The UK-SWP's 're-discovery' of DM is more recent, however. The line taken in
Socialist Review in the early 1980s, for example, was that while there might be a dialectic operating in class society, there isn't one at work in nature.
As Ian Birchall put things:
"The trouble with…[the 'negation of the negation' and a 'dialectics of nature' -- RL] is that [they] oversimplif[y] and mystif[y]…. To derive the laws of dialectics from inanimate nature leads to denying the role of human agency in the historical process." [Birchall (1982), pp.27-28.]
Even Chris Harman did not think DM important enough to mention in print (as far as I am aware) until the late 1980s. For instance, in his reply to an article written by Alex Callinicos [Callinicos (1983b)], Harman largely restricted his use of the term "contradiction" to the following (adding other revisionary comments to Alex's take on Althusser):
"Contradiction then becomes contradiction inside capitalist society. The transformation of quantity into quality becomes the way in which bourgeois society itself throws up new elements it cannot control. The negation of the negation becomes the creation of a class by capitalist production which is driven to react back upon that production in a revolutionary way." [Harman (1983), pp.73-74.]
Harman was strangely silent about the 'dialectic' in nature in this article, as were Alex Callinicos and the late Peter Binns in the same debate. Harman pointedly restricted dialectics to human social development. [Cf., Callinicos (1983b) and Binns (1982).]
This is quite inexplicable if we are now supposed to accept the current line that DM is central to Marxist Philosophy. Indeed, it is even more puzzling when it is recalled that Alex Callinicos had been severely critical of several core DM-theses in the book under discussion [i.e., Callinicos (1982)]. Comrades in the SWP-UK might not have noticed it, but WRP writers certainly picked up on this and laid into Callinicos's 'anti-Marxist heresies' with no little vehemence, as noted above (i.e., earlier in this Essay). But, why didn't Peter Binns or Chris Harman spot these glaring dialectical infelicities in that work?
Furthermore, Tony Cliff's earlier work, as far as I am aware, does not mention DM, and his political biographies of Lenin and Trotsky are deafeningly silent on the issue.
In fact, Cliff mentioned this execrable theory in print only 3 times in 60 years (and even then only in passing)!
[However, since writing the above, I have discovered a handful of references to dialectics (the 'materialist dialectics' version, applied to society, but not DM, applied to nature) in Cliff's classic book, Cliff (1988); on this see here. Even so, dialectical concepts are nowhere near as prominent in his work as they are in, say, Ted Grant's. (On the latter, see below.) However, I am assured by older members of the UK-SWP that Cliff used to lecture on DM in earlier decades -- but apparently he did not think it important enough to put these ideas into print. The point is that DM only became an overt mantra in SWP publications after 1984/5.]
The same goes for other SWP theorists. For example, Duncan Hallas does not mention this 'theory' at all in any of his writings. All this is rather odd if DM is as 'central' to SWP thought as some now maintain. Cf., Cliff (1975-79, 1982, 1988, 1989-93, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003); Hallas (1984).
[Correction: I have come across
one mention of DM in Duncan's writings --, an article, oddly enough, on sectarianism! Anyway, he is merely quoting Trotsky, and does nothing with the term himself.]
The change in line was heralded by two short articles; one was written by Chris Harman and appeared in
Socialist Review in 1988 [Cf., Harman (1988)], the other was authored by John Molyneux, and appeared in
Socialist Worker (see below).
Since then, several other comrades have joined the stampede back to the ancient past: John Rees [Rees (1989, 1990, 1994, 1998, 2008)], John Molyneux [Molyneux (1987); see also his blog], Paul McGarr [McGarr (1990, 1994)], and Phil Gasper [Gasper (1998)] (although, now that the US wing (the ISO) of the IST has been expelled,
Phil is no longer an SWP/IST-theorist!). Cf., also Paul Kellogg's review of a recent book on Engels, 'The Demon Marxist', and subsequent letters. See also my letter to the
International Socialist Review, in response to an article by Brian Jones. [Jones (2008)]. Comrade Jones attempted to mount a weak and rather superficial defence of dialectics, to which I have replied here. [Readers need to be made aware of the fact that my response was based on a typed copy of comrade Jones's response to me posted at RevLeft by another comrade who made several typing errors. A more considered version of that reply has been published
here.] A similar letter sent to
Socialist Review by a supporter of this site was not published. It can be accessed
here.
Even Alex Callinicos has softened his anti-DM stance of late. [Callinicos (1998) and (2006); on the latter, see here.] Before this, he had been openly critical of DM; see, for example, Callinicos (1976), pp.11-29; (1978), pp.135-84; (1982), pp.55, 112-19; (1983a), pp.54-56, 61-62; (1987), pp.52-53; (1989a), pp.2-5.
It is quite clear that the downturn in the movement since the 1970s has meant that the above comrades have felt a pressing need to enrol themselves on a sufficiently powerful Dialectical Methadone programme.
Mercifully, DM has yet to appear in
Socialist Worker on a regular basis. As far as I am aware, it has only featured
once in the paper in the last 20 years -- in an article written by John Molyneux (the reference for which I have unfortunately lost, although Petersen gives it as January 1984) -- subsequently reprinted in Molyneux (1987), pp.49-51. [Cf., Petersen (1994), p.158. Petersen also references a letter to
Socialist Review written (by a comrade and old friend of mine, *****), in response to Harman's article, pp.160-61.]
At one level, this is difficult to explain -- at another, the opposite is in fact the case. Given the fact that workers are 'supposed' to assent to DM readily when confronted with it, or they are said to use its concepts unwittingly/"unconsciously" all the time -- according to Trotsky --, this omission is highly puzzling, especially if DM is as central to revolutionary theory as SWP-theorists would now have us believe. Why then hasn't
Socialist Worker assumed the Dialectical Mantle once worn so proudly by
Newsline?
The answer to this is not difficult to work out. The editors of
Socialist Worker are not idiots, unlike their counterparts at
Newsline; they surely know that DM is a complete turn-off for workers. Even
Socialist Review largely ignores this allegedly central tenet of Marxism -- probably for the same reason. [However, in November 2008,
Socialist Review published an article on "Quantity and Quality" by John Rees (i.e., Rees (2008). More about that later.] But, if DM is to be brought to workers, how might this happen if their revolutionary press totally ignores it? It is not easy to see how DM could one day "seize the masses" if
Socialist Worker omits all mention of it.
International Socialism now appears to be the only SWP publication 'radical' enough to expound DM-ideas. Admittedly, few workers read this otherwise excellent journal -- and that probably explains why the editors find they can (sometimes) retail dialectical theses there.
In addition, meetings at Marxism (the annual SWP theoretical conference) regularly discuss this 'theory'. [Some of this material can be found here. A report of the discussion of dialectics at Marxism 2007 can also be found here.]
This is less easy to explain -- except perhaps: this is probably a gesture toward orthodoxy. However, to be truthful, there are relatively few such meetings, and their content relates to little of the political content of other meetings (which, given the criticisms advanced here and in Part One, is not surprising). Nevertheless, the contrary view (i.e., anti-dialectics) is certainly not allowed adequate time to mount an effective case for the prosecution (or any at all).
[Added by a supporter of this site ('Nemesis'):
At Marxism 1990, I was given two, three minute impromptu slots. It is only possible to make highly superficial points in such short intervals, ones which, because they challenge fundamental beliefs, are quite easy to dismiss. However, the level of argument in response to what I had said was lamentable; in fact it was difficult to believe that one comrade (Seth Harman) had listened to a word I had said, given the irrelevant comments he made. (Indeed, at the end after the meeting had finished, I put him on the spot by shouting across the auditorium: "Hey, Seth! Is that the best you can do?")
The main speaker (John Molyneux) even took it upon himself to interrupt me several times at the start of my first three minute spell, until I silenced him with a joke. In my opening remarks, I was in the middle of saying that my attack on DM was not an attack on HM, when he interjected loudly over the microphone that it was. I denied it. He re-asserted it. I denied it again. He re-asserted it once more. I then turned to the audience and said "There you go, comrades, a contradiction within the first thirty seconds!" The subsequent laughter drowned out any further response John thought to make.
However, the reception I received for my brief intervention (a loud and prolonged applause --, upon request, the audience even voted for me to be given an extra minute) suggested that there were many comrades in the SWP who held similar views to me. There is no way I'd experience such a reception these days.]
Of late (i.e., circa 2003-8), even
International Socialism has dropped this hot topic (except for this article written by Chris Harman in his review of a recent book by Alex Callinicos, i.e., Harman (2007a), and possibly this one, too -- i.e., Harman (2007b)).
[Added March, 2009: See also Harman's comments about a recent article (by Carchedi) on Marx's mathematical manuscripts. Harman is clearly unaware of the serious flaws in Marx's analysis (as is Carchedi); on that, see here.]
This is probably because of the international situation brought on by a resurgence of US and UK Imperialism, and the massive anti-war response this has produced. It is hard to argue with newly radicalised youth that "Being is identical with but at the same time different from Nothing, the contradiction resolved in Becoming..." and hope to appear relevant.
And yet, one would have thought that this would have been an ideal opportunity to bring DM to the masses. In which case, it is even more difficult to explain why
Socialist Worker is currently silent about DM. The masses are on the street, why isn't their paper informing them of John's universal masculinity, the friable fighting skills of Mamelukes, seeds which negate plants, and the logical tryst between 'Being' and 'Nothing' -- with 'Becoming' acting as a sort of metaphysical Cupid?
The question answers itself; DM is an irrelevance. [On that, see here.]
One should be able to predict that, as the recent wave of radicalisation declines, and as the fortunes of recently fragmented Respect, and the hastily-formed Left List, continue to fade, dialectics should rear its ugly head in SWP publications again. The above reappearance in
International Socialism (and those recorded below) are an early conformation of this trend.
Hence, of late dialectics has re-surfaced in
Socialist Worker! [The details can be found here.] Once more, this is probably a result of the fact that the UK-SWP has not made a significant political break-through, despite their prominent role in the UK Anti-war movement, and because the latter is in steep decline. Another example is a recent article on Engels by Simon Basketter. [Basketter (2008). I have already sent a letter into the paper about this -- we'll see if it's published. (Added, later: No luck there, either. In fact, my e-mails have been blocked!)]
Nevertheless, Marxists are in a constant process of assessing the prospects in the here and now and reflecting on the lessons of defeat for our class in the past (in case you need reminding, it is our class which fights the class struggle, not Marxists bearing philosophy or anti-philosophy).
