Dialectics Watch -- thread one

Philosophical Materialist has vainly tried to revive the traditional picture of Hegel's influence on Marx's most mature work, despite Marx's own words which indicate he had left Hegelian gobbledygook behind:

If anyone thinks the Marx abandoned dialectics before Capital, or even if you dispute that Marx's method is dialectical, then you can see what he said himself:

Originally Posted by Karl Marx, Afterword to (2nd German Ed) Das Kapital

...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?

Of course the method of presentation must differ in form from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyse its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described. If this is done successfully, if the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a mere a priori construction.

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.

Karl Marx
London
January 24, 1873

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?...cussionid=2434

This passage has been covered many times already by yours truly, but let's try again.

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.

Comrades will note that Marx puts his avowal ("I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker..") in the past tense. He pointedly refrained from putting it in the present tense, nor did he say that he still thought Hegel a "mighty thinker".

But, even if he still thought Hegel a "mighty thinker", that does not mean he agreed with anything he had to say. For example, I think Plato is a "mighty thinker" but I disagree with 99.999% of what he said.

And we need not speculate about the extent of Marx's respect for Hegel, since Marx indicated it was pretty low, for he went on to say:

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

So, we can see the extent of Marx's regard for Hegel; it meant that the very best he could do was 'coquette' with a few Hegelian terms-of-art, here and there! Hardly a ringing endorsement of this mystical 'theory', since it indicates Marx did not take Hegel at all seriously (otherwise, why 'coquette'). These days, we'd put such terms in 'scare quotes'.

What about this, though?

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.

Indeed, that mystification does not prevent Hegel being "the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner", what does prevent it, as Marx himself indicated in The German Ideology (p.118) is this:

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.

Hegel's use of distorted language renders it meaningless, and coupled with the mystical origin of such ideas, this meant that Marx was happy to wave this gobbledygook goodbye.

How do we know?

Well, Marx very kindly added to the same Afterword (which Philosophical Materialist conveniently ignores) a review of 'his method':

"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.]

Comrades will no doubt 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 our mystical friends have had forced down their throats, for in it there is not one atom of Hegel -- no 'quantity turning into quality', no 'contradictions', no 'negation of the negation', no 'unitiy of opposites', no 'totality'...

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

And of the few terms Marx used 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 microgram of Hegel in it; indeed, as we have seen, Marx merely 'coquetted' with a few bits of Hegelian jargon in Das Kapital. Marx's dialectic thus more closely resembles that of Aristotle and Kant.

And it's no use referring us to the Grundrisse -- Marx saw fit not to publish that work, but he did publish the above comments.

So, whatever happened to Marx's thinking between writing Grundrisse and Das Kapital, it involved him in abandoning Hegel in his entirety.

But what about this?

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.

Note what Marx says:

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.

Unless we think Marx thought that the dialectic was a person (the highlighted terms, if interpreted literally, suggest Marx did think the dialectic was a human being!), then this passage is largely figurative.

Now, we have seen that in its rational form (i.e., with Hegelian gobbledygook completely extirpated) it more closely resembles Aristotle and/or Kant's method, the traditional interpretation of which Marx now challenges in order to show that their method was revolutionary because it was not hampered by the mystical rubbish Hegel dragged in.

And in this passage:

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.

Marx is clearly still 'coquetting' with Hegelian jargon.

Finally, what about this?

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.

Of course, one cannot get more 'opposite' than to reject Hegel in his entirety.

And it seems that his only contact with Hegel's method is to translate it into a psychological/logical form -- but this just means that Marx is once more closer to Aristotle and Kant, for whom dialectic was a rational form of argument, not a theory about reality.

So, contrary to what supporters of the Marx/Hegel tradition constantly tell us, this passage offers them no support at all; quite the contrary, it shows how far Marx had drifted from his youthful dalliance with this mystical idiot.

And no wonder, the dialectic cannot explain change, social or natural:

Quotes:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...0&postcount=76

Argument:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...1&postcount=77

Well, Colletti's ideas were severely criticised by Sebastiano Timpanaro (in On Materialism):

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=W...lletti&f=false

Anyway, Colletti didn't go far enough -- hence he was easy prey for Timpanaro.

Well, it was the only link I could find that was of any use. If you read 'On Materialism' you will see Colletti given a hammering.

I am aware of Lukacs, but this only became apparent in recent years, and my personal suspicion is that he was leaned on by the CP to make this admission.

It's now nearly a year since the Coven was set up, and we are still waiting for a substantive post on this 'theory' from its initiates.

Because there has been no discernible activity over at the Coven for more than a month, may I suggest that the mystics there adopt this as their collective avatar:

After two months of deafening silence, the Dialectical Mausoleum kicks into life with this earth-shattering, in depth analysis:

Thank you for seeing me in your company. First ... i will need your patience for my poor English. I learned the basics of dialectical materialism from classical Marxist library. This group is a great idea. The world is change and we must understand [it]. We have the best tools.

That's it... Us genuine materialists can up pack up and go home. No way we can compete with this.

You sound like a natural!

Yet another month has drifted by and no sign of life in the Dialectical Mausoleum.

In fact, viewed from the Grave Yard Watch here, this is how things now seem over there:

It's now just over 18 months since the Dialectical Mausoleum was set up and we are still waiting for a single substantive post (other than the reading list I compiled for them!), and five months since anything was posted there at all!

Looks like this vibrant 'theory' has bored even its own acolytes to death.

By the way, anyone who wants to see how desperate our mystical friends get in their vain defense of their 'theory', check this out:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mao-zedong-t121784/index.html

Well, it's now over 5 months since there were signs of life over at the Dialectical Mausoleum, and well over seven months since any of the mystics there attempted to post something vaguely theoretical.

If it springs to life again, does anyone think this will confirm the existence of miracles?



http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=62

it's now just over six months since there was any sign of life over at the Dialectical Mausoleum, and even longer since there was a substantive post there.

Short of a miracle even more amazing than the raising of Lazarus, it looks like it's in dire need of a comprehensive buldozing.

Ok, I have been away for 3 months and in the interval the Dialectical Mausoleum has sprung to life with earth shattering posts like the following (all but the last one posted by the same confused comrade -- to which no one replies):

The understanding of the law of Quantity into Quality seems essential to Capital. Before I understood dialectics or quantity into quality, it didn't make any sense to me, but now I understand the book better thanks to dialectical understanding, and things like "quantitative" versus "qualitative" differences.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?...cussionid=2434

A touching declaration of faith, I hope you agree.

I feel really juvenile about this (I'm 18) but I simply had to go to that "Dialectics for Kids" and the site is simply amazing. I now understand dialectics at least on a base level.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?...cussionid=1170

If you have had the misfortune to visit the site mentioned, you will no dobt agree with me that it is an embarrassment to marxism -- but sufficient to re-invigorate the simple faith of this true believer.

So, there has, as I'm sure many of you know, been this new fad to separate Marx from Engels as much as possible, and trying to discredit the works of Engels. It has even gotten to a point where unapologetic revisionists are posting articles called "Marx versus Historical Materialism" by Cyril Smith. Have they not read the German Ideology? Also, everyone who wants to reject Engels, dialectical materialism, historical materialism, etc. and still for some reason want to identify themselves as "Marxists" keep dividing Marx as much as possible to fit their revisionist arguments. For example, people like Althusser wanted to basically suggest that the only work of Marx worth reading was Capital. Whats up with this new fad?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?...cussionid=3897

Not a 'new fad'. It's at least as old as Marx's writings.

Isn't philosophy simply the "study of knowledge?"

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?...cussionid=1561

No.

Hm, I always understood it as the unity of opposing forces, not necessarily opposites. One cannot deny that there is no set opposite of a "banana," but an apple is an opposing force to a banana, so a fruit salad could be considered a unity of opposing forces I guess

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?...cussionid=1168

Hi all

I must say I am somewhat surprised that so many on RevLeft seem to be anti-dialectics. I'm from China and among the Chinese left dialectics is just almost always taken for granted, it's almost unimaginable to think that a Marxist could actually be anti-dialectical.

Of course, I believe in the freedom of thought and speech and I take the opinions of anti-dialecticians in a respectful way. Trouble is, while I think the debate between dialecticians and anti-dialecticians is largely a purely academic one, it seems those in the anti-dialectics camp get somewhat hostile in the debates, almost to the extent of accusing dialecticians for being "reactionary" in some way. I would appreciate it if anti-dialecticians can debate this issue in a more civil and calm manner and avoid throwing slurs and insults at people who subscribe to dialectical materialism. Frankly, in the objective sense, it isn't a big deal as such. It's not directly related to the struggles in China or Latin America or Africa or the West. It's just an useful and interesting intellectual discussion and debate. So I just don't understand the hostility towards dialectical materialism displayed on some among the Western left.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?...cussionid=4003

With opponents like this we should be scared stiff.

The Mausolem has sprung to life, with yet more path-breaking theory.

FHC:

I suspect Rosa is just a Marx-Engels' split enthusiast that has gone so far down that path she can't turn back. She's made it her 'life's project', which is both sad and amusing. Either she'll go away eventually, or she'll just die, and that will be the end.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?...cussionid=4003

This, after FHC was given a thorough drubbing over in Philosophy:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/does-anyon...70/index6.html

He has since skulked off to lick his wounds.

ScarletGhoul (on the same page):

Yes it's strange. Dialectical materialism is at the core of all the theoretical advances from Marx to Mao to Huey P Newton. Newton eventually dropped the label 'Marxist' instead describing himself as a dialectical materialist, as he saw that as the theoretical engine of scientific socialism, and I agree with him. The anti-dialectics people don't seem to understand that dialectical reasoning exists in most great Marxist works..

Yes, if only we realised this, we'd all repent and return to the mystical fold!

Except, whenever any of these sad characters is asked precisely how this 'theory' has featured in the above works in any practical way -- other than as a mere gesture to tradition -- they go very quiet.

Then we have this from FHC:

To look at it [change --RL] this way misses the entire point of dialectics. The point is to understand change which is not caused by an external influence. A dialectics is an internally contradictory totality in a state of constant change. So, it is wrong to look for the opposite of a bannana, or nebula. It is correct to look at the opposing forces within the bannana which cause it to form, to grown, and then to blacken and die. It is correct to look at the forces within the nebula which cause it to change into a 'star nursery' and then a cluster of stars and/or galaxies, etc, or to simply dissipate.

Rosa, as usual, misses the point entirely.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?...cussionid=1168

Well, if this character had read my argument with a little more care than he devotes to reading the back of bus tickets, he'd have seen I actually covered this in my demolition if this 'theory' of change:

Argument:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...9&postcount=30

Quotes:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...0&postcount=31

But, I think we are all know how these mystics like to invent.

And that's it.

Hegel eat your heart out. The 'dialectic' marches on!

Another mummified corpse over at the Dialectical Crypt has spluttered into 'life' again, after another two months in limbo, with this epoch-making post:

I was wondering too, is there any practical way to learn dialectics? I've read a variety of introduction texts and such from marxists.org, but I can't seem to make sense of it. I mean, I have a somewhat sound understanding of it's definition and basic principles, but it would be a stretch to say I can apply dialectics to analysis or anything.

For example, suppose I have a thesis - how do I know what it's negation is? This is easy when I look at the commonly used example of "being", where the negation is simply "not-being", but when I look at anything else it becomes really unclear and vague. It get's even worse when supposed to find a synthesis. What to do?

The obvious answer has clearly failed to occur to this advanced thinker: drop this useless 'theory' and save yourself a lorry load of headaches.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?...cussionid=1166

'Scarletghoul' has just started a thread over at the Mausoleum on the 'Great Works of Dialectical Materialism'.

Before you smart Alecs repy: "That'll be a short list!", check this out:

What are some of the best dialecticians and theoretical works of dialectical materialism ? I'll try and read every one you say here, and also share some of my favourites-

Marx - The Communist Manifesto

Engels - Origins of the family, private property, and the state

Mao - On Practice; On Contradiction

Huey P Newton - Intercommunalism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?...cussionid=4389

Of course, the first does not mention this 'theory' (nor is it based on on it), so what it's doing there is as big a mystery as the 'theory' itself. More or less the same can be said about the second. The two mentioned third are deeply flawed, as Scarletghoul has had pointed out to 'him' already:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...8&postcount=90

I haven't read the fourth, so I'll leave it others to comment on it -- but I'll be surprised if it mentions this 'theory' at all, or shows how it can help understand the subject the book is supposedly about.

Perhaps Scarlet hasn't seen the long list I compiled for the mystics (posted at the Mausoleum by Random Precision two years ago):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?...cussionid=1172

The Youth Dialectic has just posted this list of mystical classics:

Dialectics
Lenin - Summary of Dialectics
Lenin - on the Question of Dialectics
http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...ic/summary.htm

Materialism
Lenin - Materialism And Empirio-Criticism

Summaries
Engels - Socialism: Utopian & Scientific
Engels - Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical german philosophy
Lenin- Karl Marx: a Brief Biographical Sketch with an exposition of Marxism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?...cussionid=4389

Seems these characters are unaware of the bibliography I wrote for them!

The Youth Dialectic continues to post yet more Dialectical Catechisms over at the Mausoleum; here is the latest, which is merely a re-hash of Lenin's a priori pronouncements:

all marxist works present things Dialectically
i. in their relations and in their development
i.e. in his State & Revolution, Lenin presented the development of the theoretical conception of The State in the revolutionary movement to clearly show that those who didnt want to replace the bourgeois state with a prolaterian dictatorship were opportunists.
marx presented the development of the form of the french state in his 18th brumaire of louis bonaparte, Engels presented the development of dialectical and materialist philosophy in his Ludwig Feurbach and the end of classical german philosophy.
ii. as the sum of and unity of their internatal contradictions
i.e. all marxist analysis of the state is presented as the resultant of the contradictory class forces that the state rests upon. the perspectives and tactics of the revolutionary movement correspond to their dialectical analysis of the social arrangemnt

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?...cussionid=4389

Notice how he fails to justify these dogmatic theses -- nor does he even attempt to explain why these are 'contradictions' to begin with.

But, then, as we know, that is simply par for the course with these mystics.

Seems things are livening up over at the Mausoleum, since we have yet another substantive post -- which makes two in the last month. This one is from 'Lyev':

Firstly - this is unrelated to the actual discussion that I wanna bring up - I was hoping, in lieu of some particularly heated/complex discussion in philosophy involving The You Know Who of 'anti-dialectics', that we could get some good discussion going in this sub-forum again. It seems activity in here has died a bit, especially since users like Random Precision and Led Zeppelin don't post anymore. I also heard a while ago there would be a short introductory essay on the dialectical method (Marxist, Hegelian or otherwise) that would be stickied in philosophy or something.

Anyway, on to the topic at hand, whilst trying to be very open-minded about 'dialectical materialism', I have been reading through Craig B. Matarrese's Starting with Hegel, which, so far, has been very informative. I was also reading Peter Singer's introduction to Hegel, published by OUP, but when I got to the part about dialectics, Singer understood this method as only thesis-antithesis-synthesis, which, whilst being an interesting model for analysing capitalism and such, is not the Hegelian dialectic, as far as I know.

What is closer to the Hegelian method, and bearing in mind that Marx, at least by the time he writes Capital, was not a Hegelian, is what Matarrese describes in his book, I think. But I wanted to check it with you guys first. As I understand, in a simple and brief manner, when Hegel examines in the Phenomenology of Mind 'modes of consciousness' (consciousness, to self-consciousness, to reason, to spirit, then finally to religion), we can see pretty easily how Marx extracts the "rational kernel" here, and applies this to modes of production (slave, feudal, capitalist, communist). However, I want to verify with users here, Mataresse writes, as regards supersession, or Aufhebung:

[T]o say that there are supersessions is to say that there are dialectical progressions through which one interpretation of self, knowledge, or life generally, will give way to another, that the later interpretation is superior because it resolves tensions inherent in the prior stage, or because it better satisfies the criteria established earlier, or because it proves to be a more satisfying or stable interpretation to inhabit and explore than the previous one (The Phenomenology of Spirit, The Philosophy of History)

My understanding of the materialist conception of history is much better now that I have read a bit more about Hegel. I read a Cyril Smith essay a while ago that talked about the oft-misunderstood quote, "religion is the opium of the masses". He argues that, where Marx says a few sentences previous that religion is "the heart of a heartless world", this quote does not in fact mean religion induces working class people into a haze-like slumber to distract them from class struggle etc. - it really means that Marx wants a supersession to take place within religion. As Smith himself says, "we have to uncover those aspects of a way of life which gave rise to religion — and then revolutionise those aspects. Religion was ‘the heart of a heartless world’, so the issue was to establish a world with heart. Instead of an illusory solution, we must, in practice, find a real one." (On a side note, as you can glean quite nicely from the Smith paper, which is here, there is often a false dichotomy created between Marx the 'materialist' and Hegel the 'idealist' - in some aspects, all philosophers are idealists).

On a final note, the concept of alienation, self-estrangement, as espoused by Marx, was once explained to me through Hegel's initial exposition of the idea - roughly put, I think it is basically that humankind is alienated from God, but when we die we are re-united with him, which is represented by Hegel's final supersession, his highest mode of consciousness, which is religion. This is similar to Marx's idea of alienation, where the proletarian is depressed by the boredom and normalcy of capitalism, but also feels immensely disenchanted with not owning any means of production, and by the way that her past labour rules over her through the form of concrete capital: when the bourgeoisie are expropriated (for Hegel, when we go to heaven), we are re-united back with our true-self, so to speak, and happiness and fulfillment is achieved once more.

Now, sorry for the rambling nature of my post, I was just full of ideas today, and am in a bit of a rush - I just basically wanted to put this all through you folks for a discussion, to check if I have anything wrong, or maybe even aid someone else in understanding the Marx-Hegel relationship a bit better. Thanks a lot.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?...cussionid=4457

Ok, so nothing philosophically interesting or novel here, either.

Lyev is clearly quite happy with the a priori dogmatism Hegel inflicts on his readers, never once examining the 'arguments' Hegel attempts to throw up in support of the dogmas he pinched from mystics like Plotinus and Jakob Boehme (among others).

Nor does Lyev take into account the fact that Marx had waved all this gobbledygook 'goodbye' by the time he came to write Das Kapital:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/scrapping-...34/index4.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...4&postcount=73

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...6&postcount=75

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

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

http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectics...934/index.html

Which means that all this Hegel stuff is of interest only to obscurantists and mystics.

What it is doing here at RevLeft is, therefore, no less of a mystery.

After a few death throw like twitches, the Dialectical Mausoleum has sunk back into moribund silence these last three months.

'The Youth Dialectic' has clearly decided that posting yet another cliched summary of this 'theory' is not worth the non-dialectical candle. His/her and long-promised articles making everything clear (for the first time in over 140 years) have plainly been shelved.

Oh dear...

Comrades, it seems we were wrong, there is life after death over at the Mausoleum:

So after reading Joseph Stalin's "Dialectical and Historical Materialism", 3 questions arose for me. I am trying to grasp DM as best as I can, so I want to clarify a few things and want anyone's help.

1. What did Stalin mean when by a "universal spirit." The quote in particular I am referring to is this, "The world develops in accordance with the laws of movement of matter and stands in no need of a 'universal spirit.'" I think he is talking about religion and how religion/spirituality/mysticism/superstitions is unnecessary and, basically, stupid.

2. Is there a DM approach to Thomas Aquinas' theory of an original mover? My immediate reactions to this argument from Christians is that it is circular. "Who created that mover, then?" And so it just keeps going into a circle. I'm wondering if there is, in particular, a DM refute against this argument that is easy to pull out in debate with a Christian.

3. I'm wondering if my ideas of consciousness, idealism, and materialism are correct.

Idealism says that consciousness exists on its own and even goes as far as to say that it is the only thing that exists. That is, as Descartes though, life is just our senses perceiving things and our consciousness responding to it.

Materialism says this is ridiculous because consciousness scientifically comes from our brains, material organs. That is, material existence comes first and then consciousness comes second.

From my notes I wrote as I read the work:

Idealism says that only our consciousness is what exists, which sounds silly reading it and writing it down. Our consciousness is only in existence because it is in our brain, a material organ. The world is all material. We only have consciousness because of the material existence of our brains. Idealism has it the other way around, that matter exists because of consciousness. Hence that crap about 'souls.' Matter is primary. Consciousness is secondary. The world is matter moving. The rubber band theory is a scientific proof of this. When you get really into it, all existence is just atoms moving. Energy going from place to place. That is all it is. That is the whole universe. Atomic theory, physics, chemistry, and geology can prove this.

Any responses, answers, and help are much appreciated.

Pat Buck

I'll leave others to respond to point 1, but this deserves some comment:

2. Is there a DM approach to Thomas Aquinas' theory of an original mover? My immediate reactions to this argument from Christians is that it is circular. "Who created that mover, then?" And so it just keeps going into a circle. I'm wondering if there is, in particular, a DM refute against this argument that is easy to pull out in debate with a Christian.

In fact, DM suffers from the same problem, since its theorist appeal to internal and external 'contradictions' to account for change. If so, Lenin was wrong when he argued as follows:

"In the first conception of motion, self-movement, its driving force, its source, its motive, remains in the shade (or this source is made external -- God, subject, etc.). In the second conception the chief attention is directed precisely to knowledge of the source of 'self-movement'.

"The first conception is lifeless, pale and dry. The second is living. The second alone furnishes the key to the 'self-movement' of everything existing; it alone furnishes the key to the 'leaps,' to the 'break in continuity,' to the 'transformation into the opposite,' to the destruction of the old and the emergence of the new." [Lenin (1961) Philosophical Notebooks, p.358.]

But, if external 'contradictions' are allowed back in, then, as I have argued at my site:

If change is also external to every system, then the Totality/The Universe (as a system itself) must be susceptible to just such external influences.

Any attempt to forestall that implication would prompt the same sort of objection that stumps naive supporters of the Cosmological Argument [henceforth, COMA] for the existence of God: if everything has a cause, then what caused God?

In like manner, if every system is subject to external causation, the question becomes: What caused the Totality/The Universe?

Clearly, this challenge can only be neutralised by an appeal to the alleged 'definition' of the Totality (or by an appeal to an infinite set of causes, which stretch off to "who knows where?" -- Hegel's 'bad infinity') -- in the way that theists respond to similar objections to the COMA. [This is not surprising, given the mystical origin of DM.]

However, as Kant noted, the COMA has to be buttressed by a surreptitious appeal to the Ontological Argument [henceforth, ONAN]. So, from the supposed definition of the word "God" (as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived"), 'His' necessary and actual existence are 'derivable'. In that way, questions about 'His' origin are supposedly rendered illogical.

Similarly, but in this case based on the meaning of "Totality" (i.e., as "all that there is" or, maybe, "that than which there is nothing else", or even "that outwith which nothing else can be conceived"), it could be argued that there is nothing outside the Totality that could cause it to exist.

So, the only way that dialecticians could defend this fall-back position (should they chose to adopt it) would be to use an 'atheistical' version of the ONAN, on the lines that the Totality is "that than which there is nothing else".

Of course, such a defence would make plain the Linguistic Idealism in DM, since, once again: from the meaning of a few words substantive truths about reality will have been derived.

But, more importantly, if change is caused by the interplay of opposites, and objects and systems turn into their opposites, then, whether or not it is internally- or externally-induced, change would be impossible. As we saw here, if the opposite of a body or system exists, it cannot change into it, for it already exists!

On the other hand, if it doesn't already exist it can play no part in helping to change that object or system!

Of course, if 'external contradictions' are disallowed to avoid the above 'difficulties', then DM-theorists will be unable to explain how anything can have an effect on anything else.

What about this, then?

3. I'm wondering if my ideas of consciousness, idealism, and materialism are correct.

Idealism says that consciousness exists on its own and even goes as far as to say that it is the only thing that exists. That is, as Descartes though, life is just our senses perceiving things and our consciousness responding to it.

Materialism says this is ridiculous because consciousness scientifically comes from our brains, material organs. That is, material existence comes first and then consciousness comes second.

From my notes I wrote as I read the work:

Idealism says that only our consciousness is what exists, which sounds silly reading it and writing it down. Our consciousness is only in existence because it is in our brain, a material organ. The world is all material. We only have consciousness because of the material existence of our brains. Idealism has it the other way around, that matter exists because of consciousness. Hence that crap about 'souls.' Matter is primary. Consciousness is secondary. The world is matter moving. The rubber band theory is a scientific proof of this. When you get really into it, all existence is just atoms moving. Energy going from place to place. That is all it is. That is the whole universe. Atomic theory, physics, chemistry, and geology can prove this.

In fact, as I have already shown, these ideas are just a left-over from ancient Platonic/Christian/Cartesian ideas about 'the soul':

http://www.revleft.com/vb/consciousn...438/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-do-we-t98047/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/self-t105849/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/consciousn...419/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/meridian-d...733/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...5&postcount=18

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...2&postcount=21

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...2&postcount=17

Rooster has just posted this:

Louis Althusser goes into it in his For Marx. I think also in his Reading Capital but I haven't read that.

Also, something else I just came across:

The algebra of revolution

I haven't read that either. I just came across it today.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?...cussionid=4389

I have just PM-ed 'him/her' that I have taken this book apart at my site.