Materialist Dialectics

Trivas:

Marx did not 'edit' Dialectics of Nature (the book was unpublished -- even Engels grew tired of it!).

And we already know Marx abandoned this 'theory' by the time he came to write Das Kapital:

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

Indeed, and we have a name for it: "confusion".

I don't think the point was that it ALWAYS happens. I think the point was that it SOMETIMES happens, offered as an answer to those who claim that it NEVER happens.

If Engels thought that it ALWAYS happens, which I didn't notice, then I have overlooked that. That's what I mean by there being a point there, however obscured. Sometimes we have to recognize what the kernel was in what a dead writer said, even if he didn't know what it was himself.

The numerical structures in the makeup of nature were new ideas in those days; for example, it was only in 1869 that Mendeleev had suggested the periodic table, and in 1805 Dalton had suggested that elements combine in definite proportions to form compounds. Some people were startled by what must have seemed Pythagorean, as if people were discovering that the world is fundamentally made of numbers. Engels was tinkering with that notion that numbers are the building blocks of reality. Compared to what we know today, his effort may seem primitive.

Mike:

1) Once more you miss the point: if this only happens sometimes, you can't extroplate it to explain social change (as you try to do), since you have no way of knowing if any of these changes are exceptions.

2) In fact, this 'law' is far too vague for anyone to be able to say if it ever happens.

Well, numbers can't be the building blocks of anything since they aren't material.

Then you have no way to answer the right wing "Libertarians" who consider principles to be independent of magnitudes. They will explain, with perfect self-consistency: If it's morally wrong to steal someone else's property, as in the case of a mugger grabbing an old person's purse on the street, then's it's also wrong for a starving person to avoid dying from starvation by stealing an apple from a billionaire's orchard. Either property rights exist or they do not. You cannot reply to them without the fact that quantitative differences can change relationships into their opposites. If you are correct than capitalism is fully vindicated.

Mike:

I do not think that such a weak, imprecise and badly thought-out 'law' such as this one of Engels's is going to sway anyone who comes out with specious reasoning like this.

In which case, you have no (effective) reply to them either.

The solution, of course, is not to moralise, and if the 'libertarians' want to reason this way, scr*w them.

But we already know that there are so many exceptions to this suposed rule that it cannot safely be extrapolated into such areas.

This is quite apart from the fact that Engels's 'law' says nothing about:

Nor is it to point out that a 'can' here is far too weak; you need a 'must' if you want to sway such 'libertarians' -- and where are you going to get that from?

OTC, a Marxism without dialectics is Marxism in a castrated form, Marxism without class struggle, without revolution; it is a lifeless caricature that has nothing to do w/ the revolutionary ideas of Marx and Engels.

Trivas:

1) As you have had pointed out to you before, Dialectical Marxism minus the dialectics is just Hhistorical Materialism.

2) All you seem capable of doing is repeating baseless claims like this (as articles of faith, no doubt), all the while ignoring argument and evidence to the contrary. Hence, far from being lifeless, dialectics is the kiss of death -- again, as you have had pointed out to you: if dialectics were true, change would be impossible. [Links in the Hegel and Marx thread.]

So, no wonder Marx waved goodbye to dialecics (as it has traditionally been understood) by the time he wrote Das Kapital.

What is historical materialism without materialist dialectics? Nothing but a ham sandwich.

Trivas:

Answer: a scientific theory devoid of mysticism.

Next question...

Any scientific theory is historical materialism? Hardly.

Yes, tactics, Rosa, you are all about tactics.

Trivas:

Notice the way you have to change my "a" into your "any" to make this fib of yours work?

"All"? Can we have your proof of that allegation?

Then your response is hardly informative. Talk about wasting space.

Historical materialism procedes from the premise that the mainspring of human development is, in the last analysis, the development of the productive forces -- humankind's power over nature. Engels provides a brief outline of the basic principle of historical materialism:

Intrinsic to this general principle -- and what makes it a science -- is the emphasis upon the process of history. The motive force, so to speak, of progress lies in the unity and conflict bt the productive forces and the relations of production. Thus a dialectical and materialist understanding of history.

I have a question. Is there a difference between claiming that DM is nonsense, and that DM has prevented successful revolution?

I cannot imagine how the failures of revolution can be blamed on some philosophical doctrine rather than on an innumerable series of disadvantages, none of which are directly or indirectly related to the tenants of DM.

Would you say that, for instance, many decisions were made by communist parties that were based on principles of DM, which, because the principles were bunk, resulted in disaster?

Somehow I don't think a ridiculous philosophy can be blamed for failed revolutions. I imagine that communists can believe in flying spaghetti monsters and still succeed with revolution if the circumstances are right.

I venture to say, Rosa, that you have spent so much time perfecting and refining your anti-dialectics that you won't allow yourself to stop wasting time debating with deaf ears.

I think you people are splitting hairs. And I think you, miss, need to let a bit of the noble lie live...for the sake of the communists. Taking Hegel away from communists is like taking Gatorade away from Pele. Wait, did Gatorade even exist in Pele's day? Never mind. You know what I mean. You are quite resourceful in just about every field there is so it isn't as if you have to devote your time to smashing that putz, Hegel.

I want to focus on Wittgenstein. Let's do.

Here's one:

"I wanted to write that my work consists of two parts: of the one which is here, and of everything which I have not written. And precisely this second part is the important one."

Very clever, Ludwig. Very clever.

Trivas:

This from the man who can't answer simple questions.

No, I refuse to talk about you.

Which, as you have been told many times already, I accept.

Notice, too, that you could tell us all this without an atom of 'dialectics'.

You have just tacked the phrase 'dialectical materialism' on at the end, and for no good reason (except perhaps to re-affirm your 'orthodoxy'). This useless 'theory', if true, would prevent change, thus destroying historical materialism, as you have also been told many times.

What you need to do is stop repeating this mantra (no matter how much better it makes you feel) and address my proof that dialectics not only cannot explain change, it would make change impossible.

But, we already know you 'do not think about things you don't think about...'

Kronos:

Since I have never claimed the latter, you should perhaps address this to someone who has.

So, this is a waste of effort:

And this seems no less off-topic, too:

But, did you call me 'miss'!!

You are mistaken to believe that dialectics purports to explain change, whatever that means.

Dialectics is the distinctive feature of a Marxist theory of cognition -- the process of knowing, in relation to practice, the concrete activities of man in specific social and historical circumstances. Dialectics, as Lenin pointed out, imparted to the Marxist theory of knowledge its distinct quality -- the analysis of concrete conditions, in interaction and contradiction, in motion. Historical materialism is that concrete analysis applied to history.

Trivas:

Fine by me; that just means that this 'theory' is more useless than even I had imagined.

Except, as I have shown, it is useless even here.

And, if true, would make change impossible.

Except, Engels said this:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...hring/ch11.htm

So, dialectics is far more than you suggested; and as a science of motion, it surely seeks to explain social and natural change, contrary to what you allege.

[I am away from home right now, so I do not have access to my files; otherwise, I would quote many more dialecticians who disagree with you. I'll put that right when I get back.]

Well it certainly sounds like you have. Read the blue box in the right column labeled "Introduction" at your site.

I did, I did. It was a gesture of respect, maam....er, Rosa.

OTC, all you've demonstrated is that a Wittgensteinian reading of Marx is unMarxian.