distorts their thinking, then how much does it affect Callinicos who, rather than being a professional revolutionary, is a professorial academic?

I have explained this to you many times over the last two years; if you can't get it right by now, there's not much hope for you.


And how many more time do you need telling that it's not a case of him "whimping out" but it is a problem with his theory? Its reliance on technological determinism and functional explanation means that he has no room for the class struggle. His rejection of the dialectic further means that he has no way of accomodating both the objective and subjective factors in history or to demonstrate how the two interact with each other.

So you say; I say otherwise.


Yes, and Marx too; with a critical appreciation equal to those others you mention:

Well, one thing's for sure, you do not.


I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker... 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. K. Marx, Capital Vol 1

Marx was clearly being ironic here. Notice first he carefully put this in the past tense. Second, he added a summary of 'his method' in which not one atom of the work of that 'mighty thinker' is to be found. Finally, as if to rub it in he merely 'coquetted' with a few bits of his jargon.




So what? Every year we invite George Monbiot and Tony Benn to Marxism. What does that prove?

Ah, but does Alex Callinicos devote at least thirty pages of one of his most important books ([I]Making History) to those two? Indeed, Alex calls Cohen's analysis "compelling" (page xx, second edition, 2004).

[Hit The North]

I disagree, Marx's theory is not 'neutered'.

You know full well I'm referring to Cohen's presentation of HM. If you're going to be wilfully dishonest in debate, there's little point continuing.:glare:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


You know full well I'm referring to Cohen's presentation of HM. If you're going to be wilfully dishonest in debate, there's little point continuing.

But, you are the one who is being dishonest, for you assert things like this:


It's one of your key explanations for why otherwise first rate revolutionaries like Engels, Lenin and Trotsky hold on to the dialectic. If their class background distorts their thinking, then how much does it affect Callinicos who, rather than being a professional revolutionary, is a professorial academic?

when you have had it explained to you many times that this is not what I believe, nor could it reasonably be inferred from anything I have said.


there's little point continuing

And we all know what you'd have said if I had made that excuse two years ago when you began lying about my ideas.

[trivas7]

I already have, so it doesn't.
Bullshit. Because Aristotelian logic can't deal with the historical process, HM for you is mysticism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Because Aristotelian logic can't deal with the historical process, HM for you is mysticism.

1) How do you know that Aristotelian Logic cannot "deal with the historical process"?

[No need to answer that, we already know: you read it somewhere, and did not bother to check.]

2) Where do I refer to Aristotelian Logic?

[Answer: nowhere.]

3) And where have I said that Historical Materialism is "mysticism"?

[Again: nowhere.]

So, this word applies far better to you:


Bullshit.

[Hit The North]

R:
But, you are the one who is being dishonest, for you assert things like this:

Quote:

It's one of your key explanations for why otherwise first rate revolutionaries like Engels, Lenin and Trotsky hold on to the dialectic. If their class background distorts their thinking, then how much does it affect Callinicos who, rather than being a professional revolutionary, is a professorial academic? Really? How about this, from your own site:
Once more, all this is not the least bit surprising since, as we have just seen, these ideas originated in the ruling-class tradition outlined above --, and without exception, every DM-classicist was a non-worker.3 http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm#N3 Am I lying now?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bob-the-there's-little-point-continuing-Builder:


Really? How about this, from your own site

Oh dear, are you alright? I mean, you had to venture, unaided, with no one to hold your tiny hand, into the Temple of Doom, my site! Were you not kitted-out with the standard issue Dialectical Garlic Cloves, like everyone else? And, were you not given Dialectical Holy Water to help protect you?

And all for what? For this, you risked your mystical soul?


Once more, all this is not the least bit surprising since, as we have just seen, these ideas originated in the ruling-class tradition outlined above --, and without exception, every DM-classicist was a non-worker

Yes, so?

[Hit The North]

So it proves you don't even understand your own arguments. :lol:

[Die Neue Zeit]

First of all, why are so obsessed with Maslow's hierarchy of needs? It's not correct and it's flawed at its basis.

If you look at my "hierarchy of needs" it will be different from your "hierarchy of needs", it is a deterministic inane theory

Upon further reconsideration I have concluded that Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a useful tool. However, to rely exclusively on it would be tantamount to at least broad economism or even narrow economism, for that matter: the notion that "grander" political struggles grow out of daily economic struggles. :(

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bob-the-there's-little-point-continuing-Builder:


So it proves you don't even understand your own arguments.

On the contrary, it shows that instead of explaining this to you several times already, I'd have been better off explaining it to the cat.

[Hit The North]

It's an explanation only a cat would swallow.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bob-the-there's-little-point-continuing-Builder:


It's an explanation only a cat would swallow.

Yes, they are more intelligent than you.

[PRC-UTE]

So it proves you don't even understand your own arguments. :lol:

well done, bob, there was no response to that.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PRC-UTE:


well done, bob, there was no response to that.

Not so; BTB made the same lame attempt to 'uncover' this alleged inconsistency back in 2006. He has either forgotten my explanation then, or it went over his head.

Now, since you have not had this explained to you, if you want to know my response, you only have to ask.

[trivas7]

I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker... 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.
-- K. Marx, Capital Vol 1


Marx was clearly being ironic here.

Such is the extent to which some distort the plain meaning of the text. The use of pure logic to analyze a phenomenon is a long tradition going back to the Greeks. Clearly Marx is following in that tradition.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas (quoting Marx):


I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker... 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.

Is this in the past tense: "avowed myself"?

Did Marx not tell us that 'his method' contained not one atom of Hegel?

Indeed, you have had this explained to you many times; as I said, it might take a hundred goes before it sinks in -- here's another attempt:



"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

Hence, this is pure fantasy:


Such is the extent to which some distort the plain meaning of the text. The use of pure logic to analyze a phenomenon is a long tradition going back to the Greeks. Clearly Marx is following in that tradition.

As Marx said: the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling-class. So, no wonder you think highly of the class-compromised method of the Greeks -- whose logic you do not understand anyway!:lol:

Marx, in the above, was waving all this goodbye.