Defending Dialectics (Or, the Rosa Watch Thread)

Rosa posted this the other day in her anti-dialectics user group, promising her coven of Anarchist hangers-on:

I'll try to stir things up in the Philosophy section again in the next few weeks, where there is far more 'dialectical mayhem' going on, by posting some controversial material that never fails to rouse the enemy.

Apart from the fact that she confirms she sees Marxists as "the enemy", is anyone else looking forward to being bored rigid by this obsessive's repetitive posting?

Btw, one line which is always guaranteed to reduce Rosa to apoplexy is to point out the woeful history of anti-dialectics. Not only does it lead to theoretical sterility, but it always leads its adherents into the arms of reformism, or worse, counter-revolution.

She'll argue that she is the exception to this, but it's always worth pointing out that as someone who refuses to join a Marxist organisation that her politics are inconsequential as they are hardly ever put into practice and she therefore achieves the third possible outcome of anti-dialectics: complete and utter irrelevance.

spot on, Bob the Builder.

I know she'll respond that 'they didn't really mean what they said', but that hardly rescues the theories of Marxism. anyone who takes her ideas about dialectics halfway seriously would have to disregard all the major works of Marxism. I have a link in my sig from Engels describing the working class as the antithesis of the capitalists, which I came across reading the German Ideology again the other day. We all know the other passages that have been debated on revlet where Marx openly acknowledges dialectics.

So at best, her supporters would have to conclude that Marx and Engels were very very confused and could only borrow from an awkward and weak terminology. so I agree strongly that it invites counter-revolution. Historically this is undeniable, and I'm glad we read the Rosa Luxumberg work where she exposes Bernstein's counter-revolutionary rejection of dialectical reasoning.

I agree it's bizarre she'd describe Marxists as the enemy. It's too bad, because as Gilhyle pointed out before, if her work were more focused (and honest) she could write a decent book on the misapplications of and errors within dialectical reasoning.

AFAIK, proponents of DM have rarely been criticised by those with any knowledge of the theories, which would have helped by checking some of the sillier stuff out there claiming to be dialectical.

I agree it's bizarre she'd describe Marxists as the enemy.

It sums up the obsessive quest that she is on. She cannot help but place philosophical considerations above other more concrete and political issues. Hence her inability to join the SWP (UK) even though she agrees with at least 90% of the party's positions.

She's written quite an amusing response to this thread in her anti-dialectics group, by the way. Again she gives the impression that the only reason we're not now living in a workers paradise is because of some supposed counter-revolutionary effect of DM.

Originally posted by Rosa
And we have seen what 150 years of 'practice' (courtesy of such mystics) has produed:

All four internationals down the pan, 1917 reversed, nearly every former 'communist' state embracing free market capitalism, Dialectical Marxist groups at each others' throats, splits, divisions, expulsions, the working class worldwide ignoring us...

And she dares to call herself a materialist!

I agree that we should invite more people to participate. I'd suggested someone join us the other day in the philosophy forum.

lol @ 'Rosa Watch'. seriously though, it's very frustrating.

Notice how Rosa actually relies on dialectics:

The class war drives social change -- mediated by the inter-play between the forces and relations of production.

She would not explain what this meant. Her defendents gave it a go, and they can only assume. Some say that words like inter-play have been used by Marx, it is possible, in the German Ideaology he uses "intercourse" instead of relations of production.
But basically Rosa's counter theory comes down to replacing words. If we replace mediate with contradiction we are back to Marxist dialectics.

The other thing is applying dialectics in the metephysical. Such as the stupid examples like a cat dieing. Or the table was as even more stupid. The idea that wood "changes" into a table. The wood is shaped into a table, it's change is quantative. But Rosa doesn't understand this, or has gone too far done this counter-theory track that she can't turn back.

Though when asked with the tough question that we have a good dialectical understanding of, such as social revolution she uses dialectics but merely replaces words.

I have never really countered counter-philosophy in any prominante way outside of revleft. Her no nonesence/common sense philosophy was attack by Engels way back in the days of Anti-Dühring.

what hiero's said is interesting. that's true of revleft in a lot of ways. a fair number of tendencies and ideas expressed on here are things I'd never run into in over a decade of being an active socialist, lol.

it's a waste of time

Her no nonesence/common sense philosophy was attack by Engels way back in the days of Anti-Dühring.

She appears to rely much on the thought of Wittgenstein, notably the concept of putting things in 'everyday' language. Although is approach is somewhat contradicted by her website which isn't accessible to most of the working class.

Wittgenstein himself was somewhat of a mystic, he found ways of bringing the futile concept of a deity into his investigations as well as ridiculing the materialist concept of the universe. For example, he believed that such things like human consciousness and emotion were due to a non-material "soul" and ironically ridiculed others who sought a materialist explanation for such phenonema as "mystics" and using faulty logic.

There is certainly room in revolutionary socialism for those who don't use dialectical logic, but they need to be honest with themselves that Marx was a dialectician and used such methods. Proposing that Marx became anti-dialectical later in his life doesn't match the evidence, and trying to enlist Marx for the purposes of anti-dialectics is a futility.

I recognise Rosa as intelligent and no doubt sincere in her views and analytical methods, although she may make more headway in using and developing critiques of dialectics from a socialist viewpoint. I've seen her use an anti-dialectic critique from Max Eastman* of all people, something that doesn't exactly help her case.

Personally, I find Marx's dialectic method as useful for investigation and understanding of various processes. Rosa may have a point that exposition can be flawed unless it's put into terms which the working classes can understand, but then again this is what socialist propaganda is for.

Some dialecticians are mystics and the dialectic in the hands of mystics will be used to come to mystical conclusions, especially if the axioms are based on mysticism. It is the same as other forms of logic, such as deductive logic as widely used in the European Middle Ages, ecclesiastical thinkers come to very logical (but inaccurate) conclusions as their axioms were already based on mystical assumptions.

*Edit - originally read Karl Popper, but made an error in this.

Rosa, you haven't shown that Marx went against dialectics. Marx broke against Hegelian mysticism in establishing his own materialist dialectic. Dialectics weren't exorcised from Capital in fact Marx went to great pains to emphasise that his method was dialectic.

The accusations of "mysticism" against dialectical materialists is simple name-calling, as a result of a strawman in which you attribute Hegelian idealist jargon and mysticism to dialectical materialism.

Yeah I can't tell if Rosa has ever made a decent argument because I find her posts totally unreadable, I never get more than a few sentences in. Maybe she's right! About everything important anyway! I'll never find out, partly because of obvious intellectual dishonesty like a reading of Marx that claims he completely rejected any form of dialectics -- she can't just say with Althusser (who I have time for, even though I'm strongly opposed to a lot of his ideas) that Marx was wrong a lot of the time. The way she employs quotations for this "argument" is so laughably bad, and clearly (if she is as sane as she seems) intentional obfuscation.

The other reason is that she can't go four sentences without her hateful personality filling up the reader's nostrils. "Mystic," "irrational," "double dog dare you", these are employed as fetishistic catchphrases -- hallmarks of the crank, along with turning every topic to your idee fixe and the haughty self-aggrandizement; her site is like Time Cube minus the schizophrenia. Libertarians are easier to read.

Sorry, I guess this isn't a "***** about Rosa" thread, if a mod thinks that should be deleted I'm okay with it.

I really think she's a troll. Recently I saw her meltdown over some of BobtheBuilder's comments about a dead analytical Marxist philosopher, during the course of which she demanded administrative action be taken against Bob. :S