Materialist Dialectics

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:

IMO Engels wants to flesh out the implications of the dialectical method; w/ Marx's approval I may add, as he edited Dialectics of Nature. It is simply testament to the dialectical method that is vague, suggestive, and often juxtaposes different levels of abstraction.

Marx did not 'edit' Dialectics of Nature (the book was unpublished -- even Engels grew tired of it!).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

It is mental temperment, as much as anything

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

[mikelepore]

.......... We just refuse to say that all such changes occur this way ......... since we now know that many things do not change in the way he said ............ applied to everything in the universe ............ There are more processes in reality that break this 'law' than 'obey' it .............

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.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Mike:

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.

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.

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.

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

[mikelepore]

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.

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.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Mike:

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.

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.

You cannot reply to them without the fact that quantitative differences can change relationships into their opposites.

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:

quantitative differences can change relationships into their opposites.

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?

[trivas7]

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

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.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:

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.

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.

[trivas7]

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

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

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:

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

Answer: a scientific theory devoid of mysticism.

Next question...

[trivas7]

Answer: a scientific theory devoid of mysticism.

Any scientific theory is historical materialism? Hardly.

Rupert Read is also sympathetic to a Marxist view of history, interpreting it through Wittgenstein's eyes (which is a tactic I too have adopted)

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

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:

Any scientific theory is historical materialism? Hardly.

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

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

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

[trivas7]

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

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:

The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange.

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.

[Kronos]

Next question...

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.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:

Then your response is hardly informative.

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

Talk about wasting space

No, I refuse to talk about you.

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:

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'.

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.

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...'

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Kronos:

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

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

So, this is a waste of effort:

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.

And this seems no less off-topic, too:

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.

But, did you call me 'miss'!!

[trivas7]

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.

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.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:

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

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

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.

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

And, if true, would make change impossible.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Except, Engels said this:

Dialectics, however, is nothing more than the science of the general laws of motion and development of nature, human society and thought.

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.]

[Kronos]

Since I have never claimed the latter

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

But, did you call me 'miss'!!

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

[trivas7]

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

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