Do We Need the Dialectic?

[Anonymous]

His critique is mainly based on her book: Marxism and Freedom, but not on her book Philosophy and revolution where she expands  her Hegelian conceptions.If we read her last book on Rosa Luxembourg we can see that she is trying to indicate  that socialism can be established on an economical backward society and that capitalism development can be skipped, and that Marx on the last moment of his life was  was supporting that idea There is another dialectician which most of the Leninists do not mention and he was CLR James, He also wrote about dialectic, and he broke with Raya Dunayeskaya. This is what he wrote about dialectic:http://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/dialecti/index.htm As you can see we have different peoples with different opinions and altitude toward Hegelian dialectic. 

[Anonymous]

Some of her writting on economic are acceptable

[ALB]

mcolome1 wrote:

Some of her writting on economic are acceptable

Agreed, especially these two:www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1944/revision.htmhttp://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1946/statecap.htmThe second is a classic, early analysis of  the (state) capitalist nature of the Russian economy, citing Russian sources. Far better than Tony Cliff's.

[LBird]

Just been having another look at Bertell Ollman's Dance of the Dialectic: Steps in Marx's Method, and on page 60 he has a sub-heading named The Solution Lies in the Process of Abstraction, and on reading this once more it seems clear that another (and indeed now better) term for Marx's 'abstraction' would be 'selection'. This places the 'active' human at the heart of the scientific process, as Marx tried to do in his Theses on Feuerbach.Then, we only need to ask ourselves 'what are the parameters of 'abstraction/selection' from the 'real concrete'. These parameters are given, of course, by the theory that we employ, as modern philosophers of science (and Einstein) argue.This lends some credence, I think, to my suggestion that 'dialectics' would best be seen as Marx's early attempt to employ what we now would call 'critical realism'. That is, every time Marx then wrote 'dialectic', that we now read 'critical realism'. This would place Marx 150 years ahead of the development of bourgeois thinking on science, an advance that was unfortunately (and disastrously) thrown away by Engels' muddled and amateurish 'philosophical' work.To stress again, this focus on an active humanity is all a world away from Engels' 'dialectic in nature' and Lenin's 'dialectical materialism'.

[ALB]

mcolome1 wrote:

We have Killman who  is a dialectician but he does not approve Lenin transitional society

Is this Andrew Kliman? If so, it looks, DJP, that you'll have to ask him an additional question, i.e. Do you think it is possible to understand Marx's Capital without first having mastered Hegel's Logic? Hopefully, the answer will be "no", but what if it's "yes"?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

L Bird:

Quote:

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.

I agree, but I'd go further, and argue that there is an intimate connection between all forms of socialism and ruling-class forms-of-thought — as I pointed out in my Interview (slightly edited): [Comrades will find some of the links I have used won't work properly if you are using Internet Explorer 10, unless you switch to 'Compatibilty View', in the Tools Menu).]

Quote:

Q: Why do you think that dialectical materialists refuse to abandon dialectical materialism?R.L.: I think there are at least three main reasons, all of which are, ironically, inter-related. The first is rather complex (I hasten to add that I am going to simplify greatly here!): The vast majority of those who have led the Marxist and Socialist movements, or who have helped shape its core ideas, weren't workers; they came from a class that educated their children in the Classics, the Bible, and Philosophy. This tradition taught that behind appearances there lies a 'hidden world', accessible to thought alone, which is more real than the material universe we see around us. This way of viewing 'reality' was concocted by ideologues of the ruling-class (in the 'west' back in Ancient Greece). They invented it because if you belong to, benefit from or help run a society which is based on gross inequality, oppression and exploitation, you can keep order in several ways. The first and most obvious way is through violence. This will work for a time, but it's not only fraught with danger, it's costly and it stifles innovation (among other things). Another way is to win over the majority, or, at least, a significant section of 'opinion formers' (i.e., bureaucrats, judges, bishops, 'intellectuals', philosophers, teachers, administrators, editors, etc.) to the view that the present order either: (1) Works for their benefit, (2) Defends 'civilised values', (3) Is ordained of the 'gods', or (4) Is 'natural' and so can’t be fought against, reformed or negotiated with. Hence, a 'world-view' that rationalises or 'justifies' one or more of the above is necessary for the ruling-class to carry on ruling "in the same old way". While the content of ruling-class thought may have altered with each change in the mode of production, its form has remained largely the same for thousands of years: Ultimate Truth (about this 'hidden world') can be ascertained by thought alone, and therefore can be imposed on reality dogmatically and aprioristically. Some might object that the above forms-of-thought can't have remained the same for thousands of years, across different modes of production, since this idea runs counter to core ideas in Historical Materialism. But, we don't argue the same for religious belief. Marx put no time stamp on the remarks he made about religion. They applied in Ancient Babylon and Egypt, just as they did in China and India, and Greece and Rome, in the Middle Ages and they have done so right across the planet ever since. The same is true of the core thought-forms found throughout traditional Philosophy, East and West — that there is indeed an invisible world, accessible to thought alone –, especially given the comments Marx made about Philosophy itself: 

Quote:

Feuerbach's great achievement is…[t]he proof that philosophy is nothing else but religion rendered into thought and expounded by thought, i.e., another form and manner of existence of the estrangement of the essence of man; hence equally to be condemned…. [1844 Paris Manuscripts. Bold added.]

 Because of their petty-bourgeois and/or non-working class origin — and as a result of their socialisation and the 'superior' education they have generally received in bourgeois society — the vast majority of those who have led our movement have had "ruling ideas", or ruling-class forms-of-thought, forced down their throats almost from day one. [Or, if these individuals were workers (or quasi-workers, like Dietzgen), they soon learnt to accommodate to the ruling-ideas that had already colonised the workers' movement.] So, the non-worker founders of our movement — who had been educated from an early age to believe there was just such a 'hidden world' lying behind 'appearances', and which governs everything — when they became revolutionaries, looked for a priori, 'logical, principles relating to this abstract world that told them that change was inevitable, and was thus part of the cosmic order. Enter dialectics, courtesy of the dogmatic ideas of that ruling-class Christian and Hermetic mystic, Hegel (and/or other boss-class theorists). The dialectical classicists were thus happy to impose their theory on the world (upside down or the 'right way up') since that is how they had been taught 'genuine' philosophy should proceed. You can see comrades (and others) regularly doing this sort of thing right across the Internet on various discussion boards and blogs, (and, indeed, in books and articles on 'dialectics' or Marxist Philosophy; in fact, many examples can be found at this site (i.e, The North Star) — added on edit: and here, at the SPGB discussion board). These comrades rarely if ever stop and think how it is possible that they can so effortlessly derive fundamental theses, true for all of space and time, about 'Being', 'consciousness', 'subjectivity', 'essence', 'sensation', 'knowledge', etc., etc., from a handful of words/concepts, all in the comfort of their own heads. In fact, it seems quite natural and uncontroversial for them to do this. Indeed,  this is one of the abiding ideas of the ruling-class — and, as Marx noted, their ideas always rule. This 'allowed' the founders of dialectical materialism (and other forms of 'Marxist Philosophy') to think of themselves as special, as prophets of the new order and this new theory — whose profound truths workers, alas, couldn't quite grasp because of their dependence on ordinary language, 'formal thinking', and the 'banalities of commonsense'. In which case, dialecticians and other left-orientated philosophers aren't going to relinquish the pre-eminent position that adherence to this theory bestows on them (in their own eyes) — they are the High Priests of the Revolution, and are determined to stay that way. The second reason is a bit more down-to-earth, so to speak: Because Dialectical and other forms of Marxism have been such spectacular and long-term failures, Marxists have had to convince themselves that (a) This isn't really so, that the opposite is in fact the case, or that (b) This is only a temporary state of affairs. In view of the additional fact that they also hold that truth is tested in practice, they are forced to adopt one or both of (a) and (b), otherwise they'd be forced to conclude that history had in fact refuted their theory. Now, because dialectics and traditional approaches to philosophy teach that appearances are "contradicted" by underlying "essences", or they do not conform to them, it is able to occupy a unique role in this regard, motivating and/or rationalising (a) and/or (b), above. So, although things might appear to be going wrong, these invisible underlying 'essences' — that only those who 'understand' dialectics or philosophy seem able to perceive, ascertain or comprehend — tell them the opposite. Alas, this prevents these theorists from addressing the serious theoretical problems that afflict all forms of Marxist Socialism. That is, if they even so much as acknowledge there are any problems! Part of the difficulty is that they don't! All the while all forms of Marxism sink slowly into oblivion and self-inflicted irrelevance. The philosophical equivalence of fiddling while Rome burns. I mentioned earlier that Marx thought that "philosophy is nothing else but religion rendered into thought" (a comment Marxist philosophers studiously ignore). However, just like role that religion assumes in the lives of those who look to Bishops and Imams for guidance, dialectics and philosophy in general provide those held in their thrall with much needed consolation in the face of the alienating affects of long-term failure, convincing them that everything is in fact fine with their core theory, or that things will change for the better — one day. This then 'allows' these comrades to ignore the long-term failure of all forms of  Marxism, rationalising it as a mere "appearance" and hence either false or illusory. So, confronted with 150 years of defeats, debacles and disasters, and in the face of their own belief that truth is tested in practice, revolutionaries almost invariably respond with a "Well that doesn't prove dialectics and philosophy are wrong!" Again, just like the religious, who can survey all the 'evil' in the world and still see it as an expression of the 'Love of God' — who will make all things well in the end –-, those who look to philosophy can survey the last 150 years and still see the 'Logic of History' moving their way, and that all will be well in the end, too. This means that the theory that prevents them from facing reality expresses the very same set of ideas that stops them from examining it, inviting yet another generation of failure by masking these facts. So, dialecticians and Marxist philosophers aren't going to abandon this valuable source of consolation, and will continue clinging to it like drunks to lampposts. The third reason is also connected with the other two: As is the case with the Bible, which provides believers with ample excuses to accuse everyone else of not 'understanding' the 'Will of God', Marxist philosophy in general, with its sacred texts, provides its acolytes with equally obscure ideas that 'allow' them to claim that other theorists — even if they are Marxists (but who belong to a different party or tendency) — either do not 'understand' dialectics/Marxist philosophy, or they ignore and 'misuse' it. Only they can fully comprehend such esoteric 'truths'. This then 'allows' these 'true believers' to anathematise and castigate other comrades as anti-Marxist. In short, it puts in the hands of inveterate sectarians (of which all forms of Marxism have had more than their fair share) an almost infinitely pliable, ideological weapon capable of proving almost anything at all and its opposite — simply because it glories in contradiction. Abandoning this theory would therefore deprive our 'leaders' (and many of our theorists) of a very powerful ideological weapon, which helps them control the movement by, oddly enough, keeping it small, and thus easier to control. So, despite the fact that we have witnessed over 150 years of comrades devoting themselves to 'building the party'/'movement', very few can boast membership rolls that rise much above the risible. Hence, the only thing that all forms of  Marxism seem to be expert at is falling out among themselves, and splitting! This explains the apposite nature of the Monty Python sketch about the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (etc.), which everyone knows and quotes. Its clichéd status reveals a truth that has sunk deep into the collective public mind: Marxism is now a standing joke.

 LB: 

Quote:

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.

 Again, I agree, but that point can be generalised and extended to all those (in vanguard parties or otherwise) who think they can ascertain such profound truths in the comfort of their own heads. Vanguard parties merely compound the problem, they don't create it.

Quote:

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.

Well, naturally, I don't think that Leninism is the problem. But, we are just going to have to disgree over that one, since, as I have said, I haven't come here to discuss Leninism with anti-Leninists.

---

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrades have started to refer to Ollman's Dance of the Dialectic (and especially his view of 'abstraction'):As I noted earlier, I have taken this aspect of Ollman's work apart here:http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2003_02.htm#Ollmans-Traditionalism%5BThis link won't work properly if you are using Internet Explorer 10, unless you switch to 'Compatibility View' (in the Tools Menu).]Also see the discussion I had with a few of Stalinists (about 'abstractionism'), here:http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?f=107&t=52413%5BMy comments begin about a fifth of the page down.]

---

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

ALB:

Quote:

Do you think it is possible to understand Marx's Capital without first having mastered Hegel's Logic? Hopefully, the answer will be "no", but what if it's "yes"?

Not even Marx made this claim about his own work; indeed, as we have seen, the exact opposite is the case: Das Kapital is a Hegel-free zone.

---

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DJP:

Quote:

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.

In which case, unless you can show otherwise, I have shot your 'proof texts' down in flames.

---

[ALB]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

ALB:

Quote:

Do you think it is possible to understand Marx's Capital without first having mastered Hegel's Logic? Hopefully, the answer will be "no", but what if it's "yes"?

Not even Marx made this claim about his own work;

True but Lenin did. As quoted by Dunayevskaya:

Quote:

“it is impossible completely to grasp Marx’s Capital . . . if you have not studied through and understood the whole of Hegel’s Logic.”

I don't know if someone can track down the exacxt source of Lenin's (preposterous) claim here.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DJP:

Quote:

Now Marx did have a method that he refered to as "dialectic" if we want to we could discuss what he meant by this and how his method is different from others e.g Wittgenstein.

If so, it's a bad idea to begin by ignoring what Marx himself said/endorsed about 'the dialectic method' in the Postface to the second edition of Das Kapital, isn't lt?

---

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

ALB:

Quote:

True but Lenin did. As quoted by Dunayevskaya:

And not just her; practically everyone (who isn't an anti-Leninist), quotes this passage as if it had been delivered from off the top of a mountain, carved on stone tablets.

---

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LB:

Quote:

Of course, we'd have to discuss, compare and contrast all these methods: Marx's dialectical, linguistic analysis, analytical philosophy, and critical realism. I think we'd need Rosa for 2 and 3, because I for one know nothing about Wittgenstein.

There are some similarities between Wittgenstein's method and certain aspects of Marx's approach to language and philosophy. I have explored several of them here:http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=10792I hasten to add, that I am just as critical of Wittgenstein's failure to apply his own method consistently in certain areas, as I am of philosophers in general.As was the case with Feuerbach, Wittgenstein just didn't go far enough. My work seeks to put that right.

---

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

ALB:

Quote:

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 agree that Socialism Utopian and Scientific is excellent, but I was referring to the first half of Anti-Duhring.

Quote:

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.

In fact, more like kicking an alligator out of a creche.

---

[alanjjohnstone]

All i would like to say about this thread is that Rosa has done an admirable job arguing her position and members of the list have responded constructively to her critique, if not always agreeing with it, eliciting further explanations and adding further knowledge to the topic. If dialectics simply mean discussion then it has been a fine example of dialectics is action It has been an example of comradely debate that should be commended. Everybody give themselves a pat on the back. Shame about your reluctance to agree with the SPGB case  , though, Rosa. Perhaps you will as LBird hopes engage in that discussion some other time.

[Author]

Posts