To Rosa....Marx on dialectics?

[Led Zeppelin]

Ok so I was starting to re-read Capital yesterday and looked over the Afterword of the second German edition of the book...and Marx basically says there that he used the dialectical method in its demystified form to write it:



My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.

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

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

The contradictions inherent in the movement of capitalist society impress themselves upon the practical bourgeois most strikingly in the changes of the periodic cycle, through which modern industry runs, and whose crowning point is the universal crisis. That crisis is once again approaching, although as yet but in its preliminary stage; and by the universality of its theatre and the intensity of its action it will drum dialectics even into the heads of the mushroom-upstarts of the new, holy Prusso-German empire.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm)

Now that really surprised because from what I read from you, it always seemed as though Marx never referred to his own method as dialectical, and didn't actually say that he used it...but he clearly did.

Clearly Marx is not simply talking about "using dialectial words", he actually says he used the dialectial method and attacked the "mystified" form of it, and found the "rational kernel" inside, and then goes on to say that it is revolutionary and explains what the dialectial method is (in short), and then goes on to say that eventually the dialectics will get into the heads of the rulers of the Prusso-German empire due to the crises of capitalism (a sarcastic comment in defense of the method).

So eh, did you know about the above? And if so, what's your response to it?

I'm not attacking you with this by the way, but I only remember you talking about the "coquetting with dialectial terminology" and that was persuasive, but in the above quote Marx says that his method is dialectical (in its demystified form) and refers to dialectics as revolutionary, something which I believe you denied him ever saying.

[Junius]

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?

This dialectic method, however, bears no resemblance to the garbage which most leftists put out (or which they claim that Marx adhered to).

[Led Zeppelin]

Ah yes I forgot to add that part, it's from the same Afterword.

[Junius]

I know. ;)

It is clear that Marx employs dialectical terminology throughout Capital.

He also employs abstraction, causal language, historical materialism and other forms commonly applied by social scientists. Nothing wrong with that.

From reading Marx, I get the impression that he came to a deeply anti-philosophical stance; that he despised the philosophers setting up abstract principles upon which the human society operated. For example:


Hitherto men have constantly made up for themselves false conceptions about themselves, about what they are and what they ought to be. They have arranged their relationships according to their ideas of God, of normal man, etc. The phantoms of their brains have got out of their hands. They, the creators, have bowed down before their creations.

It is quite ironic, then, when Marxists also set up these phantoms upon which to explain things - i.e the unity of opposites and other such garbage.

Capital can be explained through without any dialectical jargon - indeed, it would be far more understandable without it.

Sorry if I am not the person wanting a response from, but that is my view.

What is your view on the matter?

[Led Zeppelin]

Well I don't disagree on the dialectical jargon not being really helpful or necessary to understanding Capital, but the main reason for why I started this thread was to ask Rosa how she could say that Marx never referred to using dialectics or the dialectical method...when he clearly did.

But yes, I agree with you that there's nothing wrong with that, in fact it proves the point of all those people who were arguing against Rosa from that perspective over the past few years on here!

[Hit The North]

I'm not attacking you with this by the way, but I only remember you talking about the "coquetting with dialectial terminology" and that was persuasive,


This has been put to Rosa many times by myself, gilhyle, luis henrique and trivas9, so you should really read these threads more throroughly, rather than just take Rosa's word as the beginning and end of the matter.

[Led Zeppelin]

This has been put to Rosa many times by myself, gilhyle, luis henrique and trivas9, so you should really read these threads more throroughly, rather than just take Rosa's word as the beginning and end of the matter.

I didn't take Rosa's word as the beginning and end of the matter, I just never saw you, Luis Henrique, Trivas9 or gilhyle ever post a direct quote by Marx saying that he actually used the dialectical method and defending it directly, so that there was nothing unclear about it.

I do however remember you pointing to a letter he wrote to Engels, I believe it was, saying that he had great help looking over Hegel's book when he was writing Capital, and also a quote regarding "coquetting".

By the way, it's pretty absurd to say that I take Rosa's word as the beginning and of the matter regarding dialectics. If you had read those threads more thoroughly, you would have known this.

Now, did you ever post the above quote by Marx basically saying directly that he used the dialectical method and defending materialist dialectics versus the "mystified" form of it?

If so, could you please point me to the thread/post where you said this so that I can see how Rosa responded to it?

[Hit The North]

If so, could you please point me to the thread/post where you said this so that I can see how Rosa responded to it?

No. But I'm sure Rosa, who keeps track of these things more than I, will oblige. She didn't give the impression that she thought this revelation represented a threat to her thesis.

[Luís Henrique]

I didn't take Rosa's word as the beginning and end of the matter, I just never saw you, Luis Henrique, Trivas9 or gilhyle ever post a direct quote by Marx saying that he actually used the dialectical method and defending it directly

Rosa herself has more than once quoted the exact text in your OP. She understands that in a different way from us:


My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite.

She understands that this means that Marx's method has nothing to do with Hegel's.

I myself have quoted not only that text, but also others, specifically from the Grundrisse, where it is clear that Marx uses some version of "dialectical method". But to argue with Rosa is like argueing with a wall; the best you get, if you keep the adequate distance, is an echo to your arguments.

Luís Henrique

[mikelepore]

Marx said "dialectical" where the subject was the fact that social relations don't remain static, institutions are in flux, classes and social forms appear and vanish, the categories of language sometimes fail to keep up with this.

But it was Engels who, after Marx was dead, added the comments that "dialectical" means three specific "laws", the "transformation of quantity into quality, and vice versa", the "interpenetration of opposites", and "the negation of the negation". It was also Engels who argued that these concisely worded "laws" govern the entire range of existence, including the creation of solar system, the evolution of life, the theorems of electricity and chemistry, history, and logic. ("Anti-Duhring" and "The Dialectics of Nature").

As for the "triad" of thesis-antithesis-synthesis -- it's customary for secondary sources ("Philosophy Made Simple") to say that Marx got this from Hegel. The fact is, Marx never said it, and, what's more, Hegel never said it either. A generation before Hegel, Fichte said it.

[Hit The North]

Personally I have no problem with comrade mikelepore's post above. I've never been convinced by Engels' three laws which seem too schematic. Nevertheless, I've always been certain that Marx didn't employ the term dialectic in a cavalier or paradoxic manner in the way Rosa's thesis implies; he meant something specific and valuable.

It seems to me that Marx understood that the Hegelian dialectic was an idealistic representation of processes which were nevertheless happening 'out there' in the real world. In other words:
where the subject was the fact that social relations don't remain static, institutions are in flux, classes and social forms appear and vanish, the categories of language sometimes fail to keep up with this.... In a word, capitalism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


This has been put to Rosa many times by myself, gilhyle, luis henrique and trivas9, so you should really read these threads more throroughly, rather than just take Rosa's word as the beginning and end of the matter.And just as many times you and others who accept the 'traditional tale' have had it pointed out to you that Marx helpfully summarised the 'dialectic method' for us, in which there is not one atom of Hegel to be found: no 'unity of opposites', no 'negation' of the negation', no 'contradictions', no 'quantity passing over into quality', no 'mediated totality', no 'universal change'...

The problem is that some of you have been fed this traditional tale for so long that you cannot accept Marx's own very clear words on this issue.


Nevertheless, I've always been certain that Marx didn't employ the term dialectic in a cavalier or paradoxic manner in the way Rosa's thesis implies; he meant something specific and valuable.Indeed he did, and we need not speculate as to what that was, for the comrade above quoted the long passage from Das Kapital summarising it for us -- which, once more, contains not one single concept found in the traditional version of the 'dialectic' that Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin and Trotsky dumped on us.


where the subject was the fact that social relations don't remain static, institutions are in flux, classes and social forms appear and vanish, the categories of language sometimes fail to keep up with this.You have also had it pointed out to you that ordinary language is in fact far better at depicting and thus explaining change than is the wooden and obscure terminology you lot have inherited from Hegel (which jargon not one of you can explain), so if we needed a theory of change, dialectical materialism (or 'materialist dialectics') would not be it -- in fact, it would not even make the bottom of the reserve list of likely candidates.

Indeed, Socialist Worker (and other revolutionary papers) make use of ordinary language to explain the complex processes in Capitalism admirably well without using this obscure jargon -- so, in our interface with the class, dialectics is little more than a hinderance.

That alone shows that ordinary language is alright as it is (to paraphrase Witttgenstein) -- indeed we confirm this in practice every day of our revolutionary lives.

Mike:


As for the "triad" of thesis-antithesis-synthesis -- it's customary for secondary sources ("Philosophy Made Simple") to say that Marx got this from Hegel. The fact is, Marx never said it, and, what's more, Hegel never said it either. A generation before Hegel, Fichte said it.There is in fact a sticky on this:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=707195&postcount=7

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LZ, I hope this answers your query; we have in fact been over this here literally dozens of times. Here for example:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/scrapping-dialectics-would-t79634/index4.html

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

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

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1161443&postcount=114

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1163222&postcount=124


I do however remember you pointing to a letter he wrote to Engels, I believe it was, saying that he had great help looking over Hegel's book when he was writing Capital, and also a quote regarding "coquetting".Well, as Marx pointed out, he did not even own a copy of Hegel's 'Logic' but had to borrow one from Freiligrath -- so much for Marx being an avid fan of Hegel!

And it was most certainly of help to Marx in writing Das Kapital -- just as Paley's Natural Theology (with its 'Design Argument') was useful to Darwin when he wrote On the Origin of Species -- as a foil against which he could rail.

LH:


I myself have quoted not only that text, but also others, specifically from the Grundrisse, where it is clear that Marx uses some version of "dialectical method". But to argue with Rosa is like argueing with a wall; the best you get, if you keep the adequate distance, is an echo to your arguments.Marx chose not to publish the Grundrisse, but he did publish the passage quoted above. So, whatever happened to his thinking between the writing of the latter and the publishing of Das Kapital, he clearly began to see things the way I do (or, to put that better, I see things the way Marx came to see them).

Sure I am a 'wall' since I refuse to allow you mystics to continue to get away with besmirching Marx's good name by saddling him to a theory that makes not one ounce of sense, and which not one of you can explain -- especially since he abandoned it himself


She understands that in a different way from usAnd we both know why: I actually take Marx's actual words seriuosly, whereas you lot ignore what you do not like, or which does not fit the 'traditional' tale.

And, one cannot get more 'opposite' to Hegel than abandoning his obscure jargon in its entirety.

[Led Zeppelin]

And just as many times you and others who accept the 'traditional tale' have had it pointed out to you that Marx helpfully summarised the 'dialectic method' for us, in which there is not one atom of Hegel to be found: no 'unity of opposites', no 'negation' of the negation', no 'contradictions', no 'quantity passing over into quality', no 'mediated totality', no 'universal change'...

So you agree with dialectics just as long it's the definition Marx gave of it here:


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

He does mention negation there but not the negation of the negation, but anyway, if that is the dialectial method which Marx says he used, would you say that you agree with that method?

And thanks for the links.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LZ:


So you agree with dialectics just as long it's the definition Marx gave of it here:

Well no. Read this passage carefully -- Marx personifies the 'dialectic':


because it lets nothing impose upon it, and is in its essence critical and revolutionary.

This makes no sense at all. If we are to rescue Marx from incoherence, we are forced to view this passage differently from the way it is usually read.

So, I suspect Marx was being at least ironic here, for the dialectic does not do what he alleges. It fails to explain change and is not an abomination for the 'bourgeoisie' and/or their 'professors' -- they know nothing of it, and in general never have. Most still believe in change too!

And not even Marx believed this:


because it includes in its comprehension and affirmative recognition of the existing state of things, at the same time also, the recognition of the negation of that state, of its inevitable breaking up; because it regards every historically developed social form as in fluid movement, and therefore takes into account its transient nature not less than its momentary existence;

Or, if he did, then socialism is impossible.

Marx was trying to extricate himself from an ancient and mystical way of viewing the world, one in which hidden forces and intelligences run things. I do not think he saw things clearly everywhere and at all times -- hence the confusion here. This surfaces in his use of 'negation' where he confuses a linguistic category with a process in reality.

The 'rational' content of the 'dialectic' (a term I do not like since it has been ruined by Hegel and his epigones among Marxists -- one cannot use the term now without causing confusion, as this thread at least shows) is thus that which is contained in a modern version of Aristotle's dialectic, and in Kant's.

Hegel's 'dialectic' is useless from beginning to end -- upside down or 'the right way up'.

[Hit The North]

LZ:
This makes no sense at all. If we are to rescue Marx from incoherence, we are forced to view this passage differently from the way it is usually read.

So, I suspect Marx was being at least ironic here, for the dialectic does not do what he alleges. It fails to explain change and is not an abomination for the 'bourgeoisie' and/or their 'professors' -- they know nothing of it, and in general never have. Most still believe in change too!


So much for taking "what Marx actually wrote seriously". :laugh:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


So much for taking "what Marx actually wrote seriously".

In that case, perhaps you'd like to explain what he meant by this:


because it lets nothing impose upon it,

And, of course, taking Marx's words seriously is not the same as uncritically receiving them. That would be to confuse hero worship with socialism.

Maybe you do not know the difference...

[Hit The North]

BTB:
In that case, perhaps you'd like to explain what he meant by this:


Well some kind of convincing interpretation of this passage is obviously called for. Your attempt, as far as I can make out, is to interpret it as some kind of bizarre paradoxic joke; or that, suddenly, just a few paragraphs on from those you continue to cite as some holy writ, that Marx suddenly lurches into incoherence.

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

Clearly Marx is comparing the rational form of the material dialectic favourably to the mystified Hegelian dialectic. The latter sanctifies the existing order (why? because the Hegelian dialectic reaches its end in the bourgeois German State - an early declaration of the "end of history" thesis). But, on the contrary, in its rational presentation the dialectic is revolutionary as it understands that the very dialectical process of history which produces the German State also will lead to its negation. Why? because the material dialectic is the class struggle and as long as classes exist the dialectic will continue. I think the statement "it let's nothing impose upon it" is a declaration of the inevitability of the dialectic, because the material forces and relations are in themselves "critical and revolutionary." In other words, capitaist society cannot do otherwise than lead to its own negation.

In the following paragraph he elaborates:
The contradictions inherent in the movement of capitalist society impress themselves upon the practical bourgeois most strikingly in the changes of the periodic cycle, through which modern industry runs, and whose crowning point is the universal crisis. That crisis is once again approaching, although as yet but in its preliminary stage; and by the universality of its theatre and the intensity of its action it will drum dialectics even into the heads of the mushroom-upstarts of the new, holy Prusso-German empire.
It's generally acknowledged that Das Kapital is Marx's attempt "to lay bare the laws of motion which govern the origins, the rise, the development, the decline... of the capitalist mode of production," as Ernst Mandel succinctly put it in his introduction to the Penguin Classics edition of Volume One. Why is it so difficult to understand that the dialectic which Marx concerns himself with are these laws of motion - of capitalist society specifically and class society (i.e. human history) more generally?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB, I did not ask for you to explain the passage, but just this clause (as well you know):


because it lets nothing impose upon it,

I already know what you mystics think about the meaning of the 'dialectic' as you have had it incucated in you by the Hermetic Holy Men -- it's this clause which makes the whole lot an empty charade that I thought you'd struggle to explain.

And it seems I was right, for you ignore it.:lol:

And it's not so much this:


just a few paragraphs on from those you continue to cite as some holy writ, that Marx suddenly lurches into incoherence.

as the fact that Marx had already indicated that he had waved this mystical nonsense goodbye, and had already told us he was merely 'coquetting' with this gobbledygook, but that this clause confirms this: he was not being at all serious with these 'concepts' and that is why he personified the 'dialectic'.

Unless, of course, you think Marx was indeed serious here and actually believed the 'dialectic' was a human being? :rolleyes:

[Hit The North]

BTB, I did not ask for you to explain the passage, but just this clause (as well you know):

I already know what you mystics think about the meaning of the 'dialectic' as you have had it incucated in you by the Hermetic Holy Men -- it's this clause which makes the whole lot an empty charade that I thought you'd struggle to explain.

And it seems I was right, for you ignore it.:lol:

:rolleyes:

Hmm. If you're gonna demand explanation then you could at least have the good grace to read it. Here it is for a second time:

Originally posted by Bob The Builder
I think the statement "it let's nothing impose upon it" is a declaration of the inevitability of the dialectic, because the material forces and relations are in themselves "critical and revolutionary." In other words, capitaist society cannot do otherwise than lead to its own negation.
Now, this is my interpretation of what Marx meant by the passage (and it does not contain any judgement as to whether the passage is well written or not). Comrades will have to decide for themselves whether it is a more credible interpretation than yours. And if any have an alternative understanding to ours, then by all means they should put it forward.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


If you're gonna demand explanation then you could at least have the good grace to read it. Here it is for a second time:

Indeed, as I noted, you ignored the fact that Marx personifies the 'dialectic' underlining how much he is 'coquetting' with this 'theory' -- something he had already told us he was doing.


Comrades will have to decide for themselves whether it is a more credible interpretation than yours. And if any have an alternative understanding to ours, then by all means they should put it forward.

Except they should only agree with you by ignoring Marx's own admission that he does not take this 'theory' at all seriously -- why else would he 'coquette' with it?

[Hit The North]

Except they should only agree with you by ignoring Marx's own admission that he does not take this 'theory' at all seriously -- why else would he 'coquette' with it?
And also consider that in the very next sentence, this is how Marx sums up the Hegelian dialectic:
The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner.

And not as the "gobbledegook" you insist it is.

In fact, one key difference between you and Marx is that he understands Hegel and you, as you admit, do not.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


And also consider that in the very next sentence, this is how Marx sums up the Hegelian dialectic:

And yet we already know that Marx was merely 'coquetting' with Hegelian jargon, and that his non-serious approach to traditional versions of the 'dialectic' (such as the one that has colonised your brain) is confirmed by this passage:


because it lets nothing impose upon it,

where he personifies it. How non-serious can you get?

But, what about this:


The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner.

Indeed, other things prevent Hegel from being the first: namely the fact that this 'theory' cannot be made to work whatever you mystics try to do with it.

So, we are still waiting for someone to:


present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner.

Marx certainly did not.

As we now know, he abandoned it as hopelessly confused, and was content merely to 'coquette' with Hegelian jargon.

[Hit The North]

Your claim that the passage, "let's nothing impose upon it," is a coded punchline to Marx's disavowal of Hegel doesn't even work in theory of humour terms as it doesn't even function as a punchline, or it is a punchline with no joke. Meanwhile in this paragraph Marx is not engaging in anti-Hegelian punning or parodying, he is stating the militant communist understanding that capitalism cannot escape its own contradictions.

Now either you believe that Marx was deliberately clowning about in order to confuse both his critics and his followers or you've been reading too much Dan Brown and now believe you have the prescience to divine the hidden codes in Marx's writing which even he was unaware of.

Partly our arguments are dependent upon what kind of writer we think Marx to be. The fact that Marx thought he was engaged in the scientific understanding of capitalism does not automatically mean that he wrote only as a scientist - or even saw himself as such. In fact we know that his polemics are anything but.

What you never seems to understand about Marx's style of writing is that he uses metaphor, allusion, and other rhetorical devices in order to drive points home. He does not always write like a detached scientist engaged in dry analytical work; nor was he at all influenced by, still less the precursor of, the conventions of analytical philosophy. Attempting to judge him as such misses the point.

In fact, in all of these arguments with you, what becomes apparent is that you don't read like a Marxist; you read like a Wittgensteinian. The idea that Marx might have uncritically (in philosophical terms) employed a personification of the dialectic (but used it for valid literary impact) is not at all a problem for most of us. For you, if it doesn't conform to your notion of analytical or logical clarity, it gives you nightmares and forces to you to depict Marx as a clown.

Oh, and by the way, referring to something as 'it' as Marx does in this passage, is not exactly the same as personifying 'it', is it?

[PRC-UTE]

You have also had it pointed out to you that ordinary language is in fact far better at depicting and thus explaining change than is the wooden and obscure terminology you lot have inherited from Hegel (which jargon not one of you can explain)

In fact, the jargon has been explained repeatedly.

for instance, contradiction has been repeatedly explained to mean not just a simple conflict, but a systemic opposition in which the existence of a proletariat implies the destruction of a bourgeoisie. it's relevant to us because it points towards socialism superseding capitalism from the internal dynamics within this contradiction.



Indeed, Socialist Worker (and other revolutionary papers) make use of ordinary language to explain the complex processes in Capitalism admirably well without using this obscure jargon -- so, in our interface with the class, dialectics is little more than a hinderance.

You seem to be shifting arguments here. If dialectical terms can be translated into everyday language with little difficulty, then how can it also be 'mystical' at the same time? :)

If you were correct that dialectical jargon was nonsense, it's version in plain everyday words and phrases would likewise be nonsense.

If you are formally abandoning your claim that dialectics is jibberish, and instead saying that it would be useful when talking to thsoe unfamiliar with marxism to use everyday terms, then I think we're on the same page. :thumbup:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Your claim that the passage, "let's nothing impose upon it," is a coded punchline to Marx's disavowal of Hegel doesn't even work in theory of humour terms as it doesn't even function as a punchline, or it is a punchline with no joke. Meanwhile in this paragraph Marx is not engaging in anti-Hegelian punning or parodying, he is stating the militant communist understanding that capitalism cannot escape its own contradictions.

Who said it was a 'punchline'?


Meanwhile in this paragraph Marx is not engaging in anti-Hegelian punning or parodying, he is stating the militant communist understanding that capitalism cannot escape its own contradictions

Unfortunately for you, Marx had already torpedoed this excuse well below the waterline, having earlier endorsed a summary of 'his method' in which there was not one ounce of Hegel to be found: no 'contradictions', no 'quantity passing over into quality', no 'unity of opposites', no 'negation of the negation', no 'mediated totality', no 'universal change'...

In addition, and it's almost as if he had you mystics in mind, he added that he was merely screwing around (i.e., "coquetting") with Hegelian jargon.

So, according to Marx, there are no 'contradictions' in capitalism (or anywhere else, for that matter).

Small wonder then that you lot cannot explain even your own use of this terminally obscure word.


Now either you believe that Marx was deliberately clowning about in order to confuse both his critics and his followers or you've been reading too much Dan Brown and now believe you have the prescience to divine the hidden codes in Marx's writing which even he was unaware of.

No hidden codes; Marx was quite open about his rejection of the 'dialectic' as you mystics understand it. And he was well-known for his wry sense of humour. It surfaces in all his works. I am amazed you have missed it.


Partly our arguments are dependent upon what kind of writer we think Marx to be. The fact that Marx thought he was engaged in the scientific understanding of capitalism does not automatically mean that he wrote only as a scientist - or even saw himself as such. In fact we know that his polemics are anything but.

Yes, and we need not speculate, for, and once again (I did say this might take twenty or so repeats before it sinks in -- looks like I underestimated the hold this opiate has on the consolation module in your brain) Marx was clear about what he was doing.

I'd quote that long summary of "his method" that Marx saw fit to include in Das Kapital, but you see it as spam, but in that passage there is no trace whatsoever of Hegel. He is neither 'upside down' or even the 'right way up', he is nonexistent. Yet again (and it seems you need to be told this many times), in that summary there are no 'contradictions', no 'quantity passing over into quality', no 'unity of opposites', no 'negation of the negation', no 'mediated totality', no 'universal change'...

So, the sins you attribute to me we can in fact put down to Marx, for he it was who waved goodbye to the ancient Hermetic world-view that still controls your brain.

And he did tell us too that the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling-class.

Looks like you are determined to prove Marx right, at least in your own case.


What you never seems to understand about Marx's style of writing is that he uses metaphor, allusion, and other rhetorical devices in order to drive points home. He does not always write like a detached scientist engaged in dry analytical work; nor was he at all influenced by, still less the precursor of, the conventions of analytical philosophy. Attempting to judge him as such misses the point.

In fact, in all of these arguments with you, what becomes apparent is that you don't read like a Marxist; you read like a Wittgensteinian. The idea that Marx might have uncritically (in philosophical terms) employed a personification of the dialectic (but used it for valid literary impact) is not at all a problem for most of us. For you, if it doesn't conform to your notion of analytical or logical clarity, it gives you nightmares and forces to you to depict Marx as a clown.

Nice rhetoric -- too bad Marx had already shown it to be empty.

And what is wrong with reading Marx like a Wittgensteinian? It beats reading him like a mystic.

But, I am sorry to remove even that crumb of comfort, for:

1) I read Marx this way back in the 1970s before I had even heard of Wittgenstein. You do not need an ounce of the latter's influence to be able to see that Marx himself, in Das Kapital, had put your brand of mysticism behind him. One just has to read him without allowing those pesky "ruling ideas" to control one's thinking -- something you have yet to learn.

2) It's not even a Wittgensteinian reading of Marx. Wittgenstein, if anything, tended to read these classics in the traditional way (if the reports of his 'disciples' are anything to go by), as have other Wittgensteinian Marxists -- like, say, Guy Robinson. So my reading of this is my own -- and, of course, Marx's.


Oh, and by the way, referring to something as 'it' as Marx does in this passage, is not exactly the same as personifying 'it', is it?

The 'it' is indeed apt if Marx did not want to refer to it is as either an 'he' or a 'she'. So, this personification of the 'dialectic' was more like a reference to its ghostly qualities: a spectre, if you like, that still haunts modern-day Hermeticists like yourself -- in that you all seem to think that capitalism argues with itself (i.e., contains 'contradictions'), and since only human agents can do this, you seem to think Capitalism is a human agent of some sort. But this ghostly agent is not one you can touch or see, or talk to. Hence, this apparition, this spectral 'person' ('Capitalism') is indeed a sexless 'it'.

Marx is clearly parodying your folly.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PRC I see my accusatation that you are a scaredy-cat has stung you into trying at last to defend the indefensible. Too bad for you that this would have been more believable personality make-over had you done this before I branded you in that way.


In fact, the jargon has been explained repeatedly.

Where?


for instance, contradiction has been repeatedly explained to mean not just a simple conflict, but a systemic opposition in which the existence of a proletariat implies the destruction of a bourgeoisie. it's relevant to us because it points towards socialism superseding capitalism from the internal dynamics within this contradiction.

1) This is a re-definition of the word, and for no good reason.

2) It does not work, as I have shown. For example, here:

Essay Eight Part One: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2008_01.htm

Essay Eight Part Two: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2008_02.htm

Essay Eight Part Three: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2008_03.htm

Or, more briefly, here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1207509&postcount=360

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1207517&postcount=361

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1207518&postcount=362

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1222404&postcount=14

'Opposing forces':

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1221394&postcount=464

'Contradictions' etc. in Das Kapital:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1221395&postcount=465

You need to show where I go wrong, or admit:

1) You can't and you are out of your depth, and

2) I was right to say:


You have also had it pointed out to you that ordinary language is in fact far better at depicting and thus explaining change than is the wooden and obscure terminology you lot have inherited from Hegel (which jargon not one of you can explain)

PRC:



You seem to be shifting arguments here. If dialectical terms can be translated into everyday language with little difficulty, then how can it also be 'mystical' at the same time?

You need to pay attention: the whole point is that such terms cannot be translated into ordinary language.

I show that to be so in the above links.


If you were correct that dialectical jargon was nonsense, it's version in plain everyday words and phrases would likewise be nonsense.

Ordinary language can be nonsensical, for example: "The is but of" is nonsense. But dialectics expresses a special kind of untranslatable nonsense. If you want to know what this is, check this out:

Essay Twelve Part One: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2012_01.htm

For comrades who cannot be bothered to read the full account, I have written a shorter summary here:

Summary of Essay Twelve Part One: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Summary_of_Essay_Twelve-Part-01.htm


If you are formally abandoning your claim that dialectics is jibberish, and instead saying that it would be useful when talking to thsoe unfamiliar with marxism to use everyday terms, then I think we're on the same page.

In your dreams...

[Hit The North]

Marx clearly thought capitalism had contradictions, as he mentions it repeatedly throughout Das Kapital and correspondence years after his supposed denunciation of Hegel (oh, and Marx never minced his words, like you suppose he does in the Afterword). Moreover, those passages which you will no doubt pass off as empty "coquetting" were published six years before the Afterword, without Marx giving the merest hint that they were empty "coquetting". So you expect the reader to swallow the bizarre idea that Marx would smuggle unflagged parodies into the text of his masterpiece, risking the confusion and misinterpretation which has, according to you, distorted the history of Marxism. Oops!

Fortunately most of us aren't that desperate to have you proved right that we would swallow such a poor narrative. I fear you might be in a minority of one in that concern.

[PRC-UTE]

PRC I see my accusatation that you are a scaredy-cat has stung you into trying at last to defend the indefensible. Too bad for you that this would have been more believable personality make-over had you done this before I branded you in that way.

:laugh:

I don't know what you're on, but I've talked to you about this issue, including the very issue of contradiction before.

I like how you backpeddle on 'ordinary language werkz better' :thumbup::lol:

Is this an attempt at satire, where you say absurd things like "marx didn't mean what he wrote" to provoke a reaction, Ali G style?

Oh, and here's a few links to where I talked to you about dialectics in the past. Most of these are directly responding to you, even though you claim I never did (another example of your interesting grasp on reality):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1167092&postcount=234

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1167088&postcount=233

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1166693&postcount=215

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1165850&postcount=33

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1165830&postcount=181

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1165219&postcount=162

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1159231&postcount=78

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1159090&postcount=76

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=746059&postcount=13

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Marx clearly thought capitalism had contradictions, as he mentions it repeatedly throughout Das Kapital and correspondence years after his supposed denunciation of Hegel (oh, and Marx never minced his words, like you suppose he does in the Afterword). Moreover, those passages which you will no doubt pass off as empty "coquetting" were published six years before the Afterword, without Marx giving the merest hint that they were empty "coquetting".

Well, as you have had pointed out to you many times, Marx had already told us that he was merely 'coquetting' with this word in Das Kapital, and that includes the Afterword (which is, last time I checked, part of Das Kapital).

Moreover, his use of this word in letters (which he chose not to publish) cannot be considered a part of his more considered thoughts -- or if it is, then he was merely 'coquetting' with that word there too.

Or do you imagine that his unpublished remarks are more important than those he published?


So you expect the reader to swallow the bizarre idea that Marx would smuggle unflagged parodies into the text of his masterpiece, risking the confusion and misinterpretation which has, according to you, distorted the history of Marxism. Oops!

Well, and yet again: we need not speculate, for Marx very kindly indicated what he meant. He added a review of his ideas to the Preface, which he (not me) endorsed as 'his method', but from which every trace of Hegel had been removed: no 'contradictions', no 'quantity passing over into quality', no 'unity of opposites', no 'negation of the negation', no 'mediated totality', no 'universal change'...

Looks like you are going to have to have several dozen more reminders before Marx's intentions register with your class-compromised brain.

So be it. I have been bashing away at this for well over a year with you. i have no problem having to do this for yet another year if need be.

Now, the 'confusion' to which you refer applies only to those who refuse to read what Marx actually tells us. So, do not blame me or Marx; blame yourselves.


Fortunately most of us aren't that desperate to have you proved right that we would swallow such a poor narrative. I fear you might be in a minority of one in that concern.

Even if I were the only person on the planet who reads what Marx actually said, that would not affect the fact that I am right. I am right, in fact, because I have bothered to read him carefully, unlike you mystics.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PRC:


I don't know what you're on, but I've talked to you about this issue, including the very issue of contradiction before.

1) I am in fact on fresh air; I recommend it over the opiate you have imbibed from dialectics.

2) You haven't, to the best of my recollection, debated 'contradictions'with me before. I checked those links and they either skirt the issue, raise other isssus or make the usual mistakes that I have exposed (which you can find at the links I posted in my last reply to you).

So, we still await a clear account of 'dialectical contradictions' (and we have only been doing this for 200 years). Gilhyle and Luis Henrique were the last two to make a serious attempt to do this here, but they had to limp from the field badly bruised. In fact, Gilhyle has not shown his/her face here since.


I like how you backpeddle on 'ordinary language werkz better'

In what way did I 'backpeddle'?


Is this an attempt at satire, where you say absurd things like "marx didn't mean what he wrote" to provoke a reaction, Ali G style?

Well, if you actullay read what he wrote, you will see that he and I see eye-to-eye on this.

If you think otherwise, let's see your arguments/proof.


Oh, and here's a few links to where I talked to you about dialectics in the past. Most of these are directly responding to you, even though you claim I never did (another example of your interesting grasp on reality):

Thanks for that, but your 'responses' to me were patchy and not consistent, and not like they are now. So, I stand by my claim that I have stung you into action by calling you a 'scaredy-cat'.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I've watched half of David Harvey's first video on Capital, and when he talks about things being in motion, labour as being a process, capital as being a process, and how Bush and Giuliani wanted to get the economy rolling again after 9/11, I then realized that Marx merely used the wrong word - "dialectic" as opposed to the more SCIENTIFIC word "dynamic" (specific due to the usage of that word in physics).

Hegel's idealism, meanwhile, is all about abstracts, which cannot be in motion.

Marx's failure to use a more analytically authoritative word puzzles me.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JR, he qualified his use of this term so that it was more in line with the way you use it, as opposed to the Hegel-nuts who have appropriated it since.

Read this again:


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?

[trivas7]

I've watched half of David Harvey's first video on Capital, and when he talks about things being in motion, labour as being a process, capital as being a process, and how Bush and Giuliani wanted to get the economy rolling again after 9/11, I then realized that Marx merely used the wrong word - "dialectic" as opposed to the more SCIENTIFIC word "dynamic" (specific due to the usage of that word in physics).

Hegel's idealism, meanwhile, is all about abstracts, which cannot be in motion.

Contrary to popular belief, dialectics isn’t simply a method of thinking about oppositions between labor and capital. Neither is it a grand "synthesis" of "thesis" and "antithesis." It is an attempt to examine any object of our inquiry as a structured totality, as something existing within a larger system, across time, as viewed from different perspectives. Dialectics is the art of context-keeping, because it counsels us to grasp the full context of any object through techniques of abstraction and integration. By examining an object from different vantage points and on different levels of generality, we achieve a more comprehensive grasp of its antecedent conditions, interrelationships, and tendencies.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Contrary to popular belief, dialectics isn’t simply a method of thinking about oppositions between labor and capital. Neither is it a grand "synthesis" of "thesis" and "antithesis." It is an attempt to examine any object of our inquiry as a structured totality, as something existing within a larger system, across time, as viewed from different perspectives. Dialectics is the art of context-keeping, because it counsels us to grasp the full context of any object through techniques of abstraction and integration. By examining an object from different vantage points and on different levels of generality, we achieve a more comprehensive grasp of its antecedent conditions, interrelationships, and tendencies.

Except that despite all this self-important posturing, the theory does not work.

[Die Neue Zeit]

JR, he qualified his use of this term so that it was more in line with the way you use it, as opposed to the Hegel-nuts who have appropriated it since.

Read this again:

"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."

Is this why he did not want to use the word "dynamic", or was that word merely not prevalent - specifically in the physics studies of his time?

[trivas7]

Trivas:
Except that despite all this self-important posturing, the theory does not work.
What do you mean, exactly (in lieu of the self-important posturing)?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


What do you mean, exactly (in lieu of the self-important posturing)?

Which word is causing you problems?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JR:


Is this why he did not want to use the word "dynamic", or was that word merely not prevalent - specifically in the physics studies of his time?

Well, dynamicist theorists go back a long way; they certailnly pre-date theorists like Leibniz and Descartes. in fact this can be traced back to the ancient Greeks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamis

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=s6W-WeLvMh8C&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=Dunamis+philosophy&source=web&ots=LP7Ap6goL2&sig=rV-JguAX89Xm3ZrTzRlTAapFrx8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result

So, I do not know why Marx did not use this word, for it seems far better than many he did use, and decidedly better than many his epigones have used since.

[trivas7]

Trivas:
Which word is causing you problems?
It's not the words per se that are the problem, but rather the thought they mean to express. What "theory" are you referring to? How is it relevant to my post? While my response was lucid and informative, yours was merely provocative and mysterious.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


It's not the words per se that are the problem, but rather the thought they mean to express. What "theory" are you referring to?

So, it turns out that you were having a problem with one of my words -- "theory" to be precise.


While my response was lucid and informative, yours was merely provocative and mysterious.

On the contrary, your words seldom fail to be obsure and opaque.

And I am happy to remain provacative where you mystics are concerned.

[trivas7]

And I am happy to remain provacative where you mystics are concerned.
You confuse provocation w/ thought, Rosa. Your response is meaningless.

Self-importance, indeed. ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


You confuse provocation w/ thought, Rosa.

Even so, I will always be provocative with you mystics


Your response is meaningless.

Only because you failed to understand "theory".

[trivas7]

Only because you failed to understand "theory".
And you fail to demonstrate that dialectics is a theory.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


And you fail to demonstrate that dialectics is a theory.

I am happy to concede that it isn't -- it's far too confused.:lol:

[trivas7]

Trivas:
I am happy to concede that it isn't -- it's far too confused.:lol:

Then your point is moot, viz.:


Except that despite all this self-important posturing, the theory does not work.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Then your point is moot, viz.:

Maybe not, since I usually make the point this way:


Except that despite all this self-important posturing, the 'theory' does not work.

And I didn't do that this time since you are all too easily confused.

[benhur]

There can be no doubt Marx borrowed heavily from Hegel. Also, the concept of absolute idea proposed by Hegel was NOT mystical at all. It's a logical conclusion, when we accept the idea of opposites.

For instance, if we accept that things always change and evolve (which all marxists do), then the question arises as to 'what' changes. This cannot be answered, unless we admit an absolute idea as a substratum of all changes.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BenHur:


There can be no doubt Marx borrowed heavily from Hegel. Also, the concept of absolute idea proposed by Hegel was NOT mystical at all. It's a logical conclusion, when we accept the idea of opposites.

Negation is given in language, but Hegel mystified the whole thing; in fact he pinched the idea from earlier Hermeticists and Neo-Platonists.

And sure, who has ever doubted that the young Marx borrowed from Hegel? The point is that he had waved all that goodbye by the time he wrote Das Kapital.


For instance, if we accept that things always change and evolve (which all marxists do), then the question arises as to 'what' changes. This cannot be answered, unless we admit an absolute idea as a substratum of all changes.

Not so; we have countless words in ordinary language the allow us to depict every conceivable form of change, in limitless detail, without any assumption that there is, or might be, or that any sense can be made of the idea that there is an 'Absolute'.

[benhur]

BenHur:



Negation is given in language, but Hegel mystified the whole thing; in fact he pinched the idea from earlier Hermeticists and Neo-Platonists.

And sure, who has ever doubted that the young Marx borrowed from Hegel? The point is that he had waved all that goodbye by the time he wrote Das Kapital.



Not so; we have countless words in ordinary language the allow us to depict every conceivable form of change, in limitless detail, without any assumption that there is, or might be, or that any sense can be made of the idea that there is an 'Absolute'.

What are those words, anyway?

Point is, change cannot be explained without reference to an absolute. Now you may replace the word 'absolute' with another word, that's besides the point.

Put simply, if you speak of change and evolution, I can always ask you WHAT is changing? If your answer is A, then what was A before it became A? If it was A all along, you contradict the basic principle that everything is changing. OTOH, if A were something else, let's call it B, what was it before it became B? And so on, and so forth.

Evidently, we have to admit an absolute idea to solve this riddle.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BenHur:


What are those words, anyway?

Here is a greatly shortened list:


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

BenHur:


Point is, change cannot be explained without reference to an absolute. Now you may replace the word 'absolute' with another word, that's besides the point.

So you keep saying, but we have yet to see the proof.

Or, rather you offer this:


Put simply, if you speak of change and evolution, I can always ask you WHAT is changing? If your answer is A, then what was A before it became A? If it was A all along, you contradict the basic principle that everything is changing. OTOH, if A were something else, let's call it B, what was it before it became B? And so on, and so forth.

1) Why can't this go on forever?

2) How do you know that everything is always changing?

3) Why can't we have:

A -> B -> C ->...->...-> A -> B -> C ->... and so on?


Evidently, we have to admit an absolute idea to solve this riddle.

Why does it have to have a 'solution'?

And, if there is an 'Absolute' that contradicts your thesis that everything is always changing, ruining your argument.


Point is, change cannot be explained without reference to an absolute. Now you may replace the word 'absolute' with another word, that's besides the point.

I don't want to replace this word since it is devoid of meaning -- any more than I would want to replace "BuBuBu".

[benhur]

BenHur:



Here is a greatly shortened list:

LOL. That was a rhetorical query, but thanks for the list, anyway.:laugh:




BenHur:



So you keep saying, but we have yet to see the proof.

Or, rather you offer this:



1) Why can't this go on forever?

2) How do you know that everything is always changing?

3) Why can't we have:

A -> B -> C ->...->...-> A -> B -> C ->... and so on?

Sure it can, I am not disputing that. But you need a fixed frame of reference to even consider the possibility of change. Needless to say, this substratum has to be different from the entities that are undergoing change. Or, the very act of recognition (of change) could be questioned.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BenHur (why the red colour?):


Sure it can, I am not disputing that. But you need a fixed frame of reference to even consider the possibility of change. Needless to say, this substratum has to be different from the entities that are undergoing change. Or, the very act of recognition (of change) could be questioned.

1) Why can't this 'fixed frame of reference' be different everytime?

2) Why does there have to be a 'frame of reference' to begin with? We manage to talk about change everyday of our lives without such a 'frame'.

3) We can speak about change from a background of change. Here are several examples:

a) Acceleration is the rate of change of the rate of change of position with respect to time (all of which change themselves too).

b) Sat on an aeroplane travelling at 600 mph, a passenger can change his seat (and while he is doing that, he can change his jacket, drink, mind...). Against such a changing backgound, we can still speak of other changes.

c) While changing a lightbulb on a speeding train, a railworker can change the power setting of the bulb she is fitting, from 40 to 60 watts.

d) While falling through the air, a parchutist can change chutes if her primary does not deploy.

There are countless changes like this (none of which presume or imply a stable 'frame of reference'), all easily described in ordinary language, which metaphysicians ignored when they invented the obscure and useless concepts they inflicted on humanity (such as 'the absolute').

[Volderbeek]

I see that this is the same old debate from before. Maybe things don't really change all that much...

Anyway, I'm only posting here to get in on this "absolute" thing. It goes like this:

Things (objects, processes, ideas, etc.) can only be defined through statements of the form of negation of negation, that is, through differentiation/opposition. (Ex. "This pen is black." assumes that "This pen is not not black." and would carry no meaning if it didn't.) So, in order to make meaningful statements meaningful at all, there has to be something opposite. That would be the absolute/meaningless/nothingness/indeterminate/undifferentiated/etc. The synthesis of that absolute with the relative forms all of our concepts (reflections of aforementioned things) which have varying amounts of determinateness. Without the absolute, IOW, the determinations would have no ground and be an endless array of information which would then, ironically, become meaningless.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ah, the A Priori Dogmatist is back:


Things (objects, processes, ideas, etc.) can only be defined through statements of the form of negation of negation, that is, through differentiation/opposition. (Ex. "This pen is black." assumes that "This pen is not not black." and would carry no meaning if it didn't.) So, in order to make meaningful statements meaningful at all, there has to be something opposite. That would be the absolute/meaningless/nothingness/indeterminate/undifferentiated/etc. The synthesis of that absolute with the relative forms all of our concepts (reflections of aforementioned things) which have varying amounts of determinateness. Without the absolute, IOW, the determinations would have no ground and be an endless array of information which would then, ironically, become meaningless.

Can we have the proof that:


Things (objects, processes, ideas, etc.) can only be defined through statements of the form of negation of negation,

All you have done is mention a few contentious examples, which do not constitute proof.

Moreover, 'The pen is black' is not a definition.

Anyway, it does not rule out the pen being white, or green, or even Volderbeek puce. [Want to know why?]

And why should 'determinations' [Wha...?:confused:] have a 'ground' to begin with?

Coffee has grounds, so do sports teams. But 'determinations'?

Nah...

Get back to your mystical incantations; it's the only thing you do well.

Apart, that is, from slandering the human race...

[Luís Henrique]

The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised nearly thirty years ago, at a time when it was still the fashion.

So, Marx - the old, seasoned writer of Das Kapital - knows who criticised Hegel: the young, inexperienced author of Die Heilige Familie, Karl Heinrich Marx.

And so, Marx himself would disagree with the idea that his views on Hegel changed too much during his intellectual life.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Welcome back LH, but what exactly are you trying to say here?


So, Marx - the old, seasoned writer of Das Kapital - knows who criticised Hegel: the young, inexperienced author of Die Heilige Familie, Karl Heinrich Marx.

And so, Marx himself would disagree with the idea that his views on Hegel changed too much during his intellectual life.

Your usual clarity seems to have deserted you.

[gilhyle]

we have countless words in ordinary language the allow us to depict every conceivable form of change,

And your proof of that ?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ah, Gil back for another materialist kicking:


And your proof of that ?

Happy to give it, just as soon as you prove the many thngs I have asked you to demonstrate.

[Hit The North]

The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised nearly thirty years ago, at a time when it was still the fashion.
So, Marx - the old, seasoned writer of Das Kapital - knows who criticised Hegel: the young, inexperienced author of Die Heilige Familie, Karl Heinrich Marx.

And so, Marx himself would disagree with the idea that his views on Hegel changed too much during his intellectual life.

Luís Henrique


Welcome back LH, but what exactly are you trying to say here?



Your usual clarity seems to have deserted you.

Luis' point, I think, is that Marx is expressing a continuity between his critique of Hegel thirty years ago and his opinion of him during the writing of Capital. This flies in the face of your opinion that there is a major shift in Marx's appraisal of Hegel between the composition of the Grundrisse, which is self-evidently dialectical, and the composition of Capital, which you claim is self-evidently not dialectical.

It's such a good point, in fact, you pretended not to understand it. :p

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Luis' point, I think, is that Marx is expressing a continuity between his critique of Hegel thirty years ago and his opinion of him during the writing of Capital. This flies in the face of your opinion that there is a major shift in Marx's appraisal of Hegel between the composition of the Grundrisse, which is self-evidently dialectical, and the composition of Capital, which you claim is self-evidently not dialectical.

That does not follow -- Marx nowhere says he agreed with his earlier views, but he did indicate that he has changed his mind on the extent to which mysticism had penetrated into Hegel's work. [Which, on your own admission, you haven't studied -- so you have no room to talk.]

And we needn't speculate here, for he himself told us how much of Hegel's 'dialectic' he accepted:


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

So, the 'rational core' of the dialectic has not one atom of Hegel in it -- indeed, there is now no 'rational core'.

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


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

I think Plato is a 'migthy thinker', but disagree with 99.9% of what he says.

So, if that is what LH meant, then he was as mistaken as you are.

We are lucky therefore to have at RevLeft world champion screw-ups like you two -- the Laurel and Hardy of dialectics, perhaps.

[gilhyle]

Happy to give it, just as soon as you prove the many thngs I have asked you to demonstrate.

Guessed you would dodge that one. You only break your endless complaints at the unrproven generalisations of others, to make your own unproven generalisations.

(And no what I just said doesnt fail self-referentially since I dont object to unproven generalisations)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


Guessed you would dodge that one.

Yes, copying you is doing me no favours.


You only break your endless complaints at the unrproven generalisations of others, to make your own unproven generalisations.

Oops, this looks like yet another of your unproven generalisations.


(And no what I just said doesnt fail self-referentially since I dont object to unproven generalisations)

Well, it's nice to see you admit to being an a priori dogmatist.

[gilhyle]

Oops, this looks like yet another of your unproven generalisations.


Thats right, an unproven generalisation from someone who doesnt inconsistently make unproven generalisations while objecting to them from others.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


Thats right, an unproven generalisation from someone who doesnt inconsistently make unproven generalisations while objecting to them from others.

Oops, yet another unproven generalisation.

Are you going for the mystical record?

[gilhyle]

Are you going for the mystical record?

Your preoccupation with 'mysticism' is reaching religious proportions.

[Hit The North]

Your preoccupation with 'mysticism' is reaching religious proportions. Yes, I've noticed that. She'll be trying to exorcise us next!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


Your preoccupation with 'mysticism' is reaching religious proportions.

Still lagging behind you, though.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Yes, I've noticed that. She'll be trying to exorcise us next!

No chance; in your present logically-challenged state, you lot are much more fun.

[Hit The North]

The revolution will be won with logic, comrades!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


The revolution will be won with logic, comrades!

In that case, you'd better learn some.

[Tribune]

LOL. That was a rhetorical query, but thanks for the list, anyway.:laugh:





Sure it can, I am not disputing that. But you need a fixed frame of reference to even consider the possibility of change. Needless to say, this substratum has to be different from the entities that are undergoing change. Or, the very act of recognition (of change) could be questioned.

(emphasis in orange, mine)

What for so?

[Luís Henrique]

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.

First, it seems now that the kernel of Marxism is not to be found in Marx's writings, but in a critical commentary written by an anonymous journalist.

If so, we should take some more time to analyse this piece. It contains some phrasing that seem to me completely incompatible with Marxism:


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.We know that Marx did not treat social movement as a process of natural history - indeed, that he was clearly and intensely aware of the specificity of human history vis-a-vis natural science.

Second, if Marx is able to demonstrate "both the necessity of the present order of things, and the necessity of another order into which the first must inevitably pass over" (quite dubious, since this kind of teleology seems at odds with Marx's thought), then this journalist seems to adhere to a determinist version of Marxism that both you and me are critical of. In fact, we have witnessed you denying that capitalism is inherently poised to its own demise. So whatever this piece means, and whatever Marx's intention was in quoting it, I think we can both agree that it does not accurately describe Marx's positions as we (meaning you, Rosa, and me, Luís Henrique) understand them.

So I would not give this article the importance Marx gave to it, nor would I agree with its text to the extent that Marx seems to have. Much less would I elevate it to the central position you seem to believe it has.

But, then, I am not searching for approving commentary as introductory material for my own book, so my emotional distance from the piece is quite greater than Marx's.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


First, it seems now that the kernel of Marxism is not to be found in Marx's writings, but in a critical commentary written by an anonymous journalist.

Except Marx endorsed it as 'his method'.

His words, not mine.


We know that Marx did not treat social movement as a process of natural history - indeed, that he was clearly and intensely aware of the specificity of human history vis-a-vis natural science.

In that case, you should pick a fight with Marx, not me, for endorsing this as 'his method'.


Second, if Marx is able to demonstrate "both the necessity of the present order of things, and the necessity of another order into which the first must inevitably pass over" (quite dubious, since this kind of teleology seems at odds with Marx's thought), then this journalist seems to adhere to a determinist version of Marxism that both you and me are critical of. In fact, we have witnessed you denying that capitalism is inherently poised to its own demise. So whatever this piece means, and whatever Marx's intention was in quoting it, I think we can both agree that it does not accurately describe Marx's positions as we (meaning you, Rosa, and me, Luís Henrique) understand them.

1) Why are you complaining about 'teleology'? Dialectics is full of the stuff.

2) Once more: you should pick a fight with Marx, not me, for endorsing this as 'his method'.


So I would not give this article the importance Marx gave to it, nor would I agree with its text to the extent that Marx seems to have. Much less would I elevate it to the central position you seem to believe it has.

Even if you are right about the above criticisms, the fact is that there is not one ounce of Hegel in there -- no 'contradictions'. no 'unity of opposites', no 'negation of the negation'...

And I consider it an important piece of evidence since Marx clearly endorsed it in the Preface to his most important published work as an expression of 'the dialectic' (as I too understand it, not as it is traditionally conceived -- minus the determinism).

Moreover, it explains why he decided only to 'coquette' with Hegelian jargon in Das Kapital.

[gilhyle]

I am not searching for approving commentary as introductory material for my own book, so my emotional distance from the piece is quite greater than Marx's.


I agree with this remark. It is critical to what Marx was doing in making use of the review. Marx was evidently trying to show that his ideas were capable of being understood by others, at a time when he was widely misunderstood, when not ignored.

Howeever, while I agree with that observation, I would not agree if you are arguing Luis (which you may not be), that Marx was wrong to quote the piece approvingly. The piece is sufficiently close to Marx's perspective for him to quote it.

You refer to the usage of the term 'natural' and the term 'necessity' but the usage of both those terms can be defended.

The truth is here that the problem is not that Marx cited the review, but that his citation of it is being grossly over-interpreted in a pedantic and unprofessional manner. It is not hard to find quotations from most writers which, taken out of context, suggest views other than they held and that is as true of Marx as anyone - arguably more true given the complex construction of his arguments.

I repeat my own position on this: it is logically flawed to conclude that because Marx's understanding of what his method was can be stated without using terminology derived from Hegel, that his method cannot be stated using terminology derived from Hegel. It does not follow that because Marx quoted someone who did not use Hegelian terminology, that he was opposed to using it himself. Furthermore, it certainly does not follow from the fact that he quoted someone approvingly who had not used Hegelian terminology that he had purged all hegelian influence from his own perspective.

The argument that Rosa makes is therefore logically flawed. This would not matter if it involved anyone else, since they would also make their arguments by reference to substance. But Rosa's arguments on this point, unlike a sensible person, rely totally on logical implications drawn from trivial features of texts taken out of context. Thus if her arguments are logically flawed she has no argument at all.

Im not sure if you are doing this Luis, but just because Rosa abuses Marx's comment, I dont accept that the best line of counterargument is to say that Marx was mistaken in quoting the text. Rather I think the best line of argument is that above, although it is far less snappy.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


I repeat my own position on this: it is logically flawed to conclude that because Marx's understanding of what his method was can be stated without using terminology derived from Hegel, that his method cannot be stated using terminology derived from Hegel. It does not follow that because Marx quoted someone who did not use Hegelian terminology, that he was opposed to using it himself. Furthermore, it certainly does not follow from the fact that he quoted someone approvingly who had not used Hegelian terminology that he had purged all hegelian influence from his own perspective.

Who has ever argued that Marx's ideas cannot be translated into Hegelian gobbledygook? Not me. The point is, why bother? It only mystifies Historical Materialism.

The further point is that Marx specifically endorsed a summary of 'his method' that left Hegel out in his entirety. And as far as his own use of Hegelian terms in Das Kapital is concerned, Marx quite clearly told us what he thought of it, he did not take it at all seriously: he 'coquetted' with it.


The argument that Rosa makes is therefore logically flawed. This would not matter if it involved anyone else, since they would also make their arguments by reference to substance. But Rosa's arguments on this point, unlike a sensible person, rely totally on logical implications drawn from trivial features of texts taken out of context. Thus if her arguments are logically flawed she has no argument at all.


1) Once more you deliberatley misconstrue my argument. The one you refer to may or may not be 'logically flawed' (but with your insecure grasp of logic, you certainly are in no postion to say), but it is not my argument.

2) What 'tivial features'? The ones where Marx endorses a summary of 'his method' from which every atom of Hegel has be removed, I suppose.

And out of what 'context'? A context where Marx shows he does not take Hegel seriously by 'coquetting' with his jargon in his most important published work, I also suppose.

3) You have yet to show where my actual arguments are 'flawed'. And that is mainly because you seem not to be able to read too well when it comes to my posts.

But, we'd all be foolish to hold our breath while you rummage around for an effective response (or new glasses), wouldn't we?

[gilhyle]

The point is, why bother? It only mystifies Historical Materialism.


This (somewhat understated) is your key point. And it is no where replicated in Marx.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


This (somewhat understated) is your key point. And it is no where replicated in Marx.

Unfortunately for you, Das Kapital stands as a start refutation of this odd claim of yours.

[Luís Henrique]

Howeever, while I agree with that observation, I would not agree if you are arguing Luis (which you may not be), that Marx was wrong to quote the piece approvingly.

No, I don't think that Marx was "wrong" to quote the piece, even approvingly. But I don't think it provides a reliable description of Marx's method; and even if it did, there are issues with this text other than its comprehension of Marx methodology. See below.


1) Why are you complaining about 'teleology'? Dialectics is full of the stuff.

Well, to me the problem is not dialectics, the problem is teleology. If dialectics is removed, but teleology is not, then it is debatable whether we are throwing the baby away, but we are certainly keeping the served water.


Even if you are right about the above criticisms, the fact is that there is not one ounce of Hegel in there -- no 'contradictions'. no 'unity of opposites', no 'negation of the negation'...I don't think the text is actually devoid of Hegelianism - of Hegelian terms, maybe, but not of Hegelian substance:


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.So, contrary to what Marx has stated, it is not "men" who "make human history"; something else, independent of human will, makes it. Who is this concealed subject? The Absolute Idea, perhaps?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

In Marx's intellectual biography, there is one undeniable radical turn. Sometime during the 1840's, he turned from radical liberalism to communism, a process that was simultaneous to his critique of Hegel and the Young Hegelians. The Holy Family, The German Ideology, his Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law, The Judenfrage (which is essentially a demolition of Bauer), etc., mark this transition. Those works do reject Hegel's substance, but they evidently use dialectics as a mode of reasoning, as well as of expression.

From these intellectual struggles, Marx concluded that no earnest critique of the political superstructure of the capitalist system was possible without a thorough critique of the capitalist economy. The following years of his life he would dedicate to this "Critique of Political Economy" - The Capital.

Some authors - notably Althusser - have speculated a second "epistemological rupture" in Marx's work: a radical superation of Hegel, (though to Althusser, such superation had to do with Hegel's teleology, not with Hegel's dialectics) which was only complete in The Capital, and not before. That seems to be, essentially, your thesis, except that you state that dialectics, not teleology, is the issue. But two pieces of evidence seem to contradict such appreciation. First, as Bob reminds us, there is the collection of writings known as Grundrisse, which manifestly records Marx's process of thinking and research in the writing of The Capital, and also feature evident use of dialectics; and second, there is Marx's extensive correspondence during that time, where no indications can be found of a further critique of Hegel - much less of Hegel's dialectics - that supercede, or even complement, Marx's writings of the 1840's.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


Well, to me the problem is not dialectics, the problem is teleology. If dialectics is removed, but teleology is not, then it is debatable whether we are throwing the baby away, but we are certainly keeping the served water.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Explanation of what human beings do, or do not do, cannot fail to teleological at some level.

Again, it depends on what one means by 'explanation'.


I don't think the text is actually devoid of Hegelianism - of Hegelian terms, maybe, but not of Hegelian substance:

Come off it; this passage could reflect the ideas of countless theorists, or none at all. There is nothing in this passage that can be attributed unambiguously to Hegel. Indeed, this could easily have come from the Scottish Historical Materialists or even Kant (from whom Hegel pinched his historicism, mystifying 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.


So, contrary to what Marx has stated, it is not "men" who "make human history"; something else, independent of human will, makes it. Who is this concealed subject? The Absolute Idea, perhaps?

It is possible to reconcile these two: men make their history even though they are constrained by forces not under their control -- it is the same get-out that Calvinists use: our will is constrained so that we freely decided to do whatever we have been pre-destined to do.

Not that I endorse this as my own view!

But even if you accept the letter of Marx's phrase that humans "make human history" but not under circumstances of their own choosing, you still have the problem of explaining the origin of spontaneity. You either have to believe that the human will is uncaused, or that freedom can magically 'emerge' from matter.

Now, Marxists who have tried to put Hegel 'the right way up' still have this problem, and in solving it they do not appeal to an 'Absolute Idea' to account for it. But then, they fail to account for freedom anyway, apart from saying enigmatically that freedom 'emerges' somehow miraculously from necessity.

So, whether you (or Marx) accept this reviewer's summary of not, you (both) still have an unsolved 'problem' here.

[Incidentally, in other threads, I have shown that this 'problem' has arisen from a misuse of language, and that there is in fact no 'problem' here.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


First, as Bob reminds us, there is the collection of writings known as Grundrisse, which manifestly records Marx's process of thinking and research in the writing of The Capital, and also feature evident use of dialectics; and second, there is Marx's extensive correspondence during that time, where no indications can be found of a further critique of Hegel - much less of Hegel's dialectics - that supercede, or even complement, Marx's writings of the 1840's.

1) The Hegelian influence on the Grundrisse is over-stated. Sure it's there, but it rears its ugly head only now and again. Much of it is Aristotelian and/or Kantian anyway, with bits of Rousseau thrown in for good measure

2) Marx chose not to publish it, but he did publish Das Kapital, wher Hegel's influence was demoted to mere 'coquetting' -- so whatever happened to Marx's ideas between these two works, he clearly decided that Hegel had to go -- as his endorsement of that reviewer's summary confirms.

We have had this correspondence reproduced here several times (by BTB and others), and it does not support the 'traditional view'. That is quite apart from the fact that unpublished off-the-cuff remarks cannot outweigh published remarks when it comes to interpreting any theorist, least of all Marx.

[Hit The North]

Rosa:


2) Marx chose not to publish it, but he did publish Das Kapital, wher Hegel's influence was demoted to mere 'coquetting' -- so whatever happened to Marx's ideas between these two works, he clearly decided that Hegel had to go -- as his endorsement of that reviewer's summary confirms.But you're left with the problem of explaining why Marx published Capital with coquetted phrases intact but only thought to alert the reader that he wasn't employing these phrases seriously several years later. Did he just forget?


We have had this correspondence reproduced here several times (by BTB and others), and it does not support the 'traditional view'.What is the 'traditional view'?

[gilhyle]

But you're left with the problem of explaining why Marx published Capital with coquetted phrases intact but only thought to alert the reader that he wasn't seriously employing these phrases seriously several years later.And yet the very obvious reading of the text is that Marx is saying that he likes Hegel so much that he actually uses some of Hegel's phrasing...hence Marx patently does not believe that to use Hegel's phrasing mystifies the materialist conception of history.

As to the correspondence what is interesting about the correspondence is that so many of the references to Hegel in correspondence in the previous years actually get reflected in a reference to dialectics in Capital, showing how deliberate and considered were those comments.

Now compare this:


he clearly decided that Hegel had to go -- as his endorsement of that reviewer's summary confirms.To my suggestion that you were arguing, Rosa, that


it certainly does not follow from the fact that he quoted someone approvingly who had not used Hegelian terminology that he had purged all hegelian influence from his own perspective.To which you replied:-


Once more you deliberatley misconstrue my argument.Why argue about it ? You DO believe that this quotation from a critic shows that Marx had purged all Hegel from his perspective in some sense that he had not done before Capital....and it just couldn't logically show that. All it shows is that Marx thought someone could summarise his views without using Hegel's terminology. It shows nothing more.

Of all your arguments, some of which are interesting and some of which are not, this is by far the weakest - its incredibly slight.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


And yet the very obvious reading of the text is that Marx is saying that he likes Hegel so much that he actually uses some of Hegel's phrasing...hence Marx patently does not believe that to use Hegel's phrasing mystifies the materialist conception of history.

But, we need not speculate, for that summary Marx added to the Preface, which he calls 'his method', has not one atom of Hegel in it.


As to the correspondence what is interesting about the correspondence is that so many of the references to Hegel in correspondence in the previous years actually get reflected in a reference to dialectics in Capital, showing how deliberate and considered were those comments.

Well, you have tried this dodge before, and you failed then too.


Why argue about it ? You DO believe that this quotation from a critic shows that Marx had purged all Hegel from his perspective in some sense that he had not done before Capital....and it just couldn't logically show that. All it shows is that Marx thought someone could summarise his views without using Hegel's terminology. It shows nothing more.

1) To annoy you mystics, as I have told you many times before, and

2) The message is not getting through.

But to answer your point:


You DO believe that this quotation from a critic shows that Marx had purged all Hegel from his perspective in some sense that he had not done before Capital....and it just couldn't logically show that.

It shows us what Marx thought 'his method' was -- no Hegel in it at all.


All it shows is that Marx thought someone could summarise his views without using Hegel's terminology.

And yet Marx promised us a summary of 'the dialectic' -- and all he prodiced was this in Das Kapital.

So, unless you have a published summary of Marx's method, that argues that obscure terms (which you have yet to explain) like 'dialectical contradiction', 'negation of the negation', etc., are part of 'his method' (and with which he was not 'coquetting'), then my argument stands.

The published evidence confirms my interpretation.

Get over it...


As to the correspondence what is interesting about the correspondence is that so many of the references to Hegel in correspondence in the previous years actually get reflected in a reference to dialectics in Capital, showing how deliberate and considered were those comments.

There are many refernces to Plato in my Essays, but I disagree with 99.9% of what he says.

[gilhyle]

So, unless you have a published summary of Marx's method, that argues that obscure terms (which you have yet to explain) like 'dialectical contradiction', 'negation of the negation', etc., are part of 'his method' (and with which he was not 'coquetting'), then my argument stands.

Thats almost a religious argument Rosa - God exists unless one can prove he doesnt.

What you simply ignore is that Marx quoting the critic does not logically support the conclusion you seek to draw from it (as I have just pointed out) and the use of the term coquette does not support your conclusion either (as I have pointed out before) and close attention to the logic of both points shows they dont sustain that conclusion.

So you are left arguing that this is the best argument there is ! So its right just because there is nothing else in Marx's Capital.......thats right, except the whole structure of Capital !

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


Thats almost a religious argument Rosa - God exists unless one can prove he doesnt.

Not at all; the evidence we have -- in Marx's own words, published in his most important work -- tells us that 'his method' contains not one atom of Hegel.

There is no 'negative proof' there at all, and none needed.


What you simply ignore is that Marx quoting the critic does not logically support the conclusion you seek to draw from it (as I have just pointed out) and the use of the term coquette does not support your conclusion either (as I have pointed out before) and close attention to the logic of both points shows they dont sustain that conclusion.

[Where have I use the phrase 'logically support'?]

Once more, the only published evidence we have confirms my intertpretation.

Do you have any published evidence that refutes it, or shows it to be unlikely?

[Well, we all know the answer to that one: you would have produced it by now...]


So you are left arguing that this is the best argument there is ! So its right just because there is nothing else in Marx's Capital.......thats right, except the whole structure of Capital !

This just amounts to saying: Rosa rejects the traditional interpretation of Das Kapital.

Sure I do, because there is nothing to support it ('logically' or otherwise) -- and what published evidedne there is counts against it, and in my favour.

That is quite apart from the fact that petty-bourgeois theorists like yourself prefer the sort of ruling-class theory contained in the traditional interpretation because of your class position -- it makes you feel superior and important.

It also provdes you with much needed consolation for the long-term failure of this traditional approach, and, of course, a way of explaining it away (i.e., on the lines that underlying 'essence' contradicts surface 'appearances', blah, blah, blah..., so Dialectical Marxism is not a long-term failure, blah, blahdy, blah...)

Hence you lot invented the traditional, mystcial interpretation of Das Kapital , one that Marx himself rejected!

That's why you lot get so het-up, irrational, abusive and tell lies when your 'pre-eminent' role as guardians of the mystical flame is challenged by my attack on your pet 'theory'.

Tough.

[Luís Henrique]

I ma not sure what you mean by this. Explanation of what human beings do, or do not do, cannot fail to teleological at some level.

Then I fear you and me use the word "teleological" in different ways.


Come off it; this passage could reflect the ideas of countless theorists, or none at all. There is nothing in this passage that can be attributed unambiguously to Hegel. Indeed, this could easily have come from the Scottish Historical Materialists or even Kant (from whom Hegel pinched his historicism, mystifying it):Oh, sure. Which means also, the passage is certainly not poised against the kernel of Hegelian philosophy. The Russian Reviewer might dislike Hegelian terminology, but he wasn't able to criticize the substance of hegelianism. And, as such, he cannot be used as a central reference in a discussion against Hegel.


It is possible to reconcile these two: men make their history even though they are constrained by forces not under their control -- it is the same get-out that Calvinists use: our will is constrained so that we freely decided to do whatever we have been pre-destined to do.No, such reconciliation is impossible (unless, like the Calvinists, we believe in God). Either human History is rational or not; if it is rational, its rationality is either due to human rationality, or to the rationality of someone else (God, the Absolute Idea, Logos, etc - and whatever the name, we are here in the middle of the mystic camp). If we admit an extra-human rationality, then we have teleology: History has ends of itself, independent of human goals. If we don't, the multifarious and conflicting aims of different human beings do not constitute a teleological compass for History - and the rationality of History is to be found on human activity against the constraints handed down to human beings by past history. The only other alternative is that history is, like in the famous Shakesperian quote, "full of sound and fury". Vulgar materialist attempts to give brute matter the role of God, besides being every bit teleological as Hegel or Aquinas, are a bad caricature of idealism (we can certainly consider the idea of a immaterial superintelligence governing the world, but the idea of intelligent quarks doing it - besides being an instance of the "fallacy of Davidson" (sic) - is simply ridiculous).


But even if you accept the letter of Marx's phrase that humans "make human history" but not under circumstances of their own choosing, you still have the problem of explaining the origin of spontaneity. You either have to believe that the human will is uncaused, or that freedom can magically 'emerge' from matter.This problem, in my view, is not a problem at all. Solving it would require an extra-human intelligence, which is not available to us. From where we can see it, everything looks like we act "freely" within the constraints we are able to identify and deal with. Other than that, it is as important as the land of the dead - it either doesn't exist, or is so effectively sealed and concealed from the living that in practice it doesn't matter at all.


Now, Marxists who have tried to put Hegel 'the right way up' still have this problem, and in solving it they do not appeal to an 'Absolute Idea' to account for it. But then, they fail to account for freedom anyway, apart from saying enigmatically that freedom 'emerges' somehow miraculously from necessity.What is "enigmatic" or "miraculous" with it? You are free when you understand your constraints, so that you can tell what you can change from what you can't.


So, whether you (or Marx) accept this reviewer's summary of not, you (both) still have an unsolved 'problem' here.It is certainly nice to share something with Marx, even if it is a problem. But to me it only looks as a problem as long as we ignore the VIII thesis on Feuerbach.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


Oh, sure. Which means also, the passage is certainly not poised against the kernel of Hegelian philosophy. The Russian Reviewer might dislike Hegelian terminology, but he wasn't able to criticize the substance of hegelianism. And, as such, he cannot be used as a central reference in a discussion against Hegel.

Ah, but Marx certainly derived his earlier ideas from Hegel, but now he quotes (and endorses) a summary of 'his method' in which there is no trace of Hegel.


No, such reconciliation is impossible (unless, like the Calvinists, we believe in God).

In the end I agree; but this is not something one can attribute to Marx.


Either human History is rational or not; if it is rational, its rationality is either due to human rationality, or to the rationality of someone else (God, the Absolute Idea, Logos, etc - and whatever the name, we are here in the middle of the mystic camp). If we admit an extra-human rationality, then we have teleology: History has ends of itself, independent of human goals. If we don't, the multifarious and conflicting aims of different human beings do not constitute a teleological compass for History - and the rationality of History is to be found on human activity against the constraints handed down to human beings by past history. The only other alternative is that history is, like in the famous Shakesperian quote, "full of sound and fury". Vulgar materialist attempts to give brute matter the role of God, besides being every bit teleological as Hegel or Aquinas, are a bad caricature of idealism (we can certainly consider the idea of a immaterial superintelligence governing the world, but the idea of intelligent quarks doing it - besides being an instance of the "fallacy of Davidson" (sic) - is simply ridiculous).

Well there are many ideas in here just thrown together, so it is not easy to make much sense of this.

However, I also agree with you about 'rationality', but then there is no way to spell out 'rationality' in the traditional sense without it implying the world is mind.

I am not sure though what Davidson is doing in there!


This problem, in my view, is not a problem at all. Solving it would require an extra-human intelligence, which is not available to us. From where we can see it, everything looks like we act "freely" within the constraints we are able to identify and deal with. Other than that, it is as important as the land of the dead - it either doesn't exist, or is so effectively sealed and concealed from the living that in practice it doesn't matter at all.

If it is not a 'problem' then how can you use the word 'solved'. Surely, if something can be 'solved' (even if not by us) then it was a 'problem' to begin with.

The way forward here, as I have induicated on other threads, is not to treat words like 'free' and 'determined' in a traditional manner -- thus disolving this alleged 'problem', not 'solving' it.

It seems to me that your approach collapses into classical determinism, except you make concessions what look to be 'free acts' except they aren't really 'free'.

In that case, you are trapped in the classical problem, as was Marx, and as was his reviewer. -- indeed, as are theorists in general who tackle this 'non-problem'.


What is "enigmatic" or "miraculous" with it? You are free when you understand your constraints, so that you can tell what you can change from what you can't.

Well, we need to start another thread on this, since, as I pointed out above, your 'non-solution' seems to me to be trapped in the classical paradigm, and this is not really germaine to this thread.


It is certainly nice to share something with Marx, even if it is a problem. But to me it only looks as a problem as long as we ignore the VIII thesis on Feuerbach.

That Thesis was:


All social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.

I am not sure what the relevance of this is.

[gilhyle]

the evidence we have -- in Marx's own words, published in his most important work -- tells us that 'his method' contains not one atom of HegelWell, we have talked around it again. My point about the logic of the quote still stands and therefore this argument above is still false. You just dont face that so there is no point in going over it further. These posts have just repeated where we have been before (i.e. GH: your logic is false; RL: GH misrepresents me; GH: where is the misrepresentation ? RL: its the best argument we have got.) If that is all there is, there is no point in repeating further.

But it is evident here is that you are playing around in the shadow of your true beliefs, which are about what a communist political economy and a communist conception of history should be.You patently have your own view of history and political economy and a - tenuous - claim that it is also Marx's view. Whether its Marx's view (and how you would reconcile that with the facts of Marx's biography) is of very little importance - indeed you play to the very same mindless, hero-worshipping versions of communism typical of Stalinism which you claim to oppose by insisting on this relatively unimportant point. You would be much better placed to just state your views on history and - in particular political economy. And 'will do that later' is not a good enough answer.

However, the discussion on teleology is more interesting, so I'll listen to that.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


My point about the logic of the quote still stands and therefore this argument above is still false. You just dont face that so there is no point in going over it further. These posts have just repeated where we have been before (i.e. GH: your logic is false; RL: GH misrepresents me; GH: where is the misrepresentation ? RL: its the best argument we have got.) If that is all there is, there is no point in repeating further.

It seems your grasp of logic is getting even weaker, since arguments cannot be false, only indicative sentences can.

No wonder you struggle with complex ideas.


But it is evident here is that you are playing around in the shadow of your true beliefs, which are about what a communist political economy and a communist conception of history should be.You patently have your own view of history and political economy and a - tenuous - claim that it is also Marx's view. Whether its Marx's view (and how you would reconcile that with the facts of Marx's biography) is of very little importance - indeed you play to the very same mindless, hero-worshipping versions of communism typical of Stalinism which you claim to oppose by insisting on this relatively unimportant point. You would be much better placed to just state your views on history and - in particular political economy. And 'will do that later' is not a good enough answer.

Unfortunately for you, Marx and I agree on 'his method' -- which contains not one ounce of Hegel -- unlike your defective grasp of of it.

And I amused that you think Marx's summary of 'his method' is a minor point -- it can't be if it refutes the traditional, class-compromised version you have uncritically swallowed.

And wtf has this got to do with Stalinism?


However, the discussion on teleology is more interesting, so I'll listen to that.

We are so honoured to have a ruling-class groupie like you to listen in.:rolleyes:

[Luís Henrique]

As with any other thinker, there are some features of Hegel that might be important to our discussion:

1. There is a distinct content in Hegel: his ideas about the world outside himself;

2. There is a method in Hegel: the way Hegel organised his researchs and thoughts, in order to attain 1. above;

3. There is a Hegelian style: he expressed himself in a particular way, different from Kant, Marx, or Feuerbach. He liked some words, tended to avoid others, used certainly phrasal constructions, etc.

Rosa's whole thesis validity depends on whether what Marx calls "characteristic modes of expression" refer to Hegel's method, or to Hegel's style.

In my interpretation, Marx considers Hegel's content mystifying, but valued Hegel's method. It is difficult to understand otherwise Marx's remarks about Hegel's importance in that passage (which very closely relate to a letter to Kugelmann:


[Duehring] knows full well that my method of exposition is not Hegelian, since I am a materialist, and Hegel an idealist. Hegel’s dialectic is the basic form of all dialectic, but only after being stripped of its mystical form, and it is precisely this which distinguishes my method.)

If Marx was talking about Hegel's method when he speaks about "coquetting", then Rosa would have a point: that Marx didn't take Hegel's method en serieux, and so would use it in a mocking way (how to use a wrong method without spoiling the work, it's another discussion).

But when Marx speaks about "coquetting", it seems probable that he was speaking about Hegel's style, not about his method. Now, it is obvious that anyone can use any style to express any ideas.

If this is true, there is nothing misterious about such coquetting. It is indeed irrelevant to the matter of the discussion. And so, we would be back to discussing Marx's opinion on Hegel's method. The evidence that Rosa can put up here is merely negative: that Marx quotes an anonymous author and endorses such author's description of his method, while such author's text "doesn't have an atom of Hegel".

But what does "not an atom of Hegel" mean? Certainly, the Russian Reviewer's style does not ressemble Hegel's style at all (and we are given the impression that he much distastes Hegel's style). But the content of the piece isn't incompatible with Hegel at all; and in no moment we are compelled to believe that the method the Russian Reviewer describes is in any way opposed to Hegel's. And indeed, Marx remarks that the method described by the Russian Reviewer is indeed the dialectical method ("stripped of its mystical form", perhaps - and thence in fact "opposed" to Hegel's, but only in the "dialectical" sence of "opposed", ie, simultaneously opposed to and based on). And so, Marx would seem to disagree with the idea that the Russian Reviewer's appraisal of his work "doesn't contain an atom of Hegel".


We are so honoured to have a ruling-class groupie like you to listen in.Is this kind of schoolyard "method" of discussion really necessary?

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


Rosa's whole thesis validity depends on whether what Marx calls "characteristic modes of expression" refer to Hegel's method, or to Hegel's style

Are you addressing me or your 'public'?

And for your information: my 'whole thesis' is not as you say it is.

Please read my work before you try pontificating about it.


In my interpretation, Marx considers Hegel's content mystifying, but valued Hegel's method. It is difficult to understand otherwise Marx's remarks about Hegel's importance in that passage (which very closely relate to a letter to Kugelmann:

Unfortunately for you, Marx refers us to 'his method' and it contains not one ounce of Hegel, his content or his method.

And comrades here have already tried quoting unpublished remarks of Marx; they cannot countermand his published comments.

But, what does Marx say anyway:


[Duehring] knows full well that my method of exposition is not Hegelian, since I am a materialist, and Hegel an idealist. Hegel’s dialectic is the basic form of all dialectic, but only after being stripped of its mystical form, and it is precisely this which distinguishes my method.)

He tells us that his method is "not Hegelian", as that quotation from the Preface confirms.

But what about this?


but only after being stripped of its mystical form, and it is precisely this which distinguishes my method

Bold added.

This says that 'his method' can be distinguished from the Hegelian method only after the mystical form has been stripped from it, not identified with the Hegelian method after the mystical form has been stripped from it.

So, Marx is saying the opposite of what you allege, and this is in line with the method presented in the reviewer's summary from the Preface.


If Marx was talking about Hegel's method when he speaks about "coquetting", then Rosa would have a point: that Marx didn't take Hegel's method en serieux, and so would use it in a mocking way (how to use a wrong method without spoiling the work, it's another discussion).

But when Marx speaks about "coquetting", it seems probable that he was speaking about Hegel's style, not about his method. Now, it is obvious that anyone can use any style to express any ideas.

Once more, who are you addressing? Me? Or do you imagine you have a large 'audience' eager to hear you sell us yet more mysticism?

But, Marx was speaking about 'his method' when he endorsed that summary he added to the preface, in which there is not one atom of Hegel to be found. [On the phrase 'not one atom', see below.]

The mystical jargon Hegel used as part of his own method (as if you can separate form from content in Hegel!! )Marx rejected too, by 'coquetting' with it. So, both method and content have been jettisoned.


If this is true, there is nothing mysterious about such coquetting. It is indeed irrelevant to the matter of the discussion. And so, we would be back to discussing Marx's opinion on Hegel's method. The evidence that Rosa can put up here is merely negative: that Marx quotes an anonymous author and endorses such author's description of his method, while such author's text "doesn't have an atom of Hegel".

But this isn't true, for Marx torpedoed your desperate attempt to re-mystify Das Kapital when he told us what 'his method' was, and it contained no Hegel at all.

Moreover, the evidence I have is not negative; we have Marx's own published words, in the Preface to his most important work.

What published words (from Das Kapital onwards) do you have to support your fairy tale?

Zippo.


But what does "not an atom of Hegel" mean? Certainly, the Russian Reviewer's style does not resemble Hegel's style at all (and we are given the impression that he much distastes Hegel's style). But the content of the piece isn't incompatible with Hegel at all; and in no moment we are compelled to believe that the method the Russian Reviewer describes is in any way opposed to Hegel's. And indeed, Marx remarks that the method described by the Russian Reviewer is indeed the dialectical method ("stripped of its mystical form", perhaps - and thence in fact "opposed" to Hegel's, but only in the "dialectical" sense of "opposed", ie, simultaneously opposed to and based on). And so, Marx would seem to disagree with the idea that the Russian Reviewer's appraisal of his work "doesn't contain an atom of Hegel".

Despite your desperate attempts to read a proton's worth of Hegel into this review, there is none in there at all.

You even have to edit together unconnected quotations from Marx to make this flight-of-fancy work:


Marx remarks that the method described by the Russian Reviewer is indeed the dialectical method ("stripped of its mystical form", perhaps - and thence in fact "opposed" to Hegel's, but only in the "dialectical" sense of "opposed", ie, simultaneously opposed to and based on).

So, Marx's method is as he says -- no Hegel there at all; no content, no Hegelian method -- as he said in the letter you quoted above: Hegel's method is not his own, and even when it is stripped of its mystical form, his is still to be "distinguished" from it.


Is this kind of schoolyard "method" of discussion really necessary?

Is your contemptuous way of speaking indirectly to me, but directly to your non-existent 'audience', really necessary?

But, to answer your question:, yes, it is necessary for me to speak to Gil and you this way; you mystics need to be put in your class-compromised place. You lot have tried for far too long to import boss-class concepts into Marxism and the workers' movement. To be honest, if I could, I'd use far stronger language, but the mods here have very sensitive ears.

[Hit The North]

So, Marx is saying the opposite of what you allege, and this is in line with the method presented in the reviewer's summary from the Preface.Just wow. :lol: Marx is so obviously not claiming what you say he is, it's tragic.

The above, and this, below:


You lot have tried for far too long to import boss-class concepts into Marxism and the workers' movement. Is proof of Rosa Luxemburg's statement from Reform or Revolution:
If it is true that theories are only the images of the phenomena of the exterior world in the human consciousness, it must be added... that theories are sometimes inverted images.Rosa, how do manage to get things so back to front? Is it sheer cussedness?


Is your contemptuous way of speaking indirectly to me, but directly to your non-existent 'audience', really necessary?But even your weird, inverted view of reality should have alerted you to the fact that this is a public forum and, yes, no doubt contrary to the supposition of your gigantic ego, there are other people reading (and contributing to) this thread.

And no one here has anything to teach you about contempt. You are routinely contemptuous of everyone who disagrees with you, madam.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Marx is so obviously not claiming what you say he is, it's tragic.

I thought you mystics belived in the -unity and identity of opposites', anyway.:lol:

But, Marx says this of 'his method':


[Duehring] knows full well that my method of exposition is not Hegelian, since I am a materialist, and Hegel an idealist. Hegel’s dialectic is the basic form of all dialectic, but only after being stripped of its mystical form, and it is precisely this which distinguishes my method.)

So, he first of all says his method is not Hegelian, then he says that Hegel's method is the basic form of all dialectic but only after it has been stripped of its mysticsm. But even then he does not identify his method with this, it distintinguishes his method that he has stripped every trace of Hegel from it, as he indicated in the published comments in Das Kapital.



Rosa, how do manage to get things so back to front? Is it sheer cussedness?

No, it's called "using your eyes", and using published sources as more important guides to Marx's intentions; you should give it a go.

And as for my namesake:


If it is true that theories are only the images of the phenomena of the exterior world in the human consciousness, it must be added... that theories are sometimes inverted images.

Well, great socialist that she was: theories are "images" -- give me a break!


But even your weird, inverted view of reality should have alerted you to the fact that this is a public forum and, yes, no doubt contrary to the supposition of your gigantic ego, there are other people reading (and contributing to) this thread.

And no one here has anything to teach you about contempt. You are routinely contemptuous of everyone who disagrees with you, madam.

1) This is a lie; I am quite pleasant to many who disagree with me. Check out the current debates in Science (on language, genes and brain structure, and on evolution), and the debate I recently had with DeLeonist here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/ilyenkovs-dialectical-logic-t95956/index.html

2) I treat with contempt, though, those who treat me that way; LH was clearly arguing with me impersonally, and Gil has been lying about me and my ideas for almost as long as you have.

[Luís Henrique]

Are you addressing me or your 'public'?

Ja, ja. My whole public of "mystics" and "ruling class groupies".


He tells us that his method is "not Hegelian", as that quotation from the Preface confirms.

But of course, his method is not hegelian. Who said otherwise?


This says that 'his method' can be distinguished from the Hegelian method only after the mystical form has been stripped from it, not identified with the Hegelian method after the mystical form has been stripped from it.

Not so. It says that what distinguishes Marx's method from the Hegelian one is that the former is the latter stripped from the mystical form.


The mystical jargon Hegel used as part of his own method (as if you can separate form from content in Hegel!! )Marx rejected too, by 'coquetting' with it. So, both method and content have been jettisoned.


So he rejected it... by using it? How Hegelian...!


What published words (from Das Kapital onwards) do you have to support your fairy tale?

From the same preface, just towards its end...


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

The contradictions inherent in the movement of capitalist society impress themselves upon the practical bourgeois most strikingly in the changes of the periodic cycle, through which modern industry runs, and whose crowning point is the universal crisis. That crisis is once again approaching, although as yet but in its preliminary stage; and by the universality of its theatre and the intensity of its action it will drum dialectics even into the heads of the mushroom-upstarts of the new, holy Prusso-German empire.

According to Marx,

. There is a rational form of dialectics.
. The rational form of dialectics is "scandal and abomination" to the bourgeoisie.
. The rational form of dialectics "includes in its comprehension and affirmative recognition of the existing state of things, at the same time also, the recognition of the negation of that state, of its inevitable breaking up".
. The rational form of dialectics "regards every historically developed social form as in fluid movement".

. The rational form of dialectics "takes into account [the] transient nature" of each social form "not less than its momentary existence".

. The rational form of dialectics "is in its essence critical and revolutionary".

Not an atom of Hegel?

What about,


The contradictions inherent in the movement of capitalist society


That crisis [...] by the universality of its theatre and the intensity of its action [...] will drum dialectics even into the heads of the mushroom-upstarts of the new, holy Prusso-German empire.


Not an atom of Hegel? No contradictions? The incoming fall of capitalism not related to its contradictions?




Zippo.

Groucho.


Is your contemptuous way of speaking indirectly to me, but directly to your non-existent 'audience', really necessary?

Sorry if you took offence at that; I earnestly didn't imagine you would. Just as I was not answering to any particular quote, it seemed to me the most natural way to speak.


But, to answer your question:, yes, it is necessary for me to speak to Gil and you this way; you mystics need to be put in your class-compromised place. You lot have tried for far too long to import boss-class concepts into Marxism and the workers' movement. To be honest, if I could, I'd use far stronger language, but the mods here have very sensitive ears.

So, must I say that I believe your intellectual adventure cannot end in anything else but total capitulation to bourgeois ideology, and renouncing of class struggle?

But then, how can we pretend that we are undertaking an intellectual debate? After all, it may well be that you are right - but insulting others is by no means of any use in convincing anyone of that. (Exception made, of course, of those who believe insults are a demonstration of intellectual prowess. But those will use words you have decided are inherently sexist/racist/reactionary, so you will end requesting their removal from the board. N'est ce pas?)

Apologies in advance if the use of Molière's language offends you.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

2) I treat with contempt, though, those who treat me that way; LH was clearly arguing with me impersonally

So, you are calling me a mystic and accusing me of importing ruling class ideas... not because I am a mystic or because I import ruling class ideas... but because... I spoke of you in the third person?

Which means that I can actually get along with class treason, provided that I betray our class while treating you in the second person?

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB, sorry, I have only just seen this:


But you're left with the problem of explaining why Marx published Capital with coquetted phrases intact but only thought to alert the reader that he wasn't employing these phrases seriously several years later. Did he just forget?

Well, this is in fact not a problem for me, but for you.

And the reader was alerted to Marx's opinion: he included a summary of 'his method' in which there is no trace of Hegel.

And the 'traditional view' is the one you, LH and Gil are trying to sell us: that there is a 'rational kernel' to Hegel's 'dialectic', and that these phrases actually mean something: 'dialectical contradiction', 'negation of the negation', 'unity of opposites', 'quantity passing over into quality', etc., etc.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


My whole public of "mystics" and "ruling class groupies".

So, are you now addressing me this time, or them?


But of course, his method is not hegelian. Who said otherwise?

You seem to think he kept all or parts of it:


In my interpretation, Marx considers Hegel's content mystifying, but valued Hegel's method. It is difficult to understand otherwise Marx's remarks about Hegel's importance in that passage (which very closely relate to a letter to Kugelmann:

The point is, Marx is not just jettisoning Hegel's content, but his method, too.

The point is also that there is nothing valuable in it, as that summary he added to the Preface indicates, and as the letter to Kugelmann confirms:


[Duehring] knows full well that my method of exposition is not Hegelian, since I am a materialist, and Hegel an idealist. Hegel’s dialectic is the basic form of all dialectic, but only after being stripped of its mystical form, and it is precisely this which distinguishes my method.)

LH:


So he rejected it... by using it? How Hegelian...!

Well, you seem to think that the form and content of Hegel's method can be separated. I claim that is not possible, but even if it were, Marx rejected both.

And, you have yet to show that he used it.

Then you quote this as proof that he kept his method:


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

The contradictions inherent in the movement of capitalist society impress themselves upon the practical bourgeois most strikingly in the changes of the periodic cycle, through which modern industry runs, and whose crowning point is the universal crisis. That crisis is once again approaching, although as yet but in its preliminary stage; and by the universality of its theatre and the intensity of its action it will drum dialectics even into the heads of the mushroom-upstarts of the new, holy Prusso-German empire.

Comrades have tried this one before. But:

1) These unnamed professors and members of the bourgeoisie do not find the dialectic an 'abomination', they just ignore it -- unless you know otherwise. Since Marx did not go into details, then he obviously thought that there was no 'rational' form of the dialectic, over and above that which he had summarised in the Preface, in which there is no trace of Hegel, content, form or method.

2) Marx's is playing a subtle game here; we can see that by his personification if 'the dialectic':


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

Bold added

Is this personification literally true?

If not, then the passage is non-literal, and the Hegelian terms in it are part of his 'coquetting' phase, and are similarly non-literal, and non-serious.

If they are literal, then Marx is a mystic.

You take your pick.


Not an atom of Hegel?

No, not a single literal atom of Hegel.


The contradictions inherent in the movement of capitalist society

That crisis [...] by the universality of its theatre and the intensity of its action [...] will drum dialectics even into the heads of the mushroom-upstarts of the new, holy Prusso-German empire.

He already told us he was 'coquetting' with such terms.


Sorry if you took offence at that; I earnestly didn't imagine you would. Just as I was not answering to any particular quote, it seemed to me the most natural way to speak.

Apology accepted, but Gil and others do the same to me all the time, and dialecticians have been treating me with such open contempt now for a quarter of a century.

After 25 years of it, one tends to get a little tetchy.


So, must I say that I believe your intellectual adventure cannot end in anything else but total capitulation to bourgeois ideology, and renouncing of class struggle?

You can say it, but you'd be wrong, since the 'dialectic' (traditionally understood) is a bourgeois idea -- invented by a card-carrying ruling-class hack, Hegel, and it was part of a 2500 years history of similar a priori dogmatics. So, it is more likely that you will be so led astray.


But then, how can we pretend that we are undertaking an intellectual debate? After all, it may well be that you are right - but insulting others is by no means of any use in convincing anyone of that. (Exception made, of course, of those who believe insults are a demonstration of intellectual prowess. But those will use words you have decided are inherently sexist/racist/reactionary, so you will end requesting their removal from the board. N'est ce pas?)

No, this is not an 'intellectual debate'. It is an ideological aspect of the class war.

As I have said here many times, I do not expect to persuade a single dialectically-distracted comrade, since they (you) hold on to this 'theory' for non-rational reasons, as a source of consolation for the long-term failure of dialectical Marxism. And, as with religious affectation, it will take radical social change to remove the need for consolation, and thus for the need for 'philosophy' (and religion -- this 'theory' is in fact 'religious' in form and content).

So, I am not an idealist who thinks that this is simply a 'battle of ideas' -- it will take a mass workers' movement to provide the materialist counter-weight to this petty-bourgeois, idealist 'theory', and to remove the need for such consolation. I cannot do this. [In fact, I am only here to give you lot a hard time, and perhaps prevent a few younger comrades from catching this Hermetic virus.]

Hence, you lot need the working class to save you from yourselves.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


So, you are calling me a mystic and accusing me of importing ruling class ideas... not because I am a mystic or because I import ruling class ideas... but because... I spoke of you in the third person?

Which means that I can actually get along with class treason, provided that I betray our class while treating you in the second person?

Yes I am accusing you of being a mystic, but not for the reasons you suggest.

[Hit The North]

BTB, sorry, I have only just seen this:


But you're left with the problem of explaining why Marx published Capital with coquetted phrases intact but only thought to alert the reader that he wasn't employing these phrases seriously several years later. Did he just forget?

Well, this is in fact not a problem for me, but for you.


Ah, your inverted view of reality again! Very amusing.


And the reader was alerted to Marx's opinion: he included a summary of 'his method' in which there is no trace of Hegel.

Yes, in a forward added several years after first publication. A point which you're obviously having trouble digesting.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Ah, your inverted view of reality again! Very amusing.

'Inverted' as in 'the right way up', yes.

'Amusing' -- for me, too.


Yes, in a forward added several years after first publication. A point which you're obviously having trouble digesting.

Nevertheless, whenever it was added, it records 'his method', from which every trace of Hegel had been removed.

And, that sticks in your craw.

Tough...

[gilhyle]

every trace of Hegel had been removed.


Given that you have referred elsewhere to Marx having a dialectical method, it remains entirely unclear what it means to talk of every trace being removed or not an atom being present.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


Given that you have referred elsewhere to Marx having a dialectical method, it remains entirely unclear what it means to talk of every trace being removed or not an atom being present.

Well, this just shows how little attention you pay; we have been over this several times.

Hegel did not invent the dialectic. It had a traditional, and clear meaning before Hegel put his pen to misuse.

[Luís Henrique]

You seem to think he kept all or parts of it:

Erm - the fact that he tought it valuable doesn't mean he kept it. Those are different things.


Well, you seem to think that the form and content of Hegel's method can be separated. I claim that is not possible,

In which case, Marx would have not been able of coquetting with his form without inadvertently adhering to his content.


If not, then the passage is non-literal, and the Hegelian terms in it are part of his 'coquetting' phase, and are similarly non-literal, and non-serious.

Ah, but this isn't possible:


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

Marx explicitly tells us where he coquetted with the modes of expression of Hegel - and it wasn't in the paragraphs ahead, but exclusively in the chapter on the theory of value.


If they are literal, then Marx is a mystic.

Well, of course - Marx was a mystic, if we accept your definition of what a mystic is. What we don't agree, on the other hand, is about what a mystic is.


He already told us he was 'coquetting' with such terms.

In the chapter on the theory of value. Is this the chapter on the theory of value? Unless you can prove that this afterword is part of such chapter, he was not coquetting with those terms.


Apology accepted, but Gil and others do the same to me all the time, and dialecticians have been treating me with such open contempt now for a quarter of a century.

When I feel the need to be mean to you, I say openly what I think about your debating practices (as for instances, in the discussion of your nomination to Philosophy moderator). I don't need other means of expressing "contempt" to you.

I am far from convinced that those "dialecticians" weren't reacting to your own offencive ways; having being at the taking end of your abuse, without ever having given you a reason for it, that's what seems more probable to me.


After 25 years of it, one tends to get a little tetchy.

Yes, I can relate to this. After 25 months of your nasty behaviour, I'm already tetchy enough.


You can say it, but you'd be wrong, since the 'dialectic' (traditionally understood) is a bourgeois idea -- invented by a card-carrying ruling-class hack, Hegel, and it was part of a 2500 years history of similar a priori dogmatics. So, it is more likely that you will be so led astray.

Oh well. "Idea" is also a bourgeois idea.


No, this is not an 'intellectual debate'. It is an ideological aspect of the class war.

So, those of us who don't agree with your ideas are class enemies?

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


Erm - the fact that he thought it valuable doesn't mean he kept it. Those are different things.

And what makes you think he thought it 'valuable'?


In which case, Marx would have not been able of coquetting with his form without inadvertently adhering to his content.

No; if I use Hegelian terms mockingly/unseriously, that hardly alters Hegel's 'theory'. Same with Marx.


Marx explicitly tells us where he coquetted with the modes of expression of Hegel - and it wasn't in the paragraphs ahead, but exclusively in the chapter on the theory of value.

We have been over this many times in other threads. This is becoming all rather tedious.

The punctuation suggests another reading:


I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even here and there, in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him.

"In the chapter on value" is therefore just one example of the "here and there", but not the only one, where he 'coquetted' with Hegel's jargon. We can see this from the fact that he used the same jargon in other chapters of that book.

You are not suggesting, I hope, that he was using these terms non-seriously only in Chapter One, but seriously elsewhere, are you?

Anyway, the punctuation bears my interpretation just as well as it does yours, but mine is consistent with the summary of 'his method' added to the Preface, whereas yours is not.


Well, of course - Marx was a mystic, if we accept your definition of what a mystic is. What we don't agree, on the other hand, is about what a mystic is.

So, you think it scientific to attribute human characteristics to 'the dialectic', do you? :lol:


In the chapter on the theory of value. Is this the chapter on the theory of value? Unless you can prove that this Afterword is part of such chapter, he was not coquetting with those terms.

Already covered.


I don't need other means of expressing "contempt" to you.

Then don't do it.


I am far from convinced that those "dialecticians" weren't reacting to your own offensive ways; having being at the taking end of your abuse, without ever having given you a reason for it, that's what seems more probable to me.

Well, then you will have to remain unconvinced.

However, you can actually see this taking place here (where I had never even debated this 'theory' before). This is a Venezuelan site, the existence of which I did not even know about until I did a Google search. That did not stop the dialectician involved ('Red Devil') behaving in the same boorish and offensive way to me that others have here right from the start:

http://aporrealos.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12027

There are plenty more examples of the same logged here:

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

At the foot of the page, in the non-RevLeft entries. The vast majority of the latter are sites on which I had never appeared before, but in nearly every case, we see the same abusive, lying, irrational, emotive and scatological response that we seen at RevLeft.


After 25 months of your nasty behaviour, I'm already tetchy enough.

That's cool; I always give back worse than I get.


Oh well. "Idea" is also a bourgeois idea.

It's also an ordinary language term, and that is how I was using it here.


So, those of us who don't agree with your ideas are class enemies?

Where did I say that? You see, you too have to invent things to put in my mouth.

However, those here who, inadvertently or not, spout ideas they culled from boss-class hacks like Hegel, are indeed acting as 'prize fighters' for the ruling-class on this board -- at least philosophically.

[Luís Henrique]

And what makes you think he thought it 'valuable'?

Reread the afterword.


No; if I use Hegelian terms mockingly/unseriously, that hardly alters Hegel's 'theory'. Same with Marx.

But it certainly makes what you write an exercise of mockery, instead of serious scientific research.


The punctuation suggests another reading:

I don't think so. If so, he would have written somethink like,

I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even here and there, as in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him.


You are not suggesting, I hope, that he was using these terms non-seriously only in Chapter One, but seriously elsewhere, are you?

No. I'm suggesting that he used them seriously, period.


So, you think it scientific to attribute human characteristics to 'the dialectic', do you? :lol:

No, I think it is rhetoric.


That's cool; I always give back worse than I get.

Including to those who didn't "give" you anything first place. Which, frankly, makes you deserving of the abuse you get.


It's also an ordinary language term, and that is how I was using it here.

And "ordinary language" is a bourgeois idea, as is "term".

Or, on second thought, not so. They would be slaveholding ideas. Unless we believe Classic Greece was capitalist.


Where did I say that? You see, you too have to invent things to put in my mouth.

Did you notice that question mark? It means I was asking you a question, "do you think that those of us who disagree with you are class enemies?"

And it seems a reasonable question to make, after this gem:


It is an ideological aspect of the class war.


However, those here who, inadvertently or not, spout ideas they culled from boss-class hacks like Hegel, are indeed acting as 'prize fighters' for the ruling-class on this board -- at least philosophically.

So, again - are those who "act as 'prize fighters for the rulling class'", class enemies?

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


Reread the Afterword.

That still does not tell me what he thought was valuable in it.


But it certainly makes what you write an exercise of mockery, instead of serious scientific research.

Your point was that this must affect the content of the work mocked. But, how can it? This reply merely suggests it reflects on the one doing the mocking.


I don't think so. If so, he would have written something like,

As I said, this passage bears both interpretations.

Had he meant your version, he would have written:


I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even here and there in the chapter on the theory of value coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him.

The punctuation suggests this is not the only way to read this passage.

Your view also makes his use of 'here and there' rather awkward. If he had just meant the chapter you mention he would have written:


I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and in the chapter on the theory of value coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him.

The 'here and there' with the commas suggests that the chapter in question is just one example of several where he did this.

So, this passage alone is inconclusive, but my view is consistent with his use of this jargon in other chapters, and with the summary he added in the Preface.


I'm suggesting that he used them seriously, period.

Well, then why did he use them non-seriously in what was probably the most important chapter?

And if he did that there, why use them seriously elsewhere?

You view has him acting inconsistently.


No, I think it is rhetoric.

Then the rest is rhetoric, and not to be taken seriously.


Including to those who didn't "give" you anything first place. Which, frankly, makes you deserving of the abuse you get.

Like who? Except in very rare cases, I never abuse others first.

And don't get me wrong -- I neither mind nor do not mind the abuse I get, but it is useful in showing up the irrational attitude of you and your mystical friends.


And "ordinary language" is a bourgeois idea, as is "term".

Then Marx was bourgeois:


The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life." [Marx and Engels (1970) The German Ideology, p.118. Bold emphases added.]

Even so, I was using these terms in a non-bourgeois manner. Care to prove otherwise?


Or, on second thought, not so. They would be slaveholding ideas. Unless we believe Classic Greece was capitalist.

How do you work that out? Or are you making stuff up as you go along?


Did you notice that question mark? It means I was asking you a question, "do you think that those of us who disagree with you are class enemies?"

And it seems a reasonable question to make, after this gem:

It is an ideological aspect of the class war.

Once more, you betray an unhealthy bias, for nowhere in that comment is there the slightest suggestion that I view any who disagree with me as class enemies.

It was in fact said to you, not just to anyone:


No, this is not an 'intellectual debate'. It is an ideological aspect of the class war.

How you can derive your biased question from this is perhaps something we should leave for your psychiatrist to unravel.

Once again, more invention:


So, again - are those who "act as 'prize fighters for the ruling class'", class enemies?

Read what I said:


However, those here who, inadvertently or not, spout ideas they culled from boss-class hacks like Hegel, are indeed acting as 'prize fighters' for the ruling-class on this board -- at least philosophically.

In fact, I'd employ the word 'class-traitor' in preference to your phrase, but I won't since BTB does not like me using that word, but it is apt for all that.

[Luís Henrique]

In fact, I'd employ the word 'class-traitor' in preference to your phrase, but I won't since BTB does not like me using that word, but it is apt for all that.

So class traitors are not class enemies?

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


So class traitors are not class enemies?

Not necessarily.

[Luís Henrique]

Not necessarily.

So, in a nutshell, you call people "class traitors" and then get all worked when people ask if they are being called "class enemies".

It's a method.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


So, in a nutshell, you call people "class traitors" and then get all worked when people ask if they are being called "class enemies".

I see -- you equate getting "all worked up" with the mere fact that someone diagrees with you.

It's more madness than method.

[Luís Henrique]

I see -- you equate getting "all worked up" with the mere fact that someone diagrees with you.

No; I equate it with things like


Where did I say that? You see, you too have to invent things to put in my mouth.You call people "class traitors", and then accuse them of "putting things in your mouth" (which is what I call "getting all worked up") when they ask if they are being called class enemies.

It's a method - just ask any bad journalist.


It's more madness than method.It sure is - but it is you who equate disagreeing with you with bad things; in the case, with class treason.

*********************************************

I think it is enough. It has been proved that you cannot sustain your views without putting Marx into the dichotomical position of being either a mystic or a clown. It has been proved that your "analysis" relies on the faintest of evidencies (a review by an anonymous writer, then Marx's brief comments on such review, and ultimately a comma in one sentence).

This, of course, explains also your tone: having to grasp to such meager straws, it is natural that you will resort to insult instead of argument. In other words, your tone exposes your inconsistency rather than conceals it.

Done.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ah, it's LH who is now getting 'all worked up':


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein
I see -- you equate getting "all worked up" with the mere fact that someone diagrees with you.

No; I equate it with things like

Quote:
Where did I say that? You see, you too have to invent things to put in my mouth.

You call people "class traitors", and then accuse them of "putting things in your mouth" (which is what I call "getting all worked up") when they ask if they are being called class enemies.

It's a method - just ask any bad journalist.

Ok, I will:

LH, is this a bad method?


It sure is - but it is you who equate disagreeing with you with bad things; in the case, with class treason.

Still making stuff up, I see.

You should try your hand at writing WMD dossiers for the US war machine.


I think it is enough. It has been proved that you cannot sustain your views without putting Marx into the dichotomical position of being either a mystic or a clown. It has been proved that your "analysis" relies on the faintest of evidencies (a review by an anonymous writer, then Marx's brief comments on such review, and ultimately a comma in one sentence).

On the contrary, your view means that Marx was either a mystic or a clown. My view implies he was a materialist.

Perhaps you should learn from him.


This, of course, explains also your tone: having to grasp to such meager straws, it is natural that you will resort to insult instead of argument. In other words, your tone exposes your inconsistency rather than conceals it.

My tone is the way it is because you mystics have introduced into the workers' movement a set of ruling class ideas.

Why wouldn't a good Marxist be angry at that?

Er, why am I asking you...?


Done.

You sure have been.http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/_paperbag_125.gif

Next numpty please...

[Hit The North]

I'm closing this thread because I think it has run its course and can see little else constructive for any of the interlocutors to contribute.

If anyone has an issue with this, pm me.