Do We Need the Dialectic?

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

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.

OK you've lost me now. How is Leninism an a priori theory? 

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

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.

Those were the couple of atoms I was talking about! Incidentally, I don't think RL goes that far: the claim was referring to Capital not all of Marx's works.Whether we like it or not, I can't see how it can be denied that Hegel was an influence on Marx or that he was once a "Young Hegelian". After all, he became a socialist/communist through wrestling with Hegelian ideas and coming to the conclusion, for instance, that the criticism of religion was not just an intellectual exercise but led to a criticism of the material conditions that gave rise to religion and so to working to end these conditions.

[LBird]

Unless we move on to discussing 'dialectics' in a comparison with 'critical realism', I'm going to bow out of this thread.I'm not interested any further here in Hegel, Rosa or Wittgenstein.DJP, what do you think of my post 265, which I wrote with you in mind, since you mentioned Bertell Ollman's book and critical realism?

[Young Master Smeet]

Indeed, we can keep working with the postface as the primary source, but if we look here again at this sentence:

Marx wrote:

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.

Hegel's dialectic is referred to without article, which usually is suggestive of a definite article.  So, here with have an identity between Hegel's dialectic and dialectic.  I have to say you're putting a lot of weight on an endorsement of another critic.  The statuis of being published is strong and sugegstive, but it is not iron clad and definitive.  If Marx wrote in the secret diary of Charlie Marx age 43 3/4s "My dialectic has nothing to do with hegel, and really, I've never read him, I'm just conning people" you would want to ram that down people's throats, and ask the valid question, how does it relate to his published statements (It would make Charlie a fraud, is the basic answer).

[Young Master Smeet]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

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.

Choosing a reading based on saving a writer from being an ignoramous or committing a crass error is a fundamentally bankrupt and intellectually fraudulant approach.  I weigh the evidence without prejudice or the exclusion of the very real possiblity that Marx was wrong (as he was about so many things).  Ockham's razor often suggests error is the most likely reading.

[ALB]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Indeed, we can keep working with the postface as the primary source, but if we look here again at this sentence:

Marx wrote:

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.

Hegel's dialectic is referred to without article, which usually is suggestive of a definite article.

That's only in an English translation of what Marx originally wrote in German.So, if we are to continue with this talmudic analysis of a text, then we need to refer to the original German. And you're right. It does say "die Dialektik".

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird,Would you include Pannekoek in critical realism.  ISTR finding his version of the quality/quantity thing (in his history of astronomy) interesting, not least because it kind of chimes with the now widespread view that the advance of a science can be compared to it's capacity to quantify it's object of study (for him it was the quality of brightness).

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird,Would you include Pannekoek in critical realism.  ISTR finding his version of the quality/quantity thing (in his history of astronomy) interesting, not least because it kind of chimes with the now widespread view that the advance of a science can be compared to it's capacity to quantify it's object of study (for him it was the quality of brightness).

YMS, I've never studied Pannekoek in relation to critical realism.My post 265 was a comparison of Engels' claims that his example of the French army in Egypt provided an example of 'quantity into quality'. I think it's nothing of the sort, and 'structures and emergence' explains the example better. My post is part of a larger critique of so-called 'dialectical laws'.On Pannekoek and astronomy, I bought his book on your recommendation on the other thread, but I haven't had time to read it, yet. If you could give me the pages that refer to his use of 'dialectical laws', like 'quantity/quality', I'll have a look.I don't deny that sometimes quantities change into quality, but more often they don't. Piles of bricks, no matter how many are added to the mound, will never take on the qualitative change into a wall.To me, this means the so-called 'dialectical law of q into q' is nonsense, and that Engels was wrong to formulate it, and that his own example is meaningless: more French soldiers, alone, don't simply evolve by numbers into a force that could defeat the Mamelukes.The notions of 'structure' (the form those extra numbers of soldiers took in organisation) and 'emergence' (new qualities of discipline, effective firepower, esprit d'corps, command and control, etc.) is a better guide to why the French prevailed, not 'dialectics'.

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

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.

__________________________________________________Commentary of Mcolome1She is not only dogmatic, she is also tedious, narrow minded, and she does not have any respect for other peoples knowledge and concern, and by trying to insult and undermining other peoples she is not going to prove her case, on the contrary, she has been thrown out from several places, and everybody has closed the door in front of her face . In others forum she has not proven her case eitherWhat Alban has written  on the above captioned commentary will place the last nail to the coffin because this thread will continue into an endless cycle  (similar to the case of the Anarco-capitalists in the WSM forum, which were also making propaganda of  their own theories inside the forum of the Socialist Party) without any conclusion, and both side will stick to their guns.The curious thing is that most Marxist-Humanists have rejected Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, they have recognized the existence of Soviet state capitalism,  and they have rejected  the vanguard party concept, and some have rejected the transitional society,  and they are more open to discussions, but she has stayed as a Leninist, and she has the typical arrogance of the Bolsheviks, and she continues rejecting others peoples investigations, and wants to impose her ideas on others peoples tooPersonally I was part of the Marxist-Humanist movement ( I did not read Hegel from second hands, I read the original sources ) for several years and met personally most of its most prominent  proponents, but by questioning, Leninism and Bolshevism ( after I spent most of my youth in that tendency including the Albanian tendency and I met personally Enver Hoxha  )  and Hegelianism  I was able to understand the stand of the Socialist Party and the World Socialist Movement,( and I recognized that I was mistaken )  and then, I decided to become a member after I left the SLP ,( I have my romantic attachment to N&L and the SLP )  and I have discovered that there is not other place where to go, when I find something better I move on,  and until now I have not found it yet. I already did my homeworkI have my critical  critiques against Frederic Engels, but I also recognize his contributions to socialism, and he betrayed his own social class to dedicate his life to the interest of the working class,  and without his financial help it would have been impossible for Marx to finish Capital,  and I came to the workers movement by reading and studying Engels first,( to read Marx and Engels was a death sentence )  but I do not recognize the so called contributions of Lenin to socialism, because  he did not make any, on the contrary, he distorted socialism completely, and now we are paying the consequences.The main question is not Hegel, the main question is Leninism, and she wants to do like the Ostrich, by  placing  the head inside the ground and leaving the rest of  the body outside of the sand stormPersonally, I do not waste any more time on this, I have better things to do, I placed my last nail on the coffin of this dead horse many years ago, probably, partially we need a Marx and a Engels, but in reality what we need is the class consciousness that they had, and their political knowledge that they accumulated, and mostly,  we need a working class with the desires and the conviction that socialism-communism is the only alternative ( no alternatives ) that we have, and I am not talking about the romantic notion of the left wingers,( about a better world within capitalism )  I am talking about a society of common possession, without state, without social  classes, without leaders, without political parties, without borders, without passports, without racism, without wars,  and free access.I rest my case by saying that Marx was influenced by Hegel and Fuerbach, and that at the end of his life he did not reject Hegel completely, he kept part of it, if he kept some of the conceptions of the  Utopian socialist, why is it impossible to keep part of Hegel ? , it would be  like saying that  the rejected David Ricardo completely

[Anonymous]

 But Marx had the sense to keep his mouth shut, if he had developed any leanings towards positivism (perhaps it is possible to argue he erroneously had?). He never told Engels his approach was right, either. Even chapter 2.10 of Anti-Duhring, written by Marx, is about socio-economics, rather than 'science', isn't it? Commentary of Mcolome1Marx kept his mouth shut because he was financially supported by Engels, but by doing that he let many mistakes to pass by to posterity , and some of those mistakes were used by Lenin and the Bolsheviks to twist socialism. Engels also took the liberty of adding his own ideas to certain works of Marx, and left some aspect of his works outside, in some way I might ask the same question as Rosa Luxemburg when she wrote her capital accumulation, although she  made  more mistakes than Engels We must also place Engels and Marx within the frame of their times, in some way Engels was very advanced on Physics, and Biology, but Marx was more advanced than him on Anthropology, and Marx also in an exaggerated manner supported several bourgeois revolutions, and at the beginning they had certain Blanquist stands. They developed their ideas according to the march of the development of capitalism, we can see a better picture now because capitalism is fully developed.  It was too much work for two persons

[Anonymous]

mcolome1 wrote:

 But Marx had the sense to keep his mouth shut, if he had developed any leanings towards positivism (perhaps it is possible to argue he erroneously had?). He never told Engels his approach was right, either. Even chapter 2.10 of Anti-Duhring, written by Marx, is about socio-economics, rather than 'science', isn't it? Commentary of Mcolome1Marx kept his mouth shut because he was financially supported by Engels, but by doing that he let many mistakes to pass by to posterity , and some of those mistakes were used by Lenin and the Bolsheviks to twist socialism. Engels also took the liberty of adding his own ideas to certain works of Marx, and left some aspect of his works outside, in some way I might ask the same question as Rosa Luxemburg when she wrote her capital accumulation, although she  made  more mistakes than Engels We must also place Engels and Marx within the frame of their times, in some way Engels was very advanced on Physics, and Biology, but Marx was more advanced than him on Anthropology, and Marx also in an exaggerated manner supported several bourgeois revolutions, and at the beginning they had certain Blanquist stands. They developed their ideas according to the march of the development of capitalism, we can see a better picture now because capitalism is fully developed.  It was too much work for two persons

 I want to add that,  at the beginning Engels was the Economist, it was not Marx, he started to study Political Economy after Engels, his main concern was philosophy 

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird,the books at home.  I'll try and get a ref tonight. My reading of Pannekoek was that quantity/quality wasn't in nature, but the development of the human understanding of nature.  So, the quality of overwhelming military force transforms into the military science when we can analyse and quantify military capacity (and thus understand it better).

[ALB]

Aren't "the transformation of quantity into quality" and "the emergence of structure" just two different ways of describing the same phenomena? The question that then arises is which is the better one. Which involves having criteria to judge the adequacy/usefulness/"truth" of statements about the real world.. But (at the risk of setting an old hare running) what?Actually, personally I quite like the description "transformation of quantity into quality", which does fit some things that happen. This without thinking that it's a law of nature or agreeing with all of Engels's examples.

[ALB]

Now that the discussion on the dialectic is over, it seems the position is still the same as it was as set out in 1956 quoted in the opening post to this thread:

Quote:

The subject of dialectics has not received a great deal of attention in the Socialist Party. It may be thought it is of not much concern to us. Nevertheless, all sorts of ideas on the subject have flitted through the Party from time to time. We may not accept Engels's Dialectics of Nature or Anti-Duhring, but at least we have never rejected them.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird,the books at home. I'll try and get a ref tonight.

Thanks.

YMS wrote:

My reading of Pannekoek was that quantity/quality wasn't in nature, but the development of the human understanding of nature.

Yeah, understanding, not nature.The issue is, does using a theory of 'quantity/quality' give a better understanding than 'structures/emergence'? At present, I don't think so. I think critical realism is more useful than dialectics.

YMS wrote:

So, the quality of overwhelming military force transforms into the military science when we can analyse and quantify military capacity (and thus understand it better).

I'm not sure I get your meaning, here. 'Quantify' is a human judgement. 'Quantitative change leading to qualitative change' is a supposed 'law of dialectics', according to Engels; that 'law' is what I'm objecting to, not humans making judgements.

[Author]

Posts