Thread: Dialectical logic is not Dialectical materialism

Results 41 to 57 of 57

  1. #41
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Hyacinth, Trivas has already been told that Marx often uses informal logic, and in that sense his arguments can be described as 'logically compelling'.
  2. #42
    Join Date Apr 2007
    Location Eisenach, Gotha, & Erfurt
    Posts 14,047
    Organisation
    Sympathizer re.: Communistisch Platform, WPA, and CPGB (PCC)
    Rep Power 80

    Default

    1)

    Thesis: Reformist mass party
    Anti-Thesis: "Revolutionary" conspiracist circles
    Synthesis: Revolutionary mass party

    2)

    Thesis: Bourgeois-democratic revolution
    Anti-Thesis: Social-proletocratic revolution
    Synthesis: Social-democratic revolution
    This is bullcrap.

    What if the Theses isn't on the agenda any more? Obviously, A and B have to be actual, existent, not imaginative. Otherwise, as Rosa says, they are just phrases.
    Some honest revolutionaries still think that reformist mass parties are the way to go (consider the IMT or those who simply wish to build new reformist mass parties ). I was using a historical precedent (and, unfortunately, "revolutionary" conspiracist CIRCLE-sects are abound today ). To be more precise:

    Thesis (has implications for the ordering below): Either German Social Democracy or Belgian Social Democracy
    Anti-Thesis: Pre-1917 Bolsheviks
    Synthesis: 1917 Bolsheviks (mass party) or SPD

    In case you didn't notice, I was trying to make a POLITICAL and not a crap-philosophical point:

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/dual-membe...420/index.html
    http://www.revleft.com/vb/united-soc...056/index.html
    http://www.revleft.com/vb/sozialdemo...754/index.html

    just as you can't count on "mass party" to be a liberating factor. Your obsession with Lenin creates these confusions
    Wrong guy - Lenin frequently invoked the true founder of "Marxism" (you yourself mentioned Cyril Smith in identifying this founder) in trying to adopt SPD organization to Russian circumstances. It is the latter who has my utmost interest, considering (sorry Rosa, but I have to invoke the "dyna-mat totality" and apply it to "history" here ):

    1) There was no class struggle during the German unification drive.
    2) The international proletariat's first vanguard party was formed nevertheless on a MASS party approach.
    3) There is a relative absence of class struggle today, though more people are getting pissed with neoliberalism.
    4) There's rampant, amateurish CIRCLE-ism today (i.e., "sectarianism").
    5) Conclusion: United Social Labour's organizational concept is derived, notwithstanding the historical mistake of accepting pseudo-reformist "social-democratic" HACKS (Belgian Soc-Dem and ultimately the SPD itself), from the historical mass-party precedent set by the international proletariat's first vanguard party, the SPD.
    "A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)

    "A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)
  3. #43
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    JR:

    Thesis (has implications for the ordering below): Either German Social Democracy or Belgian Social Democracy
    Anti-Thesis: Pre-1917 Bolsheviks
    Synthesis: 1917 Bolsheviks (mass party)
    These are still phrases, so they cannot even be theses.

    And, didn't you read the link I posted on this?

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...95&postcount=7
  4. #44
    Join Date Apr 2007
    Location Eisenach, Gotha, & Erfurt
    Posts 14,047
    Organisation
    Sympathizer re.: Communistisch Platform, WPA, and CPGB (PCC)
    Rep Power 80

    Default

    ^^^ I did read it.
    "A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)

    "A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)
  5. #45
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Then why do you keep using that discredited triad: "Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis"?
  6. #46
    Join Date Feb 2005
    Posts 1,769
    Rep Power 16

    Default

    JR, you are again using relative terms such as "social democracy", portraying them as "propositions", abstracting certain adjectives such as "mass", and on your way to so-called "synthesis" you're ignoring historical conditions (and thus "historical materialism") for the sake of combining these abstractions.

    In the same way I could say:

    Thesis: SPD's reformist line to state capitalism
    Antithesis: Lenin's conspiratoral line to dictatorship of the proletariat
    Synthesis: Bolshevik state-capitalist dictatorship

    I used several historical references (even though they are real I still feel as if I don't have to explain them, since I'm using the mighty "Triad") - not valid propositions, abstracted several phrases (DoP, state capitalism), and put them together in a way I see fit. I simply rejected those parts of these "propositions" for which I believe they don't fit into the scheme of "synthesis", or which I don't want to see there, without even explaining how are they different, or considering could they even be the same thing (after all, they are just phrases), how do they correlate, or what actually happens durring the "syntheses", what brings it about, etc.

    I used the "Triad", modelled it by my own will using phrases and abstractions according to my historical knowledge (knowledge of what had allready happened), and became a - ta-daa! - a mighty "dialectician".

    Wow, that was easy.
    ::: Formerly DJ-TC ::: IWA-AIT :::

    Провери обим злонамере непријатеља
    и његову снагу о кремени брид своје.
    — Oskar Davičo
  7. #47
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Why are you all continuing to use the discredited triad "Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis"?

    Even if Hegel had have used it, it is a rubbish prototype anyway.

    Most arguments do not proceed this way. They are far too cpmplex. Try fitting the vast majoprity of the disputes even at RevLeft into this useless mould. It can't be done.
  8. #48
    Join Date Feb 2005
    Posts 1,769
    Rep Power 16

    Default

    I'm not "using it". On the contrary. Read my post.
    ::: Formerly DJ-TC ::: IWA-AIT :::

    Провери обим злонамере непријатеља
    и његову снагу о кремени брид своје.
    — Oskar Davičo
  9. #49
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Yes, I must get my eyes tested...!
  10. #50
    Join Date May 2008
    Location Regno de Granda Fenviko
    Posts 2,336
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    ^^Rosa --

    Which of those "historical materialsts" previous to Marx said anything like the following:
    Originally Posted by K.Marx
    The general conclusion at which I arrived and which, once reached, became the guiding principles of my studies can be summarised as follows. In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production.

    The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life.

    It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness….In broad outline the Asiatic, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production may be designated as epochs marking progress in the economic development of society.”
    -- K. Marx, Introduction to Towards a Critique of Political Economy
    Eppur si muove -- Galileo Galilei


    [FONT=Tahoma]
    [/FONT]
  11. #51
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Trivas, where have I said that Marx learnt everything he knew about Historical Matrialism from the Scottish Historical Materialists (SHM), and that he did not innovate extensivley in this area?

    Just as Marx learnt from Smith (one of the SHMs), so he learnt from Ferguson and Millar. Even Hegel learnt from them.

    Now, I recognise that you knew nothing about this, and that it is a bit of a shock to you, but we have already established you live in a little world of your own, and like all dogmatists, you are frightened of new knowledge.

    Except, this was known 150 odd years ago.

    Get over it.
  12. #52
    Join Date May 2008
    Location Regno de Granda Fenviko
    Posts 2,336
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Trivas, where have I said that Marx learnt everything he knew about Historical Matrialism from the Scottish Historical Materialists (SHM), and that he did not innovate extensivley in this area?
    Your usual sarcasm is duly noted, but it's you who have insisted that there were historical materialists prior to Marx, not me. What else did Marx learn but Hegel that those other SHMs didn't know exactly?
    Last edited by trivas7; 16th July 2008 at 03:10.
    Eppur si muove -- Galileo Galilei


    [FONT=Tahoma]
    [/FONT]
  13. #53
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Trivas:

    but it's you who have insisted that there were historical materialists prior to Marx, not me.
    Indeed, but you are the one who seems to think that this means that Marx merely repeated all he had found in their work, without adding significant ideas of his own.

    In that case, you deserve more than just sarcasm.

    What else did Marx learn but Hegel that those other SHMs didn't know exactly?
    Marx learnt off many others, but whatever it was that he learnt off Hegel (but since it is not possible to make sense of Hegel, Marx cannot have learnt much off him except how not to think and how not to write) he had repudiated by the time he wrote Das Kapital, as you should by now know -- you have been told enough times.
  14. #54
    Join Date May 2008
    Location Regno de Granda Fenviko
    Posts 2,336
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Trivas:
    Indeed, but you are the one who seems to think that this means that Marx merely repeated all he had found in their work, without adding significant ideas of his own.
    I asked what you think Marx knew that those other SHMs didn't.
    Eppur si muove -- Galileo Galilei


    [FONT=Tahoma]
    [/FONT]
  15. #55
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Trivas:

    I asked what you think Marx knew that those other SHMs didn't.
    Yes, I know you have come to look upon me as a sort of Fountain of Knowledge, but you are really going to have to start to find stuff out for yourself.

    Especially when you expect me to answer all your questions for you, while you never answer any of mine.
  16. #56
    Join Date May 2008
    Location Regno de Granda Fenviko
    Posts 2,336
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Yes, I know you have come to look upon me as a sort of Fountain of Knowledge, but you are really going to have to start to find stuff out for yourself.
    Clearly then you have no basis to call those SHMs historical materialists.
    Eppur si muove -- Galileo Galilei


    [FONT=Tahoma]
    [/FONT]
  17. #57
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    It is not I who called them this, but others, mainly Marx and Engels.

    Ronald Meek, "The Scottish Contribution to Marxist Sociology" [1954; collected in his Economics and Ideology and Other Essays, 1967. Such luminaries as Adam Ferguson and Adam Smith. This influence was actually acknowledged. In The German Ideology, right after announcing their theme that "men be in a position to live in order to be able to `make history'", they say "The French and the English, even if they have conceived the relation of this fact with so-called history only in an extremely one-sided fashion, particularly as long as they remained in the toils of political ideology, have nevertheless made the first attempts to give the writing of history a materialistic basis by being the first to write histories of civil society, of commerce and industry."]
    http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi...terialism.html

    I have to say that the above link is hostile to Marx and Engels, but there is little available on the internet on this.
    Meek actually calls them the "Scottish Historical School" (p.35), but he attributes this to Roy Pascal (Communist Party member, friend of Wittgenstein and translator of the German Ideology), who used it in his article "Property and Society: The Scottish Historical School of the Eighteenth Century" Modern Quarterly March 1938.

    The full passage is:

    Since we are dealing with the Germans, who are devoid of premises, we must begin by stating the first premise of all human existence and, therefore, of all history, the premise, namely, that men must be in a position to live in order to be able to “make history.” But life involves before everything else eating and drinking, a habitation, clothing and many other things. The first historical act is thus the production of the means to satisfy these needs, the production of material life itself. And indeed this is an historical act, a fundamental condition of all history, which today, as thousands of years ago, must daily and hourly be fulfilled merely in order to sustain human life. Even when the sensuous world is reduced to a minimum, to a stick as with Saint Bruno [Bauer], it presupposes the action of producing the stick. Therefore in any interpretation of history one has first of all to observe this fundamental fact in all its significance and all its implications and to accord it its due importance. It is well known that the Germans have never done this, and they have never, therefore, had an earthly basis for history and consequently never an historian. The French and the English, even if they have conceived the relation of this fact with so-called history only in an extremely one-sided fashion, particularly as long as they remained in the toils of political ideology, have nevertheless made the first attempts to give the writing of history a materialistic basis by being the first to write histories of civil society, of commerce and industry
    http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...logy/ch01a.htm

    In the Poverty of Philosophy, Marx wrote:

    Let us do him this justice: Lemontey wittily exposed the unpleasant consequences of the division of labor as it is constituted today, and M. Proudhon found nothing to add to it. But now that, through the fault of M. Proudhon, we have been drawn into this question of priority, let us say again, in passing, that long before M. Lemontey, and 17 years before Adam Smith, who was a pupil of A. Ferguson, the last-named gave a clear exposition of the subject in a chapter which deals specifically with the division of labor.
    p.181 of MECW volume 6.

    http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...ophy/ch02b.htm

    Marx refers to Ferguson repeatedly in his 'Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy' (MECW volume 30, pp.264-306), as he does to others of the same 'school' (Adam Smith and Dugald Stewart) throughout this work:

    http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...nomic/ch32.htm

    He does so too in Volume One of Das Kapital -- MECW volume 35, p.133, 359, 366, 367. [He also refers to others of that 'school', Robertson, p.529, Stewart and Smith (the references to these two are too numerous to list).]

    http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...me35/index.htm

    Throughout his works, the references to Smith and Stewart are in general too numerous to list.

    But, call them what you like, Marx learnt from them.

Similar Threads

  1. Dialectical Materialism
    By Pandii in forum Learning
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 13th March 2009, 01:44
  2. Dialectical Materialism
    By LtnMarxist in forum Theory
    Replies: 139
    Last Post: 28th November 2005, 04:08
  3. Dialectical Materialism...
    By The Children of the Revolution in forum Theory
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10th June 2004, 00:09

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Tags for this Thread