Lenin’s Tomb
Brill; this is a great move, posting videos at SW!!!
I can link to these at work, and play them through the huge internet video screens, and, with a bit of luck, help lead young minds 'astray' with this stuff.
Any videos you know of that I can use to build for the 24th???
Rosa? Are you the same Rosa Lichtenstein that's all about trashing Communists on the Communist League website as well as RevLeft? Or at the very least trashing Marx and Dialectical Materialism?
If so whatcha doing here?
Comrade blogger Jimmy Higgins has posted up some dispatches from friends in Nairobi as well:
http://firemtn.blogspot.com/2007...um-
nairobi.html
And check out Sasha Simic on Commentisfree: http://commentisfree.guardian.co...1/
post_966.html, which also has a link to his previous articles.
...and check out the appalling responses to Sasha's article: I hadn't realised people still attempted to counterpose charitable work to political action - most charities don't any more.
(What is it about CiF that attracts this sort of thing?)
M:
"Rosa? Are you the same Rosa Lichtenstein that's all about trashing Communists on the Communist League website as well as RevLeft? Or at the very least trashing Marx and Dialectical Materialism?"
I am only trashing Dialectical Materialism (DM), *not* Marx or Historical Materialism (which I fully accept, once Hegel's mystical gobbledygook has been excised). I am a Trotskyist, after all.
And the CL booted me out because Miles cannot answer my criticisms, and he wants to protect the innocent eyes of the members of his workers' party from my working class criticisms of a card carrying theorist of the ruling class -- Hegel.
You can find more details at my site.
And I have argued all the dialectical mystics to a standstill (and beyond) at RevLeft.
And at 'New Youth', if you know of it.
Slowly working my way across the internet....
Rosa did you also write about Wittgenstein and his works use by anti-Hegelian Marxists? If your the one I am thinking of, could you kindly post a link.
Thank you.
Sully, I have written about this in all my essays (which now total over 650,000 words!); but I have published a specific one on W here:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/
ros...ittgenstein.htm
And I use his method to undermine all of metaphysics (including its poor relation: 'materialist' dialectics), as well to show how and why all of traditional philosophy is shot through with ruling-class forms of thought, and how it represents their view of the world), here:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ros...ge%20016-
12.htm
The latter is merely a summary of much longer essay I will be publishing over the next two years or so (in about seven parts) devoted to this topic, and to trashing Hegel (in a way that as never been attempted before).
You can find a very basic summary of all my ideas here:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ros...Oppose%
20DM.htm
Rosa: all a bit tl;dr (too long; didn't read) for me, sadly. Could you point me to the point where you explain what actually is the appropriate philosophical basis for historical materialism. If you could also apply this methodology to concrete political problems facing the movement today, explaining what you would do that "DM-zombies" like John Rees aren't doing, I would be more likely to be convinced.
Rosa,
Have you read Althusser's 'The Underground Current of the Philosophy of the Encounter'? (Philosophy of the Encounter, Verso, 2006)
He offers a philosophical framework derived from Epicurus, Spinoza, Machiavelli, Rousseau, Heidigger and Marx based around the idea of 'aleatory materialism' and the Epicurian idea of atoms falling in a void, perturbed by a 'clinamen' and thus giving rise to the complexity of the world - completely distinct from Hegel and dialectics, in other words.
He doesn't develop these ideas into a 'tool' for Marxists, but his concept does offer some room for development and a different set of mental concepts to play with.
Rosa - Whilst I understand the objection to Dialectical Materialism (trying to build some kind of dialectical theory of everything) surely there is a utility to dialectical analysis in looking at actually existing *social* (not natural science) realities, as part of a *social* totality?
Also, what's you opinion on Bertell Ollman's Dance of the Dialectic?
Not to mention - except that I'm about to - that "dialectical materialism" gets a new, decidedly unhegelian (but recognisably althusserian) spin put on it by Badiou, who distinguishes it from the "democratic materialism" of pomo consensus...
The Lebanese general strike comes, and 24 hours later the Lebanese general strike goes but not a word about it in Tombistan.
In the meantime, by all means continue reading Rosa's excellent Anti-Dialectics site.
Worraller, Rosa isn't just anti-Hegelian, but anti-philosophical in a Wittgensteinian sense (sorry if that's obscure, but you can find out more on Rosa's site), so Althusser's concoction won't go down at all well either.
Vicious Chekhist, accordingly, Rosa is not going to offer any philosophical basis for the practice of historical materialism. I can see the source of your resentment: "I know who John Rees is, but what the hell has Rosa Liechtenstein ever done for the movement?", but I'm sure you don't have any trouble with SWP critiques of, say, Chavez, even if some Venezuelans might wonder who the hell we are to criticise. Rosa is exposing a very serious collection of errors which may remain below the surface when there's plenty of StWC demos and Respect work to keep us busy, but which have enormous wrecking potential in the event of a downturn.
Dialectical Materialism is a religion, mystical and anti-materialist (in spite of the name), and the more it impinges on the practice of revolutionaries, the more it will drive them towards substitutionism and distrust of the working class. Anyone, like Rosa, who's trying to prevent it from becoming mandatory Party doctrine is doing a very worthwhile job. Have a look at this, starting at the end of paragraph 4 and continuing to paragraph 6 if you don't think the bodysnatchers are already at work.
Ask yourself this: would you want to see dialectical materialist doctrines appearing all over Socialist Worker? And if not, why not? Do you think it should be reserved for an elite priesthood? On the other hand, Socialist Worker is (rightly) always full of reporting and analysis that's shaped by historical materialism, and can do so because this cuts with the grain for working-class readers.
NB Badiou speaks of the "materialist dialectic", not "dialectical materialism".
So he does. It makes for a cute chiasmus: Democratic Materialism / Materialist Dialectic.
There's also a modest blog from yours truly, but I've been concentrating more on organising out here. GR's had three excellent meetings (each attended by 80 = 180 people) featuring speakers like Trevor Ngwane, Walden Bello, Samir Amin and Salim Vally.
The IST is doing exceptionally well, never had enough books to quench the thridst for revolutionary literature.
Fucking hot here, but you lot keep warm...
but anti-philosophical in a Wittgensteinian sense (sorry if that's obscure)
This is always my deep problem with this argument. Its well known that Marxists have made constant attempts to dispense with philosophy (for many of the reasons Rosa advances) but equally well known that it keeps coming back. One way of understanding this is in terms of class struggle. ie that the hold of ruling class ideas exerts a kind of gravitational pull, in this case away from earth.
I'm not entirely convinced by this because it leaves no room for the possibility that philosophy keeps returning because its expulsion was premature.
I'm even less convinced by the success of Witgenstein's project. The cry 'I have dispensed with philosophy' too often in the history of ideas resembles the cry 'I'm beyond ideology and entirely objective'. Subjectively very convincing but open to lampoon.
Discussing the need to dispense with philosophy cannot be equated with actually dispensing with it.
I should clarify that I'm not entirely sure that one can dispense with ontology even in everyday talk, let alone theoretical languages. I think there are always assumptions 'on what there is', and that the project of replacing ontological talk with 'observation statements' is not a linear path.
If there is such a path then its littered with ontological talk along the way, and we're far from reaching its end. Its possible that there is not such a path, and that the kind of transparency envisaged by the project is an illusion.
There's a peculiar row between Badiou and Zizek about this - Z prefers "dialectical materialism". I side with Badiou myself, I don't think the philosophical consequences of revolutionary politics should be thought of as a philosophical "ism".
Here's a must-read piece by Badiou on the problems of 'dispensing with philosophy':
"I could stop my lecture here, and say with my hair standing straight up on my head like a singer in the Punk style: no future! After that we would all drink the alcohol of nihilism. But there remain some little difficulties."
Fantastic well done again lenin.
Yes the comments about Sasha's article are terrible.
the philosophical consequences of revolutionary politics
Quite so: that is the correct order.
I'm sure you don't have any trouble with SWP critiques of, say, Chavez
How are you sure?
Rosa is exposing a very serious collection of errors
Truth is always concrete (I assume that the anti-dialectic crowd agree with that?). I get the idea that Rosa opposes "historical materialism" to "dialectic materialism". But I couldn't find a description of the "historical materialist" method anywhere on her site. I want to know what real revolutionary philosophy looks like and how it can work in practice. Otherwise the argument is totally abstract, idealist, even scholastic.
johng said: This is always my deep problem with this argument. Its well known that Marxists have made constant attempts to dispense with philosophy ... I'm even less convinced by the success of Witgenstein's project.
John, Rosa's demonstration that the religion of Dialectical Materialism is a skipful of pig slurry is not dependent on Wittgenstein, so it really doesn't matter what you think about his work, unless you want to use this as an excuse to hang on to the arcane mysteries of DM (I've no idea whether you feel particularly attached to DM, so I'm not accusing you of anything).
johng said: I should clarify that I'm not entirely sure that one can dispense with ontology even in everyday talk, let alone theoretical languages.
Through history, the everyday assumptions of the producing classes about what exists have never amounted to ontology. Ontology consists of theories on what exists put forward by the priests and court jesters employed by the ruling class. Sorry, John, but workers do not need to have any theory whatsoever about how universals are instantiated, or whether particulars suffice, and whether this requires possible-worlds ontology etc. This is not mere philistinism, because these are not life-enriching concepts - they are small parts of a larger system of ruling-class smokescreens. But even among priests and court jesters some play the ontological game less adeptly than others, and Hegel was one of the crassest failures in this respect.
johng again: I think there are always assumptions 'on what there is', and that the project of replacing ontological talk with 'observation statements' is not a linear path.
John, that's the project of empiricism you're talking about, which Wittgenstein rejected along with other metaphysical clutter. Please don't arrive at judgements without some prior familiarity. But as I said, the exposure of Dialectical Materialism for the junk that it is doesn't require you to take any decisions about the success of Wittgenstein's project, whatever anyone says that was.
VC:
"Rosa: all a bit tl;dr (too long; didn't read) for me, sadly. Could you point me to the point where you explain what actually is the appropriate philosophical basis for historical materialism. If you could also apply this methodology to concrete political problems facing the movement today, explaining what you would do that "DM-zombies" like John Rees aren't doing, I would be more likely to be convinced."
I will try to respond in less than five words so that you are not taxed too much! :)
HM does not need a philosophical basis, merely more and better science.
As to concrete political situations, we need only use HM -- nothing else is required.
And, if you can't be bothered to read my stuff, you will probably never be convinced. :)
So, what can I tell you....?
the religion of Dialectical Materialism is a skipful of pig slurry
Excuse me, but this kind of internet tough-guy language leaves as nasty a taste in the mouth as the section on Rosa's website where she mocks and abuses people who've disagreed with her online. Thirty more years of this and you'll be the Sparts.
Worraller:
Have you read Althusser's 'The Underground Current of the Philosophy of the Encounter'? (Philosophy of the Encounter, Verso, 2006)
"He offers a philosophical framework derived from Epicurus, Spinoza, Machiavelli, Rousseau, Heidigger and Marx based around the idea of 'aleatory materialism' and the Epicurian idea of atoms falling in a void, perturbed by a 'clinamen' and thus giving rise to the complexity of the world - completely distinct from Hegel and dialectics, in other words."
This is the only thing I haven't read of his, and going by the other stuff I have suffered through of his, I am not likely to, either.
Sorry to disappoint; but the last French philosopher who was worth reading (other than Rousseau) was Jean Buridan.
hey I don't want to be a spanner in the works but maybe some of you blog boy groupies could get out a bit…I mean am I the only one who thinks that anyone who says things like "Sully, I have written about this in all my essays (which now total over 650,000 words!); but I have published a specific one…The latter is merely a summary of much longer essay I will be publishing over the next two years or so (in about seven parts) devoted to this topic, and to trashing Hegel (in a way that as never been attempted before)."
Should be avoided at all costs!
Yes Rosa you keep 'erm working your way across the internet…I'll get on with my life and attempting to change the world…
VC:
"Truth is always concrete (I assume that the anti-dialectic crowd agree with that?)."
But that is abstract, so it can't (on that basis) be true!
"But I couldn't find a description of the "historical materialist" method anywhere on her site."
Well, I specifically said on the opening page that I was going to write nothing about ti since I agree with it 100% (if the Hegelian b*llocks is removed).
So, why you would want to read about something at at my site I specifically left out is a mystery, since you could read, say, Callincos, or Paul Blacklege, instead (and thus you would know about all there is to know about 'my method' -- i.e, it is almost identical with theirs!).
In short, I agree with the strategy and tactics of the SWP!
"Otherwise the argument is totally abstract, idealist, even scholastic."
Well no; if this Hegelian stuff is total b*llocks, as I claim, and if it has crippled the *application* of HM at specificand crucially important junctures in our movement's history (and I can show that it has), and if it has contributed to the monumental lack of success Marxism (and particularly Trotskyism) has 'enjoyed' over the last 60 or so years, as I can also show, then it is eminently concrete.
Noel:
"Yes Rosa you keep 'erm working your way across the internet…I'll get on with my life and attempting to change the world…"
But, Trots like us are not doing too well are we?
Why?
I partially blame the mystical ruling-class theory we have swallowed.
You do not.
But, I can prove my claims are correct.
Care to take me on?
Or do you want to go back to *thinking* you are changing the world -- like Idealists have always done??
Vicious Chekist said: Truth is always concrete ...
Stop right there: you're into metaphysics as soon as you open your mouth. The word "truth" in your sentence is an abstraction, so by definition it's not concrete - it's freewheeling, it's not doing any work.
That doesn't mean that the same word can't be used concretely, as in "I never crossed that picket line, and that's the truth" - this is concrete, whether or not the speaker is lying. johng - that, by the way, is a very rudimentary little example of Wittgenstein's anti-metaphysical approach, or as it's known to workers in this country, "cutting the crap". Philosophers' crap is ultimately the same as the bosses' crap - it's just had to pass round a few more U-bends.
Vicious Chekist again: I get the idea that Rosa opposes "historical materialism" to "dialectic materialism". But I couldn't find a description of the "historical materialist" method anywhere on her site. I want to know what real revolutionary philosophy looks like and how it can work in practice.
If you want a good demonstration of historical materialism in practice, you start at the beginning, with Marx's superb "The Class Struggles in France". But any half-decent piece of historical writing from Bookmarks should do the job. The thing is, you know this perfectly well already - you're just being obtuse and metaphysical out of hostility to Rosa's site.
Historical materialism is a tool for revolutionaries, or indeed for any worker with some fight left in her - but it's not the struggle itself. Similiarly, Rosa's excellent and exhaustive demolition of Dialectical Materialism is an attempt to prevent revolutionaries from rendering themselves or others unfit to fight - again, this isn't and can't be the fight itself. You should ask yourself why you're making impossible and inappropriate demands of Rosa's site.
Vicious Chekhist: Otherwise the argument is totally abstract, idealist, even scholastic.
Yeah, right.
VC:
"Excuse me, but this kind of internet tough-guy language leaves as nasty a taste in the mouth as the section on Rosa's website where she mocks and abuses people who've disagreed with her online. Thirty more years of this and you'll be the Sparts."
So, you had time to read that, but not what I believe? Brilliant!
I have been a revolutionary (in and around the SWP) now for nigh on 25 years; and will always remain as such.
I give certain comrades a hard time since I have heard the same stuff from Dialectical Mystics now for 25 years; you tend to get a little tetchy after about 15.
In fact, the same stuff as I see here. Not a very inventive bunch.
Indeed, this seems to be one part of reality that the Hercalitean flux has missed.
Dialectical Mystics do not change.
I used to be very nice and patient, and it got me nowhere; I still got the same ignorant abuse and character assassination, with words and ideas in my mouth (that were a million miles away from my claims). All of them pontificate about my ideas, but refuse to read what I actually say.
Fine, no one has to tread a single thing I ever write -- but then they do not need to pontificate either.
So, I do not piss about now....
Both barrels every time.
HM does not need a philosophical basis, merely more and better science.
In what way, then, is "HM" distinguished from old-fashioned positivism/empiricism? And I repeat: can you show me an HM-based analysis of a concrete current political situation, and show how it would differ from a DM-based one?
VC:
"In what way, then, is "HM" distinguished from old-fashioned positivism/empiricism?"
By the use of Marx's schema: the complex interplay between the forces and relations of production, coupled with a concrete analysis in each epoch of the class forces on the ground, etc.
[These ideas Marx got from the Scottish materialists, not Hegel.]
It is only because you have accepted the myth that to be anti-Hegel is to be an empiricist or a positivist --, and thus to be anti-theory --, that you can ask this.
I am quite happy with scientific theory; that's why I want to throw out the mystical stuff.
But, even if this were not the case, dialectics is such a lamentably poor theory that it does not even make the list.
HM, on this basis, would be identical with what you already know as HM; it would just be lacking Hegelian jargon.
The advantage is that its application would not be cripled by the Hermetic sub-logic comrades try to use to justify all manner of whacky ideas.
I give a list of these here:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/
ros...DM.htm#Practice
[Recall this is a very basic introductory essay; the proof will be contained in Essay Nine Part Two when that appears.]
Bat:
"NB Badiou speaks of the "materialist dialectic", not "dialectical materialism"."
Yes, and that makes about as much difference as this: 'that is a dodgy dossier' vs 'that dossier is dodgy'.
Vicious Chekist said: And I repeat: can you show me an HM-based analysis of a concrete current political situation, and show how it would differ from a DM-based one?
Step 1: Open a copy of Socialist Worker.
Step 2: start reading (in the current issue, say, "Management by Stress" or the piece on Sri Lanka, but pretty much anything will do). Read it slowly, savour the class analysis. That's historical materialism. The next three steps will cover the Dialectical Materialism angle.
Step 3: Search for any crap about "quantity changing to quality". The answer will be "no". Put an "x" in the box and move on.
Step 4: Any crap about the "interpenetration of opposites"? No. "x" and move on.
Step 5: Any crap about the "negation of the negation"? No. "x" and stop.
Step 6: Crack open a bottle of beer. I prefer Hoegaarden for these celebratory occasions.
you're just being obtuse and metaphysical out of hostility... You should ask yourself why you're making impossible and inappropriate demands
This is not a Marxist way to argue. It is a cultist way to argue. The attitude that if I have honest questions about anti-dialectics I am "motivated by hostility" and that I should question my own motivations... you sound like Scientologists, for heaven's sake.
I am legitimately interested to see whether you can have Marxism without dialectics. In particular, I am intrigued by the parallels between Hegelianism and hermeticism - which I have personally noticed in the past. If as Rosa says, "The Class Struggle in France" is virtually free of dialectic reasoning then she has a good point, and I look forward to seeing a modern work of major HM theory written using traditional formal logic.
But if you're going to attempt to win arguments by browbeating, sneering and other cult-like tactics rather than on the evidence, then you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow, to quote from the classics.
VC:
Well, once more, but not to put words in Babeuf's mouth: you need to ask why, when you say you can't be bothered to read my Essays, you spend time reading a largely irrelevant series of debates, ignoring the context, then ask a series of irrelevant questions about a topic I declare upfront that I agree with all SWP-ers on: namely HM?
However, I outline the Hermetic background to DM here:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ros...%20016-7-
14.htm
[Scroll down to the last 1/4 of the page: sunnmary of Essay Fourteen; that essay in all its glory will be published in 2008.]
And I have posted a chapter from a book specifically devoted to this topic here:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/
ros...glenn_magee.htm
Comrades who feel a little daunted by the prospect of having to wade through my interminable Essays, will find that I have summarised my ideas in a manageable Essay here:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ros...Oppose%
20DM.htm
Vicious Chekist being ever so vicious: This is not a Marxist way to argue. It is a cultist way to argue. The attitude that if I have honest questions about anti-dialectics I am "motivated by hostility" and that I should question my own motivations... you sound like Scientologists, for heaven's sake.
Jesus, I was trying to be charitable. OK, then, sorry I take it back: you weren't being metaphysical out of obtuseness or hostility, it's just the best you can manage.
And Rosa and I are like cultists or Scientologists for recommending Marx's historical writings or Socialist Worker articles, while this founding classic of Dialectical Materialism is presumably what you take to be non-cultist:
Dialectics ... prevails throughout nature ... the motion through opposites which asserts itself everywhere in nature, and which by the continual conflict of the opposites ... determines the life of nature.
Wow. Far out ... how did he know all that? He must have a direct line to God. Well you're the dialectician, so who wrote the above words? First correct entry wins a gold-plated negation of the negation with rechargeable battery.
Great revolutionary figures of the past were human. A lot of the time they talked good sense, presented it persuasively, etc. - that's why they're remembered and discussed in the revolutionary socialist tradition. But in their gloomier moments, when revolutionary hopes had been dashed, some of them - sometimes - talked garbage. Some Bolsheviks turned to Machism and God-building after the hopes of 1905 had been crushed. Lenin rightly attacked them, but in his Swiss exile he himself turned to another form of idealism - Dialectical Materialism. Trotsky did the same after Stalin had sent him into exile. No need to be over harsh - they'd gone through morale-destroying experiences that we know nothing of. But we should draw from the best of their ideas and practices, not the worst.
Do any DM believers reading this imagine that the Civil War would have been won any quicker, or that the Revolution might have spread if only Lenin had made a priority of discussing the negation of the negation in his Pravda articles, or if Trotsky had emphasised the interpenetration of opposites in his speeches from the armoured train? But if not, why not? If DM is really essential knowledge for revolutionaries, then by your reasoning these were tragic missed opportunities.
[Recall this is a very basic introductory essay; the proof will be contained in Essay Nine Part Two when that appears.]
gotta love that, can't wait Rosa, can't wait!
Please people don't try and engage Rosa on this he's a total bore on it, as we can see already…
babeuf, what is this negation of the negation crap? Well let's think- living things are not merely the sum total of the conditions which act externally on them (their ‘negation’) but absorb these conditions and react back on them, creating something new (‘negating’ their ‘negation’). Applied to humanity, it means that those who suffer passively from the conditions in which they find themselves have the potential of becoming conscious of the causes of their suffering and striving to master them. Alienation itself creates the possibility of the struggle against alienation…an idea I think you'll find in Socialist Worker all the time, just not in abstract philosophical language.
So many mechanical Marxists, so little time…he he!
;-)
First point: don't conflate 'dialectics' with either the late Engel's excurison into metaphysics (ie. considering a dialectial cosmology) or the "Dialectical Materialism" of Plehkhanov.
Next:
"By the use of Marx's schema: the complex interplay between the forces and relations of production, coupled with a concrete analysis in each epoch of the class forces on the ground, etc. "
Class, forces of production and relations of production are abstractions imposed during analysis on a multiplicity of indivual relations, between active human beings, in motion and interplaying . Only one of these (Class) has any meaning outside of that, in that individuals situated at a similiar point in the relations of production will subjectivley articulate a collective class conscioussness and thus social relations between themselves.
Marx's The Class struggle in France is cited as an example of Historical materialism without dialectical 'mystification'; however, although I'm working from memory on this is it not the case that conflict between different fractions of the bourgeosie (finance aristocracy and industrial bourgeosie) is outlined in Class struggles/18th brumiare? What is the conflict between the finance and industry within the bourgeoisie if not an internal contradiction of the bourgeosie?
And as for the quantity/quality transition, I'm not sure on this but surely primitive accumulation represents this?
Some final points:
"I am quite happy with scientific theory; that's why I want to throw out the mystical stuff."
Define 'scientific theory' please.
"HM, on this basis, would be identical with what you already know as HM; it would just be lacking Hegelian jargon."
Historical materialism evolved from (and in reaction to) hegelian thought; you can take out 'jargon' but you still need to think in terms of relations, interplay, totalitys , movement through time.
"Step 1: Open a copy of Socialist Worker."
That's Journalism and often, in my opinion, excessivley dumbed down journalism.
Forgive me but I'm not sure I really understand why you have a problem with Dialectics; from a cusory glance at your website it seems to be that: 1. you consider it mystificatory. 2. Marxism has consistently 'failed' 3. This is because of the mystification of dialectics.
Might I ask - how does it mystify who? Surely, if you are interested in Historical Materialism, you can look at the historical reasons for the current relative weakness (not failure) of Marxism, rather than taking a rather lumpenWeberian approach of looking for deficiencies in the sphere of ideas as a cause.
"Dialectics ... prevails throughout nature ... the motion through opposites which asserts itself everywhere in nature, and which by the continual conflict of the opposites ... determines the life of nature."
Stop conflating Plehkanov's (& subsequent russians) 'Dialectical Materialism' with Dialectics as used by Marx.
Noel:
"gotta love that, can't wait Rosa, can't wait!"
It's probably too difficult for you, Noel. I use words with several syllables.
Sorry!
"Please people don't try and engage Rosa on this he's a total bore on it, as we can see already…"
I accept your capitulation.
I think Babeuf can handle this:
"Well let's think- living things are not merely the sum total of the conditions which act externally on them (their ‘negation’) but absorb these conditions and react back on them, creating something new (‘negating’ their ‘negation’)."
But he might want to know, like me, how you can so easily confuse linguistic categories with material reality.
I suppose you mystics really do think nature is mind.
"So many mechanical Marxists, so little time…he he!"
So much sloppy thought from you mystics -- and you are not even remotely aware of it.
We can, I take it, look forward to another 100 years of 'not changing the world', with you Hermeticists in charge, eh, Noel?
And still, even now, you can't defend a single one of your class-compromised ideas.
living things are not merely the sum total of the conditions which act externally on them (their ‘negation’) but absorb these conditions and react back on them, creating something new (‘negating’ their ‘negation’). Applied to humanity, it means that those who suffer passively from the conditions in which they find themselves have the potential of becoming conscious of the causes of their suffering and striving to master them. Alienation itself creates the possibility of the struggle against alienation…an idea I think you'll find in Socialist Worker all the time, just not in abstract philosophical language.
Okay, noel, so you've read the Chris Harman article as well. Question: does one 'absorb' one's conditions in the same way that a plant 'absorbs' sunlight, or that the planets 'absorb' gravitational pull? Do you really think such a level of generality is useful, and justified in materialist terms?
I must say, however, to Rosa and babeuf, I don't think it's right to simply dismiss the entire intellectual lineage as stridently as you both do. I appreciate that there are the exigencies of your struggle to take into account, but I think it's crucial to try and understand the appeal of dialectix as classically formulated. Why, for instance, did Engels want to attach historical materialism to questions of science and nature? Why did it make sense to him to do so using the Hegelian dialectic? Why was this preferable to positivism or eclecticism? Further, why has it appealed to so many reputable scientists and philosophers? To call it nonsense is to take a stance not all that dissimilar to blowhard atheists like Richard Dawkins does on religion. If we think Dawkins is hideously misguided and arrogant in how he approaches that, then consider that here we have, not a religion, but a method of inquiry that claims to be based on observable phenomena, and you repeat the Dawkins gesture: its simply a superstition, a vat of pigshit, a superfluous excess that is entirely external to historical materialism.
Further, while I'm sceptical about the claims for the dialectic, I am also sceptical of rebuttals that tell us "look at Socialist Worker, there is historical materialism". The tincture of "ordinary bloody people" sanctimony is not far away, since the implication is that anything which might involve argot and specialised language is necessarily idealist. I expect that someone might recoil as much from such phrases as 'concrete hierarchy of determinations' as 'interpenetration of opposites', yet the former is a matter for historical materialism and the latter a matter for diamat.
Incidentally, Rosa: do you recognise a difference between the phrases "historical materialism" and "materialist history"?
Ilya, we are merely observing Marx's dictum that the ruling ideas are *always* those of the ruling-class.
When you see the same a priori ideas turning up yiem and again for 2500 years, across the entire globe, and with nothing to support them other than a few rather crass verbal tricks (and obscure jargom of the sort you seem to be growing worryingly fond of once more!) -- I think Babeuf and I are not being 'strident' enough.
Add to this the fact that not a single 'problem' has ever been solved in philosophy (nor yet in dialectics - in that case, it has presided over 150 of almost unremitting failure), and that the very worst parts of Marxism are smothered in verbal spaghetti of a traditonal sort, I think we should turn the volume up to eleven.
[Exhibit A for the prosecution in this instance is appended below.]
"Why did it make sense to him to do so using the Hegelian dialectic?"
1) He was brought up in the pietist tradition and pietists were heavily influenced by Jacob Boehme, who passed on to Hegel this Hermetic virus.
Ruling ideas -- you see a pattern yet?
2)Link that to the fact that he returned to the mystical fold when the workers' movement was in decline post 1868 (he started to abandon it again when the new unionism took hold post 1885).
In short, as Babeuf noted, he turned to consolation in defeat; he became a god-seeker. Lenin was right; in defeat the very best seek out mysticism.
"Incidentally, Rosa: do you recognise a difference between the phrases "historical materialism" and "materialist history"?"
No. Apart from rhetorical tone, do you?
Exhibit A:
"The tincture of "ordinary bloody people" sanctimony is not far away, since the implication is that anything which might involve argot and specialised language is necessarily idealist. I expect that someone might recoil as much from such phrases as 'concrete hierarchy of determinations' as 'interpenetration of opposites', yet the former is a matter for historical materialism and the latter a matter for diamat."
Insomniac:
'First point: don't conflate 'dialectics' with either the late Engel's excurison into metaphysics (ie. considering a dialectial cosmology) or the "Dialectical Materialism" of Plehkhanov.'
What on earth makes you think we do/have?
Heraclitus to Bertell Ollman; into the flames with the lot.
'Class, forces of production and relations of production are abstractions imposed during analysis on a multiplicity of indivual relations, between active human beings, in motion and interplaying . Only one of these (Class) has any meaning outside of that, in that individuals situated at a similiar point in the relations of production will subjectivley articulate a collective class conscioussness and thus social relations between themselves.'
I was asked for a *theory*, so you'd hardly expect a long, almost infinite list of concrete facts, would you?
"And as for the quantity/quality transition, I'm not sure on this but surely primitive accumulation represents this?"
I deny this, and DM-fans can only get away with this sort of wild claim because of the sloppy way they use these terms (never defining them, etc.).
'Define 'scientific theory' please.'
I will as soon as you define 'define'.
'Historical materialism evolved from (and in reaction to) hegelian thought; you can take out 'jargon' but you still need to think in terms of relations, interplay, totalitys , movement through time.'
It evolved from Scottish materialism; Hegel just mystified it.
'Might I ask - how does it mystify who?'
You I fear.
How? That's a long story.
Check out my site.
Yes Dawkins is undialectical (ie. without an understanding of contradictions) on his view of religion…and of course Dialectics is sooo unimportant that Trotsky went to the wall with the american comrades when they started to talk like you too, so obviously he didn't consider it important(!) - hey we don't need this dialectical stuff, just give us the history and materialism!
Changing the world always brings philosophical problems, and in a contradictory world dialectical logic is essential…
Len, me old mate we all know you don't like Dialectics so let's not go there… all I can say is whenever you discuss it you seem to lose all of the faculties for reason and argument you normally possess - yes there is a dialectic in nature, no it's not the same as the dialectic in society so the plant analogy doesn't work if you're trying to accuse me of that…although unless you'd just prefer another word why all the worry about 'absorbing' your conditions? Are more 'natural' metaphors not allowed? Your consciousness is 'determined' if you want other slightly mechanical language…absorbing as a metaphor though gets at something of the 'process' better I think, but then 'processes' and 'dynamism', something being one thing and something else simultaneously leads back to…um…dialectics…Although of course human beings are part of nature so we do 'absorb' all sorts of things other than ideas, dialectically just like plants - sunlight, water, air, food, heat, cold, light you do suntan don't you?
Do you disagree with the substance of Harman's point even if you don't like the metaphor? Do you think people are conditioned by the society they live in and then react back against it or not…what Gramsci would call the battle of 'good sense' over 'common sense'
- but to be honest I'm not arsed arguing about, your goodself excepted (although on dialectics your just as blind I'm afraid) sectarians on your comments board as, I have more important things to do with my life!
…and also what with the 'diamat' bollocks? it's a stalinist phrase and I don't hear anyone but you using it…
ciao ciao!
Insomnaic, finally:
'Surely, if you are interested in Historical Materialism, you can look at the historical reasons for the current relative weakness (not failure) of Marxism, rather than taking a rather lumpenWeberian approach of looking for deficiencies in the sphere of ideas as a cause.'
Well, you need to find out what I actually do believe before you start accusing me of things I do not.
You are surely not going argue now that incorrect theories make no difference?
Or that subjective factors can affect the leadership of the party, at key historical junctures?
Or that marxists are robots?
Or heaven forbid, that ideas are not tested in practice?
Or that if they are that when they fail we blame other factors, and ignore those ideas?
Or that the theory all you mystics extol and praise to the heavens (from where it came) as the key to all you do can be exculpated when our movement fails so often, and for so long?
Dialectics: the theory that is never tested in practice for fear it would self-destruct.
noel - I don't think I'm being unreasonable here. You offer a way of thinking about what you hold to be an aspect of reality that is universal, that is its dialectical structure. You hold that we can deduce this from nature: that is, it is an empirical, and not metaphorical, claim.
I merely asked, with a bit of sarcasm, whether this metaphorical description of a human being's relations with her surroundings is adequate to that claim. I don't think it is.
You ask: Do you think people are conditioned by the society they live in and then react back against it or not…what Gramsci would call the battle of 'good sense' over 'common sense'
I do think that human beings interact with their environment: this much is so obvious as to be platitudinous. I don't think that from this behaviour you can distill a category so general that it applies to every aspect of existence. For instance, it doesn't seem sensible to me to describe oxidation as a form of 'reacting back against' external conditions. I don't think that chocolate melting in the heat is an instance of 'reacting back against' those conditions. One could dream up examples all day.
Don't you think Harman's reference to agency in his language is significant at all?
Rosa - okay, I admit it. I like "obscure jargom". You, precious thing, speak only with the clarity of a church bell.
we are merely observing Marx's dictum that the ruling ideas are *always* those of the ruling-class.
That isn't what Marx said, and it isn't what you are doing. For, whatever else could be said, the dialectic is not an idea widely dispensed or propounded by the ruling class in this epoch. I'm not even convinced that the dialectic has been a ruling idea in any epoch.
Your conception of Engels' approach to the dialectic is interesting, but specifically omits to mention anything that might make it intellectually appealing for an historical materialist. If it had only been a quirk of Engels', then it would not have become so widely accepted, discussed and argued over by generations of revolutionaries since then. Working on uncharitable assumptions, you cannot account for the appeal of the claims for the dialectic without insulting everyone who thinks there is something to it. Big mistake, if you ever think you'd like to win anyone to your argument rather than repeatedly and consistently alienate people. But that's your problem, not mine.
Similarly, if you don't notice a difference between 'historical materialism' and 'materialist history', then I'll explain: one can write a materialist history of any topic that has nothing to do with historical materialism. That is, it will be materialist in the sense that it concerns itself with nothing more spiritual or rarefied than quantities of arms shipments, the dimensions of naval fleets or the tactics of war, yet it might not hint at class, modes of production, relations of production, ruling ideas or any of that "obscure jargom".
I do think that human beings interact with their environment: this much is so obvious as to be platitudinous. I don't think that from this behaviour you can distill a category so general that it applies to every aspect of existence. For instance, it doesn't seem sensible to me to describe oxidation as a form of 'reacting back against' external conditions. I don't think that chocolate melting in the heat is an instance of 'reacting back against' those conditions. One could dream up examples all day.
Len, ok one last word, yes but that's why there is a difference between the dialectic in nature and the one in society because we have consciousness - forget the chocolate stuff for a mo and let's talk human beings we do react back against our given environment and this is what I would describe as the negation of the negation which is related to concepts like Alienation and under capitalism Commodity Fetishism you can't have those without the dialectic and if you remove those from Marxism you take out the core of Marxist philosophy and therefore can have little 'marxist' to say about ourselves as subjects under contemporary conditions.
Lenin said: The tincture of "ordinary bloody people" sanctimony is not far away, since the implication is that anything which might involve argot and specialised language is necessarily idealist. I expect that someone might recoil as much from such phrases as 'concrete hierarchy of determinations' as 'interpenetration of opposites', yet the former is a matter for historical materialism and the latter a matter for diamat.
Ordinary bloody people are generally alienated bloody people, Lenin, and I've no more admiration for betting shops, fights outside pubs or George-Cross t-shirts than I have for the pious contortions of the Dialectical Materialist priesthood.
I don't have the slightest objection to abstractions themselves - this was a complete red herring introduced in a post by "insomniac" (at 23:56, when I was off to bed), who took one of my replies to Vicious Chekist out of context: VC had asked if Rosa and I accepted that "Truth was concrete", and we said that "truth" in that sentence was 1. abstract and 2. an empty sign, familiar in appearance, but not performing any of the legitimate functions it had in the concrete, everyday language of the working class.
Abstractions are necessary if any scientific or technical endeavour is to get off the ground - after a few decades of progress, the circumlocutions that would be needed to avoid abstract terms could stretch to several pages after a few decades of progress.
Whether in particle physics, jazz harmony or historical materialism, such abstractions have an entirely legitimate role in allowing lucid exchanges between workers versed in the relevant technical discourse. Such terms only become problematic when they are carelessly used in front of a lay audience. But where historical materialism is concerned, Socialist Worker has a very good record, I believe, both of undertaking the task of explaining concepts such as class or exploitation, and doing so in language that is widely understood.
The abstractions of Dialectical Materialism are a very different matter (like VC's "truth"): they are entirely divorced from the material world in which the producing classes, through history have worked and played. These, after all, are the people who create language, and not the priests and philosophers who play tricks with language in an attempt to bamboozle the producers or to make soothing noises for the ruling class.
The abstractions of Dialectical Materialism function in the same way as the abstractions of other religions and of mystificatory philosophy. But I can't let you have your comparison between Dawkins on the one hand and Rosa and me on the other. We have no interest in mounting a similar assault on the Doctrine of the Trinity or the Five Pillars of Islam, for standard Marxist reasons that you share with us.
But Dialectical Materialism is held by people who vigorously claim to be materialists, not religious believers, and this, I think, justifies a different approach. This is not a sixth-form debating society session: we are talking about people who try to lead the fight for reforms, and who hope they can persuade workers in a future revolutionary upsurge that the struggle must be seen through to the end instead of settling for a Kerensky and ending up with a Kornilov.
I don't think it's time for you, Lenin, to seek a non-existent half-way house, when many of these revolutionaries are also eagerly internalise ruling-class ideology in the form of Dialectical Materialism (for all its pretences to be materialist, and to provide the only language for explaining change). It won't wash to say that the ruling class doesn't use the terminology of DM, when DM mimics the same patterns of idealism, obfuscation and oracular pronouncements that typify ruling-class ideology (and when it even shares many of its specifics with hermetic philosophy dating back to Ancient Greek class society, as Rosa discusses here).
I'm glad you like Socialist Worker's clear and direct style, babeuf, but writing in that fashion is actually rather difficult - it involves a great deal of concentration, rigour and linguistic discipline.
It is certainly not a matter of deploying some imaginary language that working class people allegedly speak called "concrete-everyday-ese". Thinking about the job that way is a recipe for cliché soup.
we do react back against our given environment and this is what I would describe as the negation of the negation
If you like, but there's no good reason why you should.
which is related to concepts like Alienation
Could be, but how is it necessary to them?
you can't have those without the dialectic
I don't see how this is. In what sense does one need the dialectic, and what kind of dialectic, to accept the role of alienation and commodity fetishism in the capitalist mode of production?
How do non-dialectical Marxists explain change over time?
The calculus describes change by lining up thousands of tiny, incremental changes over time; the theory of evolution is a pure acount of dialectics in natural selection and the interaction of genotype and phenotype (I think that's right!) over time.
A study of each step in an iterative calculus function would tell us absolutely nothing about the process being investigated: it is only an examination of such steps in relation to what has gone before and what will come after that any use is discovered in the calculus and a picture of process, over time, becomes clear. A study of a species and its environment would make no sense without an appreciation of its, and its environment's, evolution and their interaction.
So, to generalise, how does society change? How can you see society changing if you can't look at anything more than the presently existing 'reality'?
Perhaps dialectical materialism isn't the best means for Marxists to explain change, but it is certainly better than refusing to examine change over time.
This is not a sixth-form debating society session: we are talking about people who try to lead the fight for reforms, and who hope they can persuade workers in a future revolutionary upsurge that the struggle must be seen through to the end instead of settling for a Kerensky and ending up with a Kornilov.
Yes, and your thesis is that cleaving to the dialectic is in an important way inhibitory to that end. I don't think so.
I don't think it's time for you, Lenin, to seek a non-existent half-way house
I am not doing so. I am suggesting you get your house in order. The approach to arguing with fellow revolutionaries that you have adopted contains an implicit insult, which is that anyone who accepts the dialectic has simply been taken in by ruling class mysticism. I admit that there may be no more to it than that. On the other hand, I don't detect any effort to find out, to understand its appeal, to see if there is (in a marxian fashion) a 'kernel of truth' there. Nor do I see any effort to understand the philosophical problems that people like Hegel were working with. I think at the very least, a materialist account would do more than advert to the pessimism of optimism of a revolutionary at any given time. There is a whole prior situation that informs the development of these notions, and it isn't sufficient to reduce it to traditions of ruling class mystification.
when many of these revolutionaries are also eagerly internalise ruling-class ideology in the form of Dialectical Materialism (for all its pretences to be materialist, and to provide the only language for explaining change). It won't wash to say that the ruling class doesn't use the terminology of DM, when DM mimics the same patterns of idealism, obfuscation and oracular pronouncements that typify ruling-class ideology
Oracular pronouncements, obfuscation and idealism are by no means the unique preserve of the ruling class. The implicit claim that they are distorts Marx's argument about the material basis for ideas in a society, transforming it subtly into the claim that all obfuscatory ideas are the ideas of the ruling class.
woraller, in what sense can't you explain change over time without the dialectic? In what sense can't you understand evolution, interaction, reaction, conflict and so on without the dialectic? If evolution is dialectical, what about the kinds of changes that don't take place in the way that evolution does? What about non-change?
Must any marxist philosophy be dialectical?
Lenin said: Your conception of Engels' approach to the dialectic is interesting, but specifically omits to mention anything that might make it intellectually appealing for an historical materialist. If it had only been a quirk of Engels', then it would not have become so widely accepted, discussed and argued over by generations of revolutionaries since then.
Sorry Lenin, but I think you've seen enough yourself to know that the doctrines of Dialectical Materialism instantly crumble at the gentlest proddings of rational scrutiny. You're speaking as if this is something similar to, say, disagreements over details of Lenin's (the Bolshevik, not you) analysis of imperialism, where revolutionary socialists ought to acknowledge that both sides can rationally and sincerely hold differing opinions.
Dialectical Materialism, as I think you know (going by past statements), is entirely different. Neither Rosa nor I would be doing anyone a favour by pretending that DM is a complex mixture of correct and mistaken rational ideas.
Certainly any comprehensive history of the Marxist tradition should deal with it, but for anyone discussing the practical needs of revolutionary socialists and their organisations, DM belongs to the pathology of Marxism - it is something we should guard against, and expose, just as we do with the mechanical Marxism of the late Second International, or with Maoism, or with "left" pro-imperialism (as you've done so ably yourself in ISJ 113).
It is therefore impossible to deal charitably with the question of motivation here. There is no rational motivation Rosa or I can possibly offer to excuse people adopting a fundamentally and transparently irrational doctrine. But I can offer two irrational motivations.
1. The recourse to mysticism of demoralised revolutionaries (discussed by Rosa here) - thus Engel's turned for some years to DM during a downturn in the struggle, Bogdanov and Lunacharsky turned to God-building, Lenin turned to DM in exile, as did Trotsky (but with no upturn to rescue him), and finally Harman and Molyneaux turn to DM in the late 80s. Or, for what it's worth, Eagleton turns to Catholicism and Bhashkar turns to Buddhism (or something).
2. Once leading figures have made the move towards DM or some other form of mysticism, others will follow without stopping to examine the new ideas critically. It's no great surprise that many SWP cadres accept the unchanging lies of DM about logic (not just modern mathematical logic, but even Aristotelian logic), since few will have had the opportunity or desire to take even a beginner's course in it at university, but people like Molyneaux, who've repeatedly been confronted with the facts, shouldn't be allowed to get away with this - sorry, but it's the behaviour of the religious believer.
Fortunately even revolutionaries can live with contradictory ideas (don't imagine I've tripped myself up - DM didn't give the world the concept of "contradiction", and this is not a DM usage of it). So Chris Harman, for example, can continue to do valuable work, and write articles and books which vary from good to superb. Not to mention Lenin leading a revolution.
But that's inspite of their adherence to DM, not because of it. As I've said, Lenin didn't fill Pravda with DM garbage during 1917 and the Civil War, nor did Chris Harman during his editorship of Socialist Worker. I know of only one attempt at an exposition of DM (by John Molyneaux) in Socialist Worker - you might find others, but (thankfully) no more than a handful, and none before the late 80s, since the Party leadership only began to subscribe to DM then.
'in what sense can't you explain change over time without the dialectic?'
In the sense that just by 'using' historical materialism you aren't even trying to understand what gave rise to the situation you are supposed to be examining.
If all you are doing is taking snapshots and trying to analyse class relation frozen in that slice of time, you can't understand anything really.
'In what sense can't you understand evolution, interaction, reaction, conflict and so on without the dialectic?'
Either I completely misunderstand what is meant by dialectic or...How can you describe such things without dialectics - that was my original question? How are these things NOT dialectical processes?
'what about the kinds of changes that don't take place in the way that evolution does? What about non-change?'
Are we interested in non-change? I can't think of any change that is unrelated to other influences.
woraller, it's part of the mythology of Dialectical Materialism that it provides the only possible account of change, whether in the natural or social worlds. This doubly false:
1. DM itself fails to provide any coherent account of change, and
2. The ordinary everyday language of the producing classes has been able to cope with change for millenia. Apart from that, Aristotelian logic can cope with it, modern mathematical logic can cope with it, and historical materialism - unaided by DM - can not only cope with it but offer great insights into it.
Of course, if you simply define change as "dialectics" or make some such intimate association between the two terms, then I don't doubt that you're puzzled. In any case, to be charitable to most DM advocates, they believe (wrongly) that they can explain change by means of their concepts, not that they simply claim all changes in the world for themselves by a mere act of definition.
'it's part of the mythology of Dialectical Materialism that it provides the only possible account of change'
I don't doubt this, but I want to know how non-dialecticians account for change over time.
I don't know anything about Aristotelian logic, which I suspect was incomplete without the calculus (Aristotle can't have had any idea of that), but I did do an undergraduate course in formal logic and I can't see how that describes change, without the addition of functions or axioms that iterate a la calculus or apply some other behaviour to a formal structure or language. One set cannot evolve or change into another without a specific provision being included as an axiom - before the formal system is even elaborated or begins operating, in other words.
How do Marxists go about understanding modern science without a concept of dialectical change? What about the uncertainty principle - which seems to reproduce the state of historical materialism without a dialectical concept i.e. you can know the location of something, but not its speed or direction, or vice versa.
'Of course, if you simply define change as "dialectics" or make some such intimate association between the two terms, then I don't doubt that you're puzzled.'
I'm not really puzzled by dialectics - it seems straightforward and obvious to me. I'm puzzled why people want to discard it - deliberately only to look for location rather than speed and direction as well.
I can see that Engel's (whom I haven't read) approach might seem simplistic and an unecessary extension into the natural world - but isn't that what chaos theory is? Shouldn't we look upon these early attempts as very precocious Marxism treading where traditional science was unwilling to look until the 1980's?
And why should we throw it out? We should adopt the usual approach and attempt to refine our science until it accounts for all nature and society, unless someone comes up with a better theory.
if evolution is dialectical, what about the kinds of changes that don't take place in the way that evolution does? What about non-change?
You are kidding Len, right? 'Non-change', changes taking place outside of evolutionary processes? …there is no such thing…how come you can be so erudite normally then become a bit of a moron over this topic?
Aside from dismissive insults and statements about 'pig slurrey' I find the claims of the anti-dialectics crowd that they have some sort of special esoteric knowledge unavailable to us uninformed types, the most problematical thing about their arguments.
I find particularly objectionable the attempt to invoke Wittgenstein, and then the immediate withdrawel of the claim, when asked questions about it.
Then there is the faux sophistication 'and thats empiricism which Wittgenstein rejected' etc, etc.
You assume he was successful in his project. I don't. This still seems to me like a continuation of one particular model of academic philosophy whose claims are as problematical as the claims they attack. I know Rosa is serious, and respect her position whilst not disagreeing with it, but I have a strong suspician that some people like this stuff because its compatible with the prejudices taught to them in graduate school.
The Wittgenstein thing puzzles me too. One the one hand we are told that all philosophy is corrupting ruling class mystification, yet on the other there's this intermittent exception granted to this fascinating but deeply conservative thinker.
I find the claims of the anti-dialectics crowd that they have some sort of special esoteric knowledge unavailable to us uninformed types, the most problematical thing about their arguments.
That would be, I think, another symptom of the essentially idealist attitude of the anti-dialecticians here. Believing that ideas spread like "viruses" from person to person, for example, is not a materialist attitude. It sounds like the kind of nonsense you hear from modern disciples of Aleister Crowley or Robert Anton Wilson (and is a metaphor filched from William Burroughs, in any case).
Not that dialectics isn't necessary also idealist or mystical itself. One of the things that I find most offensive - and revealing - about how babeuf (and to a lesser degree Rosa) have gone after me is assuming that because I question anti-dialectics I must be a true believer of dialectics. Sectarian methods of "argument" tend to go along with an idealist method (which is not excluded by professions of materialism, as the example of high Stalinism shows).
Len:
"You, precious thing, speak only with the clarity of a church bell."
At least I am clear.
"That isn't what Marx said.."
It is.
"I'm not even convinced that the dialectic has been a ruling idea in any epoch."
Well that is perhaps because you have not looked very hard.
"Your conception of Engels' approach to the dialectic is interesting, but specifically omits to mention anything that might make it intellectually appealing for an historical materialist."
I see, Engels's class origin, his upbringing, his early turn to Hegelian mysticism, his response to defeat (turning him back to Hermeticism), his appalling lack of expertise in this area, his crass 'arguments', have no bearing on the ideas he formed?
We derive our opponents ideas from their class position, and alienation; why not Engels's?
Was he a god, above the cut and thrust of the material world?
In that case, perhaps you think that Historical Materialists think comrades get their ideas from... well, where?
"Big mistake, if you ever think you'd like to win anyone to your argument rather than repeatedly and consistently alienate people."
Of course, us materialist only think that people will be won to such ideas when the material conditions that give rise to them are eradicated -- it work with religion, and with this dialectical religion.
So, no; I do not care if i alienate people.
Just so long as I can give them a hard time for introducing mystical gobbledygook into Marxism, and helping preside over 150 years of failure.
Either way, short of a social revolution, the majority will always stay wedded to ruling-class ideas, as Marx said.
I see this is becoming true of you.
By the way, thanks for the explanation of the difference between HM and MH.
But what this has to do with that incomprehensible word 'dialectics', I cannot quite see.
Worraller:
"How do non-dialectical Marxists explain change over time?"
Well, even if we could not, the crass logical errors underpinning Hegel's 'logic' -- even if given that famous materialist flip (which does not alter the appalling logic that underpins it) --, mean that dialectics cannot 'explain' change over time, except by using yet more mystical jargon.
And, you will need to be specific: which changes over time did you have in mind?
If you meant this as an abstract sort of question, then VC will tell you (using yet more abstraction) that it cannot be related to the truth.
If not, then what?
"The calculus describes change by lining up thousands of tiny, incremental changes over time; the theory of evolution is a pure acount of dialectics in natural selection and the interaction of genotype and phenotype (I think that's right!) over time."
The calculus is not dialectical, and evolution does not work in the way you say.
And even if evolution worked this way, why is it dialectical?
Does nature argue with itself?
All those 'contradictions'! It is even more tetchy than me!
It does if you are an idealist.
VC:
"Believing that ideas spread like "viruses" from person to person, for example, is not a materialist attitude."
It is if these ideas are irrational.
Just like religious ideas can spread, since they fulfil a role, consoling the ones afflicted by the hope it holds out.
Same with dialectics.
It has no rational defence, as the above 'replies' to Babeuf and myself show.
You have all swallowed a crock based on a notoriously inane piece of sub-logic in Hegel.
You certainly cannot have been persuaded of its rationality (rational core allegation or no), for if you had, you would be able to defend your ideas.
Noel gave up when he saw me in the ring.
"One of the things that I find most offensive - and revealing - about how babeuf (and to a lesser degree Rosa) have gone after me is assuming that because I question anti-dialectics I must be a true believer of dialectics. Sectarian methods of "argument" tend to go along with an idealist method (which is not excluded by professions of materialism, as the example of high Stalinism shows)."
Where do we allege this?
I think we attacked what you said, not what we could infer from what you said.
E.g., those rather odd abstract claims you made that truth was concrete.
"Just so long as I can give them a hard time for introducing mystical gobbledygook into Marxism, and helping preside over 150 years of failure."
That's 150 years of not being able to consolidate a revolutionary breakthrough, not 'failure'; and might I suggest that revolutionaries turning from praxis inward to conduct philiosophical purges is hardly going to get us much further.
``What about the uncertainty principle - which seems to reproduce the state of historical materialism without a dialectical concept i.e. you can know the location of something, but not its speed or direction, or vice versa.''
So long as Quantum Mechanics is the going theory, one is stuck with the uncertainty principle. Einstein did not like the indeterminism of Quantum Mechanics (``God does not shoot dice with the Universe''---``God may be crafty, but he isn't nasty''), but was unable to develop an alternate theory that other Physicists would accept. You may wish to craft a deterministic alternative, perhaps using DM. Good luck!
Rosa,
Please tell me how you account for change over time.
The point I was making about the calculus is not that it is dialectic but its incrementalisation is similar to a historical materialist snapshop i.e. not very informative on its own because it doesn't describe change over time, unlike the whole sequence of iterations taken together over time which do.
If evolution isn't dialectical what is it? How does it happen?
Why are you going on about 'contradiction' and 'nature arguing with itself'? I haven't used those terms and am familiar with your arguments against them - but it doesn't answer my questions to you.
'You may wish to craft a deterministic alternative, perhaps using DM. Good luck!'
Except I'm not trying to do that! I'm using it as an example of a lack of information leading to indeterminacy - like ignoring a dialectical(historical) process and concentrating on only what exists 'now'.
Worraller:
"Please tell me how you account for change over time."
Once more, you will need to be specific.
You also need to remember I am not offering an *alternative* philosophy -- since I reject it in its entirety as arrant nonsense.
So, I am happy to leave it to scientists to tell us about change in nature --, and to historical materialism (minus the Hegelian gobbledygook) to tell us about social change.
Anyway, dialectics cannot explain change (despite what the brochure has told you), it merely re-describes it in an obscure form.
What you said about the calculus, I am afraid I could not follow.
However, I fail to see what Hegel, Engels or Marx can tell us about this (and yes I have read all that these three have written on this -- and thoroughly trashed it in Essay Seven); all of it was badly out-of-date as it was being written. No one has improved on it since.
"If evolution isn't dialectical what is it? How does it happen?"
I think Darwin is our best guide here, not Engels, Hegel or Lenin: differential rates of reproduction, random variation and natural selection. Throw in the odd mutation, and Bob's your descendant.
What more do you need?
"Why are you going on about 'contradiction' and 'nature arguing with itself'? I haven't used those terms and am familiar with your arguments against them - but it doesn't answer my questions to you."
I am sorry if I put words in your mouth -- I do not like it when this is done to me (so apologies again!), but when you kept asking me about change, my mind immediately registered the obscure terms Hegel and 'materialist dialecticians' use to try to depict it, and 'contradiction' is top of the list.
I am glad to see you do not appeal to such things.
R:
“That's 150 years of not being able to consolidate a revolutionary breakthrough, not 'failure'; and might I suggest that revolutionaries turning from praxis inward to conduct philosophical purges is hardly going to get us much further.”
But we seem to be going backwards: practice has not looked at all favourably on our side as a whole for close on a hundred years. All Four Internationals have failed (or have vanished), and the 1917 revolution has been reversed. Indeed, we are no nearer (and arguably much further away from) a workers' state now than Lenin was in 1918. Practically all of the former 'socialist' societies have collapsed (and not a single worker raised his or her hand in their defence). Even where avowedly Marxist parties can claim some sort of mass following, the latter is passive and electoral --, and those parties themselves have openly adopted reformism (despite the contrary-sounding rhetoric).
Trotskyism is in even worse shape: it is made up of countless warring sects (made into a joke by Monty Python), all with the ‘right’ line (justified by ‘dialectics’), with few successes to boast.
99% of the working class ignore all form of dialectical Marxism, and have done for longer than anyone can recall – and, as the proletariat gets bigger, they ignore it all the more.
The only thing that can make you see a light at the end of this worsening tunnel is, I allege, your faith in the negation of the negation (that everything will come good in the end), compounded, I also allege, by the dialectical belief that appearances contradict reality (so that, even though things appear to be terminal, in reality everything is peachy).
It is this rose-tinted view that prevents Marxists learning from their long-term mistakes, which naturally guarantees they will continue. So, if truth is tested in practice, practice has delivered a rather clear verdict: DM does not work, so it cannot be true.
Dialectics: refuted by history.
More details here:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/
ros...DM.htm#Practice
Hi, VC, is there a reason why my last two posts have not yet appeared?
I tried to post them about 6 hours ago, and then again about 2 hours ago.
Thanks!
Commenting by HaloScan
