Do We Need the Dialectic?

[DJP]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Well, one can't get more "opposite" to Hegel than to excise him completely from one's work

That's not what "opposite" means.

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Karl Marx wrote:

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.

Or rather than attempting mind reading or spirit channeling isn't it simpler to assume he uses the past tense because he is talking about a period of time in the past when he was working on Capital Vol 1?

[Young Master Smeet]

Young mistress Luxemburg,I'm afraid I haven't (and nor am i going to) read  every post in this long running discussion.  however, the post you link to does not, I'm afraid, definitively deal with the matter.  You simply state that you disagree with Marx' asserveration "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" Marx could simply have been wrong, or, as you suggest may be being Ironic.  But that sentence is equally capable of being read with the stress being on 'comprehensive' Many thinkers had a crack at steam engines before Boulton and Watt, but they produced the definitive design that make the buggers workable.  The point remains, though, that Chucky-bum's dialectic cannot be that distinct from hegels, since they share elementary form, per my football anaology.

[Young Master Smeet]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

I agree, but where the unpublished source contradicts the published source, the latter must take precedence.

Like the punchline of the joke, Frayed Knot.  Where the two contradict, we need to look at why they conradict, and why the author chose to make their public view different, we cannot take the public as read, though.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Where the two contradict, we need to look at why they conradict, and why the author chose to make their public view different, we cannot take the public as read, though.

Yeah, this is the apriori position I would take, too, YMS, ie. 'that published might or might not take precedence'.It's a different apriori position to the one that Rosa takes, ie. 'that published must take precedence'.Why Rosa keeps pretending not to have apriori positions/ideas/theories/philosophies baffles me, and undermines the rest of what Rosa is arguing (other than, for me, the arguments against DiaMat, which I'm convinced by, as they support my own conclusions).

[Anonymous]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Quote:

Mcolome1, I think you need to edit your last post to make it clear which are your words and which are mine.Marx published Capital in 1867; this is  what he wrote in 1875.

In fact, the Postface to the second edition was published in January 1873.But what of the later passage you quoted?

Quote:

“In my zealous devotion to the schema of Hegelian logic, I even discovered the Hegelian forms of the syllogism in the process of circulation. My relationship with Hegel is very simple. I am a disciple of Hegel, and the presumptuous chattering of the epigones who think they have buried this great thinker appear frankly ridiculous to me.

I'd appreciate it if you could tell me the exact date of this letter, and to whom it was written, so I can check it in my copy of the complete works.But, let us assume it is 100% genuine; does it prove the things you allege?Not really. As I have pointed out several times: no unpublished source can take precedence over published material when it comes to ascertaining a writer's genuine opinions.But, what does this letter actually tell us?

Quote:

I even discovered the Hegelian forms of the syllogism in the process of circulation.

This is on a par with being able to see the face of Jesus Christ in a current bun. I can't see that Marx is being serious here; he is obviously still' coquetting'. 

Quote:

My relationship with Hegel is very simple. I am a disciple of Hegel,

Well, I am a disciple of Gottlob Frege, but I disagree with most of what he had to say. Now, we know this was also true of Marx in relation to Hegel, since he published a summary of 'the dialectic method' which contains not one atom of Hegel, but which he still called 'the dialectic method'. If his opinion of Hegel were still as high as some maintain, he wouldn't have done this, or said that. He'd have said something like this:

Quote:

Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method… what else is he picturing but the dialectic method, providing we incorporate in there some Hegelian logic, but 'the right way up', of course?"

But he didn't; so this published source must take precedence over an unpublished, and ambiguous letter.

Quote:

the presumptuous chattering of the epigones who think they have buried this great thinker appear frankly ridiculous to me

I have already covered this point. I think Plato was a 'great thinker' and I am critical of those who would dismiss him with a wave of the hand, but I still disagree with 99.99% of what he had to say.

Quote:

This should put to rest the claim that “Marx’s mature work in political economy is not dependent upon Hegel and dialectics.

1) I have never doubted that 'dialectics' was important for Marx, the question has always been what did he (not you, not me, not Engels, not anyone else), what did he think this word meant.Well, we needn't speculate since Marx told us in the Postface to the second edition — and the summary of 'the dialectic method' he quoted and endorsed contains not one milligram of Hegel.2) So, unless you can come up with a comment written and published by Marx, contemporaneous with or subsequent to January 1873, it is settled: Marx's mature work was indeed a Hegel-free zone.

 You left out on the above commentary  this very important source, and it is from the MEGA edition, the same one that is working in the 132 volumes of Marx and Engels See Marx-Engels Gesamtausgabe [MEGA²] (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2008), Band II/11, S. 32, Fn. 10. See also Oeuvres de Karl Marx, Economie II, edited by Maximilien Rubel (Paris: Editions Gallimard, 1968), p. 528. The manuscript that this statement appears in was written in 1875. This source clearly indicates that the manuscripts was written in 1875, therefore, it shows that Marx did not reject Hegel dialectic completely, unless you want to violate the law of Intelectual Property. If Capital was published in 1867 and this document is dated  1875, the newer one indicates that Marx has not rejected Hegel completely. If you take your case to court you will not be able to prove your case because in contract law the newer date of a contract makes the other one invalid. The Mega edition is going to publish many documents of Marx that has not been published yet,  and probably many acceptable ideas of today can re-assured and others might be rejected. The same thing happened with the 1844 Manuscripts ( or Paris Notebook ) which were hidden in the vault of the Second International .The same case is applicable to the letter written by Marx against Simon Bolivar, many peoples denied the allegations that he considered Bolivar as a dictator, and then, the letter showed up and everybody lost the case

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Where the two contradict, we need to look at why they conradict, and why the author chose to make their public view different, we cannot take the public as read, though.

Yeah, this is the apriori position I would take, too, YMS, ie. 'that published might or might not take precedence'.It's a different apriori position to the one that Rosa takes, ie. 'that published must take precedence'.Why Rosa keeps pretending not to have apriori positions/ideas/theories/philosophies baffles me, and undermines the rest of what Rosa is arguing (other than, for me, the arguments against DiaMat, which I'm convinced by, as they support my own conclusions).

 Mcolome commentary:  Have you ever seen a bull inside of a China store ? 

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DJP:

Quote:

Or rather than attempting mind reading or spirit channeling isn't it simpler to assume he uses the past tense because he is talking about a period of time in the past when he was working on Capital Vol 1?

Sure, that is possible, but if you start, as I do, from the position of accepting as a primary source the only summary of 'the dialectic method' that Marx published and endorsed in his entire life, and interpet everything else he says in the light of that (which seems eminently reasonable to me), then you have to ask yourself why Marx would call a summary that has absolutely no Hegel in it 'the dialectic method' — not 'a dialectic method', or even 'part of, or one aspect of, the dialectic method', but 'the dialectic method' –, if he was still quite as enomoured of Hegel as some would have us believe?And why is it that the very best he could do in the body of Das Kapital was merely to 'coquette' with Hegelian jargon, if he were still of the same opinion about this 'mighty thinker'? A non-serious use of some of his terminology? This is hardly a way to show that you still view Hegel in the way you once did. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

---

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

mcolome1:

Quote:

You left out on the above commentary  this very important source, and it is from the MEGA edition, the same one that is working in the 132 volumes of Marx and Engels

But, I didn't leave it out. It is right there in the passage of mine you quoted!But you add:

Quote:

This source clearly indicates that the manuscripts was written in 1875, therefore, it shows that Marx did not reject Hegel dialectic completely, unless you want to violate the law of Intelectual Property.

(1) Where have I denied it was written in 1875?(2) You still refuse to tell us exactly when it was written, and to whom it was addressed. Why is that?(3) How can unpublished material countermand a published source?(4) But, even if it could, this letter still fails to support your case, as I demonstrated in that passage of mine you quoted.What you need to do is respond to my arguments there, as opposed to simply ignoring them.Oh dear, I have already covered this:

Quote:

If Capital was published in 1867 and this document is dated  1875, the newer one indicates that Marx has not rejected Hegel completely. If you take your case to court you will not be able to prove your case because in contract law the newer date of a contract makes the other one invalid.

As I pointed out to you: the Postface was published in, or was dated January 1873. Now, the letter to which you refer was written, if we are to believe you, in 1875. But, and once more, no unpublished material can countermand the views expressed in a published source.So, the summary Marx added to the Postface to the second edition of Das Kapital — in which there is not one atom of Hegel to be found, but which Marx still calls 'the dialectic method' — takes precedence, and shows Marx had indeed waved 'goodbye' to that mystical bumbler, Hegel, when he came to write his masterpiece.For some odd reason best known to yourself you still prefer to ignore this published expression of Marx's opinions.And, as I have also shown, not even this letter supports the case you want to make, even if we were to grant it takes precedence over this published material.So, I think you should stop flogging this particular dead horse.

Quote:

The Mega edition is going to publish many documents of Marx that has not been published yet,  and probably many acceptable ideas of today can re-assured and others might be rejected. The same thing happened with the 1844 Manuscripts ( or Paris Notebook ) which were hidden in the vault of the Second International .The same case is applicable to the letter written by Marx against Simon Bolivar, many peoples denied the allegations that he considered Bolivar as a dictator, and then, the letter showed up and everybody lost the case

Fine, we'll return to this when that material becomes available. Until then, the evidence we have at present supports my contention that Das Kapital was a Hegel-free zone.What you need to do in the meantime is try to locate a summary of 'the dialectic method' written and published by Marx after January 1873 that supports your contention — i.e., the traditional idea that 'his method' still owed anything to Hegel.Oh wait, there isn't one…I have no doubt you'll simply ignore this significant fact, too.

---

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LB and mcolome1:

Quote:

Yeah, this is the apriori position I would take, too, YMS, ie. 'that published might or might not take precedence'.It's a different apriori position to the one that Rosa takes, ie. 'that published must take precedence'.

As we can now see, not even this unpublished material supports your view of the relation between Marx and Hegel.

Quote:

Why Rosa keeps pretending not to have apriori positions/ideas/theories/philosophies baffles me, and undermines the rest of what Rosa is arguing (other than, for me, the arguments against DiaMat, which I'm convinced by, as they support my own conclusions).

As I have already said: If you can show, as opposed to merely assert, I hold certain a priori views, I will immediately disown and renounce them, and apologise profusely.But, assertion isn't proof. If it were, and I were to assert one or both of you are CIA agents, that would be proof that one or both of you are indeed CIA agents. But, thankfully, it isn't.So, sunshines, let's see your proof.

---

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YMS:

Quote:

Like the punchline of the joke, Frayed Knot.  Where the two contradict, we need to look at why they conradict, and why the author chose to make their public view different, we cannot take the public as read, though.

Sure we can speculate all day long for all the difference it will make, but the hard fact you lot seem not to want to come to terms with is that Marx added a summary of 'the dialectic method' to the Postface to the second edition to his masterpiece — the only one he endorsed and published in his entire life. And that summary contains absolutely no trace of Hegel.If you start with that fact, the rest is pretty straight-forward.But, you lot don't.However, you can be sure that if that summary had have contained some Hegel, you'd be ramming it down my throat.Odd that…

---

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YMS:

Quote:

I'm afraid I haven't (and nor am i going to) read  every post in this long running discussion.  however, the post you link to does not, I'm afraid, definitively deal with the matter.  You simply state that you disagree with Marx' asserveration "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" Marx could simply have been wrong, or, as you suggest may be being Ironic.  But that sentence is equally capable of being read with the stress being on 'comprehensive' Many thinkers had a crack at steam engines before Boulton and Watt, but they produced the definitive design that make the buggers workable.  The point remains, though, that Chucky-bum's dialectic cannot be that distinct from hegels, since they share elementary form, per my football anaology.

Sure, you can read this passage any way you like, but, and once again, if you start, as I do, from the position of accepting as a primary source the only summary of 'the dialectic method' that Marx published and endorsed in his entire life, and interpet everything else he says in the light of that (which seems eminently reasonable to me), then there is only one way to read it.Now this summary has absolutely no Hegel in it, but Marx, not me, Marx still calls it  'the dialectic method' — not 'a dialectic method', or even 'part of, or one aspect of, the dialectic method', but 'the dialectic method' –, so, and once more, there seems to me to be only one way to read this passage, especially since the reading I suggest absolves Marx of making a crass error.Take your pick: Marx was either an ignoramus or my reading is correct.I know which alternative I prefer.

---

[LBird]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

LB and mcolome1:

Quote:

Yeah, this is the apriori position I would take, too, YMS, ie. 'that published might or might not take precedence'.It's a different apriori position to the one that Rosa takes, ie. 'that published must take precedence'.

As we can now see, not even this unpublished material supports your view of the relation between Marx and Hegel.

This point of YMS, mcolome1 and me is not about 'unpublished material', so your response is incorrect, Rosa.Our point is about 'the necessity of holding apriori theories'.We hold the apriori theory that it 'might/might not'.You hold the apriori theory that it 'must'.The 'it' is not the point being argued; what's being argued about is your assertion, based upon apriori theory, that it 'must'. Any defence that you make of 'must' has to rely on theory.Personally, I blame 'Leninism', but I know you don't wish to discuss that particular theory that you also hold.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LB:

Quote:

This point of YMS, mcolome1 and me is not about 'unpublished material', so your response is incorrect, Rosa.Our point is about 'the necessity of holding apriori theories'.We hold the apriori theory that it 'might/might not'.You hold the apriori theory that it 'must'.

Well, as I explained, it's an interpretative rule, which, because it is incapable of being true or false, can't be a priori. [Unless, of course, you have forgotten the meaning of "a priori".]

Quote:

The 'it' is not the point being argued; what's being argued about is your assertion, based upon apriori theory, that it 'must'. Any defence that you make of 'must' has to rely on theory.

The 'must' here represents an inference from a rule, not an a priori theory.So, nice try, only it wasn't.[Recall that when I criticise a priori theories here, I am only targetting metaphysical/philosophical theories, not the rules scientists use to understand the world.]

Quote:

Personally, I blame 'Leninism', but I know you don't wish to discuss that particular theory that you also hold

Er…, I fail to see what Leninism has got to do with your inability to distinguish rules from a priori theories.

---

[ALB]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

supports your view of the relation between Marx and Hegel.

I don't know what you think "our" view of this is. You seem to think that we are claiming that Marx was a devoted follower of Hegel to his dying day. Nobody  here has said that. The difference is minimal. You say there is not an atom of Hegel in Marx's 1873 Postface. We say there's maybe a couple. So this really is an argument about how many atoms can dance on a pinhead. And it doesn't make any difference who is right. You'll remain a Leninist and we'll remain socialists.In fact I can't think what you are trying to achieve here, apart from publishing your own. writings (and comparing yourself to Copernicus). None of us here accept Leninist "diamat'. So you are preaching to the converted on this point. You're actually weakening your case with your obsessive dogmatism.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I don't know what you think "our" view of this is. You seem to think that we are claiming that Marx was a devoted follower of Hegel to his dying day. Nobody here has said that. The difference is minimal. You say there is not an atom of Hegel in Marx's 1873 Postface. We say there's maybe a couple. So this really is an argument about how many atoms can dance on a pinhead.

Yeah, ironically, I'd side with Rosa on this question.Other than some mentions of Hegel's name, and some throwaway remarks, I'm inclined to agree with Rosa's stance that 'there isn't an atom of Hegel' in Marx's works.There are mentions also of 'dialectics', but I would argue that this is an early synonym for 'critical realism', rather than anything to do with Engels' and Lenin's DiaMat.So, for me, 'dialectics' can be separated into Hegel's, Marx's and Engels' versions. I reject Hegel and Engels, and only accept Marx if his use of the word 'dialectic' means 'critical realism.I've posted earlier a criticism of Engels' use of 'quantity into quality', from the perspective of critical realism. I hope someone takes this up, and either supports me and thinks that it's a useful critique, or criticises me and shows how 'quantity into quality' is more useful than 'structure and emergent properties'.[edit]see post 265, for details[end edit]

ALB, to Rosa, wrote:

You'll remain a Leninist and we'll remain socialists. In fact I can't think what you are trying to achieve here, apart from publishing your own. writings (and comparing yourself to Copernicus). None of us here accept Leninist "diamat'. So you are preaching to the converted on this point. You're actually weakening your case with your obsessive dogmatism.

I also agree with ALB, here. The real issue now is Rosa's holding of an apriori theory, that of Leninism. If Rosa doesn't want to discuss this, that's OK by me.But we really should be moving on, to a deeper discussion about other issues with dialectics, rather than go round in circles with Rosa's 'obsessive dogmatism'. It's up to Rosa if they wish to continue; if not, thanks anyway for your helpful contributions.

[Author]

Posts