Do We Need the Dialectic?
- This topic has 439 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 3 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Morgenstern wrote:I/we (arguably always we
) argue that the mind is it's own system which has only a contingent relationship to the world beyond the senses. Look at it this way. There is a time lag in acquiring sense data, making sense of it, and our being aware of it. By the time we 'see' a thing, consciously, it is long gone. We are just experiencing echoes.But the 'mind' is much more than an individual brain. Although you've acknowledged 'we', it reads like you're talking about an 'individual consciousness'.And 'echoes' sounds awfully passive, rather than regarding humans as active producers of knowledge.
Yes, 'mind', 'senses', 'the world out there' are all part of the material conditions of our existence. The 'mind' is not something separate. Our brain and senses attempt to understand the world around us but we cannot know everything: But then we don't need to! We have interpreted the world enough to cure some nasty deseases, so we are doing some 'correct ' interpretation.I am a little confused by – 'We have nothing meaningful to say about the world beyond the senses.'What about the 'social structure'.
mcolome1 wrote:Although most of the article is fine, I think that this particular line is outdated.
Socialist Standard wrote:Engels has had to take some stick for introducing the term “scientific socialism” but it is an accurate description of the outcome of Marx’s (and his own) encounter with the German philosophy of his day.I think that it's possible to argue precisely that 'scientific socialism' was Engels' baby, not Marx's.If 'scientific socialism' was meant to mean 'objective knowledge', then we now know that this is impossible, and would indeed give Engel 'stick' for following too closely to 19th century positivism.If 'scientific socialism' is to mean anything, it must mean 'a proletarian unified science'. And with the coming of Communism, and the end of classes, it will just be 'a human unified science', which will encompass both nature and society with a single, unified scientific method.Humans are at the centre of any science. There is no 'objective' science, in the sense meant by positivist/empiricist science. The closest we can get to 'objectivity' is a 'social objectivity' which specifies its inescapable social content.And in a class society, the 'social content' of science is always a class content.
LBird wrote:Although most of the article is fine, I think that this particular line is outdated.Socialist Standard wrote:Engels has had to take some stick for introducing the term “scientific socialism” but it is an accurate description of the outcome of Marx’s (and his own) encounter with the German philosophy of his day.I think that it's possible to argue precisely that 'scientific socialism' was Engels' baby, not Marx's.If 'scientific socialism' was meant to mean 'objective knowledge', then we now know that this is impossible, and would indeed give Engel 'stick' for following too closely to 19th century positivism.If 'scientific socialism' is to mean anything, it must mean 'a proletarian unified science'. And with the coming of Communism, and the end of classes, it will just be 'a human unified science', which will encompass both nature and society with a single, unified scientific method.Humans are at the centre of any science. There is no 'objective' science, in the sense meant by positivist/empiricist science. The closest we can get to 'objectivity' is a 'social objectivity' which specifies its inescapable social content.And in a class society, the 'social content' of science is always a class content.
=====================================================================================Mcolome commentaryThe article was published to complement part of what we said about Marx's conception of philosophy on this discussion about dialectic, and we indicated that for Marx philosophy was the German Classic Philosophy or the German Ideology. During his whole life Marx was more inclined toward Political Economy and Anthropology than to philosophyThe concept of scientific socialism is a creation of Frederic Engels, and it was another issue used by Lenin in order to try to turn socialism into a dogmatic sets of ideas and a doctrine. ( expression incorrectly used by Engels on the Principles of Communism ) The intention of Engels in that particular historical period was to detach socialism from wrong view of the Utopian socialistsThe pamphlet of Engels on scientific socialism might contain some mistakes but it served widely in order to bring many young peoples to the socialist movement, and it was used in many study groups
LBird wrote:If 'scientific socialism' was meant to mean 'objective knowledge', then we now know that this is impossible, and would indeed give Engel 'stick' for following too closely to 19th century positivism.Humans are at the centre of any science. There is no 'objective' science, in the sense meant by positivist/empiricist science. The closest we can get to 'objectivity' is a 'social objectivity' which specifies its inescapable social content.And in a class society, the 'social content' of science is always a class content.Am I to take it that you also refer to medicine, physics etc.? If so, then they do a great job without 'objectivity' Example of Non- science = there is a green man on my shoulder. I don't have to prove it to you. You prove it is not there! Result = there is a green man on his shoulder. Example of Science = smoking causes lung cancer and I will attempt to prove it to you with evidence. Result = many lives saved. 'Science' cannot be pinned down and attempts to do so lead to inaction and a fear of progress. Science has many problems and it is at times a dim light but it is the only light we have.
Vin Maratty wrote:Am I to take it that you also refer to medicine, physics etc.? If so, then they do a great job without 'objectivity'.But readers of tea-leaves 'do a great job', in their opinion.Surely our conception of 'science' goes further than saying it is something that 'does a great job'?
Vin Maratty wrote:'Science' cannot be pinned down and attempts to do so lead to inaction and a fear of progress. Science has many problems and it is at times a dim light but it is the only light we have.But we could replace 'science' in your statement above with 'god', and it would give us a guide as to what 'science' is, from this perspective.
Quote:'God' cannot be pinned down and attempts to do so lead to inaction and a fear of progress. God has many problems and it is at times a dim light but it is the only light we have.Sounds like good ol' 19th century postivist faith, to me! Anyone who questions just what 'science' is, and asks for an explanation of how it gives us knowledge, is pointed to 'his/its' works, and condemned as an unbeliever, who is out to destroy 'science'.But…. I'm not going to drag this discussion out, once more. If anyone's interested, read the Pannekoek thread.
mcolome1 wrote:We can not reduce everything to the point of view of the natural sciences, otherwise we are going to do the same thing of the vulgar materialists.[my bold]No, we must expand the natural sciences to include society. Then we will have the unified scientific method that Marx sought.Knowledge, of both nature and society, is social.
ALB wrote:I wasn't necessarily agreeing with E.W. — Ted Willmott who, sad to say, ended up in the Labour Party. He also wrote a series of articles in the Socialist Standard in the 1950s on economic and philosophical matters (crises, Popper, Stratchey, etc) that can be found on this site under Publications/Socialist Standard/Archive). I was merely drawing attention to this views.This said, I do agree with his basic criticism of Engels on this point:Quote:The fundamental error of Engels was to take the contradictions involved in the thinking process and transfer them to physical processes.This is not a rejection of "the dialectic" but of the attempt to see it as some sort of "law of nature". It is still valid as part of the thinking process (eg treating the world of phenomena as a whole, naming parts of it to understand it, etc).I don't think Engels can be blamed for having a go, even if he failed. He did follow very closely the scientific developments of his days and the Dialectics of Nature were notes he didn't publish himself. I don't think he advanced the same theory in Anti-Dühring, did he? I wouldn't criticise this work of his, especially not the part which was later published as Socialism, Utopian and Scientific, still a good introduction to "Marxism".Actually, I'm quite an Engels fan as he wrote simply and is easier to follow than Marx. He just made a mistake here in trying to discover "the laws of dialectics" in nature.
I do not think we should blame everything on Engels. It is also the aptitude of the Marxist Humanist in order to introduce dialectic, they have made several critiques on Engels, but through the back door they want to bring the Hegelian Philosophy. Between both I would prefer Engels.Sadly I have seen many peoples falling in the hands of the ruling class, and in the political parties of the rulers. It is hard to imagine what has happened in the minds of those peoples after they have learned that capitalism is not the solution and the best alternative for mankind.We can not reduce everything to the point of view of the natural sciences, otherwise we are going to do the same thing of the vulgar materialists
LBird wrote:mcolome1 wrote:We can not reduce everything to the point of view of the natural sciences, otherwise we are going to do the same thing of the vulgar materialists.[my bold]No, we must expand the natural sciences to include society. Then we will have the unified scientific method that Marx sought.Knowledge, of both nature and society, is social.
Mcolome1 commentary: Okay, good clarification, we have covered all the bases, because Anton Pannekoek has been a great opponent of vulgar and bourgeois materialism, and the vulgar materialists conceptions of the so called Marxist- Leninist. Nature+society is the real conception of Marx and the proponents of socialism as the only alternative ( no alternatives ) to capitalism. It is much better than Engels' scientific socialism, but also indicating that the intention of Engels was to distinct themselves from the utopian socialistsI went over all the answers given by members of the SPGB in this thread, and I think that the members of the Socialist Party have done a great job in regard to the topic of Dialectic, Philosophy and socialism, and the clarification of certain mistake made in the past, and it has shown that our roots are cemented in good ground.
There is another topic initiated by Alban in regard to CLR James.( Events and announcements ) It is also related to this thing about dialectic, state capitalism and Trotskyism, We can not reject on part of Leninism and keep the others, because in its entirety Bolshevism is totally incorrect, and it is a dangerous conception within the working class movement
mcolome1 wrote:Nature+society is the real conception of Marx and the proponents of socialism as the only alternative ( no alternatives ) to capitalism. It is much better than Engels' scientific socialism, but also indicating that the intention of Engels was to distinct themselves from the utopian socialists[my bold]Yes, mcolome1, the 'real conception of Marx' was the unity of nature and society.But, it is not only 'much better than Engels' scientific socialism', but the very opposite of 'Engels' scientific socialism' (sic)!Engels' 'intention' might have been praiseworthy, but in practice he ditched Marx's critical social practice and returned to crude materialism, due both to the ideological pressure of 19th century positivism and his philosophical amateurism. So, we have had to put up with over 100 years of so-called 'Marxists' insisting that 'matter' talks to us! This applies not only to the DiaMat-ists of Lenin/Stalin, but also to those who insist (when asked about the process of cognition) that 'matter/reality/physics' etc. is prior to humans. This is incorrect. Of course, reality is prior historically (it exists prior to human questions about it), but in any attempt by humans to understand that reality, humanity is prior.The social subject asks questions of the really-existing object, this 'asking' is a practical, active process (not a passive contemplation), and the product is scientific knowledge.We have to expel the so-called 'materialist' strain of Engels/Lenin/Stalin from proletarian consciousness, and replace it with the 'historical materialism' of Marx/Pannekoek.
What has been overlooked in these (in my opinion unfair) attacks on Engels for creating "scientific socialism" is that this was not just Engels's personal opinion or invention. It was the general view of the German Social Democratic movement of the time. Here, for instance, is what Rosa Luxemburg wrote near the end of her 1900 pamphlet Reform or Revolution:
Quote:Some time ago Lassalle said: “Only when science and the workers, these opposite poles of society, become one, will they crush in their arms of steel all obstacles to culture.” … Only when the great mass of workers take the keen and dependable weapons of scientific socialism in their own hands, will all the petty-bourgeois inclinations, all the opportunistic currents, come to naught..Is she the next for the chop and inclusion in some Engels/Luxemburg/Lenin/Stalin amalgam !I don't think anyone will get us to ditch Engels. In fact to link Engels to Lenin and Stalin is a travesty as bad as linking Marx to them.
ALB wrote:What has been overlooked in these (in my opinion unfair) attacks on Engels for creating "scientific socialism" is that this was not just Engels's personal opinion or invention. It was the general view of the German Social Democratic movement of the time. Here, for instance, is what Rosa Luxemburg wrote near the end of her 1900 pamphlet Reform or Revolution:Quote:Some time ago Lassalle said: “Only when science and the workers, these opposite poles of society, become one, will they crush in their arms of steel all obstacles to culture.” … Only when the great mass of workers take the keen and dependable weapons of scientific socialism in their own hands, will all the petty-bourgeois inclinations, all the opportunistic currents, come to naught..Is she the next for the chop and inclusion in some Engels/Luxemburg/Lenin/Stalin amalgam !I don't think anyone will get us to ditch Engels. In fact to link Engels to Lenin and Stalin is a travesty as bad as linking Marx to them.
I rest my case, ALB! Add Luxembourg and Lassalle to 'The Engelsian Amalgam'! Chop, chop, chop!The formula 'science and workers' is the most damaging positivist nonsense for the proletariat.There is no 'proletarian science' outside of the workers. 'Science', without any prefix, is a bourgeois ideological construct.Those who say 'science' say 'bourgeois science'.Thus, the disastrous formulation 'bourgeois science and workers' is inimical to proletarian class consciousness.
LBird wrote:There is no 'proletarian science' outside of the workers. 'Science', without any prefix, is a bourgeois ideological construct.I think you must have caught it from RL, the tendency to throw out the baby with the bathwater, that is.In trying to draw a distinction between "proletarian" and "bourgeois" science in general you're on dodgy ground. Ok, yes, there's bourgeois sociology, economics, history, etc but not bourgeois astronomy, biology, engineering, etc. Or is Pannekoek for the chop too for being a professor of bourgeois astronomy?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.