Dialectics question

[JimmyJazz]

Here's the part of dialectics that I like: the idea that nothing is fixed; that we have not arrived at the "end of history"; that the present is not somehow special or final or stable just because we happen to live in it; that what we call the “present” is merely a snapshot of a world and a society in motion (change).

That much seems to me both useful (especially for revolutionaries) and true.

But I still absolutely don't see the point of calling it a "new form of logic" or anything grandiose like that. To me, the above is simply an important realization that one comes to by pondering historical materialism, and studying the history of social change and social movements through the lens of historical materialism, for a long enough time. Still a far cry from a "new form of logic".

I also wonder: if you hold it as an absolute principle that things always must change, including modes of production, how does this not outright contradict the view that communism will be the "final stage in human history"? (For me this is not a problem, since I don't hold it as some inviolable logical principle that change always must occur, I simply have an awareness that huge society-altering changes have historically caught people off guard and are therefore perfectly possible again in the near future).

So if someone could answer this in plain terms and without letting themselves get sidetracked into an insult-fest with Rosa, I would appreciate it.

[red eck]

Your post betrays a desire for soothing theology to help you come to terms with the big bad world. If you can't deal with it straight up, then you're not much use as a Marxist.

You'd be far better off joining one of the major religions, much more people involved in them for a start and you can indulge in theology until the cows come home. Seriously, why don't you compare the holy trinity with dialectics and see which one you prefer? Christians do a lot of good running soup kitchens, doing aid work and generally being involved in all sorts of selfless volunteering. In fact, Religions even get involved in progressive politics, there is a vicar (minister) in north Manchester who's involved in anti-fascist work and uses her vicarage to hold anti-fascist activist meetings and workshops. On a larger scale, the Buddhist Monks in Burma were in an all-out confrontation against the Junta.

It all depends on what you want Marxism to be. Mystical or Material.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JJ, of course it's not a 'new form of logic', since it is not a form of logic at all.

I have summarised its errors here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/...mmitted_01.htm

And you are right, all we need is Historical Materialism.

Furthermore, the idea that things change is already built into language (practically every verb attests to that fact); so we did not need that ruling-class mystic Heraclitus, or that bourgeois mystic Hegel, to tell us that things change.

[Ratatosk]

I also wonder: if you hold it as an absolute principle that things always must change, including modes of production, how does this not outright contradict the view that communism will be the "final stage in human history"?

I'm rather curious about that, myself.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Your post betrays a desire for soothing theology to help you come to terms with the big bad world. If you can't deal with it straight up, then you're not much use as a Marxist.

Dude STFU. Nobody's perfect, neither are you. And because your not perfect your not supposed to be a Marxist. Seriously if all Marxists we're like you i'd never had been a Communist. Well, in your case it's 'Marxist'.

Argh, annoying intellectuals...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Mao Chi X:

Argh, annoying intellectuals...

Hegel was an 'intellectual'; so was Marx.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ratatosk:

I'm rather curious about that, myself.

Indeed, it rather looks like 'the dialectic' is an abomination for the dialectical Marxist too since it teaches:

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.

Looks like every communist should, like me, become an anti-dialectician, or wave goodbye to a communist future.

[JimmyJazz]

Your post betrays a desire for soothing theology to help you come to terms with the big bad world. If you can't deal with it straight up, then you're not much use as a Marxist.

You'd be far better off joining one of the major religions, much more people involved in them for a start and you can indulge in theology until the cows come home. Seriously, why don't you compare the holy trinity with dialectics and see which one you prefer? Christians do a lot of good running soup kitchens, doing aid work and generally being involved in all sorts of selfless volunteering. In fact, Religions even get involved in progressive politics, there is a vicar (minister) in north Manchester who's involved in anti-fascist work and uses her vicarage to hold anti-fascist activist meetings and workshops. On a larger scale, the Buddhist Monks in Burma were in an all-out confrontation against the Junta.

It all depends on what you want Marxism to be. Mystical or Material.

Chill out. I'm trying to give dialecticians, some of whom I really respect (e.g. Random Precision) a chance to explain themselves in a non-insulting atmosphere. It wouldn't exactly have started things off well if I'd said "I think dialectics are total crap" in the first post, would it have? You should probably have been able to read through the lines to see that is my position, however. I was a member of the Anti-dialectics group for a while, but I left it because (1) it seemed to exist mostly to carry on a crusade against specific posts in the dialectics group and (2) I'm not sure that "fighting" dialectics is a good use of my time, no matter what I think of them.

[JimmyJazz]

JJ, of course it's not a 'new form of logic', since it is not a form of logic at all.

I have summarised its errors here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/...mmitted_01.htm

And you are right, all we need is Historical Materialism.

Furthermore, the idea that things change is already built into language (practically every verb attests to that fact); so we did not need that ruling-class mystic Heraclitus, or that bourgeois mystic Hegel, to tell us that things change.

(emph. added)

It is not built into our thought, however. At least in America, we're extremely oriented towards dismissing the possibility for sudden or sweeping changes of any sort. People who talk about peak oil production, or the decline of the American empire, or the fall of capitalism to a radicalized working class, are looked at as nutty. This may just be another way of saying that the hubris of the people at the top causes them to become very conservative, however. Of course you're psychologically motivated to deny that things can radically change (as, historically, they always have) when you're currently sitting on top of the pyramid.

Personally, the idea that "history is always in motion" has seemed plausible to me in direct proportion as I've studied history and seen this for myself. Yes: modes of production have continually changed (this isn't just some craziness from Marx and Engels). Yes: political superstructures have changed to correspond with this. Yes: empires rise and then inevitably fall.

But to induce from this that there is some kind of general law about change seems to me like a vain attempt to create a shortcut for convincing people that radical change is possible, a shortcut that could be used to bypass their having to engage in all that study of history for themselves. So it's extremely tempting, because who wouldn't love a fast way to make new radicals? However, I still don't think it's valid, because most people are going to be like me: dismissive of the "dialectical" idea that "history is in constant motion" before they've made a study of history, and slightly more open to it after they have. So dialectics is not a shortcut at all but a form of preaching to the choir. Nobody is going to believe the "general rule" about history in motion until they've seen the examples for themselves (feudalism-->liberal capitalism/democracy, liberal capitalism/democracy-->working class movements that spill over beyond electoral solutions). So we'd do better to forget about the "general rule" and just show everybody the examples.

That's my $.02 on it anyway.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JJ:

It is not built into our thought, however.

It is -- otherwise we'd not survive as a species.

At least in America, we're extremely oriented towards dismissing the possibility for sudden or sweeping changes of any sort. People who talk about peak oil production, or the decline of the American empire, or the fall of capitalism to a radicalized working class, are looked at as nutty. This may just be another way of saying that the hubris of the people at the top causes them to become very conservative, however. Of course you're psychologically motivated to deny that things can radically change (as, historically, they always have) when you're currently sitting on top of the pyramid.

The point is, of course, that we can and do use ordinary language, coupled with Historical Materialism, to show that change is possible.

Hence, we have no need of 'dialectics'.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Hegel was an 'intellectual'; so was Marx.

Proletarianized intellectuals VS 'intellectuals'. Well maybe i should have said petit-bourgeouisie intellectuals, but that sounds rather cliche.

[PRC-UTE]

I also wonder: if you hold it as an absolute principle that things always must change, including modes of production, how does this not outright contradict the view that communism will be the "final stage in human history"?

Marx described Communism as ending human prehistory, so from that one can infer that this would be the beginning of new types of civilisations and modes of production we can't imagine right now.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PRC-UTE:

Marx described Communism as ending human prehistory, so from that one can infer that this would be the beginning of new types of civilisations and modes of production we can't imagine right now.

Maybe so, but the 'dialectic' is no respecter of civilisations:

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.

According to this, communist society too is doomed.