Do We Need the Dialectic?

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

An interview with Rosa Lichenstein can be found herehttp://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=10789

Just got round to reading this. The first part echos what Ted Wilmott wrote in that series of articles he wrote in Forum in 1956, except that the SWP takes the place of the old Communist Party:

Quote:

These activists now declared that ‘dialectics’ meant there were no ‘fixed or rigid principles’ in revolutionary politics. Everything it seemed had now to be bent toward the ‘concrete’ practical exigencies of the class struggle.

It also echos what we said in our 1975 pamphlet on Historical Materialism, but with reference to the CP rather than the SWP:

Quote:

DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM, a misused concept which grew in popularity with those who defend the tortuous policies of capitalist Russia and other State capitalist countries, acquired the mystical characters of reconciling all points of view even the most contradictory.[….]But whereas Hegelianism was impregnated with the idea of universal change (even though upside down) the confused, contradictory and changing policies of Soviet Russia bewilder its adherents and drive them back into a different and bastardised Hegelianism with leadership as the absolute concept. Is there a contradiction between principles and policy? No matter! An understanding of dialectics will show that everything is all right in this best of all possible Russian worlds. If the Russian workers are "free" to control their own destiny but must obey the dictates of the Stalin or Brezhnev oligarchies; if the capitalist class is the enemy and yet Russia concludes alliances with them; if imperialism is a capitalist method of fleecing and yet the "Workers' Republic" fights for markets and spheres of influence, don't worry! Dialectics explains and solves these contradictions. The more incomprehensible dialectics appears to the ordinary worker, the firmer the bonds of leadership are riveted upon him and the higher the self-appointed interpreters climb.

Apparently, reading this interview, this (policy contradictions and zigzags explained away by the leadership by "dialectics") is a feature of all Leninist groups.Our review of GA Cohen's book which Rosa Lichtenstein seems to like can be found here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1979/no-900-august-1979/marx-philosopherThe Northern Star interview contains the intriguing statement that

Quote:

Marx isn’t interested in epistemology

I suspect this is true, but what's the basis for claiming this?.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

ALB, thank you for those comments, and the links. However, my negative view of epistemology wasn't inspired so much by Marx's lack of interest in it, but by my own conviction that the entire subject is little more than ruling-class hot air, as indeed, is all of traditional philosophy (and that includes Dialectical Materialism [DM]):http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why_all_philosophical_theories_are_non-sensical.htmI not only take the same view of Traditional Philosophy as Wittgenstein, but as Marx himself:"Feuerbach's great achievement is…. The 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.]"One has to 'leave philosophy aside'…, one has to leap out of it and devote oneself like an ordinary man to the study of actuality…." [The German Ideology.]"The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life." [Ibid.]So, according to Marx, "philosophy is nothing but religion rendered into thought". It must, therefore, be "left aside", and one has to "leap out of it and devote oneself like an ordinary man to the study of actuality"; that is because Philosophy stands in the same relation to the "study of the actual world" as onanism does to sexual love. Furthermore, Philosophy is based on "distorted language of the actual world", empty abstractions and fabricated concepts. No wonder then that Marx contrasts practicalities and a desire to change the world with the pursuit of that empty and pointless boss-class discipline called "Philosophy".And we know that Philosophy is a ruling-class form-of-thought, since Marx told us it was:"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch…." [Ibid.]Notice how Marx pointed out that:"The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it…. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age…." [Ibid. Bold added.]The elite thus control the production and distribution of ideas that represent their interests and how they see the world, and because of that they control education:"The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance." [Ibid.]They rule also as "thinkers", and they do so in "its whole range"; they also rule as "producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age".It is worth adding that phrases like "ruling-class theory", "ruling-class view of reality", and "ruling-class ideology" — which I use at my site (and above) in connection with Traditional Philosophy and the concepts that underpin DM/'Materialist Dialectics', upside down or 'the right way up' — aren't meant to imply that all or even most members of various ruling-classes actually invented this way of thinking or of seeing the world (although some of them did — for example, Heraclitus, Plato, Cicero and Marcus Aurelius). They are meant to highlight theories (or "ruling ideas") that are conducive to, or which rationalise the interests of the various ruling-classes history has inflicted on humanity, whoever invents them. Up until recently this approach had almost invariably been promoted by thinkers who relied on ruling-class patronage, or who, in one capacity or another, helped run the system for the elite. Unfortunately, Marxists, who seem to have ignored Marx's own advice/words, haven't helped by engaging in this empty and pointless boss-class discipline (Philosophy).And here is why (I am, of course, simplifying greatly):As is easy to show, Hegel lifted many of his doctrines from earlier mystics and ruling-class hacks. These ideas have appeared in the philosophical theories of boss-class thinkers from ancient times until today. The founders of this quasi-religion [DM] 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 seeing things was invented by the aforementioned ruling-class ideologues. They did so 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 is not only fraught with danger, it is costly and it stifles innovation (among other things).Another way is to win over the majority (or, at least, a significant proportion of "opinion formers", bureaucrats, judges, bishops, generals, intellectuals, philosophers, editors, teachers, administrators, etc., etc.) to the view that the present order either (1) Works for their benefit, (2) Preserves and defends 'civilised values', (3) Is ordained of the 'gods', or (4) Is 'Natural' and thus cannot be fought against, reformed or negotiated with.Hence, a 'world-view' that helps rationalise 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 this aspect of ruling-class ideology may have changed 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' underlying appearances) can be ascertained by thought alone, and can therefore be imposed on reality dogmatically and aprioristically.Some might object that philosophical ideas can't have remained the same for thousands of years, across different modes of production; that belief runs counter to core ideas in Historical Materialism [HM]. But, we don't argue the same for religious affectation. Marx put no time stamp on the things he said about religious belief; they applied back in Ancient Babylon and Egypt, just as they did in China and India, in 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 right throughout Traditional Philosophy — that there is indeed an invisible world, accessible to thought alone. No wonder then that Marx said that: "philosophy is nothing else but religion rendered into thought."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 governed everything — when they became revolutionaries, looked for '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 mystic, Hegel. The dialectical classicists were thus happy to impose their 'new' theory on the world (upside down or the "right way up") since that is how they had been taught 'genuine' philosophers should behave. The vast majority of Comrades have simply made the same mistake ever since.Hence, "ruling ideas" have cone to dominate Marxism, too.So, no, we don't need a philosophical theory  (or, indeed,  DM); HM (a scientific theory) is quite enough.

---

[ALB]

I agree that Marx rejected speculative, metaphysical philosophy such as still survives especially on the continent. Although I don't think he says so explicitly, I think he took the view that it had been replaced by science. Certainly the 19th century German Social Democratic movement did. But in this case, a theory of science is needed of which "epistemology" (as the "theory of knowledge" will be a part, science being a form of knowledge).  Or are you agreeing with Richard Feynman's well-known quip that

Quote:

Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I agree that Marx rejected speculative, metaphysical philosophy such as still survives especially on the continent. Although I don't think he says so explicitly, I think he took the view that it had been replaced by science. Certainly the 19th century German Social Democratic movement did. But in this case, a theory of science is needed of which "epistemology" (as the "theory of knowledge" will be a part, science being a form of knowledge).  Or are you agreeing with Richard Feynman's well-known quip that

Quote:

Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.

Yeah, Feynman might as well have said:

Our intellectual betters wrote:

Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as education is to workers.

I wonder why Feynman doesn't want workers examining the activities of scientists?

[ALB]

Surely he just meant that scientists get on with their research without worrying about the theory of what they are doing just as birds get on with their lives without worrying about what ornithologists say about them? Which is probably the case irrespective or not it should be.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

ALB"I agree that Marx rejected speculative, metaphysical philosophy such as still survives especially on the continent. Although I don't think he says so explicitly, I think he took the view that it had been replaced by science. Certainly the 19th century German Social Democratic movement did.!Well, he didn't add the words 'speculative' or 'metaphysical' to 'philosophy' when he declarded that "philosophy is nothing else but religion rendered into thought…", nor when he said "One has to 'leave philosophy aside'", so no, he didn't mean "speculative, metaphysical philosophy", but philosophy. In fact, after the late 1840s there are no positive remarks about this useless discipline in Marx's writings (and that includes his letters)."But in this case, a theory of science is needed of which "epistemology" (as the "theory of knowledge" will be a part, science being a form of knowledge)."Why do we need a 'theory of science'? What use it is?In fact I prefer Imre Lakatos's remark:"This…bears out my pet thesis that most scientists tend to understand little more about science than fish about hydrodynamics."

---

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Surely he just meant that scientists get on with their research without worrying about the theory of what they are doing just as birds get on with their lives without worrying about what ornithologists say about them? Which is probably the case irrespective or not it should be.

So, scientists accept that they should be caged, and trained, and fed on our whim? Just like a pet bird, and not 'worry'?Or, do scientists see themselves as 'free birds', soaring high above the mass, not needing to reflect upon either their 'flight' or the 'pedestrians' below?Perhaps they're happy just shitting upon us? Mengele, genetics and eugenics?No, scientists, like any authority, need to be under our democratic control."Roadrunner, roadrunner…" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnmHgnPPkkQ%5BAcknowledgements to Jonathon Richman and The Modern Lovers]Another version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgRYncR1Nog

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

So, scientists accept that they should be caged, and trained, and fed on our whim? Just like a pet bird, and not 'worry'?

I take it this is directed at Rosa Lichtenstein not me since they are the one who is saying that scientists don't need a theory of science.

[ALB]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Well, he didn't add the words 'speculative' or 'metaphysical' to 'philosophy' when he declarded that "philosophy is nothing else but religion rendered into thought…", nor when he said "One has to 'leave philosophy aside'", so no, he didn't mean "speculative, metaphysical philosophy", but philosophy.

I would have thought that by "philosophy" Marx meant the German philosophy of his day (which was both speculative and metaphysical) of which he was once an adept himself, both before and, for a while, after he became a socialist. I don't think he included the English, Scottish and French materialists in this.

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Why do we need a 'theory of science'? What use it is?

Maybe that's why Morgenstern suspected you of naive realism and kicking Dr Johnston's stone. We'll see if this is so after round two.

[DJP]

What "Rosa", rather amusingly doesn't seem to notice is that "philosophy is a useless discipline" is itself a philosophical statement and a self-negating one at that. But don't take my word for it, everything I say is false.

[DJP]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

So, no, we don't need a philosophical theory  (or, indeed,  DM); HM (a scientific theory) is quite enough.

Historical Materialism is dialectical in that it refers to change and dynamic processes.I don't think the distintion between philosophical and scientific theories is a clear cut as you would wish it to be. For example there is a vast amount of cross-over in neuroscience and philosophy of mind.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DJP:"What "Rosa", rather amusingly doesn't seem to notice is that "philosophy is a useless discipline" is itself a philosophical statement and a self-negating one at that. But don't take my word for it, everything I say is false."Why is "Philosophy is useless" philosphical? You negelected to demonstrate this point.And even if it were, why is "Philosophy useless" self-negating? Something could still be true but remain useless; for example: The 456,667th mouse born in Japan since 1734 is brown. That could be true. But is it any use? It might be some use, but it doesn't have to be (which is all I need). And it could be false, and still useless. Either way, it could be useless while also being either true or false.

---

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

ALB:"I would have thought that by "philosophy" Marx meant the German philosophy of his day (which was both speculative and metaphysical) of which he was once an adept himself, both before and, for a while, after he became a socialist. I don't think he included the English, Scottish and French materialists in this."Well, had he meant this he'd have said :"Feuerbach's great achievement is…. The proof that German 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…."Or:"One has to 'leave German philosophy aside'…, one has to leap out of it and devote oneself like an ordinary man to the study of actuality…." [The German Ideology.]"The German philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life." [Ibid.]But he didn't, he said:"Feuerbach's great achievement is…. The 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…."One has to 'leave philosophy aside'…, one has to leap out of it and devote oneself like an ordinary man to the study of actuality…." [The German Ideology.]"The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life." [Ibid.]And he said that sicne phislophy is the most abstract form of ruling-cass thought/ideology:"Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age…." [Ibid. Bold added.]ALB:"Maybe that's why Morgenstern suspected you of naive realism and kicking Dr Johnston's stone. We'll see if this is so after round two."In which case, he'll need to show where I advocate, or have ever advocated, naive realism — and he'll find that rather hard to do, since I reject all philosophical theories (not 98%, not 99%, but 100%), as incoherent non-sense.

---

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DJP:"Historical Materialism is dialectical in that it refers to change and dynamic processes."It certainly could be, but if every Hegelian concept has been removed, then it doesn't have to be.But, even if it were still dialectical with every Hegelain concept removed, I'd be Ok with that.[Just so long as Hegel has been excised (upside down or 'the right way up').]"I don't think the distintion between philosophical and scientific theories is a clear cut as you would wish it to be. For example there is a vast amount of cross-over in neuroscience and philosophy of mind."I agree, but that is why Marx said the ideas of the ruling-class always rule — they have also infected science (to take your example: in neuroscience and cognitive science, Cartesisn ideas are still dominant).

---

[ALB]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

ALB:"I would have thought that by "philosophy" Marx meant the German philosophy of his day (which was both speculative and metaphysical) of which he was once an adept himself, both before and, for a while, after he became a socialist. I don't think he included the English, Scottish and French materialists in this."Well, had he meant this he'd have said :

I am surprised that anyone should try to deny that in his writings of 1844-5 by "philosophy" and "philosophers" Marx meant German philosophy, i.e that of Hegel and in particular its radical offshoots. In fact, your quotes are from a writing which was called The German Ideology. The other work that you ought to re-read is his A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right (the one where he coined the phrase that religion is the opium of the people). Here he uses interchangeably the terms "German theory", "German ideology", "German philosophy of right and the state".Marx began (the italics are his):

Quote:

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.

and wrote::

Quote:

Even historically, theoretical emancipation has specific practical significance for Germany. For Germany’s revolutionary past is theoretical, it is the Reformation. As the revolution then began in the brain of the monk, so now it begins in the brain of the philosopher.

It ends:

Quote:

As philosophy finds its material weapon in the proletariat, so the proletariat finds its spiritual weapon in philosophy. And once the lightning of thought has squarely struck this ingenuous soil of the people, the emancipation of the Germans into men will be accomplished. […] The emancipation of the German is the emancipation of man. The head of this emancipation is philosophy, its heart the proletariat. Philosophy cannot realize itself without the transcendence [Aufhebung] of the proletariat, and the proletariat cannot transcend itself without the realization [Verwirklichung] of philosophy.

There is no possible way in which Marx's use of the terms "philosophy" and "philosopher" in this concluding passage can be interpreted as meaning philosophy and philosophers in general. In fact it would be absurd to do so (Marx imagining all philosophers of whatever kind uniting to lead the proletariat in a revolution !) Later, of course, Marx abandoned this elitist view of the proletariat as a tool in the hands of philosophers to accept that, rather, the emancipation of the working class must be the task of the working class itself (Lenin, on the other hand, made it the basis for his theory of the supposed need for a vanguard party to lead the workers).This said, I agree with you that most philosophy is useles (I don't even like the word "philosophy" in relation to socialist ideas: "theory" is the more appropriate term). I'm just pointing out that you are historically wrong about what you claim Marx meant by "philosophy". In fact, accepting that Marx meant Hegelian philosophy and its radical offshoots strengthens your case that Marx wasn't a Hegelian (except in his early days, mainly before he became a socialist).

[Author]

Posts