Do We Need the Dialectic?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DJP, earlier:

Quote:

And there's more but I can't be bothered…

So, you can be 'bothered', especially now that I have shown that your last 'proof text' was a dud.But, what about the latest batch of 'proof texts'?As I noted earlier, I have had these 'proof texts' thrown at me a hundred times, just as I also pointed out that I begin with the only summary of 'the dialectic method' Marx published and endorsed in his entire life, and it contains not one atom of Hegel — and yet Marx, not me, Marx still calls it 'the dialectic method'.Well, what of these 'proof texts' (all of which I covered in that Essay to which I linked)?Taking each in turn:

Quote:

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.

Well, one can't get more "opposite" to Hegel than to excise him completely from one's work, and we know Marx did that because of the summary he published a few paragraphs earlier in the same Postface, which contains no trace of Hegel whatsoever, but which Marx still calls "my method" and "the dialectic method". So, 'proof text' number one bites the dust.What about 'proof text' two?

Quote:

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.

Attentive readers will no doubt have noticed that Marx puts his 'avowal' of Hegel in the past tense — "avowed". And there was good reason for this, since his views had changed. How do we know they had? Well, the only summary of 'the dialectic method' that Marx published and endorsed in his entire life contains no Hegel at all — which summary would be an odd thing for Marx to endorse when it omits all mention of Hegel or Hegel's method, that is, if he were still 'avowing' his debt to Hegel, don't you think?And this view of Marx's opinion is underlined by his admission that the very best he could do with Hegelian jargon was to 'coquette' with it, 'here and there', in his book. Not exactly a ringing endorsement, is it?But, what of Marx calling Hegel "a mighty thinker"?Well, one can call someone a "mighty thinker" but still disagree with what they say. For example, I think Plato was a "mighty thinker" but I reject 99.99% of what he wrote.And yet there is this famous passage at the end of 'proof text' two:

Quote:

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.

Marx is right, the mystification which 'the dialectic suffers in Hegel's hands" doesn't indeed prevent him from being "the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner"; what does prevent him is the fact that Hegel wasn't the first. He wasn't the first since others had beaten him to it, as Marx knew full well. For example, Plotinus, Proclus, John Scotus Eriugena, Meister Eckhart, Nicholas Cusanus, Jakob Boehme (to name just six) beat Hegel to it. Moreover, the 'rational' form of the dialectic (as Marx had come to understand it) had been developed before, too, in the work of Aristotle, Kant and the Scottish Historical School (of Ferguson, Millar, Robertson, Smith, Hume and Steuart) — all of whom influenced Kant and Hegel (and Marx). Hegel ruined it all by mystifying it.Hence, to put Hegel back on his feet is to see how empty his head really is; the 'rational kernel' had already been laid down by Aristotle, Kant and the Scottish School — which is why Marx quoted a summary of 'the dialectic method' that was completely free of Hegel's baleful influence.So, 'proof text' two goes off to meet its maker.But what of this?

Quote:

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.

Of course, it is up for grabs what Marx meant by 'the rational form of the dialectic' — or, it is until we recall what I have written above: the 'rational form of the dialectic' isn't to be found in Hegel, but in the work of the others I have referenced and in the only summary of that method Marx published and endorsed in his entire life, from which every trace of Hegel (upside down or 'the right way up') had been excised.So, 'proof text' three can now be sent off to the crematorium.Send no flowers…[As I also noted before: none of these 'proof texts' establishes what traditionalists think they do — especially if we begin with that summary Marx added to the Postface to the second edition, which I have mentioned far too many times already.]DJP:

Quote:

Marx was no Hegelian 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.

As we can now see, it is DJP who is the BS-er here.And, thanks for the Ollman material, but since he too has ignored what Marx himself had to say about 'his method' and 'the dialectic method', we can take what Ollman wrote with a lorry load of salt.Incidentally, I have taken Ollman's a priori dogmatics apart here:http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2003_02.htm#Ollmans-Traditionalism%5BIf you are using Internet Explorer 10, the above link won't work properly unless you switch to 'Compatibility View' (in the Tools Menu).]So, are there any more 'proof texts' you'd like me to shoot down in flames?

---

 

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I will add a few comments about the other things comrades have said, tomorrow.

---

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

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

I think it's just badly expressed. Perhaps he should have used the word "analysis" rather than "research".  That would have made it clear he's talking about basic assumptions not actual research work.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

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

I think it's just badly expressed. Perhaps he should have used the word "analysis" rather than "research". That would have made it clear he's talking about basic assumptions not actual research work.

Well, let’s replace ‘research’ with ‘analysis’:

LBird wrote:

DJP wrote:

Bertell Ollman wrote:

Unlike non-dialectical analysis, where one starts with some small part and through establishing its connections to other such parts tries to reconstruct the larger whole, dialectical analysis 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.Analysers 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 analysis. To argue otherwise is go against the whole of 20th century philosophy of science, and is to mislead the class. It's just analysis. 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 analysis. Humans are social beings. We've done this already on the Pannekoek thread.

No, Ollman’s argument is still ‘jibberish’, in a logical sense. It’s to do with ‘wholes’ and ‘parts’, ie. who determines what is a ‘whole’ and what is a ‘part’. If one wants to argue that the ‘part’ appears from the ‘whole’, without human selection of both ‘part’ and ‘whole’, one is claiming to be inductive. Carr’s What is History? nails this as nonsense. You’ve read the fisher/fishing/fish analogy, ALB.

[LBird]

For comrades who aren't familiar with the issue of 'selection', for humans (ie. historians and scientists):

E H Carr wrote:

"Study the historian before you begin to study the facts. This is, after all, not very abstruse. It is what is already done by the intelligent undergraduate who, when recommended to read a work by that great scholar Jones of St. Jude's, goes round to a friend at St. Jude's to ask what sort of chap Jones is, and what bees he has in his bonnet. When you read a work of history, always listen out for the buzzing. If you can detect none, either you are tone deaf or your historian is a dull dog. The facts are really not at all like fish on the fishmonger's slab. They are like fish swimming about in a vast and sometimes inaccessible ocean; and what the historian catches will depend, partly on chance, but mainly on what part of the ocean he chooses to fish in and what tackle he chooses to use – these two factors being, of course, determined by the kind of fish he wants to catch. By and large, the historian will get the kind of facts he wants. History means interpretation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_History%3F

[ALB]

I'm not necessarily defending what Ollman wrote, only that I don't think your charge of "jibberish" is fair. I can't imagine that he thinks that it is possible to understand the "whole" (all past, present and continuing phenomena). That would be nonsense. I don't think he would deny either than selection is involved (or that you can't select the whole). Or that the part or parts appear from the whole without human selection.As I understand it, he's making a different point: that those he calls "non-dialectical" don't recognise that the whole is a single indivisible whole but see it as a collection of separate parts. So, they built up the whole from its parts while those he calls "dialectical" see the parts as just that: interconnected parts of the whole which can only be distinguished in the mind. Which I thought you agree with too.I don't really know why we are arguing about this.

[Anonymous]

Karl Marx was a critical and humanist materialist. His materialist conception was  different to Engels and Lenin.

[Anonymous]

The main problem with those organization is not the dialectic method, the main problem is the Leninist method. And the claim that they have abandoned Marxism because they are or were dialectician it is not true either, Leninism is a reactionary and reformist trend which will never conduct human beings to a socialist society

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

As I understand it, he's making a different point: that those he calls "non-dialectical" don't recognise that the whole is a single indivisible whole but see it as a collection of separate parts. So, they built up the whole from its parts while those he calls "dialectical" see the parts as just that: interconnected parts of the whole…

[my bold]So, the key here is that non-dialecticians 'separate', whilst dialecticians 'interconnect'.This is to argue that non-dialecticians don't recognise structures, while dialecticians do.This is simply untrue.Everyone (researchers and analysers) recognise structures.This issue is: "what constitutes a particular 'structure'?".The definition of a 'structure' depends upon the theory being employed.This is true for non-dialecticians and dialecticians. In fact, those two categories are false.'Dialecticians' pretend to have access to an unmediated 'structure'. That is why Leninists favour 'dialectics'. They can claim to have access to a special method, which is not accessible to the class, so they have a more profound consciousness.The more I've discussed this over the years, the clearer it has become to me about the link between mystical 'dialectics', which seem to be so difficult to understand, and Leninist party organisation and Leninist theories of class consciousness.No-one can explain 'dialectics', comrades, and the simple reason is that 'dialectics is bullshit'. The Leninists employ 'dialectics' like the Catholic church employ 'grace'.Only the Party and Priesthood understand its mysterious workings.

ALB wrote:

I don't really know why we are arguing about this.

Perhaps what I've written above gives some clue as to why I keep arguing about this issue.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

Karl Marx was a critical and humanist materialist. His materialist conception was  different to Engels and Lenin.

I totally agree.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

The main problem with those organization is not the dialectic method, the main problem is the Leninist method. And the claim that they have abandoned Marxism because they are or were dialectician it is not true either, Leninism is a reactionary and reformist trend which will never conduct human beings to a socialist society

In my opinion, mcolome1, you're underestimating the link between 'Leninism' (theory and method) and 'dialectics'.Of course, the root of the problem is Engels, who provided the so-called 'Marxist' philosophical nonsense that Lenin built upon, and then employed for a different purpose.

[Anonymous]

This thing about dialectic is just a wasting of time. There is nothing for us as socialists and for the working class  in the field of dialectic, it is like reading the Bible. A pastor can spend several hours talking about one verse, and the dialectician can spend one day talking about one particular phrase, everything is in the realm of the mind, that is what the phenomenology is all  about

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

This thing about dialectic is just a wasting of time. There is nothing for us as socialists and for the working class  in the field of dialectic, it is like reading the Bible. A pastor can spend several hours talking about one verse, and the dialectician can spend one day talking about one particular phrase, everything is in the realm of the mind, that is what the phenomenology is all  about

Whilst I agree that "there is nothing for us as socialists and for the working class in the field of dialectic, it is like reading the Bible", I don't think that it's a 'waste of time' to confront Engels' detour from Marx's views (or even to question whether Marx, too, had been infected with 19th century positivism), because Dialectical Materialism provides the basis for Leninism, in my opinion.Whilst any comrades think that there is anything to dialectics, we have to confront and discuss it, because it has been so influential and damaging for the proletariat.The class must determine its own ideas, not party philosphers wielding a special method which we don't understand.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

So, the key here is that non-dialecticians 'separate', whilst dialecticians 'interconnect'.This is to argue that non-dialecticians don't recognise structures, while dialecticians do.This is simply untrue.Everyone (researchers and analysers) recognise structures.This issue is: "what constitutes a particular 'structure'?".The definition of a 'structure' depends upon the theory being employed.This is true for non-dialecticians and dialecticians.

Actually I agree that when it comes to actual research I can't see that there would be any difference between what "non-dialectic" and "dialectic" researchers do and was going to say so, but didn't. Perhaps I should have done. The only difference would be in what they say or think they are doing (if they bother, that is, about this).

[DJP]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

So, are there any more 'proof texts' you'd like me to shoot down in flames?

Have you really done that? Anyone who is interested enough and knows how to read and think for themselves can just refer back to the primary texts. I really don't care what you think you have proved or disproved.

[Author]

Posts