Do We Need the Dialectic?

[twc]

Context of 1868(1) Engels–Marx Correspondence

(1) Engels, 6 Nov 1868, wrote:

It is difficult to come to an absolutely definite judgment about the thing [Dietzgen’s manuscript].  As a philosopher the man is no child of nature, and added to that is only half self-taught.Some of his sources (e.g., Feuerbach, your book [Capital], and various rubbishy popular works on natural science) can be immediately recognised from his terminology, but one cannot tell what else he has read.His terminology is of course still very confused–hence there is a lack of sharpness and frequent repetition in new terms.There is also some dialectic in it, but appearing more in flashes than as a connected whole.The account of the thing-in-itself as Gedankending [thing made of thought] would be very nice and even brilliant if one could be sure that he had discovered it for himself. …On the whole, a remarkable instinct for arguing out so much correctly with such deficient preliminary training.As I said, the repetitions are the result partly of the deficient terminology and partly of unfamiliarity with the discipline of logic. [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Engels_Correspondence.pdf#page30]Alternatively …The repetitions are, as I said, partly a result of the shortcomings in terminology, partly due to his lack of logical schooling. [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_11_06.htm]

[Emphases and mid-paragraph breaks added.]The only logic that Engels would ever endorse in correspondence with Marx is Hegel’s Science of Logic.  Marx and Engels, as fellow refugees from youthful Hegelianism, know each other intimately enough to interpret each other’s direct reference to logic as indirect reference to Hegel.It is precisely Engels’s reference to logic that motivates Marx, in merely endorsing Engels (2), to refer directly to what Engels referred to indirectly — Dietzgen lacked a study of Hegelian logic.Contrary to popular conception, it was Engels who did his level best to wean Hegelian-terminologist Marx from the fond illusion that Capital’s Hegelian-inspired development should remain explicit.  We owe much of Capital’s accessible [hybridized] form, such as it is, to Engels’s insistence that Marx directly excise his Hegelian inspiration from the text.Note, that it is Engels who is the implicit referrer to Hegel, and that it is Marx who is the explicit referrer to Hegel.  [Marx may well be the disproof of RL’s Max Eastman banner.](2) Marx–Engels Correspondence

(2) Marx, 7 Nov 1868, wrote:

I regard Dietzgen’s development, in so far as Feuerbach, etc. — in short, his sources — are not obvious, as entirely his own independent achievement.For the rest, I agree with everything you say.  I will say something to him about the repetitions [i.e., in agreement with Engels-to-Marx of 10 Oct 1878].It is bad luck for him that it is precisely Hegel that he has not studied.

(3) Marx—Kugelmann Correspondence

(3) Marx, 5 Dec 1868, wrote:

Have you got Dietzgen’s address?  Quite a while ago he sent me a fragment of a manuscript on ‘intellectual capacity’, which, despite a certain confusion and too frequent repetitions, contained much that was excellent, and — em>as the independent product of a worker — even admirable.I did not reply immediately after reading it through, since I wanted to hear Engels’s opinion, and so I sent him the manuscript.  A long time passed before I got it back.

(4) Marx—Kugelmann Correspondence

(4) Marx, 12 Dec 1868 wrote:

I am also returning Dietzgen’s portrait.  The story of his life is not quite what I had imagined it to be, although I always had a feeling that he was “not a worker like [Marx’s fellow refugee, the tailor] Eccarius”.It is true that the sort of philosophic outlook which he has worked out for himself requires a certain amount of peace and leisure which the everyday workman does not enjoy.

[Emphases and mid-paragraph breaks added.]RL, you assert “it is quite clear that Dietzgen had studied Hegel.”  But that was not clear to Marx and Engels in their 1868 correspondence.Marx and Engels agree on estimating the worth of Dietzgen’s manuscript (2).  They regarded much of it as “entirely his own independent achievement” (where not obviously dependent on Feuerbach or Capital).They both concluded that it was an achievement, probably independent of Hegel, whose characteristic signature was for these fellow Hegelian students quite unmistakable, since they both considered themselves proficient in Hegel to be able detect the source of any Hegelian borrowings, and apparently neither of them could.That’s what impressed them!Context of 1882(5) Marx—Engels Correspondence

(5) Marx, 5 Jan 1882, wrote:

You will see from the enclosed letter from Dietzgen that the unhappy fellow has ‘progressed’ backward and ‘safely’ arrived at Phänomenologie.  I regard the case as an incurable one.

For Marx, the Phänomenologie was “the true birthplace and secret of the Hegelian philosophy” [Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844], and Dietzgen had finally arrived where Marx departed 40 years ago.This, of course, fully justified to Marx’s satisfaction his earlier assessment of Dietzgen, and confirmed his caution over bestowing upon Dietzgen’s works the intellectual enthusiasm he bestowed upon Sieber’s précis [Rosa Lichtenstein #135] or that Engels was soon to bestow upon Morgan’s Ancient Society.

[DJP]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

. So, Marx's engagement with Hegel taught him to ignore Hegel completely.

That appears to be false

Karl Marx wrote:

What was of great use to me as regards method of treatment was Hegel’s Logic at which I had taken another look by mere accident, Freiligrath having found and made me a present of several volumes of Hegel, originally the property of Bakunin. If ever the time comes when such work is again possible, I should very much like to write 2 or 3 sheets making accessible to the common reader the rational aspect of the method which Hegel not only discovered but also mystified.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/letters/58_01_16.htm

[Anonymous]

Nothing in this discussion is new, it has been analyzed, explained and discussed in the past for several years  by members of News and Letters, and several books, articles, and pamphlets  have been written by peoples who do know about Hegelian philosophy such as  Peter Hudis, Kevin Anderson, Raya Dunayeskaya, CLR James, Isaac, Olga, John Alan, and others.  Marx never abandoned Hegel completely, and he inherited from Hegel the concept of alienation which he applied to the fetishism of the commodity

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

twc, thanks for the formatting information; I see indenting quotes uses the same codes as other discussion boards:When it comes to interpreting a writer's views, his/her published work takes precedence over everything else. This doesn't mean that unpublished work/letters are unimportant or should be ignored, only that no unpublished source can countermand the views expressed in published material, especially if the published material was written after the unpublished.So, I begin with the only summary of 'the dialectic method' Marx published and endorsed in his entire life (quoted in an earlier post). That summary contains not one atom of Hegel (upside down or 'the right way up'), and yet Marx still calls it 'his method' and 'the dialectic method' (note: not 'a dialectic method', not yet 'part of the dialectic method', but 'the dialectic method'). So, taking this as our primary source, it is clear that by the time he came to write Das Kapital, Marx had waved 'goodbye' to Hegel in his entirety.In that case, interesting though the passages you quote are, they can't countermand that published source. But what of the things you actually say?

Quote:

The only logic that Engels would ever endorse in correspondence with Marx is Hegel’s Science of Logic.  Marx and Engels, as fellow refugees from youthful Hegelianism, know each other intimately enough to interpret each other’s direct reference to logic as indirect reference to Hegel.It is precisely Engels’s reference to logic that motivates Marx, in merely endorsing Engels (2), to refer directly to what Engels referred to indirectly — Dietzgen lacked a study of Hegelian logic.Contrary to popular conception, it was Engels who did his level best to wean Hegelian-terminologist Marx from the fond illusion that Capital’s Hegelian-inspired development should remain explicit.  We owe much of Capital’s accessible [hybridized] form, such as it is, to Engels’s insistence that Marx directly excise his Hegelian inspiration from the text.Note, that it is Engels who is the implicit referrer to Hegel, and that it is Marx who is the explicit referrer to Hegel.

Of course, all this was written at least five years before the Afterword to the second edition of Das Kapital, and hence can't alter the conclusions I drew above. So, while you might be right in what you say about 'logic' — even though there is no way of telling if you are — the fact that no Hegelian 'logic' (but it isn't even logic; it is largely a priori psychology and metaphysics jumbled together with some garbled Aristotle and Kant) appears in Das Kapital tells us all we need to know.twc:

Quote:

Marx may well be the disproof of RL's Max Eastman banner.

Which was this:

Quote:

Hegelism is like a mental disease; you can't know what it is until you get it, and then you can't know because you have got it — Max Eastman

Indeed, but only if it is true that Marx had recovered from this affliction.twc:

Quote:

RL, you assert “it is quite clear that Dietzgen had studied Hegel.”  But that was not clear to Marx and Engels in their 1868 correspondence.

I agree, but then these two plainly didn't know everything there was to know about Dietzgen, did they?

Quote:

Marx and Engels agree on estimating the worth of Dietzgen’s manuscript (2).  They regarded much of it as “entirely his own independent achievement” (where not obviously dependent on Feuerbach or Capital).They both concluded that it was an achievement, probably independent of Hegel, whose characteristic signature was for these fellow Hegelian students quite unmistakable, since they both considered themselves proficient in Hegel to be able detect the source of any Hegelian borrowings, and apparently neither of them could.That’s what impressed them!

Maybe so (I have never denied that Marx and Engels held positive views about Dietzgen's work). However, as we now know from Dietzgen's son, Dietzgen senior got many of his ideas from reading philosophy books (see my comments about this on page 13, above). Furthermore, we also know that Marx's opinion of Dietzgen's work nosedived over the next ten or twelve years; you even included the letter I quoted several pages ago:

Quote:

Marx to Engels 05/01/1882: "You will see from the enclosed letter from Dietzgen that the unhappy fellow has 'progressed' backward and 'safely' arrived at Phänomenologie. I regard the case as an incurable one." [MECW 46, p.172.]

So, I'm far from sure what your post has achieved, or was intended to achieve.

---

 

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

mcolome1:

Quote:

Nothing in this discussion is new, it has been analyzed, explained and discussed in the past for several years  by members of News and Letters, and several books, articles, and pamphlets  have been written by peoples who do know about Hegelian philosophy such as  Peter Hudis, Kevin Anderson, Raya Dunayevskaya, CLR James, Isaac, Olga, John Alan, and others.  Marx never abandoned Hegel completely, and he inherited from Hegel the concept of alienation which he applied to the fetishism of the commodity

1) It may not be new (but I deny this; much of my work is entirely new), but you still can't show where I go wrong.2) You list a number of authors whom you say 'know about' Hegelian Philosophy; but, it remains to be seen if they actually understand it any more than Christian Theologians understand the Trinity or the Incarnation of Christ — which doctrines, as I have pointed out twice already, originated in the same Neo-Platonic quagmire that gave birth to Hegel's 'dialectic'. Indeed, since they have failed to explain what Hegel was banging on about, we needn't delay that conclusion too long: they don't.It isn't possible to understand gobbledygook.3) You can assert that "Marx never abandoned Hegel completely" until the cows next evolve, it will do no good. Marx's summary (not mine), that I added to an earlier post, contains not one atom of Hegel, and yet Marx still calls it 'my method' and 'the dialectic method'.So, and once again, by the time he came to write Das Kapital, Marx had abandoned Hegel in his entirety.Now, if you know of a summary of 'the dialectic method' written and published by Marx, contemporaneous with or subsequent to Das Kapital that supports your belief that Marx hadn't abandoned Hegel completely, don't be shy, let's see it.

---

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

ALB:

Quote:

Presumably the manuscript that Marx was discussing was that later published by Dietzgen as The Nature of Human Brainwork. Anyone reading this will see that it shows no influence of Hegel's thinking at all. It is essentially Kant's theory without the mysterious "thing-in-itself" that Kant argued lay behind the world of appearances (phenomena). According to Dietzgen, there is nothing behind this world; it is the world.

Well, it was a fragment of that book; but I disagree. I can detect Hegel's baleful influence on Dietzgen in that book.

Quote:

I don't think that Dietzgen would have got the concept of "dialectics" from Hegel either. After all, Kant wrote about it too, In fact that's who Hegel got it from, but giving it a quite different meaning.

Sure, he could have caught this malaise from Kant (or from Plato, Aristotle, and any number of Medieval and Renaissance Philosophers), but it would be odd if 'the dialectic' (as it was understood in Germany at that time by everyone) hadn't been caught from Hegel.ALB:

Quote:

If only you knew it, Dietzgen as a non-Hegelian is on your side.

I don't think so; Dietzgen is an a priori dogmatist of the worst possible kind, confusing garbled a priori psychology with the theory of knowledge (among many other things).

---

 

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DJP (quoting me)

Quote:

RL: So, Marx's engagement with Hegel taught him to ignore Hegel completely.DJP: That appears to be false:Marx: 'What was of great use to me as regards method of treatment was Hegel’s Logic at which I had taken another look by mere accident, Freiligrath having found and made me a present of several volumes of Hegel, originally the property of Bakunin. If ever the time comes when such work is again possible, I should very much like to write 2 or 3 sheets making accessible to the common reader the rational aspect of the method which Hegel not only discovered but also mystified.'

I have in fact covered this point (and many others that critics of my ideas have raised) in one of my essays:

Quote:

Needless to say, Marx never supplied his readers with such a précis. From this we may perhaps draw the conclusion that in the end Marx didn't really think Hegel's method was all that significant or useful. [Indeed, the evidence presented below suggests that this is a gross understatement. — added on edit: omitted from this quotation.] So, despite all the millions of words he committed to paper, Marx didn't consider it important enough to complete these relatively few pages.Meanwhile, and in stark contrast, he spent a whole year of his life banging on about Karl Vogt — but he still couldn't be bothered with this 'vitally important' summary.Even had Marx written such a summary (while he did in fact endorse someone else's summary, and it is a Hegel-free zone — added on edit: see the long quotation for the Postface to the second edition of Das Kapital I added to an earlier post), it would still have meant that only a tiny fraction of Hegel's work is relevant to understanding Das Kapital: a few pages! Attentive readers, too, will no doubt have noticed that Marx tells us that he encountered Hegel's Logic by "accident"; this hardly suggests he was a constant and avid reader of that work. Indeed, he didn't even possess his own copy and had to be given one as a present by Freiligrath!

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_01.htm#Marx-And-DM–11%5BIf you are using Internet Explorer 10, you might find the above link and some of those I have used in that essay won't work properly unless you switch to 'Compatibility View' (in the Tools Menu).]Moreover, Hegel didn't discover this 'method'; a gaggle of Neo-Platonist and Hermetic Philosophers did — for example, Plotinus, Proclus, Nicolas Cusanus and Jakob Boehme (to name but a few). Hegel merely added several serious confusions of his own.Finally, the letter you quoted was written fifteen or so years before the Postface to the second edition of Das Kapital, and as I noted in my reply to twc, no unpublished material can countermand a published source, especially if the former was written long before the latter.So, I re-iterate what I said earlier: Das Kapital is a Hegel-free zone.

---

[ALB]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

I can detect Hegel's baleful influence on Dietzgen in that book.

Well, I can't. Can you give an example or two?The other thing you need to explain is why Marx (in the year before his death) described Dietzgen as a "phenomenalist":

Quote:

Marx to Engels 05/01/1882: "You will see from the enclosed letter from Dietzgen that the unhappy fellow has 'progressed' backward and 'safely' arrived at Phänomenologie. I regard the case as an incurable one." [MECW 46, p.172.]

It's hard to imagine anything less Hegelian than phenomenalism.

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Dietzgen is an a priori dogmatist of the worst possible kind, confusing garbled a priori psychology with the theory of knowledge (among many other things).

That may well be true but it still doesn't make him a Hegelian. After all, this could be said of many non-Hegelians.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

ALB:

Quote:

Can you give an example or two?"

I need to re-read the book. But, I don't want to get hung up on this point; so until I do re-read it, I am happy to withdraw this allegation.

Quote:

The other thing you need to explain is why Marx (in the year before his death) described Dietzgen as a "phenomenalist":

I'm sorry, but why do I need to 'explain' this?

Quote:

It's hard to imagine anything less Hegelian than phenomenalism.

I'm not saying Dietzgen was consistent or that he wasn't thoroughly confused.Anyway, it depends on what you mean by 'Phenomenalism' — there are far more varieties than even Wikipedia acknowledges.

Quote:

That may well be true but it still doesn't make him a Hegelian. After all, this could be said of many non-Hegelians.

1) I have nowhere said Dietzgen was an Hegelian, only that he had been influenced by Hegel.2) And you are right, "this could be said of many non-Hegelians"; but then again, the ideas of the ruling-class are in every age the ruling- ideas.Dietzgen is merely offering his readers a different take on this perennial ideology — which I summarised in an earlier post: that is, the belief that fundamental truths about 'being', 'knowledge', 'brainwork', 'sensation', etc., can be derived from thought/language alone, and can thus be imposed on nature and society dogmatically and aprioristically.

---

[ALB]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

ALB:

Quote:

The other thing you need to explain is why Marx (in the year before his death) described Dietzgen as a "phenomenalist":

I'm sorry, but why do I need to 'explain' this?

The argument has been over why Marx didn't think much of Dietzgen. You have argued that Marx was criticising him because he was a Hegelian while the evidence is the other way round: that Marx was criticising him for not having taken Hegel into account, as confirmed by him calling him a "phenomenalist".

Rosa Lichtenstei wrote:

I have nowhere said Dietzgen was an Hegelian, only that he had been influenced by Hegel.

That's what we are saying here about Marx ! Not that he was a Hegelian but that he was influenced by him (for good or ill). Anybody who went to a German university in the 1840s would have been. Not that that is any reason for us to be.

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Dietzgen is merely offering his readers a different take on this perennial ideology

That's criticising him for being a "philosopher" rather than for being Hegelian, part of your general criticism of all philosophy and philosophers. In fact, as this is your position I don't understand why you single out "dialectical materialism" for criticism when in fact your campaign is not just against it, but against all philosophy.To be consistent, you should be advertising a philosphy detox programme at the end of your emails.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

ALB:

Quote:

The argument has been over why Marx didn't think much of Dietzgen. You have argued that Marx was criticising him because he was a Hegelian while the evidence is the other way round: that Marx was criticising him for not having taken Hegel into account, as confirmed by him calling him a "phenomenalist"

Where have I argued that "Marx was criticising him because he was a Hegelian"?My criticism of Dietzgen is that he (unwittingly) helped import ruling-class forms-of-thought into the workers' movement.

Quote:

That's what we are saying here about Marx ! Not that he was a Hegelian but that he was influenced by him (for good or ill). Anybody who went to a German university in the 1840s would have been. Not that that is any reason for us to be.

I have never denied Marx was influenced by Hegel in his early work; my point is that he left all that behind in his mature work.

Quote:

That's criticising him for being a "philosopher" rather than for being Hegelian, part of your general criticism of all philosophy and philosophers. In fact, as this is your position I don't understand why you single out "dialectical materialism" for criticism when in fact your campaign is not just against it, but against all philosophy.

Well, my aim is to try and influence Marxists (even though I know that I won't succeed), and since the vast majority of the latter have accepted 'dialectics' in some form or another, I naturally address that. But, if you read some of my essays, I do take up the cudgels against traditional philosophy as such — for example, this one:http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why_all_philosophical_theories_are_non-sensical.htm

Quote:

To be consistent, you should be advertising a philosophy detox programme at the end of your emails.

Perhaps I will.

---

[LBird]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Well, my aim is to try and influence Marxists (even though I know that I won't succeed), and since the vast majority of the latter have accepted 'dialectics' in some form or another, I naturally address that.

I think you underestimate your 'influence' Rosa, even if only in the sense of 'reinforcement' for those who've tentatively come to the same opinion as you, though independently, by other routes.You've provided a great resource for those Marxists who do try to argue against 'dialectics', especially in the form of 'dialectical materialism'.Having said that, though, I think that some of your opinions (I nearly said 'your philosophical approaches'  ) are wide of the mark…

[twc]

What my Post Intended to Achieve

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

So, I’m far from sure what your post has achieved, or was intended to achieve.

My sole intent was to present a counter interpretation to your “it is quite clear that Dietzgen had studied Hegel” before 1868.But then you floored me!

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

ALB wrote:

The other thing you need to explain is why Marx (in the year before his death) described Dietzgen as a “phenomenalist”

Anyway, it depends on what you mean by ‘Phenomenalism’ — there are far more varieties than even Wikipedia acknowledges.

Your conflation of phenomenalism with the Phänomenologie des Geistes [the only phenomenology Marx and Engels recognized, and “the true birthplace and secret of the Hegelian philosophy”: Marx, 1844], explains your puzzlement over the intent of Marx's Phänomenologie quote in establishing Dietzgen’s independence of Hegel.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

L Bird:

Quote:

I think you underestimate your 'influence' Rosa, even if only in the sense of 'reinforcement' for those who've tentatively come to the same opinion as you, though independently, by other routes.

In fact, my influence is very limited. Not one single revolutuionary party has modified its stance on Dialectical Materialism at all, let alone as a result of anything I have said.  And of those individual Marxists who agree with me, very few have been persuaded by my work; in most cases, they had already been thinking along similar lines.

---

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

twc:

Quote:

Your conflation of phenomenalism with the Phänomenologie des Geistes [the only phenomenology Marx and Engels recognized, and “the true birthplace and secret of the Hegelian philosophy”: Marx, 1844], explains your puzzlement over the intent of Marx's Phänomenologie quote in establishing Dietzgen’s independence of Hegel.

Er…, where have I conflated "phenomenalism with the Phänomenologie des Geistes"? May I remind you it was ALB who introduced the word 'phenomenalism' — not me — and I have merely been concerned to deflect what he had to say. How does that equate to a 'conflation'?I have nowhere even so much as mentioned that confused book by Hegel.

---

[Author]

Posts