Dialectical and Historical Materialism [Archive]

Rosa Lichtenstein

2nd July 2008, 10:40

DirtyCommieEtc captures one of the main differences between these two theories. Demogorgon also summarises things well.

However, here are the bare bones:

Dialectical Materialism [DM] is a theory that attempts to explain everything that happens in the entire universe as the result of a few basic principles: Totality (which is supposed to refer to the alleged fact that 'everything' is interconnected), change through 'internal contradiction' (even though 'external contradictions' have to be imported to account for interaction), 'negation of the negation' (which is supposed to account for development), and change in quantity leading to change in 'quality' (which is supposed to explain the origin of novelty).

These ideas were all lifted from Hegel, who pinched them in turn off other mystics. They are said to have been given a 'materialist' make-over by Marx and Engels, but that is controversial. Anyway, it still does not alter their dogmatic status (that is, they were and still are imposed on reality, not read from it).

Historical Materialism [HM], on the other hand, is a scientific theory about the causes of social change. At its heart is the observation that human beings are social animals, who in the struggle to free themselves from the domination of nature, have simply done so at the cost of subjecting themselves to various social structures that oppress and exploit the majority.

In the course of freeing themselves in this way humans had to develop methods and tools of production that allowed them to do it. Unfortunately, the social/class structures required to further this development at each stage facilitated it at first but then impeded it later. Upon this inter-relation the class struggle has been centred. This theory also sees those who produce the wealth (the working class) finally struggling to free themselves from these social impediments (and thus from those who control them -- the ruling class), and in so doing free humanity from all class domination.

None of the concepts Hegel invented/borrowed are necessary to make HM work -- indeed, it is possible to show that HM cannot work if any are imported from DM.

More details at my site. Begin here:

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

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

NiccolÃ² Rossi

2nd July 2008, 11:38

Once again, historical materialism is the understanding that the motion of history is a result of class struggle.

Me thinks you may be reducing the materialist conception of history to a mere 'theory of history', a 'master key to history' if you will, even if it is accidental. Marx and Engels warned very strongly against such.

Dean

2nd July 2008, 14:14

Historical materialism is a lot more than interpreting history in terms of class struggle. It's interpreting history as the history of changing material conditions rather than the history of ideas being conceived. As for material conditions, class struggle is the second-most-important factor. The most important is the invention of the means of subsistence. That is, is it a time when pottery and the bow and arrow have been invented? Has the domestication of animals been invented yet? Agriculture? Machinery? The tools of subsistence determine what kind of culture the tme period can support. The legal system, family system, religion, art, etc. will correspond to the state of development of those tools. Sometimes the potential of the age goes beyond the social relationships that the people have inherited. That's when the class struggle forces new kinds of social relationships to be established.
Yes, but you misjudge the imporatance of the mind. I don't know why, but there is a tendancy here to divorce the mind from material, as if the mind were not a material fact, but some mystical entity. Marx was against this, and as such his ideas should not be characterized as ignoring the mind.

Rosa Lichtenstein

2nd July 2008, 15:43

Dean, talking of the 'mind' in this way makes damaging concessions to Cartesianism.

Marx fell into the same trap, as have Marxists since.

trivas7

2nd July 2008, 16:46

The concept of "dialectics" is the theory and method of cognition and transformation of reality. Philosophic materialism deals with general questions of world outlook, with the nature of the surrounding world. Materialist dialectics answers the question of what is happening in the world, of whether it originated or exists eternally, whether it is immutable or keeps changing and developing. It starts out from the material unity of the world and the objectivity of all forms of motion and development of matter. Objective dialectics is motion and development in the material world itself as in an integral, interconnected whole. Subjective dialectics, or dialectical thinking, is the motion and development of thoughts, concepts, etc. which reflect objective dialectics in the human consciousness.

Being a reflection of objective dialectics, subjective dialectics in its content coincides with the former. Both are governed by the same universal laws. These universal laws of being and thinking constitute "two classes of laws which we can separate from each other at most only in thought but not in reality"(Engels).

The subject of dialectics as a science is the universal objective principles of existence and the laws of development of the material world. Objective dialectics constitutes the contents of subjective dialectics. That is why its basic laws and categories are simultaneously laws and categories both of being and cognition. "This implies that its laws must be valid just as much for motion in nature and human history as for the motion of thought"(Lenin). The dialectics of history is thus Marx's materialist conception of history.

Rosa Lichtenstein

2nd July 2008, 17:24

Trivas forgot to add one or two minor details:

1) Dialectics is a dogma for comrades like him.

2) It serves as an opiate for the long-term failure of Dialectical Marxism (partly because it teaches that 'appearances' 'contradict' underlying reality, 'allowing' them to ignore the last 150 years of almost total failure).

3) He and other sufferers cannot defend their 'theory' (this is connected with 1) and 2) above).

trivas7

2nd July 2008, 17:38

It serves as an opiate for the long-term failure of Dialectical Marxism (partly because it teaches that 'appearances' 'contradict' underlying reality, 'allowing' them to ignore the last 150 years of almost total failure).

By 1941 Max Eastman had largely abandoned his former left-wing beliefs and connections.

Have you a point other than to concede that for you Marxism is a failed philosophy?

LuÃs Henrique

2nd July 2008, 18:14

Yes, but you misjudge the imporatance of the mind. I don't know why, but there is a tendancy here to divorce the mind from material, as if the mind were not a material fact, but some mystical entity. Marx was against this, and as such his ideas should not be characterized as ignoring the mind.

The mind is a material fact, but not a material entity. Complexity is not a substance.

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

2nd July 2008, 19:22

Trivas:

By 1941 Max Eastman had largely abandoned his former left-wing beliefs and connections.

I suggest that you check once again that you understand the meaning of the word 'relevant'.

Have you a point other than to concede that for you Marxism is a failed philosophy?

Oh dear, and it seems that your eyes are beginning to go, too, for I was referring to 'Dialectical Marxism', as I clearly specified.

And you also appear to have missed the other points I made above, and indeed, those in other threads, too.

Memory defective is it?

But we already know that "you do not think about things that you don't think about', just like other card-carrying dogmatists. So this is no big surprise.

trivas7

2nd July 2008, 19:36

Oh dear, and it seems that your eyes are beginning to go, too, for I was referring to 'Dialectical Marxism', as I clearly specified.

Dialectical Marxism is a product of your imagination. Your point is nil.

black magick hustla

2nd July 2008, 20:01

“In the process of development of a complex thing many contradictions are found, and one of these is necessarily the principle whose existence and development determines or influences the existence and development of the others (...) A semi-colonial country like China provides a complex framework to the relations between the principal contradiction and the secondary contradictions. When imperialism unleashes a war against such a country, the different classes which make up the latter (except a small number of traitors) can temporarily unite in a national war against imperialism. The contradiction between imperialism and the country in question thus becomes the principle contradiction, temporarily relegating the contradictions between the different classes within the country to a secondary and subordinate level

mao, best dialectician

black magick hustla

2nd July 2008, 20:04

Rosa Lichtenstein

2nd July 2008, 20:51

Trivas:

Dialectical Marxism is a product of your imagination.

Not so; dialectics has dominated Marxism for most of its history, and DIM [Dialectical Marxism] has been a long-term failure. You do the math.

Of course, if you think genuine Marxists have never accepted this 'theory', or that they should not do so now, I can live with that.:thumbup1:

Your point is nil.

But why should we listen to you? We already know that "you do not think about things you don't think about".:ohmy:

Hit The North

3rd July 2008, 01:29

Hi all. What's the difference between Dialectical Materialism(Dmat) and Historical Materialism(Hmat)?
I always thought they were just parts of the same system or had to be used together, but I see now that some people here follow Hmat and not Dmat, while others follow both.
So could anyone enlighten me, please?

Historical materialism is intrinsically dialectical, because one of its first insights is that social life is in a process of continual change through history. This is what ‘history’ means for Marx. He doesn’t see it as a tableaux of disconnected events, different only from current events in that they happened to previous generations of people but he insists that it should be grasped as a process which unfolds in a general way in accordance with definite laws of economic development. Uncovering and examining the laws of the underlying economic structure allows us to understand historical events (such as the English Civil War) and to connect them with other historical events (say, the English Industrial Revolution) and, in the process, increase our understanding and also trace out the movement of history.

Labriola puts it quite neatly:

And thence follows indubitably this second consequences that in our doctrine we have not to re-translate into economic categories all the complex manifestations of history, but only to explain in the last analysis (Engels) all the historic facts by means of the underlying economic structure (Marx), which necessitates analysis and reduction and then interlinking and construction. http://www.marxists.org/archive/labriola/works/al01.htm
If, for a second, you rid yourself of all the Hegelian apparatus and you take the word ‘dialectic’ and employ it in its most general application, designating a process – the supposition that everything should be grasped historically, i.e. in a process of change; that reality cannot be grasped through static, unchanging categories; you can understand why it is an important concept for Marx. A very astute piece of writing by the philosopher, Guy Robinson, argues that the Enlightenment mode of thinking about the world – what we may wish to call the bourgeois mode of thinking about the world, employed a static conception of ‘nature’ (and therefore the ‘nature’ of men), merely substituting the metaphysical constant of big ‘N’ Nature for the older metaphysical constant of big ‘G’ God. So, for Marx, he was battling against dominant ideas of reality which emphasised fixed relations, arising out of fixed dispositions. This is why he prized Darwin’s work for the way in which it demonstrated that even nature has a history. This was the final nail in the coffin for all those philosophies and moral histories which proclaimed the implacable, unchanging nature of things – from the Old Testament to Rousseau and John Stuart Mill.
The reasoning is that if reality (social or natural) is in a process of evolution then it requires a set of ideas – a method of investigation and explanation – that can capture that movement. Marx’s take on the evolution of bourgeois thought is that Hegel is the first to attempt to capture the historical nature of reality. Of course, his vision is distorted because, as Marx patiently explains in the German Ideology, bourgeois thought itself is distorted.

Another key proposition of historical materialism is that ideas – ideologies, myths, cultural representations, etc. also emerge and take shape historically – linked to the material conditions. From this, we could argue that Hegel develops his dialectical account of history as a response to the conditions of bourgeois society emerging around him. In other words it is the historical emergence of a capitalist society based on expansion and innovation, that fires Hegel’s imaginative reconstruction of the world around him. In other words, philosophy becomes dialectical (emphasising change and connection) because it is seeking to express a reality which is also dialectical (changing and ‘drawing connections everywhere’, as Marx describes capitalism in the Communist Manifesto). Again, for Marx, the reason Hegel fails is because philosophy itself is a failed project, producing distorted and one-sided accounts of life. It just isn’t up to the job of really analysing and understanding the increasingly complex and fast-moving world which capital was throwing up.

Another effect of the supposition that ideas – ideologies, myths, cultural representations, etc. also emerge and take shape historically is that our knowledge and understanding is also historical. From this we could argue that capitalism gives humanity the historical vantage point to look back and, for the first time, see clearly the dialectic of history. By developing the mode of production at a speeded-up rate compared to other previous modes of production – the shifting, temporary, contradictory and ‘melting’ nature of capitalist relations reveals tendencies which were more hidden, due to their much slower development in other, less dynamic modes of production. Under Feudalism, for instance, the slow pattern of change in human relations, supported ideologies of permanence, stasis, fixed harmony; but these become increasingly untenable under capitalism with its seismic upheavals and ceaseless change.

So, this is why most Marxists defend the idea that historical materialism is dialectical in essence because history is the dialectic which the approach seeks to understand. I think that for Marx the words themselves ‘historical’ and ‘material dialectic’ would perhaps be interchangeable.

trivas7

3rd July 2008, 01:38

mao, master dialectician
Are these from his essay "On Contradiction"?

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd July 2008, 01:48

As we can see from BTB's post, 'Dialectics' and 'Dogma' share more than just the letter 'D'. It was good of this comrade to prove my point.

For example:

So, this is why most Marxists defend the idea that historical materialism is dialectical in essence because history is the dialectic which the approach seeks to understand. I think that for Marx the words themselves ‘historical’ and ‘material dialectic’ would perhaps be interchangeable.

This flies in the face of what Marx himself told us in Das Kapital.

trivas7

3rd July 2008, 02:00

This flies in the face of what Marx himself told us in Das Kapital.
Where exactly?

Hit The North

3rd July 2008, 02:07

Where exactly?
It doesn't. Marx quite explicitly refers to his "dialectic method" in Capital.

trivas7

3rd July 2008, 02:18

It doesn't. Marx quite explicitly refers to his "dialectic method" in Capital.
Agreed. :cool:

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd July 2008, 03:13

BTB:

Marx quite explicitly refers to his "dialectic method" in Capital.

Indeed, but he is quite clear what he means by it: no 'unity of opposites', not 'contradictions', no 'Totality', no 'negation of the negation', no 'quantity passing over into quality', which is not what you mystics seem to think this word means.

I'd quote Marx on this, but you think it's 'spam'.

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd July 2008, 03:16

Trivas:

Agreed.

At least BTB tries to defend (albeit, rather weakly) the indefensible. You just roll over.

Where exactly?

You have had it quoted at you many times, so you can drop the faux ignorance.

I'll quote it again if you can get BTB to allow me to do so -- he regards this passage as 'spam', so he is likely to delete it.

trivas7

3rd July 2008, 03:20

At least BTB tries to defend (albeit, rather weakly) the indefensible. You just roll over.

I have no need to defend Dialectical Marxism which is a fantasy of yours.

trivas7

3rd July 2008, 03:23

BTB:
Indeed, but he is quite clear what he means by it: no 'unity of opposites', not 'contradictions', no 'Totality', no 'negation of the negation', no 'quantity passing over into quality', which is not what you mystics seem to think this word means.

Why don't you defend your thesis:

Dialectical Materialism [DM] is a theory that attempts to explain everything that happens in the entire universe as the result of a few basic principles: Totality (which is supposed to refer to the alleged fact that 'everything' is interconnected), change through 'internal contradiction' (even though 'external contradictions' have to be imported to account for interaction), 'negation of the negation' (which is supposed to account for development), and change in quantity leading to change in 'quality' (which is supposed to explain the origin of novelty).

and demonstrate where Marx or Engels explain DM thus.

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd July 2008, 03:27

Trivas:

I have no need to defend Dialectical Marxism which is a fantasy of yours.

That can only mean, as I pointed out to you before, that you think that dialectics has nothing to do with Marxism. Fine by me.:thumbup1:

But, even so, you cannot defend your own theory. BTB at least makes some effort to do so -- pathetic though that is.

Why don't you indulge us with what you think he does mean by it in your own words? You've yet to tell us.

Why don't you try to answer some of my questions before asking me to answer yours.

trivas7

3rd July 2008, 03:37

Why don't you try to answer some of my questions before asking me to answer yours.
You mean like "how does dialectics explain change?" But your assumption is that dialectics doesn't explain change, which I reject.

What other questions?

Hit The North

3rd July 2008, 03:38

Rosa:
Indeed, but he is quite clear what he means by it: no 'unity of opposites', not 'contradictions', no 'Totality', no 'negation of the negation', no 'quantity passing over into quality', which is not what you mystics seem to think this word means.
Who said there was? Not me. In fact, the opposite in my post above where I encourage the setting to one side of Hegelian concepts.

Also, I'm sorry that you seem incapable of understanding historical materialism as we Marxists do. :)

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd July 2008, 03:47

Trivas:

and demonstrate where Marx or Engels explain DM thus.

Marx doesn't, but Engels does.

Try here:

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

And you are a fine one to talk about 'defending' one's ideas -- you refuse to defend any of your own, whereas I have well over 7500 posts, most of which defend my ideas.

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd July 2008, 03:49

BTB:

Who said there was? Not me. In fact, the opposite in my post above where I encourage the setting to one side of Hegelian concepts.

So, you are quite happy to ditch 'dialectical contradictions', are you?

Fine, but try and get Trivas and the other mystics here to do this.

Also, I'm sorry that you seem incapable of understanding historical materialism as we Marxists do.

Yes, and we both know Marx said he was no Marxist.

So, I am quite happy to understand HM the way he does.

trivas7

3rd July 2008, 03:51

And you are a fine one to talk about 'defending' one's ideas -- you refuse to defend any of your own, whereas I have well over 7500 posts, most of which defend my ideas.
Well, too bad that the Law of Transformation of Quantity into Quality doesn't hold water :rolleyes:

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd July 2008, 03:53

Trivas:

You mean like "how does dialectics explain change?" But you assume is that dialectics doesn't explain change, which I reject.

We know you reject it, but without good reason.

Moreover, I do not 'assume' dialectics cannot explain change, I have demonstrated that it cannot. You have been asked on numerous occasions to show where my refutation goes wrong.

However, you just slope away with your tail between your legs.

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd July 2008, 03:54

Trivas:

Well, too bad that the Law of Transformation of Quantity into Quality doesn't hold water

Indeed it does not; and here is why:

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

Moreover, as you can see from the above, even BTB has adandoned it.

trivas7

3rd July 2008, 04:01

Moreover, I do not 'assume' dialectics cannot explain change, I have demonstrated that it cannot
Nope; how can you have demonstrated this when I don't know what you're talking re? Where do you tell us what you think dialectics is?

You've then need to show what Marx is doing if he's not applying dialectical thinking to history. You haven't laid any of this groundwork.

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd July 2008, 04:16

Trivas:

Nope; how can you have demonstrated this when I don't know what you're talking re? Where do you tell us what you think dialectics is and how it is congruent with Marx's understanding?

Once more you pretend ignorance. I have posted this refutation many times, and asked you even more times to show where it goes wrong.

Here is the latest example of that refutation (in a discussion you took part in, so you cannot pretrend you failed to see it):

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

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

Volderbeek attempted a weak reply, but you sat on your hands (as usual).

The full argument can be found here:

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

Where do you tell us what you think dialectics is and how it is congruent with Marx's understanding?

I have no need to, Marx himself told us.

You can find his words at the beginning of the first of the two links above (unless BTB deletes it as 'spam').

trivas7

3rd July 2008, 04:30

Once more you pretend ignorance. I have posted this refutation many times, and asked you even more times to show where it goes wrong.

It's not a refutation I'm seeking, it's a definition. I have no idea what you mean by dialectics.

I have no need to, Marx himself told us.

Where does Marx define dialectics in that oft-so-quoted thread (where Marx himself is quoting a reviewer)????????

"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?"

is no definition at all and the extent to which Marx comments on this review.

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd July 2008, 06:00

Trivas:

It's not a refutation I'm seeking, it's a definition. I have no idea what you mean by dialectics.

Looks like you have no idea what you mean by it either.

Where does Marx define dialectics in that oft-so-quoted thread (where Marx himself is quoting a reviewer)????????

He goes one better, and calls it his "method".

is no definition at all and the extent to which Marx comments on this review.

But, you did not mention the word 'definition' in the post to which I was replying:

Where do you tell us what you think dialectics is and how it is congruent with Marx's understanding?

To which I replied:

I have no need to, Marx himself told us.

You are the one who is fixated on a 'definition', which is a pretty un-dialectical notion anyway.

Hiero

3rd July 2008, 09:06

Rosa how can you support historical materialism but not dialectical materialism? Isn't Marxist historical materialism the social science of applying dialectics to history?

Historical materialism is showing that social systems change by class war. This can only be explained by dialectic notions such as class contradictions, contradiction between productive forces and relations of production, quantity into quality, even the basic idea of dialectics is that everything is in motion caused by contradiction and this is applied to social history.

I just can't see how anyone can understand historical materialism in a Marxist sense without understanding dialectical materialism. Unless you are using historical materialism in a liberal sense? What specifically do you see in historical materialism that is not present in dialectical materialism?

NiccolÃ² Rossi

3rd July 2008, 12:07

I undertsand you direct these coments at Rosa and she will obviously wish to make her own reply. However, I would very briefly like to express my views on the questions posed.

I just can't see how anyone can understand historical materialism in a Marxist sense without understanding dialectical materialism.

Why can one not understand it with out dialectics? Does one need dialectics to define class? Does one need dialectics to observe and comprehend the importance of class struggle? Does one need dialectics to understand that the realm of ideology and politics are inevitably bound up with specific economic formations? Does one need dialectics to define a 'mode of production'?

Another point I've heard made before is that dialectics actually presents a contradiction to Historical Materialism. How can communism be the final and permanent mode of production (the beginning of history as some would like to express it)? Dialectics describes all things as being a continual process of motion where contradiction (antagonism) leads to development. To suggest that the communist mode of production brings and end to the dialectal process of class conflict as the driving force of history contradicts 'The Dialectical Method'. But hey, I suppose the dialecticians are used to contradictions...

As a counter-point, I would love to hear you give us all an exposition on 'Dialectal Materialism". Being so important to any Marxist's understanding of Historical Materialism I would hope you would be well versed in it instead of just claiming it a necessity.

What specifically do you see in historical materialism that is not present in dialectical materialism?The Materialist conception of History is a means by which we are able to interpret historical (and current) events, allowing us to understand the process of, and the factors effecting a particular society or event in question.

Dialectics on the other hand is a rather hazy and unnecessary bit of academic and philosophical non-sense. Marmot put it rather well here:

However, the dialectic itself is useless insofar as it tries to extrapolate metaphysical laws that are too vague to have any intelectual merit whatsoever. The dialectic sieems to work simply because its vague enough to fit shit inside it. What the dialectician deems a contradiction, another individual can say that it isn't a contradiction at all. This kind of vagueness is unacceptable in every scientific discipline whatsoever, but dialecticians like to think that sitting in the library and musing about the most abstractly vague stuff gives them some sort of scientific merit. Why do you think physicists don't talk about contradictiions or unity of opposites when dealing with the order of things?

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd July 2008, 13:16

Comrade Sweety:

Rosa how can you support historical materialism but not dialectical materialism? Isn't Marxist historical materialism the social science of applying dialectics to history?

That is the story we are told, but since none of the concepts borrowed from dialectical materialism [DM] make a blind bit of sense, historical materialism [HM] does not need them, and is well shut of them.

This can only be explained by dialectic notions such as class contradictions, contradiction between productive forces and relations of production, quantity into quality, even the basic idea of dialectics is that everything is in motion caused by contradiction and this is applied to social history.

Well, in many threads in the 'Philosophy' section I have shown that these parts of dialectics do not work, and cannot work.

You can find these threads listed here:

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

The fact that dialectics cannot explain change was demonstrated here:

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

Or you can go to my site and check these out;

Quantity into Quality is trashed here:

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

Change through 'internal contradiction' is demolished here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2008_01.htm

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

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

I just can't see how anyone can understand historical materialism in a Marxist sense without understanding dialectical materialism. Unless you are using historical materialism in a liberal sense? What specifically do you see in historical materialism that is not present in dialectical materialism?

It is possible to understand HM, but it is not possible to understand DM, since the latter is full of non-sensical ideas borrowed from Hegel, who was a logical and philosophical incompetent, at best.

You can largely find what I see in HM (devoid of DM) if you read Gerry Cohen's book 'Karl Marx's Theory of History, A Defence' (if you ignore his technological determinism, and his functionalism).

Hit The North

3rd July 2008, 13:54

Zeitgeist:
To suggest that the communist mode of production brings and end to the dialectal process of class conflict as the driving force of history contradicts 'The Dialectical Method'. But hey, I suppose the dialecticians are used to contradictions... This is an interesting proposition is it not? That after the supercession of class society history will operate on a different basis. Of course, we are not in a position to really grasp how this will work because we are in the wrong place in human history. Although I think the final overcoming of alienation will have some bearing on this new human dynamic.

Nevertheless, if in order to avoid this question we abandon the idea that history is driven by contradictions between the forces and relations of production which leads to class conflict culminating in the revolutionary transformation of the mode of production, then what are we left with in historical materialism?

The Materialist conception of History is a means by which we are able to interpret historical (and current) events, allowing us to understand the process of, and the factors effecting a particular society or event in question.
Yes, but without recourse to an analysis which prioritises change, holism and interconnectivity, how do we produce such explanations?

Dialectics on the other hand is a rather hazy and unnecessary bit of academic and philosophical non-sense. Marmot put it rather well here: In Hegel it is. In Marx it is a method he employs in order to draw connection and produce inclusive knowledge. It is a method which is necessary because the object of our scrutiny, historically emergent human society, is itself dialectical. You may disagree with this but you would be disagreeing with Marx. This is obviously not a problem unless you also claim fidelity to historical materialism in the Marxist sense.

Marmot:
However, the dialectic itself is useless insofar as it tries to extrapolate metaphysical laws that are too vague to have any intelectual merit whatsoever. The dialectic sieems to work simply because its vague enough to fit shit inside it. I sympathise with the complaint that the dialectic is vague. To some extent this is the problem inherent in reintroducing Hegelian philosophical categories into Marxism. A big mistake in 20th century Marxism, in my opinion. To another extent it is out of necessity because historical phenomena become vague, blurred and indistinct when in motion. Capitalist society is in a state of rapid process, everything is in motion; relations and exchanges multiply and generalise. We can freeze it analytically, but if we want to show it in motion - as Marx does in Capital - then the analytical stage is not enough - is, in fact, a reified version of knowledge.

This kind of vagueness is unacceptable in every scientific discipline whatsoeverI think that science employs vagueness all the time - especially when it has to understand complex system behaviour. Look at meteorology. Look at cosmology. However, I accept that if one views Marxism as a science in the narrow English manner - as empirical and positive, then dialectics do seem unnecessary. However if you view Marxism as a critical science, or critique, then dialectics makes more sense.

Why do you think physicists don't talk about contradictiions or unity of opposites when dealing with the order of things? My guess would be that its because most physicists are not Marxists or Hegelians. But that's about all this does tell us. Unless we also want to infer that the reason economists don't talk about the LTV is because Marx was wrong on that as well.

Hit The North

3rd July 2008, 14:00

Zeitgeist:
As a counter-point, I would love to hear you give us all an exposition on 'Dialectal Materialism". There are many famous disquisitions on dialectical materialism and most of them are rubbish because they separate this 'philosophy' from its connection to historical materialism. As I posted previously, history is the dialectic. Our job is to understand how this dialectic unfolds.

Led Zeppelin

3rd July 2008, 14:01

I found this beautiful, simple and coherent definition of dialectics by Trotsky the other day:

What does this terrible word “dialectics” mean? It means to consider things in their development, not in their static situation.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/idom/dm/33-wp.htm)

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd July 2008, 14:02

BTB:

Nevertheless, if in order to avoid this question we abandon the idea that history is driven by contradictions between the forces and relations of production which leads to class conflict culminating in the revolutionary transformation of the mode of production, then what are we left with in historical materialism?

So, you do want to cling on to this useless Hegelian concept (i.e., 'dialecitical contradiction') after all, and your previous claim that I misrepresented you was wrong?

In that case, my additional claim that you and Marx disagree here was correct.

But, then again, you do not seem to be able to make your mind up:

To some extent this is the problem inherent in reintroducing Hegelian philosophical categories into Marxism. A big mistake in 20th century Marxism, in my opinion. To another extent it is out of necessity because historical phenomena become vague, blurred and indistinct when in motion. Capitalist society is in a state of rapid process, everything is in motion; relations and exchanges multiply and generalise. We can freeze it analytically, but if we want to show it in motion - as Marx does in Capital - then the analytical stage is not enough - is, in fact, a reified version of knowledge.

So, you do want to rid Marxism of 'dialectical contradictions' after all?

Or, like Trivas, do you not really know what you believe?

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd July 2008, 14:04

LZ, no one wants to consider things in any other way, but the plain fact is that dialectics does not work, has been shown not to work, and if true, things could not change:

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

Hit The North

3rd July 2008, 14:06

Rosa:
You can largely find what I see in HM (devoid of DM) if you read Gerry Cohen's book 'Karl Marx's Theory of History, A Defence' (if you ignore his technological determinism, and his functionalism).
If you ignore those aspects of his work, it disappears completely! He has to resort to technological determinism because he rejects the dialectical connection between the forces and relations of production. It's an empirically observable and linear accumulation of technological know-how which drives history for Cohen. His functionalism becomes necessary because he rejects the idea that society is riven with contradiction.

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd July 2008, 14:06

BTB:

There are many famous disquisitions on dialectical materialism and most of them are rubbish because they separate this 'philosophy' from its connection to historical materialism. As I posted previously, history is the dialectic. Our job is to understand how this dialectic unfolds.

Does this description ("rubbish") include the ideas of John Rees and Chris Harman, and many other SWP CC members, who are quite happy with more traditional descriptions of dialectical materialism, and who are Ok with the importation of Hegelian concepts?

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd July 2008, 14:11

BTB:

If you ignore those aspects of his work, it disappears completely! He has to resort to technological determinism because he rejects the dialectical connection between the forces and relations of production. It's an empirically observable and linear accumulation of technological know-how which drives history for Cohen. His functionalism becomes necessary because he rejects the idea that society is riven with contradiction.

Not so; it is possible to repair Cohen's work without this Hegelian concept (which you claim to reject anyway -- or, rather, you cannot seem to make you mind up over). Indeed, since I have shown that this concept ('dialectical contradiction') cannot work, it is incumbent on us to so repair HM.

This repair with involve the use of the many thousands of words we have in ordianry material language that allow us to describe both change and complex relations (such as that between the forces and relations of production).

Hit The North

3rd July 2008, 14:12

BTB:
So, you do want to cling on to this useless Hegelian concept (i.e., 'dialecitical contradiction') after all, and your previous claim that I misrepresented you was wrong?

Like Marx I argue that the contradictions lie in the objective relations of human society.

So, you do want to rid Marxism of 'dialectical contradictions' after all?

How does the passage you quoted imply that I do?

Does this description ("rubbish") include the ideas of John Rees and Chris Harman, and many other SWP CC members, who are quite happy with more traditional descriptions of dialectical materialism, and who are Ok with the importation of Hegelian concepts?
Quite possibly.

Led Zeppelin

3rd July 2008, 14:15

Rosa, have you read this work by Hiroshi Uchida: Marx's Grundrisse and Hegel's Logic (http://www.marxists.org/subject/japan/uchida/)?

Do you have a refutation of that on your site?

Hit The North

3rd July 2008, 14:15

BTB:

Not so; it is possible to repair Cohen's work without this Hegelian concept (which you claim to reject anyway -- or, rather, you cannot seem to make you mind up over). Indeed, since I have shown that this concept ('dialectical contradiction') cannot work, it is incumbent on us to so repair HM.

This repair with involve the use of the many thousands of words we have in ordianry material language that allow us to describe both change and complex relations (such as that between the forces and relations of production). So you claim. We have yet to see the evidence. But if it is possible to repair Cohen's work it is something which has so far eluded Cohen himself, or indeed any other exponent of analytical Marxism.

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd July 2008, 14:20

BTB:

Like Marx I argue that the contradictions lie in the objective relations of human society.

So, when you said this you were either lying or joshing:

In fact, the opposite in my post above where I encourage the setting to one side of Hegelian concepts.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1185912&postcount=31

Certainly Marx set these aside in Das Kapital, which is why I have alleged that my view of HM and his are at one.

On this, you seem to change with the wind.

How does the passage you quoted imply that I do?

This is a Hegelian concept, and you said:

In fact, the opposite in my post above where I encourage the setting to one side of Hegelian concepts.

So, unless you like to contradict yourself, you said it.

Quite possibly.

Well, then, why do you not write to Socialist Worker, as I do, and make this point?

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

Or, will you be at John Rees's talk on Saturday, as I will be, and make this point (as a supporter of my site will be doing)?

http://www.marxismfestival.org.uk/2008/courses/marxistmethod.html

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd July 2008, 14:25

BTB:

So you claim. We have yet to see the evidence. But if it is possible to repair Cohen's work it is something which has so far eluded Cohen himself, or indeed any other exponent of analytical Marxism.

That is because he is still working in a functionalist and technological determinist paradigm.

And Plekhanov was a dialectician, but he was a technological determinist. So, dialectics is no guarantee of doctrinal purity.

And, you will need to be patient; I will repair HM when I have finished killing-off DM.

If you can't wait, then you will just have to accept Marx's claim that his theory can work without any Hegelian concepts, a subject over which you seem to be in two minds, anyway.

After all, one has to kill-off the source of infection [DM] before the patient [HM] can be helped on the road to recovery.

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd July 2008, 14:29

LZ:

Rosa, have you read this work by Hiroshi Uchida: Marx's Grundrisse and Hegel's Logic?

No, and that is because Marx chose not to publish this book (i.e., Grundrisse -- which is only slightly Hegelian anyway, despite Uchida's claims), so it is not all that important.

Anyway, I have a general refutation of any theory of change that relies on Hegel. You can find that at the links I posted above.

Hit The North

3rd July 2008, 15:26

Rosa:
And, you will need to be patient; I will repair HM when I have finished killing-off DM.
So how will you know when you've killed off DM? If it was just a case of theoretical refutation and, as you claim, dialectics is nonsensical, this should be quite an easy task which you should have completed long ago. No?

trivas7

3rd July 2008, 15:49

Why can one not understand it with out dialectics? Does one need dialectics to define class? Does one need dialectics to observe and comprehend the importance of class struggle? Does one need dialectics to understand that the realm of ideology and politics are inevitably bound up with specific economic formations? Does one need dialectics to define a 'mode of production'?

It's only important to understand dialectics if you want philosophic grounds to understand the importance of history, the class struggle, etc. Why else are ideology and politics inevitably bound up with economics? If these questions don't concern you, Marxist philosophy doesn't matter.

Another point I've heard made before is that dialectics actually presents a contradiction to Historical Materialism. How can communism be the final and permanent mode of production (the beginning of history as some would like to express it)? Dialectics describes all things as being a continual process of motion where contradiction (antagonism) leads to development. To suggest that the communist mode of production brings and end to the dialectal process of class conflict as the driving force of history contradicts 'The Dialectical Method'. But hey, I suppose the dialecticians are used to contradictions...

Marx never said communism is the "final and permanent mode of production", he said it was the end of class-based society. Surely other contradictions in society will arise.

trivas7

3rd July 2008, 15:57

You are the one who is fixated on a 'definition', which is a pretty un-dialectical notion anyway.
I am fixated on clarity, which you seem to eschew.

You must first understand what you're attempting refute. I've no evidence of this at all in your voluminous writings.

Hit The North

3rd July 2008, 16:01

Marx never said communism is the "final and permanent mode of production", he said it was the end of class-based society. Surely other contradictions in society will arise.

The dialectic of class struggle is itself a product of history and like all historical phenomena is doomed to disappear. Movement based on the contradictions of human society is not a process outside of history and cannot be isolated from the existence of classes. After we've left class society far behind, our development might occur on the basis of non-contradictory, non-antagonistic processes.

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd July 2008, 16:03

BTB:

So how will you know when you've killed off DM? If it was just a case of theoretical refutation and, as you claim, dialectics is nonsensical, this should be quite an easy task which you should have completed long ago. No?

Well, I will answer your questions when you answer mine (posed earlier):

BTB:

Nevertheless, if in order to avoid this question we abandon the idea that history is driven by contradictions between the forces and relations of production which leads to class conflict culminating in the revolutionary transformation of the mode of production, then what are we left with in historical materialism?

So, you do want to cling on to this useless Hegelian concept (i.e., 'dialecitical contradiction') after all, and your previous claim that I misrepresented you was wrong?

In that case, my additional claim that you and Marx disagree here was correct.

But, then again, you do not seem to be able to make your mind up:

BTB:

To some extent this is the problem inherent in reintroducing Hegelian philosophical categories into Marxism. A big mistake in 20th century Marxism, in my opinion. To another extent it is out of necessity because historical phenomena become vague, blurred and indistinct when in motion. Capitalist society is in a state of rapid process, everything is in motion; relations and exchanges multiply and generalise. We can freeze it analytically, but if we want to show it in motion - as Marx does in Capital - then the analytical stage is not enough - is, in fact, a reified version of knowledge.

So, you do want to rid Marxism of 'dialectical contradictions' after all?

Or, like Trivas, do you not really know what you believe?

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd July 2008, 16:17

Trivas:

I am fixated on clarity, which you seem to eschew.

Well, if you were, you'd have abandoned this mystical 'theory' of yours years ago.

Recall, I was responding to your question, which did not mention 'definition'.

Tivas, before:

Where do you tell us what you think dialectics is and how it is congruent with Marx's understanding?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1185950&postcount=39

To which I replied:

I have no need to, Marx himself told us.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1185941&postcount=38

You then introduced the word 'definition'.

You now link it with 'clarity', but one can be perfectly clear without a definition. In fact, I'd like to see you locate a single definition anywhere in Marx's writings (or in Hegel's, or Lenin's, or...).

You must first understand what you're attempting refute. I've no evidence of this at all in your voluminous writings.

Ah, but, I can short-circuit this problem by quoting extensivley from what the Dialectical Magi themselves tell us, and in the process show that this theory, as they themselves explain it, does not work.

If their theory does not work, can you repair it? I rather doubt it.

Of course, if the thoeoy itself makes no sense, and the Dialectical Prophes cannot explain it to us to your satisfaction, and you fight shy of doing so yourself (all the time), then there is no need for me to show that I 'understand' this 'theory' -- since the evidence shows that no one understands it (or if they do, they have kept that secret to themselves), not even you.

Of course, if you think that my explanation of this 'theory' is wrong in theses links, then I am sure we'd all like to hear you point out where it falls short.

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

At this stage we usually get a deafening silence from you, since "you do not think about things you don't think about".

Abd consistently so.

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd July 2008, 16:19

Trivas:

Surely other contradictions in society will arise.

In that case, communism will turn into its opposite (or it will do so according to the Dialectical Gurus I quoted), Capitalism.

A more brainless theory it is difficult to imagine...

trivas7

3rd July 2008, 16:51

Ah, but, I can short-circuit this problem by quoting extensivley from what the Dialectical Magi themselves tell us, and in the process show that this theory, as they themselves explain it, does not work.

Quoting is not understanding, R, surely you know that. And the fact that you can't tell me what dialectics means demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about.

If their theory does not work, can you repair it? I rather doubt it.

If you think DM doesn't work with what would you replace it?

Of course, if the thoeoy itself makes no sense, and the Dialectical Prophes cannot explain it to us to your satisfaction, and you fight shy of doing so yourself (all the time), then there is no need for me to show that I 'understand' this 'theory' -- since the evidence shows that no one understands it (or if they do, they have kept that secret to themselves), not even you.

So since you don't understand it, no one has ever understood dialectics.

Dialectical Materialism [DM] is a theory that attempts to explain everything that happens in the entire universe as the result of a few basic principles: Totality (which is supposed to refer to the alleged fact that 'everything' is interconnected), change through 'internal contradiction' (even though 'external contradictions' have to be imported to account for interaction), 'negation of the negation' (which is supposed to account for development), and change in quantity leading to change in 'quality' (which is supposed to explain the origin of novelty).

If this is your explanation of DM please elucidate how and where Marx's use of it differs. What is his "dialectical method" as opposed to this? Why does he even use the term?

At this stage we usually get a deafening silence from you, since "you do not think about things you don't think about".

I've already indicated what I thought dialectics is earlier in this thread, viz.:

The concept of "dialectics" is the theory and method of cognition and transformation of reality. Philosophic materialism deals with general questions of world outlook, with the nature of the surrounding world. Materialist dialectics answers the question of what is happening in the world, of whether it originated or exists eternally, whether it is immutable or keeps changing and developing. It starts out from the material unity of the world and the objectivity of all forms of motion and development of matter. Objective dialectics is motion and development in the material world itself as in an integral, interconnected whole. Subjective dialectics, or dialectical thinking, is the motion and development of thoughts, concepts, etc. which reflect objective dialectics in the human consciousness.

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd July 2008, 17:39

Trivas:

Quoting is not understanding, R, surely you know that. And the fact that you can't tell me what dialectics means demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about.

In that case, in your infinite wisdom, you should be able to tell me where my understanding of these quotations goes worng. Up till now you have simply shied away from doing this.

Now, as to my own 'understanding' of this 'theory' of yours, as I have told you many times, I am happy to admit I do not understand it (even though I have been trying to do so for over 25 years), but then I have yet to read the work of a single dialectician who does, and have yet to 'debate' with any who do here or on other forum (including you).

So, I am in excellent company, for not even Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky..., understood this 'theory' -- or if they did, they kept that fact extermely well hidden.

And as you should also know, each dialectical adept has his/her own 'understanding' of this 'theory', hence there is as yet no 'official' version. So even if I were to fulfil your impossible request, you'd disagree with it.

The plain fact is that, if one takes the Dialectical Gospels as written, then this theory cannot explain change, as I have shown.

We are still waiting, therefore, for you to rescue your 'theory' from oblivion. [Some hope!]

If you think DM doesn't work with what would you replace it?

We do not need a replacement philosophy. Historical Materialism (minus the gobbledygook) is all we need, since it is a scientific theory.

You have been told this many times, so why you keep asking this is a mystery -- or it would be if we didn't already know that your memory cells are constantly under-performing.

So since you don't understand it, no one has ever understood dialectics.

Not so; the Dialectical Prophets failed to explain this theory in coherent terms. So, unless you know differently, they plainly did not understand it either. In that case, I stand no chance.

If this is your explanation of DM please elucidate how and where Marx's use of it differs. What is his "dialectical method" as opposed to this? Why does he even use the term?

No need to speculate, for Marx himself told us (as you have been told many times -- and I risk BTB deleting this as 'spam', so much does he want to ignore what Marx said):

"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 interconnected totality...

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

Once more, if you bothered to read what I have posted, or followed the links I have provided, you would have been able to answer your own question.

But, dogmatist that you are, your head is far too deeply inserted intio the sand to see anything at all.

And we still await you telling us where Marx/Lenin/Trotsky/Engels 'defined' anything.

I've already indicated what I thought dialectics is earlier in this thread, viz.:

The concept of "dialectics" is the theory and method of cognition and transformation of reality. Philosophic materialism deals with general questions of world outlook, with the nature of the surrounding world. Materialist dialectics answers the question of what is happening in the world, of whether it originated or exists eternally, whether it is immutable or keeps changing and developing. It starts out from the material unity of the world and the objectivity of all forms of motion and development of matter. Objective dialectics is motion and development in the material world itself as in an integral, interconnected whole. Subjective dialectics, or dialectical thinking, is the motion and development of thoughts, concepts, etc. which reflect objective dialectics in the human consciousness.

Yes, we have read this sort of bland stuff countless times, but when one goes into details, none of it makes a blind bit of sense, as my Essays show.

So, you do not 'understand' this theory either...:blink:

trivas7

3rd July 2008, 18:32

Now, as to my own 'understanding' of this 'theory' of yours, as I have told you many times, I am happy to admit I do not understand it (even though I have been trying to do so for over 25 years), but then I have yet to read the work of a single dialectician who does, and have yet to 'debate' with any who do here or on other forum (including you).
No, It doesn't follow that no one else has ever understood dialectics because you don't. And given that misunderstand anything you say re it is of little or no practical value.

I suggest you attempt to understand "that sort of bland stuff" before criticizing it.

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd July 2008, 18:40

Trivas:

No, It doesn't follow that no one else has ever understood dialectics because you don't. And given that misunderstand anything you say re it is of little or no practical value.

Indeed it does if every attempt to explain it has been pulled apart, and shown to be incoherent, as I have done at my site, and in many threads here over the last two-and-a-half years.

You can find these listed here:

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

I suggest you attempt to understand "that sort of bland stuff" before criticizing it.

And I suggest you read my criticisms before you swallow any more of this guff.

Then you will no doubt see that it is impossible to make sense of a single dialectical 'notion'.

And, I note once more that you ignored Marx's own words , which I have quoted yet again, for in the summary he endorsed there is not one ounce of Hegel -- no quantity turning into quality, no contradictions, no negation of the negation, no unities of opposites, no interconnected totality...

He too, like me, abandoned the mystical ideas that seem to have colonised your brain.

trivas7

3rd July 2008, 18:47

And, I note once more that you ignored Marx's own words , which I have quoted yet again, for in the summary he endorsed there is not one ounce of Hegel -- no quantity turning into quality, no contradictions, no negation of the negation, no unities of opposites, no interconnected totality...

He too, like me, abandoned the mystical ideas that have colonised your brain.
Then what the fuck is he talking about? What makes HM scientific???

You are hopelessly redundant.

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd July 2008, 19:40

Trivas, getting a little flustered:

Then what the fuck is he talking about? What makes HM scientific???

Well, we need not speculate, for Marx himself tells us (you seem to have missed this -- good job I keep quoting it then!):

"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 interconnected totality...

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

HM becomes scientific when Hegel's gobbledygook has been excised.

Next stupid question, please...

You are hopelessly redundant.

No, I have a job -- and another, in my spare time: annoying you mystics.

trivas7

3rd July 2008, 20:00

HM becomes scientific when Hegel's gobbledygook has been excised.

This tells me nothing. You haven't a clue why HM is scientific.

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd July 2008, 23:08

Trivas:

This tells me nothing.

Which is considerably more than you already know.

You haven't a clue why HM is scientific.

Yes I have, and here it 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.]

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 interconnected totality...

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

Your bad eyesight meant you missed it last time round.

However, it might take another fifty goes before it registers in that underused space between your ears

NiccolÃ² Rossi

4th July 2008, 01:40

Nevertheless, if in order to avoid this question we abandon the idea that history is driven by contradictions between the forces and relations of production which leads to class conflict culminating in the revolutionary transformation of the mode of production, then what are we left with in historical materialism?

Why would this make Historical Materialism redundant as you seem to be implying? I thought it made the dialectical element of it so? If everything is in a constant state of development by contradiction, how could such a society be birthed where the antagonism between classes and the contradictions of relations and forces of production. I thought this would have invalidity the dialectic of history.

Yes, but without recourse to an analysis which prioritises change, holism and interconnectivity, how do we produce such explanations?

This is what I never understood, aren't the above all given? Why do we need dialectics to explain 'change, holism and interconnectivity'.

In Hegel it is. In Marx it is a method he employs in order to draw connection and produce inclusive knowledge. It is a method which is necessary because the object of our scrutiny, historically emergent human society, is itself dialectical. You may disagree with this but you would be disagreeing with Marx. This is obviously not a problem unless you also claim fidelity to historical materialism in the Marxist sense.

If you want to describe history as a dialectical process that is your own business (and whether such is correct or not is none of my concern). My point is I don't understand why you need to rely on the dialectic for? Are you saying that the conclusions of historical materialism can not be arrived at from the empirical study of history itself, something I don't feel you need any understanding of dialectics for.

Marmot: I sympathise with the complaint that the dialectic is vague. To some extent this is the problem inherent in reintroducing Hegelian philosophical categories into Marxism. A big mistake in 20th century Marxism, in my opinion. To another extent it is out of necessity because historical phenomena become vague, blurred and indistinct when in motion. Capitalist society is in a state of rapid process, everything is in motion; relations and exchanges multiply and generalise. We can freeze it analytically, but if we want to show it in motion - as Marx does in Capital - then the analytical stage is not enough - is, in fact, a reified version of knowledge.

The reason I quoted Marmot was to emphasise the point that, whether dialectics can or can not accurately describe certain phenomena (ie. the progress of history) is irrelevant. It is too hazy and too loose a concept to allow us to arrive at any meaningful conclusions.

Also, I would love to know why you can not understand the motion of history without dialectics. Isn't interconnection, evolution and change a given fact in all hitherto existing human history without having to make reference to any philosophical nonsense?

Marx never said communism is the "final and permanent mode of production", he said it was the end of class-based society. Surely other contradictions in society will arise.

But is not the 'dialectical development of history' the process of contradiction between the relations and forces of production and the antagonism between classes? If so we can conclude nothing but that the dialectic of history will cease to operate in a communist society.

The dialectic of class struggle is itself a product of history and like all historical phenomena is doomed to disappear. Movement based on the contradictions of human society is not a process outside of history and cannot be isolated from the existence of classes. After we've left class society far behind, our development might occur on the basis of non-contradictory, non-antagonistic processes.

Then on what basis can we describe history as a dialectical process?

trivas7

4th July 2008, 01:59

But is not the 'dialectical development of history' the process of contradiction between the relations and forces of production and the antagonism between classes? If so we can conclude nothing but that the dialectic of history will cease to operate in a communist society.

All that I can conclude is that the development of society under the communist mode of production will be based on something other than class relations. Communism as the end of history smacks too much of the messianic apocalypse for my tastes.

Rosa Lichtenstein

4th July 2008, 03:05

Trivas:

All that I can conclude is that the development of society under the communist mode of production will be based on something other than class relations. Communism as the end of history smacks too much of the messianic apocalypse for my tastes.

But the Dialectical Gospels tell us that everything changes into its opposite, so a communist society should change into a capitalist one.

A screwy theory I admit, but then that's your problem...

Hit The North

4th July 2008, 12:21

Originally posted by Zeitgeist:
Why would this make Historical Materialism redundant as you seem to be implying? I thought it made the dialectical element of it so? If everything is in a constant state of development by contradiction, how could such a society be birthed where the antagonism between classes and the contradictions of relations and forces of production. I thought this would have invalidity the dialectic of history.
Sorry, comrade, are there some words missing here as I can't follow your meaning? But, to stress this point, the dialectic of history is itself historical and is therefore transitory. Historical materialism contains the seeds of its own negation (to coquette, for a moment). Communism - as defined as a classless, self-regulating society - will operate on a different basis to class societies. At the point of attainig communism, the dialectic of class struggle also passes into history. This is only a problem if we want to argue that historical materialsm is some kind of metaphysical a-historical construct true for all times and places. Obviously, we don't. At least I don't; and Marx himself, approves of the assertion found in the extract of a reviewer in the Postface to Capital Vol. 1 which Rosa is so fond of quoting:

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.
In other words, the laws of development which pertain to capitalism are different to those found in feudalism. Those in a communist society will be different again.

Sorry if this isn't addressing the issue you meant me to address but, as I said, I found it difficult to determine the exact meaning of your post.

Originally posted by Zeitgeist:
This is what I never understood, aren't the above all given? Why do we need dialectics to explain 'change, holism and interconnectivity'.
They weren't a given in Marx's day and there are plenty of critics - some on Revleft - who deny these claims. Some views of history emphasise randomness, circularity, atomism.

Originally posted by Zeitgeist:
If you want to describe history as a dialectical process that is your own business (and whether such is correct or not is none of my concern). My point is I don't understand why you need to rely on the dialectic for? Are you saying that the conclusions of historical materialism can not be arrived at from the empirical study of history itself, something I don't feel you need any understanding of dialectics for.

I think it's one of Marx's principle moves away from philosophy to argue that the empirical study of history is superior to the creation of metaphysical systems. At the same time, empirical data requires interpretation. It isn't the case that the facts always speak for themselves. The conceptual apparatus employed in order to interpret and understand the data is obviously crucial.

Originally posted by Zeitgeist:
Also, I would love to know why you can not understand the motion of history without dialectics. Isn't interconnection, evolution and change a given fact in all hitherto existing human history without having to make reference to any philosophical nonsense?
Again, it might be a given 'fact' to you and to me but not to all. One could even accept the principles of interconnection, holism and change and produce conceptions of history and society which are at extreme variance to historical materialism. See the sociologist, Emile Durkheim, for instance.

Originally posted by Zeitgeist:
But is not the 'dialectical development of history' the process of contradiction between the relations and forces of production and the antagonism between classes? If so we can conclude nothing but that the dialectic of history will cease to operate in a communist society.

Yes.

Originally posted by Zeitgeist:
Then on what basis can we describe history as a dialectical process?

I suppose, to be accurate, we would need to say "all hitherto existing history".

Rosa Lichtenstein

4th July 2008, 14:08

BTB, I see you are avoiding this awkward question:

BTB:

Nevertheless, if in order to avoid this question we abandon the idea that history is driven by contradictions between the forces and relations of production which leads to class conflict culminating in the revolutionary transformation of the mode of production, then what are we left with in historical materialism?

So, you do want to cling on to this useless Hegelian concept (i.e., 'dialecitical contradiction') after all, and your previous claim that I misrepresented you was wrong?

In that case, my additional claim that you and Marx disagree here was correct.

But, then again, you do not seem to be able to make your mind up:

BTB:

To some extent this is the problem inherent in reintroducing Hegelian philosophical categories into Marxism. A big mistake in 20th century Marxism, in my opinion. To another extent it is out of necessity because historical phenomena become vague, blurred and indistinct when in motion. Capitalist society is in a state of rapid process, everything is in motion; relations and exchanges multiply and generalise. We can freeze it analytically, but if we want to show it in motion - as Marx does in Capital - then the analytical stage is not enough - is, in fact, a reified version of knowledge.

So, you do want to rid Marxism of 'dialectical contradictions' after all?

Or, like Trivas, do you not really know what you believe?

Hit The North

4th July 2008, 15:00

BTB, I see you are avoiding this awkward question:

I want to hold on to the idea that contradictions arise in social life as a result of the underlying structure of production.

Rosa Lichtenstein

4th July 2008, 16:29

BTB:

I want to hold on to the idea that contradictions arise in social life as a result of the underlying structure of production.

Fine, but then you will have to withdraw this:

Rosa:
Indeed, but he is quite clear what he means by it: no 'unity of opposites', not 'contradictions', no 'Totality', no 'negation of the negation', no 'quantity passing over into quality', which is not what you mystics seem to think this word means.

BTB:

Who said there was? Not me. In fact, the opposite in my post above where I encourage the setting to one side of Hegelian concepts.

Bold added.

Or flounder around like Trivas, incapable of making your mind up.

Hit The North

5th July 2008, 15:36

Not at all. The idea that contradictions arise in social life as a result of the underlying structure of production is not a Hegelian notion but a Marxist one.

EDIT: At any rate, I've answered your question. It's time for you to answer mine:
So how will you know when you've killed off DM? If it was just a case of theoretical refutation and, as you claim, dialectics is nonsensical, this should be quite an easy task which you should have completed long ago. No?

Lamanov

5th July 2008, 16:23

Dialectics is mystical rubbish that Marx had fortunately jettisoned by his mid twenties but was sadly resurrected by later thinkers.

No, Marx didn't create "dialictical materialism" by his critique of Hegel's philosophy. Dialectical logic itself - a very simple matter - is not guilty for later developed "philosophical outlook" of so-called "dialectical materialism", with it's "laws" and mystical propositions.

The guilty parties are Engles and then Plekhanov, later supported by the academic establishment of the Sovet Union.

trivas7

5th July 2008, 16:37

The guilty parties are Engles and then Plekhanov, later supported by the academic establishment of the Sovet Union.
Why don't you also include Lenin, who wrote of DM as one of the famous "three component parts of Marxism"?

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th July 2008, 18:48

BTB:

The idea that contradictions arise in social life as a result of the underlying structure of production is not a Hegelian notion but a Marxist one.

In that case, you could argue that the use of Hegel's other ideas, when applied 'materialistically' to social development, are also Marxist (including the 'negation of the negation', 'quantity into quality', 'unity of opposites') -- concepts that Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin and Trotsky all used.

If not, what is the difference bewtween the above and your 'contradictions'?

But, worse, if Marx's summary of his own method (or rather, the summary he endorsed as 'his method') left all of these concepts out, including 'contradictions', on what basis can you justify the retention of the latter but reject the former?

Finally, since Marx pinched this concept from Hegel who applied it to everything in the universe, which would include those found in "social life as a result of the underlying structure of production", the concept is Hegelian.

Hence, you need to go one more step if your proud boast:

In fact, the opposite in my post above where I encourage the setting to one side of Hegelian concepts.

is to be taken seriously.

So how will you know when you've killed off DM? If it was just a case of theoretical refutation and, as you claim, dialectics is nonsensical, this should be quite an easy task which you should have completed long ago. No?

1) When comrades like you stop using Hegelian concepts like 'contradiction'.

2) That will be about as easy to achieve as killing-off Christianity, which is equally non-sensical, since it works as an opiate on other sections of society equally well as DM does on dialectical Marxists.

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th July 2008, 18:54

Trivas:

Why don't you also include Lenin, who wrote of DM as one of the famous "three component parts of Marxism"?

Can't speak for DJ-TC, but Lenin was wrong, as Marx himself told us, by endorsing a summary of 'his method' in which there isn't a single concept drawn from DM.

trivas7

5th July 2008, 20:55

BTB:
In that case, you could argue that the use of Hegel's other ideas, when applied 'materialistically' to social development, are also Marxist (including the 'negation of the negation', 'quantity into quality', 'unity of opposites') -- concepts that Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin and Trotsky all used.

Exactly. Why else does Marx use the terms 'my dialectical method', 'contradiction', and 'negation of the negation' in Capital? Who else is he referring to?

Trivas:
Can't speak for DJ-TC, but Lenin was wrong, as Marx himself told us, by endorsing a summary of 'his method' in which there isn't a single concept drawn from DM.
So you say. I beg to differ.

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th July 2008, 21:14

Trivas:

Why else does Marx use the terms 'my dialectical method', 'contradiction', and 'negation of the negation' in Capital? Who else is he referring to?

1) Unfortunately for you, 'my method' refers to the summary given by that reviewer, in which there is no trace of Hegel; no 'negation of the negation', no 'contradictions', no 'quantity passing over into quality', no 'unity of opposites', no 'interconnected totality'.

2) The Hegelian terms employed in 'Das Kapital' are covered by this further comment of Marx's:

"...and even, here and there in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the mode of expression peculiar to him." [Marx (1976), p.103. Bold emphasis added.]

So, Marx was using these terms, as he says, non-seriously.

I beg to differ.

I know you do, dogmatist that you are, but the evidence says you are wrong.

trivas7

5th July 2008, 21:40

Trivas:
1) Unfortunately for you, 'my method' refers to the summary given by that reviewer, in which there is no trace of Hegel; no 'negation of the negation', no 'contradictions', no 'quantity passing over into quality', no 'unity of opposites', no 'interconnected totality'.

Unfortunately for you, a summary isn't a method.

2) The Hegelian terms employed in 'Das Kapital' are covered by this further comment of Marx's:

Too bad then that Marx doesn't limit himself to using Hegelian terms to the chapter on the theory of value, they are sprinkled throughout Capital. So Marx was using them seriously.

I know you do, dogmatist that you are, but the evidence says you are wrong.

Dogmatists are those who unthinkingly quote other people to hide their lack of understanding. I'd say you pretty much fit the bill.

Lamanov

5th July 2008, 22:35

Well, the problem with integrating Lenin into the whole genesis of Diamat is that in his two major philosophical tracts – Materialism and Empirio-Criticism of 1908 and Zurich manuscripts of 1915 – he completely contradicts himself: in his conclusions, method, analysis, etc. When Soviet philosophical academia, based primarily on Plekhanov and Engels, tried to reconcile two works by Lenin, they only contributed with more mysticism and dogmatism to the new philosophical ideology.

Rosa Lichtenstein

6th July 2008, 01:54

Trivas:

Unfortunately for you, a summary isn't a method.

Even more unfortunately for you, Marx called it his 'method'.

Too bad then that Marx doesn't limit himself to using Hegelian terms to the chapter on the theory of value, they are sprinkled throughout Capital. So Marx was using them seriously.

Well, the Collected Works has an additional comma:

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

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm

This puts a diffferent slant on things, since it suggests that the clause "in the chapter on the theory of value" is meant merely as an exapmle of his use of this jargon. So, the 'here and there' covers the entire book.

Or, are we supposed to believe that in one of the most important chapters in the book, that on value, Marx only played around with this jargon, but was everywhere else serious in his use of it?

The Collected Works punctuation strongly suggests otherwise --, and this interpreation harmonises with the passage Marx quoted from that reviewer that summarises 'his method', and from which every atom of Hegel had been removed.

Dogmatists are those who unthinkingly quote other people to hide their lack of understanding.

Not so; a dogmatist is someone who clings on to a belief, or set of beliefs, when either the evidence is against it/them, or he/she will not even consider that evidence.

That is you to a tee.

I'd say you pretty much fit the bill.

If I am a dogmatist, then I pall into insignificance next to the Gold Standard you set in this regard. You should give lessons.

In fact, you do so every day at RevLeft.

We all have much still to learn from you. Promise you will not abandon us...:(

Rosa Lichtenstein

6th July 2008, 01:59

DJ:

Well, the problem with integrating Lenin into the whole genesis of Diamat is that in his two major philosophical tracts – Materialism and Empirio-Criticism of 1908 and Zurich manuscripts of 1915 – he completely contradicts himself: in his conclusions, method, analysis, etc. When Soviet philosophical academia, based primarily on Plekhanov and Engels, tried to reconcile two works by Lenin, they only contributed with more mysticism and dogmatism to the new philosophical ideology.

But, dialecticians do this all the time, and when you point it out to them they either say that that is 'the dialectical method' (where you are supposed to do this), or they, like Trivas, just stick their fingers in their ears and shout "La, La, La...!"

trivas7

6th July 2008, 23:16

Well, the problem with integrating Lenin into the whole genesis of Diamat is that in his two major philosophical tracts – Materialism and Empirio-Criticism of 1908 and Zurich manuscripts of 1915 – he completely contradicts himself: in his conclusions, method, analysis, etc.
How so exactly? Do I have to take your word for it?

Trivas:
Can't speak for DJ-TC, but Lenin was wrong, as Marx himself told us, by endorsing a summary of 'his method' in which there isn't a single concept drawn from DM.
Re what exactly was Lenin wrong?

Rosa Lichtenstein

7th July 2008, 04:31

Trivas:

Re what exactly was Lenin wrong?

In philosophy: you name it, Lenin was wrong.

But in this specific case, if you read DJ's post, to which this was a reply, you will be able to figure it out for yourself -- I think...

Hiero

8th July 2008, 12:40

As a counter-point, I would love to hear you give us all an exposition on 'Dialectal Materialism". Being so important to any Marxist's understanding of Historical Materialism I would hope you would be well versed in it instead of just claiming it a necessity.

Well I am not well versed in dialectical and historical materialism. As I am starting to educate myself on both topics I find them closely linked. Historical materialism looks at history as a history of class war. As we see through history that societies are not stagnant, we see societes change, ie feudalism to capitalism. We see given the right changes in conditions (productive forces) certain classes have the ability to overthrow the ruling class, changing the relations of production. Why? Well dialectics explains this. Contradiction between productive forces and the relations of production. Is it not simple to see that socialised labour contradicts privatised property?

I asked a question, what is in historical materialism that is not in dialectical materialism? Do changes occur in history because people just want them to? etc and neither of you have not answered. If dialectic materialism is so mystifying, then I assume you can put your answer into a paragraph or two such as, historical materialism has such... which is not present in dialectical materialism. What I find is that anti-dialectics is nothing more then a mystification of dialectical materialism, much the same way Engels criticised Dühring.

Also, Rosa telling someone to go read such and such a book is not a good way of debating. Do you seriously think people will find interest in a book because you say so? At least in reference to that book put forward some ideas.

Rosa Lichtenstein

8th July 2008, 13:10

Comrade Sweety:

I asked a question, what is in historical materialism that is not in dialectical materialism? Do changes occur in history because people just want them to? etc and neither of you have not answered. If dialectic materialism is so mystifying, then I assume you can put your answer into a paragraph or two such as, historical materialism has such... which is not present in dialectical materialism. What I find is that anti-dialectics is nothing more then a mystification of dialectical materialism, much the same way Engels criticised Dühring.

Also, Rosa telling someone to go read such and such a book is not a good way of debating. Do you seriously think people will find interest in a book because you say so? At least in reference to that book put forward some ideas.

The problem is that historical materialism ceases to work if concepts drawn from Hegel ('inverted', or not) are used. If you want an explanation why, check these out:

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

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

[The quotations relevant to the first link, can be found a third of the way down the second.]

It is not possible to explain why dialetics is so nonsensical in a paragraph -- when I have tried to do this, comrades complain about its 'superficiality'. When I go into more detail, they say it is too long. The problem is that comrades who have swallowed this guff do not like their precious theory challenged. Why that is so, I can explain too, but I fear you might not read this paragraph if it is too long.

Which book was it that I referred to?

And comrades do this all the time (in history for example). It is not possible to establish some points without referring to detailed work on the same subject.

However, if you check out most of the 7600 posts I have made at RevLeft, you will see that I go into detail much of the time. I spend hours and hours each day explaining myself, and defending what I allege. It is physically impossible to do so on every single pioint, all the time. Hence, I link to my site, where I explain things in depth, or to books and articles that establish the various points I haven't time to cover.