Do We Need the Dialectic?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

twc:

Quote:

ALB’s conflation adequately demonstrates how little the SPGB ever cared for Hegel and dialectics.

Take that up with them, not me; I'm not a member, nor have I ever been.

Quote:

Do you consider this intrusion of Hegel’s “quantity passing into quality” as:Marx seriously [even if misguidedly] acknowledging HegelMarx incautiously coquetting with Hegelian terminologyMarx ironically mocking HegelEngels’s misguided editorial interference in Marx’s original textMarx fondly slipping Hegel into Capital in defiance of Engels’s prior warnings.

As I have pointed out several times, this is in fact a misapplication of Hegel's 'law', so either you believe Marx was an imbecile, or he was still 'coquetting'. Take your pick.

Quote:

Rosa, direct your hostility, where it belongs, against the originator of the materialist dialectics of nature, one Karl Heinrich Marx.

Not so; that was down to Engels and Plekhanov (with some help from Dietzgen).

---

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

mcolome1:

Quote:

This is how Marxist Humanists and Hegelian have explained what Marx called his dialectic method on the preface of Capital:

Thanks for that, but you will no doubt notice that I challenged these a priori dogmatists to defend their ideas (in the comments section at the bottom of the page), which they found they couldn't do. The discussion was halted by the fact that they were rebuilding the site at the time, and so it continued here:http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Jurriaans_Folly.htmhttp://anti-dialectics.co.uk/jurriaan_throws_his_toys_out_of.htmhttp://anti-dialectics.co.uk/replies.htmhttp://anti-dialectics.co.uk/replies_to_two_critics.htmhttp://anti-dialectics.co.uk/yet_more_replies.htmhttp://anti-dialectics.co.uk/weak_responses_from_kosloff_and_mage.htmhttp://anti-dialectics.co.uk/mr_b_up_to_his_old_tricks.htmAnd via e-mail, where one well-known Marxist Professor of Economics called me an 'evil person' who should 'eat sh*t and die' simply because I had the temerity to question this theory, and point out that he couldn't actually explain what a 'dialectical contradiction' was. He has recently repeated this on a web page (the one that published my Interview and my Essay on Wittgenstein), but his post was deleted because of the violent and abusive language he used.I explain why dialecticians are like this, here:http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_02.htm#1917

---

[alanjjohnstone]

I'm convinced as Ed, Vin and LBird are now of the worthlessness of dialectics (diamat?) as shown by Rosa.  However i don't care to study it in the depths she has had, to disprove it (even if i was capable – which i'm not), or engage in debate like the length of this thread for that matter, to challenge it . So in a few sentences, in words of few syllables,  what will i answer the next time the mention of dialects comes up that will be an immediate, effective put-down that cannot produce any sort of dialectical come-back?  "But I read that one of the reasons you started your project was that those high in the party heirarchy where using terminology from "dialectics" to hoodwink lower party minions into doing there bidding."Come on, Rosa, dish the dirt. What party, what party leaders, what bidding? "In that case the problem is more one of hierarchical / leninist party models then of "dialectics" per se. I think you have been avoiding the real issue all along.." Let's move on from the philosophical abstract to the practical concrete!! That's what politics is about, isn't it, the materialist reasons for ideas and actions!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AJ:

Quote:

what will i answer the next time the mention of dialects comes up that will be an immediate, effective put-down that cannot produce any sort of dialectical come-back?"

Depends on who they are what they say. I have listed a few glaring weaknesses DM-fans struggle to come to grips with (in fact they almost invariably just ignore them, a bit like Christians ignore the many examples of 'evil'/lack of design in nature), here:http://www.revforum.com/showthread.php?927-Some-questions-for-Rosa&p=12397&viewfull=1#post12397http://www.revforum.com/showthread.php?927-Some-questions-for-Rosa&p=12413&viewfull=1#post12413However, since I largely argue with fellow Leninists about this, I'm not too sure the above will help you.

Quote:

Come on, Rosa, dish the dirt. What party, what party leaders, what bidding?

As I noted in an earlier post, you can find the details here:http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2001.htm

---

[Anonymous]

The important issue is to  not question dialectic, because many peoples have already done that including the right wingers, the important issue is to break away from Leninism, Bolshevism, reformism, state capitalism, leftism,  and the vanguard party concept. The damage made  to socialism-communism by Leninism and Leninist is deeper and more transcendence than  dialectic, even more, at the present time we spend more time trying to explain what is not socialism, instead of what socialism should be, and with them socialism has not advanced one daySome Leninists and Trotskyists ( which are Leninist too ) have been able to break away from the vanguard party concept, and dialectic,  but they have not been  able to apart themselves completely from Leninism and intellectual elitism.Some Leninist have rejected Stalinism but they have not been able to see that Stalin was the man or the political current who finished the job initiated by the commissars Lenin and Trotsky, and in essence there was not difference between them, even more, Stalin was an old faithful LeninistWe can have a profound knowledge and understanding of dialectic and Hegelian philosophy, but there is nothing that we can use in order to build a new society based on common possession.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

mcolome1:

Quote:

The important issue is to  not question dialectic, because many peoples have already done that including the right wingers, the important issue is to break away from Leninism, Bolshevism, reformism, state capitalism, leftism,  and the vanguard party concept.

Unfortunately, 'the dialectic' is accepted by all wings of Marxsim, including those you rail against. As I pointed out in my Interview:

Quote:

Q: What do you make of the argument that the reason why James Burnham became a reactionary conservative was his rejection of the dialectic? It is obvious you would reject it, but what do you think the actual issues were with Burnham? R.L.: The odd thing is that if you are a Trotskyist, the vast majority of dialecticians are in fact (for you) anti-Marxists or are counter-revolutionaries, namely the Stalinists and the Maoists. On the other hand, if you are a Stalinist, the vast majority of dialecticians are in fact (for you) anti-Marxists or are counter-revolutionaries, namely the Maoists and the Trotskyists. Alternatively, if you are a Maoist, the vast majority of dialecticians are in fact (for you) anti-Marxists or are counter-revolutionaries, namely the Stalinists and the Trotskyists. The same is true if you are a Left Communist or even an anti-Leninist Marxist.  Hence, an adherence to dialectical materialism (or 'materialist dialectics') is no guarantee that you will always remain on the 'straight and narrow'. In fact, the vast majority of Dialectical Marxists 'fall by the wayside' (according to those not in the specific party or tendency making this judgement), even while remaining faithful to it in their own eyes! A nice 'unity of opposites' for your readers to ponder. Of course, the counter-argument is that all these other groups/theorists 'mis-apply' the dialectic, or they don't 'understand' it — but, they all say that of one another! In fact, there is no objective way of deciding if and when 'the dialectic' has been, or can ever be, applied 'correctly'. Indeed, if truth is tested in practice, the weight of evidence (from the history of all wings of Dialectical Marxism) delivers a very uncomplimentary verdict in this regard. They'd be the very epitome of success if their application of 'the dialectic' were correct….

 http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=10789 I have had arguments like this with members of every shade of Trotskyism you care to name, Leninists and Stalinists of every stripe, Maoists and Libertarian Marxists, Left Communists, and many others besides, and they all make the point you have made — except they point their fingers at everyone else, and say things like 'Those Trotskyists/Leninists/Maoists/Stalinists… have misused/misapplied/failed to 'understand the 'dialectic'…." So, according to all these Marxists, there are far more of those who have abandoned Marxism/Socialism who are in fact dialecticians (in their own eyes) than there are those who aren't. Quite apart from the fact that 'the dialectic' makes not one ounce of sense, the moral of this is that those who claim to be, and wish to remain Marxists should abandon 'the dialectic', since the vast majority of those who have actually abandoned Marxism are/were dialecticians. 

Quote:

The damage made  to socialism-communism by Leninism and Leninist is deeper and more transcendence than  dialectic, even more, at the present time we spend more time trying to explain what is not socialism, instead of what socialism should be, and with them socialism has not advanced one day

 Well, I agree that Dialectical Marxists of every stripe have damaged Marxism, but I don't think it is down to the fact that some of these claimed to be Leninists (since most of them abandoned Leninism soon after he died — e.g., the Stalinists and the Maoists). However, I haven't come here to debate this, so I will say no more about it. 

---

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

So in a few sentences, in words of few syllables, what will i answer the next time the mention of dialects comes up that will be an immediate, effective put-down that cannot produce any sort of dialectical come-back?

I know your appeal was directed at Rosa, ajj, but I'd suggest, to anyone who mentions 'dialectical materialism', that you reply:'Rocks do not discuss'.And a little explanation for them if they look confused and seem prepared to listen:'Dialectic' means 'through talking' or 'through discussion', and this can clearly only happen with the emergence of human consciousness. The notion that 'nature' itself (preceding natural human consciousness) is 'dialectical', as posited by Engels, is literally meaningless.

[alanjjohnstone]

Just been reading your link. What's it with the posties and philosophers. My colleague at work when i worked for Royal Mail held an honours degree in philosophy, too. 

[LBird]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Quote:

The damage made  to socialism-communism by Leninism and Leninist is deeper and more transcendence than  dialectic, even more, at the present time we spend more time trying to explain what is not socialism, instead of what socialism should be, and with them socialism has not advanced one day

 Well, I agree that Dialectical Marxists of every stripe have damaged Marxism, but I don't think it is down to the fact that some of these claimed to be Leninists (since most of them abandoned Leninism soon after he died — e.g., the Stalinists and the Maoists). However, I haven't come here to debate this, so I will say no more about it.

 It's unfortunate that you 'haven't come here to discuss this', Rosa, since I think that there is an intimate connection between Leninist politics and dialectical materialism. In my opinion, the idea that there should be party, that knows better than the class what the class itself needs, requires a mysterious method that ordinary workers can't understand. Dialectical Materialism is that mysterious method, and is employed by all Leninist parties, and their epigones the Stalinists, Trotskyists, Maoists, etc., etc. This opinion of mine means that I can't understand your adherence to Leninism, given your rejection of DiaMat. Surely you should be looking to Marxist strands that reject the dialectic? After all, you yourself have done a great deal to strengthen those elements.

[ALB]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Anti-Duhring is one of the very worst books ever to have been written by a leading socialist

On the contrary, the third section later published as the pamphlet Socialism Utopian and Scientific is  a brilliant and perhaps the best introduction to socialist theory. If anyone is going to read just one writing by Marx or Engels this pamphlet should be it.I can see why you don't like the first part on philosophy (but then you wouldn't have liked it no matter what he wrote), but this is another case of you throwing out the baby with the bathwater, indeed with the bath.

[DJP]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

So in a few sentences, in words of few syllables,  what will i answer the next time the mention of dialects comes up that will be an immediate, effective put-down that cannot produce any sort of dialectical come-back? 

G.W.F. Hegel – The Phenomenology of Spirit, Preface wrote:

To judge a thing that has substance and solid worth is quite easy, to comprehend it is much harder, and to blend judgment and comprehension in a definitive description is the hardest thing of all.

[DJP]

Rejecting all "dialectics" out of hand means rejecting Marx's method and the whole of Marx's work with it. RL really does throw the baby and the whole bathtub out with the bathwater.

Marx – Capital Vol 1. wrote:

My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised nearly thirty years ago, at a time when it was still the fashion. But just as I was working at the first volume of “Das Kapital,” it was the good pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre Epigonoi [Epigones – Büchner, Dühring and others] who now talk large in cultured Germany, to treat Hegel in same way as the brave Moses Mendelssohn in Lessing’s time treated Spinoza, i.e., as a “dead dog.” I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even here and there, in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him. The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.In its mystified form, dialectic became the fashion in Germany, because it seemed to transfigure and to glorify the existing state of things. In its rational form it is a scandal and abomination to bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire professors, because it includes in its comprehension and affirmative recognition of the existing state of things, at the same time also, the recognition of the negation of that state, of its inevitable breaking up; because it regards every historically developed social form as in fluid movement, and therefore takes into account its transient nature not less than its momentary existence; because it lets nothing impose upon it, and is in its essence critical and revolutionary.http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm

Marx was no Hegalian but RL's claim that Marx did not hold Hegel in high regard and ignored him in his later work is again shown to be pure BS.But what is the dialectic in Marx?

Bertell Ollman wrote:

With all the misinformation conveyed about dialectics, it may be useful to start by saying what it is not. Dialectics is not a rock-ribbed triad of thesis-antithesis-synthesis that serves as an all-purpose explanation; nor does it provide a formula that enables us to prove or predict anything; nor is it the motor force of history. The dialectic, as such, explains nothing, proves nothing, predicts nothing and causes nothing to happen. Rather, dialectics is a way of thinking that brings into focus the full range of changes and interactions that occur in the world. As part of this, it includes how to organize a reality viewed in this manner for purposes of study and how to present the results of what one finds to others, most of whom do not think dialectically.[…]Dialectics restructures our thinking about reality by replacing the common sense notion of "thing" (as something that has a history and has external connections with other things) with notions of "process" (which contains its history and possible futures) and "relation" (which contains as part of what it is its ties with other relations). Nothing that didn't already exist has been added here. Rather, it is a matter of where and how one draws boundaries and establishes units (the dialectical term is "abstracts") in which to think about the world. The assumption is that while the qualities we perceive with our five senses actually exist as parts of nature, the conceptual distinctions that tell us where one thing ends and the next one begins both in space and across time are social and mental constructs. However great the influence of what the world is on how we draw these boundaries, it is ultimately we who draw the boundaries, and people coming from different cultures and from different philosophical traditions can and do draw them differently.[…]Unlike non-dialectical research, where one starts with some small part and through establishing its connections to other such parts tries to reconstruct the larger whole, dialectical research begins with the whole, the system, or as much of it as one understands, and then proceeds to an examination of the part to see where it fits and how it functions, leading eventually to a fuller understanding of the whole from which one has begun. Capitalism serves Marx as his jumping-off point for an examination of anything that takes place within it.[…]Given an approach that proceeds from the whole to the part, from the system inward, dialectical research is primarily directed to finding and tracing four kinds of relations: identity/difference, interpenetration of opposites, quantity/quality and contradiction. Rooted in his dialectical conception of reality, these relations enable Marx to attain his double aim of discovering how something works or happened while simultaneously developing his understanding of the system in which such things could work or happen in just this way.http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/dd_ch01.php

Personally I've found this kind of stuff quite useful, but if others do not then I don't really think it's a that much of a problem. Horses for courses and all that…

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Bertell Ollman wrote:

Unlike non-dialectical research, where one starts with some small part and through establishing its connections to other such parts tries to reconstruct the larger whole, dialectical research begins with the whole, the system, or as much of it as one understands, and then proceeds to an examination of the part to see where it fits and how it functions, leading eventually to a fuller understanding of the whole from which one has begun.

[my bold]This is jibberish, DJP.One can't start with the 'whole', because that is the entire universe. One must select, as Carr shows in What is History?If one starts with 'as much of it as one understands', that's not the 'whole'. Thus, it must be a 'small part', just as for non-dialectics.Researchers must apriori define what they consider to be 'the system' (which must be itself a selection from the universe) which is to be examined, which is, logically, 'starting with some small part', just as for non-dialectics.Theory determines the 'system', 'as much as one understands', 'the part' to be examined, 'where it fits' into the system and 'how it functions'.There is no difference between non-dialectical and supposed dialectical research. To argue otherwise is go against the whole of 20th century philosophy of science, and is to mislead the class. It's just research. It's based upon theory. Theory determines selection parameters. Theory determines the validity of results.Rocks don't discuss. Humans are at the centre of research. Humans are social beings. We've done this already on the Pannekoek thread.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

This is jibberish

More over the top and baby and bathwater stuff ! Can't you see the difference betwen the orthodox academic approach which seeks to built up the external world from the sensations of an individual sitting in their study (eg Bertrand Russell) and the opposite approach which starts with assuming that the whole world of observable happenings is all that exists and trying to break it down into smaller parts so as to better understand it, ie. build up v break down?.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

This is jibberish

More over the top and baby and bathwater stuff ! Can't you see the difference betwen the orthodox academic approach which seeks to built up the external world from the sensations of an individual sitting in their study (eg Bertrand Russell) and the opposite approach which starts with assuming that the whole world of observable happenings is all that exists and trying to break it down into smaller parts so as to better understand it, ie. build up v break down?.

I'm not sure what this has got to do with DJP's quote, ALB. It's logical nonsense. Read it again.

[Author]

Posts